The free lance. (Fredericksburg, Va.) 1885-1926, 1910-07-26
LOCAL OPTION
~ ELECTION
Argument For and Against
Petition.
JUDGE GOoLRICK'S OPINION, ETC.

lnG Wtlct WIN HANoNhNSa VIZ INN'
ton. and Messrs. f. NJ. Chichester and
b. p. Willis for the "drys. There
were about 100 people present to hear
the Argument.
Attorney Wallace opened and objected
to any argument being heard on the
petition; because, he said, there is no
authority under the statute TO allow
argument or to file any papers against
it.
Judge Goolrick: 1.-TWO years ago the
same thing happened. There is no law
to allow them to appear, but as in the
case of two years ago, |, after writing
and consulting other judges in the State,
deemed ii advisable to allow hearing,
and will do so in this instance.
Mr.. Chichester then spoke. taking the
ground that the petition is not sufficient,
and that the time had not arrived to
hold an election. His first objection
was the petition and the insufiiciency of
the petition. He had no objection to
the qualification of the number Of sign
ers. His contention was that it was
not sufficient because il must state
jurisdiction of the court and grounds on
which it can act. This city is under
local option now and the petition must
set forth the facts that two years has
elapsed since last election. He recited
the contest taken 80 days after the last
election, May. 1908, and which was de-
elared null and void by this court in two
orders. He contended that to order an
election in less time than two years
would be unfair to the citizens of Fred
ericksburg who had declared by a ma
iority Of 81 that the town should be
dry; that this was not the policy of the
statute which is to give the required
test of years, and he claimed that Ia
months had only elapsed since the law
became effective; that if the result had
been reversed and the town gone wet
at the last election the liquor men would
not have been satisfied with II months
test, and that in behalf of justice the
ordering the election should be deferred.
Mr.. Wallace in opening said Mr..
Chichester had appealed TO justice an d
right. He and his clients should be con-
sistent and accord the privilege Of using
petition similar in respect to the one
presented by his clients two years ago.
If this petition is illegal and bad in form,
then the petition of two years ago was
equally so.
The statute plainly says that after
one election no other shall be held in
two years. 1t has no reference as to
contest, but plainly says two years
must elapse from date OF election,
though the statute itself allows 80 days.
He emphasized the point of 80 days, re-
ferred to petitions being prepared by
the drys two years ago to be presented
to the court asking for another election
if the decision of the Supreme court
had been adverse TO them. Mr.. Wal
lace said if Mr.. Chichester's clients be-
lieved at this time they represented a
majority of the voters they would not
be making fight to prevent an elec-
ton, but would want one TO show the
vets they could not win. He cited a
number of authorities and discussions
of the higher court TO sustain his posi-
tion and said the court had nothing to
do but stand by the statute, which is
imperative.
Mr.. Willis argued the statue of limi-
tation as applicable to the case, for
part of the two years given the drys
by the statute was cut out by the con-
test. He little thought after the de-
cision of the Supreme court that any
one could have the termity to ask for
an election after only a period of Ia
months had elapsed and before the peo-
pie had an opportunity to make fair
test of local option. Said he did not
see why justice should be defeated and
contended that the court had the power
to use its discretion in ordering the
election.
Judge Goolrick here injected that the
statute cuts out three months Of the
two years, but yet fixes the limitation
from the date of the election.
Mr.. Willis--I hold that if there is no
contest an election can be held in two
years. If there is contest the time
consumed in the contest should be al
lowed. He cited the facts Of the con-
test before the Supreme court and
asked that Justice be done though the
heavens fall and the people be allowed
two years. He contended the election
would be improper and premature and
stated that prominent men on the wet
side concurred in this opinion as to
policy and had stated to him they would
not vote at all.
Judge Goolrick stated he was not
affected by policy, but he was absolute
ly controlled by the law as found in the
statute.
Judge Goolrick then delivered his
opinion and in fixing the date of elec-
tion said:
A petition has been presented to this
court, duly and legally signed as is re-
quired By the statute, asking for To-
cal option election, and the two years
having elapsed since the last local op-
tion election my duty under the statute
is plain. / have no discretion in the
matter and after seeking advice from
other judges and other courts / find
that it is conceded that when a petit
tion properly, duly and legally signed
under the law, that there is no provis-
ion for an appearance or contest over
and about the petition; indeed, the
course of procedure for local option
elections is purely and entirely statu-
tory. They are inaugurated, governed
and controlled by the statute and nc
provision is allowed in the statute for
even an appearance, much less a con-
test over the petition, but as it was al
lowed two years ago, have allowed II
now.
1t should be remembered, however,
that two years ago no order was enter
ed and no papers were filed as to the
local option petition. Attorneys for
both sides, it is true, argued the mat
ter then as now.
A petition asking for local option
election has been presented to thii
court, signed by more than one-fourth
of the qualified voters In this city, equal
in number to the vote cast at the No
vember election in 1909. The statute
declares than when such ia the case the
Judge of this court "shall, within ter
days after the receipt Of said petition,