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


------------------
that this case decides is that those who
lived outside the election district, were
not entitled % have tncir votes counted
Tor any purpose.
ty seats establishes by IL. shall be and
remain the county seats Of their respect
i've counties until changed by vote OF tue
ounlfied electors of such county Now
We suppose no one would contend that IL
a numbe- Of individuals living in another
county thar Mcintosh had gone into u
and voted IN this election, that theit
votes should De counted for any purpose.
They would do ~alpable fraud upon the
election. 1hes would not be qualified
electors as required by the constitution,
and court, II such a question should
arise. would doubtless SO hold. In TACT
that is just what the New Jersey court
held in the case TO which We have last
Inc facts in the case Of the county seat
of Usage county, l6 Kas. 2st. to which
we are referred by counsel 70 Checota1.
are stated in the syllabus as follows
"At an election held for the purpose OF
relocating the county seat Of Usage
county, I3urlingame he existing county
seat received 10 votes; Lyndon received
SSS. Osage City 791. and Shretou, 9S1
votes. No place having received ma
iority. a second election was ordered. rs
prescribed by the sratutc, and the voting
/ estricted to the two places receiving the
| highest woes. Lyndon and Osage city
AT the second election. Notwithstanding
such restriction votes were cast for
] Shireton, and the result was, chat Lyn-
| dou received 1871. Usage city lO4s anu
/ shireton 29S vUtea Though Lyndon aid
not receive a majority of the votes cast.
| the commissioners rejected the votes for
| Shireton and declared Lyndon the duly
| and legally selected county seat. Held.
| that there was no error in such ruling
| and decision"
The county seat law Of Kansas was
| much the same as that OF Oklahoma; n
por. ion OF the opinion rendered in tho
| ease reads as follows:
| "Ch. 20 OF the Gen. Stat. the act pro-
| viding for the location and removal oe
| county seats in its 7th section reads: II
no place receives majority Of all the
votes cast. a second election SHAH be held
and at such election the ballot
ing shall be confined to the two places
having received the highest number OF
| votes at the preceding election. But the
| specific objection is that such a result
thus obtained involves a disregard of Sec.
| OF article OF the constitution, which
declares that no county seat shall be
| changed without the consent of major
ty Of the electors of the county.
At the time OF the election for n change
Of the county seat, the same was located
at Burlingame II will be noted that the
ton mo place receives n majority OF the
votes cast secpad election shall be
held" and the constitution provides that
mo county seat shall be changed without
the consent Of majority Of the electors
OF the county None OF the votes cast
We're for leaving the county seat at Bur
lingame, an OF the votes which wee cast
were for changing. Hence the constitu-
tion was satisfied by the election ON
| the second election as Is seen, Hether
| Lyndon or Usage city received a major
ity OF the ballots cast az the election, but
Usage city did receive majority OF all
OF the votes cast" that were delivered
/ on the proDosition then before the vot =
| crs for consideration 'Ihe 29S votes cast
fer Shreton so far as the cont .oversy
blank ballots They may just as well
have been cast for some town outside of
he county and impossible Of becoming
the county scat as to have been cast foG
some town inside the county which was
not "A candidate. They manifested moth
ing unless it was a willingness that those
who voted upon the candidates that were
properly running might select. and a
! waiver on their part Of any right or de-
81 e TO participate in a choice between
them.
! The case of Davis VS. Brown. 46 w
Va. ZIG also comes within the class OF
cases such as are dealt with by the In
diana Supreme court in the case of IN re
Z Denny. supra. IL Is a case wherein ths
relocation OF a county seat was involved
which election was held az the time a
vote was taken at a general election fol-
public officers. Inc statute OF West Vir-
ginia provides that three -fifths Of all the
2 votes cast at said election upon the
2 question" were sufficient 10 relocate the
! county seat and that in such an elec-
tion this result was affected when three
fifths Of all the votes cast upon the ques-
tion Of the elocation Of a county seat
/ were in The affirmative and that three
| fifths Of the votes cast on otner ques-
tions or for candidates for office. was not
. required The statement of the case il
, | confusing on the proposition of certain
| questioned three hundred and twelve
/ votes. which the court says were cas-
i | but were not marked. or so max ed as not
4 ! county court held that those three hun
/ dred and twelve, though not countabl,
for or against either place competing foi
| the county seat. must yet be counted as
/ votes in ascertaining the aggregate vote
In speaking of these sans votes again
, in this case three hundred and lively,
, voters actually came to the polls aud par
ticipated In the election by voting 70
| congressman and other officers. but die
! not vote upon the county seat question
, ! ana thus We know by the record of tn,
1 ! election. without extrinsix evidence tha
! | these voters existed. The ballots had of
| them as required by chapter 81 Act,
/ 1895. the words For Relocation OF Coun.
! " Seat at Elkins,' and Against Reolca-
( ! ton of County Seat and these voter
either did not erase one and retain tbs
4 | ether expression o. so marked theii
/ ! ballots touching this question as not will
! legal certainty 10 express a choice. The
: | record does not show Wnat number Wei
, | defective for this cause. what number fO
I ! that. Now, II our statue had said tina
/ | a relocation should demand three-fiftt!
| Of the voters or qualified voters or thu
| county or OF the votes cast o. even %
I the votes east for the purpose, perhaps
. | the weight OF authority would say taa
| those three hundred and twelve vote,
/ | must be included In making up the aggre
gate dividend to be fractioned to get th'
, ] three-fifths,'
The court then after citing and quot
ing from number Of cases involving thl
| construction of the language Of statutes
md constitutions OF other states, where
I in there WAS distinguished between thos'
! which equred a majority OF votes cas-
, | upon the particular ques ion then pre-
!, I sented, or majority OF the votes cast a.
/ ,hc election said, IA reference TO thes'
/ | lVO propositions:
zone theory is that, when majorit,
4 | of Nudlified voters Is required, ald W.
! | know from the election record hat GER
! | ain nGmber OF vote 5 were present par
| ,icipsdn,v In the election, we should re-
/ | lulre a majority of'all to adopt the meas
! | ure The o'her theory is that those pres
! cnl but not voting on tho question, ar
, | dumb upon itswlthout active preference
E Continued on Page 27)