The Guthrie daily leader. [volume] (Guthrie, Okla.) 1893-1996, 1908-11-16

who go to the polls; and those who go to
candidate for an office, are bound By the ,
result OF the action OF those who do. and 1
those who 30 to the polls and who V0ts /
for person for an office. L for aus
valid reason their votes are as II no
votes, they also are bound by the result Of /
the action Of those whose votes a. valid |
and OF effect, As II. IN voting for an Of |
flee TO which one only can be elected, |
two are voted for, and their names ap- |
'pear together on the ballot, the ballot so |
far Is lost. The votes are as II To- a
dead man or for no man. They are |
thrown away; and those who cast them
are TO be held as intending TO throw
them away and not 60 v6,e foi any per-
sof capaole OF the office. And then he
who receives the highest number bf earn
e3t valid vallots. Is, the one chosen TO
the office.'
Wnen the facts and situation under
which this discussion WAS made are TAX
en- into consideration. we believe that Y
VIII then be clearly apparent that II IL
not eferrable To the proposition now be
fore this court The court follows this by
saying that. '"rhey who knowing that "A
person is ineligible to office by reason
OF any disqualified lin. pcrsistently give
| their ballots FOR him. do throw away tlclr
votes. and are TO be held as meaning not
/ 10 vote for any one for that office and
| the court held In the sylabus. that:
| a minority OF the whole body OF quail
| flied electors may elcci TO an office Nnere
| he majority decline 10 vote, o whore
/ office, knowing OF the disqualification.
| Notice of the disqualifying fact. and Of
/ It's legal effect may be given 50 directly
| - the voter as to charge him with actual
knowledge OF the disqualification; or the
| disqualitying fac, may be SO patent or
| notorious rs that his knowledge OF the
/ ineligibility may be presumed as matter
| N law. But not only the fact which
disqualfies. but also the rule of enact
ment OF law which makes 1t thus effectu-
al must he brought home 40 clearly TO
1 know % ar uf Ip alg nG
that TO give his vote Herewith indicates
an intent to waste !. in o.der to render
his vote o aullty Where majority Of
the electors. through ignorance of the
law or the iact vote for one ineligible
20 the Off ce. the votes are not nullties;
but while they fail to elect the office
cannot be given to the qualified person
having the next highest number of votes
The election Is failure, and new cleo
ton must be had"
The next case 10 which counsel calls
our attention is that OF Rushvillc Gas
Company vs.. city of Rushville, % ~ T..
n, which was one wherein 1t was held
that the majority OF the quorum OF IA city
council MAJ act and legally adopt a cs-
Olution although the entire council may
be present some Of them 7ofusing to
vote. TO practically the same effect are
the cases also cited by counsel for defehd
| ant state cN rel W.. Green, 81 OHIO St.
ga; Murdck vs.. Strange 80 Md. So 3
American English Annotated Cases &C, a
statement Of the facts of these cases we
regard az sufficient to slow their lack
OF applicability to aid us in constituting
this section of our constitution, or to aid
us IN determining whether the phrase
votes cast means votes counted or bal
lots cast
The case Of state Va. Wurtz as l.. r.
A. IN. -, 25l, was one wherein the
legislature of New Jersey having rcgu-
hfly agreed to three proposed amend
ments to their consti ution one of which
related to lotteries, another to appoint
ment to Office and another to woman
suff age. provided by an act for the sub
I mi rfs.44H ...NH 81.
The constitution provided that it might
be amended by majority OF the cleo Drs
qualified TO vote for members of the
Legislature voting thereon" The ques-
tion was upon whether or not the lottery
amendment received the constitutional
number of woes. Tho Court of Errors
and Appeals TO whose decision counsel
cites us held in the syllabus
In determining whether a proposed
constitutional amendment was approved
and ratified by "A majo ity Of the electors
legislature voting thereon, only those
electors who lawfully vote for or against
me amendment are to be considered"
! The facts on which the case was de-
cided and the law applied the, eto, show.
at once that IL is within t9at class OF
cases discussed so ably by the Suprem,
! | eou OF Indiana, in ne Denny. supra. TIL,
| Following excerpt from the opinion ~
which Is stated the facts upon which tn,
decision Is based, sufficiently distip-
guishes II from the case M hand, to dem
ons rate its hack Of applicability to oui
question.
The first claim Of the prosecutors de.
E serving attention Is that, according 70 III,
statement Of the result of the voting
made by the board Of safe canvassers. th'
| lottery amendment was not approved ant
, therefore the boards dete mination thai
! u had been adopted was Illegal. BY tha
{ | statement II appears that the number c
| names on the poll lists was 41.6T2 .tha
b. he number of ballots rejected was SCI
that the number of votes given for IN,
lottery amendment was 7O.443 and IN,
! number Of votes given against IL was 90,
t42, The prosecutors insist that ma.
, lOrity OF all the votes, as shown by IN,
names on the poll lists, or at least
4 maJO ity Of all those VITO cast ballots
whether the ballots were To- or agains
. any amendment or were rejected wa,
! | necessary for adoption Its words are z
! majority OF the electors qualified TO vote
! | Tor members OF the legislature Votins
, sneItoh' ana IN the toHowing clause 4
/ ! speaks OF those voting FOR or agains
each amendment Evidently only thos,
q ,voting for o. against an amendment ar.
No be deemed those voting thereon. y,
intNuded the electors who exercise tn,
rghtN of suffrage IN such manner tha
! | their votes should. under the law, be
! / counted Tor or against the proposition
! submitted, and although the number O
names on tNe poll lists may rep esent tn,
| number Of qLNified electors who attempt
! ed 10 vote, am the rejected ballots ma,
all have been oflssial ballots cast by som,
Of these qualified electors still IL ma,
4 ! De that not all OF thNse qualified electors
i | voted, In the constitutional sense. am,
| that the rejected ballots were not votes
n. for example an electo, presented I,
/ the election officer and tho officer de
posted In the ballot box. Two - more of
, | ficial ballots. rolled or folded Spgether
and IN clnVassing the votes the Sallot
we SO found, those ballots would. nNdel
, ! the Law. be nun and void. and the eleoNo
would not have voted on any of IN
amendments. Now. in the absence o
evidence 10 the contrary, the presump-
tion is that the election officers acto,
rightly and therefore hat the rejecte,
: ! ballots were rejected for legal cause an,
we're not votes for or against any amend
ment, that all the votes legally capabl,
OF beiag counted for or against the lot
terry amendment Wee ii00S5. and tha
, | only so many qualified electors Votce
thereon. Of whom majority approved
and ratified H. II is deemed useless 4
refer 10 decisions elsewhere enforcing
differeht method Of computation. becaus,
they turn on different language in th'
constitution. The meaning of our owr
| constitution seems plain
Another case TO which our attention {.
called Is likewise from the Supreme cou I
OF New Jersey state cN rel Lane VS.. Otis
52 Atlantic. 305. The facts Of the case
are stated by the court as follows.
I 'sfrho office in disp4ffp Il That of MON.