Ottumwa tri-weekly courier. [volume] (Ottumwa, Iowa) 1903-1916, 1909-05-13

but from the section as a whole The
phrase "as shown by the last general
election" plainly qualities and limits
the meaning Of the word voters"
Voters" standing alone, may mean
those entitled to vote. but voters as
shown by the last general election"
can only mean those who voted at the
election. The election does not show
who the voters are except as they
vote, and only by the fact of their
voting, for, as counsel well say, there
is no election till the votes are cast"
One who has voted at the election,
is shown by the election to be voter,
but as to one who has not voted the
election shows nothing at all. 1t is
contended on behalf of Mills that the
number voting merely determines the
number necessary to constitute ma
iority; that none but those voting are
to be considered in determining how
many are required to constitute ma
jority but that the majority itself need
not be composed Of persons voting,
but may consist of those merely en-
titled to vote. This Interpretation of
the statute ignores entirely the mean
ing Of the word majority and its re-
lation to, the phrase "voters as shown
by the last general election" major
ity" was defined in argument as "the
major part of the major fraction"
The Century dictionary defines it as:
"The greater number more than
half the whole number" All of these
definitions clearly express the idea
that majority is part of the whole
made up of some Of the same units
that go to make up the whole number
If this is true how can a majority of
one group of individuals in this
case the voters of said city as shown
b.. the last general election consist
in part Of individuals not belonging to
that group at all, but to an entirely
the election to be voters? A majority
is a part of the whole number and
cannot. in the very, nature of things,
be composed of any units that are
not themselves included in the whole
number. A petition signed only by
those not voting might, of course, con-
tain signatures equal in number
to a majority Of those vot-
ing, yet it would not contain
the signatures of a majority because
the individuals signing it did not con-
stitute any part of the whole number
of those voting. If they were not a
part of the whole they could not, Of
course. be@a part of any fraction of the
whole. There is an obvious contradic-
ton involved in saying that a major
ity of those voting may be composed.
in whole or in part, of those not vot-
ing. The difficulty may be avoided but
not overcome by saying, as do coun-
sci for Mills in the brief submitted.
that the requirements that the petit
ton be signed by majority, as shown
by the last general election, means
such number of voters as EQUALS
majority of the total number of votes
cost" This, while frank and very
concise statement of what counsel
claim the statute means, is very far
from being paraphrase of its Ian
guage 1t is the expression Of an en-
tirely different idea. Under this Ian
guage used by counsel to state what
they claim the statute means, the
signers need not constitute majority
more than half-of those voting,
but need only equal such d majority
in number, which is plainly a very diff
ferent thing The legislature has rec
ognized this distinction in other in
stances by providing for petitions,
such as Mills claims is authorized in
this case, in substantially the Ian
guage used to state his claim. Thus,
for example. in Sec. 1856, ais, of the
Code Supplement relating to the so
called Des Moines plan of city gov
eminent, provision is made for a E'pe-
tition of electors equal in number to
twenty-five per centum of the votes
cast" Indeed the idea which counsel
for Mills claims is conveyed by sec
ton 2451 cannot be fairly drawn from
the language used, nor can that idea
be accurately expressed except by the
use of language similar to that en-
ployed by the legislature in the in
stance just cited.
Differences in Language.
Much stress is laid in argument on
the differences in the language found
in section 244S relating to statements of
general consent for the sale of intoxi-
eating liquors, and in the one under
consideration There are differences in
Ine Two SecllOIlS. Olie u LIE iiicS'
important, as affecting this contro-
versy, is that, While, under section
244S the poll list is made the only evil
dence as to who voted, under section
2451, requiring the signers to be voters
as shown by the election, much more
liberal rule Of evidence probably OBJ
tains, permitting proof of the identity
Of person who signed the revocation
petition by one name but voted under
a no, co 1iffprnnt that the nOll list
itself would not reveal such identity
But, because this and other differences
are found is no reason the court should
read into the section under discussion
still another point of variance moi
warranted by the language used.