The Princeton union. [volume] (Princeton, Minn.) 1876-1976, 1909-01-14
Tx .Aa1EN 4, J; s4H }, !

BY 2 majority decision Of the state
supreme c6urt, handed down last Fri
day, the canvass which declared that
Fthe so.called iwide-open tax amend
ment, voted upon ii 1906, was valid is
upheld and the district court At Duluth
reversed. The facts in the case are as
follows: Through, an, error in the
printing of the tally sheets prepared
by the state for the general election,
held in November, 1906, in many
election precincts the votes cast for the
good roads amendment we're credited
to the tax amendment, and the votes
cast for the tax amendment were
credited to the goods roads amend
ment. Many voters, who did not be-
lieve in removing all constitutional
restrictions from the legislature in
matters pertaining to taxation, voted
against the amendment. On the other
hand the good roads amendment was
popular with the people-almost
everybody believes in improving the
highways-and the error in printing
the tally sheets was to say the least
a queer blunder. Certain parties in
st. Louis and Carlton counties con.
tested the findings of the state can.
wasting board which declared the tax
amendment carried and the good roads
amendment defeated. A recount OF
enough election precincts was had to
demonstrate beyond doubt that the
tax amendment was defeated and the
good roads amendment adopted, and
on the evidence adduced the St. Louis
county district court so held. The
state appealed to the supreme court
and, stripped of legal verbiage, that
court now holds that, in order to set
aside the result as announced by the
state canvassing board it was incum-
bent upon the contestants to prove by
a recount of the entire vote or at
least of such a proportion thereof that
even if all the remaining votes were
counted one way they could not affect
the final result -
Judge Calvin L. Brown, who is
generally regarded by lawyers and
laymen as an able jurist, has fled an
elaborate dissenting opinion in which
be be, holds: s, .: u :: ...,.,.>=
s'Itis elementary that election re-
turns especially certified are prima
facie evidence of the: correctness of the
result thereby shown, and in the alb
sence Of proof to the contrary, not
mere assertion in notice of a contest,
import absolute verify and are final
and conclusive. To overcome this
presumption the evidence of irregular
tiles, errors, or defects must be clear
and free from doubt. It is unneces-
sary to cite authorities to a PROPOSE
tion so fundamental and necessary to
the integrity of our elections. It is
also elementary that in contest pro-
ceedings the contestant, however broad
may be the allegations of his notice,
is required to go no. further with his
evidence than to make out a prima
facie case in his favor. He may prove
less but never more than he alleges.
paine on Elections, S24). He may
attack by his evidence such of the re-
turns as he chooses, and if he thereby
changes the result announced by the
official returns, he may rely upon the
verify of those not attacked and rest
his case. At this point, by all the
rules of proceedings in cases of this
kind, the contestee must take the
laboring oar and overcome the prima
facie case thus made"
Notwithstanding the decision which
makes the amendment part of our
state constitution thousands of people
will continue to believe that it never
was adopted. At the election last
November an amendment similar to
the tax amendment that was voted
upon in 1906 was submitted and failed
to secure the necessary number of
votes, which goes to prove that a
majority of the voters of the state do
not believe in giving the legislature
carte blanche in taxation matters.
Under the constitution as it now
stands it is possible for the legislature
to exempt any class Of property from
taxation, or to provide that q