The Guthrie daily leader. [volume] (Guthrie, Okla.) 1893-1996, 1910-11-15


since that Is also one feature of the
bill, that an affirmative vote on the
question shall 1000 acres of land be-
purchased" would be an affirmative
vote on the question Shall il be
adopted" Or, Shall a Capital Com.
mission Of three be appointed an af-
lrmative vote for the adoption OF the
Aill as a whole To say then that by
voting for the location of the capital
(perhaps in the estimation of the
voter minor provision in the bll)
he voted also for all the provisions in
The bin including said appropriation,
would be manifestly so unjust that we
annot so hold.
A Case in Point.
In State VS.. School District No. J.,
rs Pac. (MontD 4G2, the questions
which the school trustees we're re.
luired to submit to the electors of the
school district and receive In favor
thereof majority of the votes cast
At certain election, as conditions
precedent to issuing certain bonds,
we're: "(1), the amount of bonds. (2)
the rate of interest whic hthey shall
bear, CD the time when payable, (4l
the time when redeemable, and 90
the purposes for which the money Is
to be used" They submitted to the
electors only two of the propositions
H.. the amount of the bonds and the
purpose OF the use OF the money
wholly omitting TO submit the 2, 3
nd 4th propositions, viz. the rate Of
interest on the bonds, the Hme wher
iayable and the time when redeem.
,ble. In a suit to enjoin the Issuing
{ the bonds, on the ground that they
we're not authorized by the pro eed
ngs taken as a foundation for their
ssuance, the court held that the
rustees had not submitted TO the
electors the questions which the law
-equired to be submitted and that
those questions so omitted were, or
consideration OF an application TO en-
Join the issue OF the bonds, vital and
material and that the trial court errec
n sustaining a demurrer to the com
llaint The undoubted eject OF this
holding Is that all the propositions re
luired by law to be submitted and foi
that reason vital and material to the
'eference, must be submitted or none
IN dshat to single therefrom one OF
more. less than the whole, will no'
ecure a fair expression OF the yotei
On any and for that reason the refer
ence will fall. We are therefore OF
,pinion that an affirmative vote on
he question Shall the capital be To-
,ated" did not include an affirmative
fote on the question Shall the bin hn
adopted and for that reason the initi-
tied bill must fall II will not do TO
ay that the electors knew that by
voting in the affirmative on the oues-
ion "Shall the capital be located
hey were so voting by Implication on
The question shall 1t be adopted" }" To
this contention the court In
Lozier VS.. Alexander Drug Co, %
Okla 1, said:
"As to whether or not the electors.
n voting on this proposition. under
TODD that they were voting to repeal
aid articlel, and II was the intention
# a majority of the electors OF the
tate to so declare. this does not APP
ear before this court in any way pro I
rided BY law; but, II ii appears
,liunde. the same cannot be consider
I'd by this court for any purpose
Again, ii viii not do to say, that a.
affirmative vote on the question "shal
he capital be located" included an al
'irmative vote on the implied ques
ION shall II be adopted, for the |
.eason that should this be true tn
LEGALITY OF the submission would con
inue to be apparent, as IT has seyera
lines been held by this court in ae
ord with the uniform a0lding OF tht
'ourts that submission Is void where
wo propositions have been submitte'
o as to have one expression OF the
.oter answer both propositions. am
his for the reason that voters Nigh
hereby be induced 10 vote for bot
who would not have don,
o If the question had been submitted
ingly.
AS the voter in this instance Nigh
ave been against the adoption or th'
bill, but desirons OF locatlnt
he capital in the event the bill car
led. the questions should have beef
erarately submitted to him that NJ
night SO express his will. This was
he effect OF the holding OF the cour
n Lozier VS.. Drug Co.. supra, where
lie court said:
mo opportunity was given the elec
or separately TO express his will b.
is vote upon the question OF the adoI
ion or rejection OF said provision a
rouosed to become part OF the con
titution to express such Will as t
shether or not such Article /, shoul'
e repealed
To the same eject see: Armstrong
S. Berkley. % Okla. lio. State ex rel
'ity elc. vs.. Allen, Sttae Ad., 1856 Mo
73. City of Denver ct al. VS. Hodge
I al. Is Colo. 10. Village Of Hemr
tesd VS.. Seymour ct al. 69 n. Y. SUI
62
,tatl4e Not Complied With.
We are therefore Of opinion that
he statute has not been substantial.
omplied with; that as 1t was the In
ent of petitioners by the initiated bill
o submit to the electors for theiI
doptIon or rejection at the polls
hree propositions, to-wit: Shall !