Alma record. (Alma, Mich.) 1878-1928, 1910-02-03
determination was final.


While the statute does not in so
many words say that the determna
tion of the board shall be final when
no order is made to submit the mat
ter, yet it does say that such de
terminations' (using the pluraD shall
be final both as 10 the sufficiency OF
the petition and the requisite number
Of voters The board would have no
jurisdiction To determine whether the
requisite number of voters had sign.
ed the petitions unless il first deter
mined upon the sufficicncy OF the
petitions and this would involve a de-
termination OF whether the petitions
and affidavits upon their face showed
that copies of the petitions had been
posted for the requisite length OF
time and affidavits of such posting
made strictly according 70 law
When the clerk determined that the
petitions were prima facie sufficient.
his determination, while not binding,
was sufficient to set the board in mo-
ton. Under the 1889 act, before the
amendment of 1899, this determine.
tion of the clerk and the call made
by him Tor a special meeting of the
board was necessary tot confer an.
thority upon the board to act at all,
and meeting of the board without
such call would not have given the
board jurisdiction to pass upon the
question at all. The act of 1899 does
not change this except that the board
Is not called together for the special
purpose OF submitting the question
but the clerk sets the board i'm mo.
tion at the next regular meeting
after the petitions are filed. Having
obtained jurisdiction by the act OF
the clerk, there is much reason for
saying that the determination OF the
board. whether it decides to submit
the question or refuses to submit il
because the petitions are not Suffi.
ciently authenticated. or if sufficient
ly authenticated, not signed by the
requisite number Of voters, is final
This does not involve the exercise OF
Judicial power any more in one case
than IN the other. Upon the hear.
ing, the argument was made. and the
court was then inclined to that view
that this action OF the board was
made final only when the question
was submitted. because the voters
could then determine whether they
would have local prohibition or not
and that if the board were allowed to
rRf fn = ~,
forth in the record of their action
in this case, i. e.. lack of sufficiently
authenticated petitions and lack Of
sufficient signatures, even though
these were the very questions left
TO its determination, the result might
be that a board could arbitrarily re.
fuse to heed the wishes OF the pco.
pie and allow them TO vote upon the
question; and ii was argued that the
vote at the ensuing election would
take care of the matter anyway. Up
on further reflection have reached
the conclusion that if the board
should, without just cause. take such
arbitrary action. il must be borne in
mind that each and every one OF it,
members or someone in his place
must stand for election at the polls
in the respective precincts of the
county at the very next election and
within a very few months. and If the
action of the board did not represent
the wishes of the voters, the matter
could and would be taken care Of at
this same election by these same vot-
ers in the choice of their Board OF
Supervisors for the next year At
the best the people would be rcqur.
ed TO live with or without the Ii.
censed saloon for but one more year,
and think it is now the judgment
of most thinking men, whether favor.
able or unfavorable to local option.
that when once adopted, it should be
tried for at least five years and when
once rejected in a county it should
not be submitted again for the same
length of time.
In county seat cases the action of
the board i'll submitting the matter
and III canvassing the vote is made
final whether the determination is ior
a change or not. In Pinkerton VS..
Supervisors of Montmorency county.
1O1 Michigan. 273. where a vote had
been taken upon the removal OF the
county seat, the board acting as a
board of canvassers rejected the vote
of certain township ON the ground
of fraud. and this changed the result
but it was held that although the
supervisors acted upon ex parte affi-
davits and improper evidence and
even though their acts might be I'm.
warranted by the facts, that no re.
view by the courts had been pro.
vided by the legislature and that the
action OF the board was final and
conclusive
In view of these decisions. al
though none of them settle the exact
question raised here, am of the
opinion that the action of the board
is final and not subject TO review by
| this court ts,pu nandau1uS he