The Washburn leader. [volume] (Washburn, McLean County, N.D.) 1890-1986, 1912-11-29
Mclean County
Will Remain Intact
The Bismarck Tribune Gives Follow
ing Statement Of the Case as
Decided Last Week

The Supreme Court has decided that
Stevenson county is not county, and
thus have the dreams of number of
men of being county officials gone
The case has been before
the county for long time and as will
be seen by the syllabus published be-
low it was divided decision. The vote
was rather close on the original propo-
sition, and there were those who were
very bitter in their fight against divi-
sion, as they claimed there was not
enough, either Of population nor of
territory, to support two counties.
Following is the syllabus which gives
the decision as it was reached by a
of the supreme court:
At the general election in 1908 there
was submitted to the voters of Mclean
county three propositions for county
division, including that of the proposed
county of Stevenson, concerning which
the election returns from forty-fve
only. of the fifty-one precincts of Nc
Lean county, were returned by the
precinct election boards to the county
auditor, and only forty-fve precincts
as were returned were canvassed, abb
stracted and certified as to the result
of such election by the county canvass
ing board, who made returns that in
said forty-fve precincts LOCO votes
favored the creation of Stevenson
county, with TAI votes against its crea-
ton. No return Of the votes cast on
such county division proposition was
ever made or canvassed or included in
said return as to the six omitted pre-
cincts of Douglas. Turtle Lake, Rutte.
Roseglen, Whitaker and Shell Creek;
in which six omitted precincts 354
electors voted at such election, sufficient
in number to have constituted a ma
jority against county division had they
all voted against such division. No
proof of the result of the election is in
evidence other than the certificate of
the canvassing board of the county,
showing on it's face such omission to
canvass these six precincts, anda stipu-
lation of their omission from the re-
turns and canvass, and that 354 electors
voted in such six omitted precincts. In
this mandamus proceeding, based upon
the above facts, regarding which there
is no dispute, in which it is sought to
compel the county auditor to certify to
the secretary of state that majority
of all voters cast i'll said county at said
election on county division was for the
creation of Stevenson county, and upon
his refusal to certify it is held:
l. It was the duty of the canvass
ing board of Mclean county, under
section 673, R. C. 1905, to procure the
to be made and canvassed from
such six omitted precincts.
2. That the abstract of the votes
upon such division proposition, required
under section 651, r. C. 1905, shows on
its face that it is incomplete and but
partial canvass of the whole vote cast
in the comfy on such question.
3. Such returns are prima facie
evidence of the precincts canvassed and
abstracted by precincts as required by
statute, and where it appears on its
face to be incomplete, as not including
the vote case in six out of fifty-one
precincts in the county, such returns
are not prima facie evidence of the re-
suit of the election as to all precincts
in the county, the proof of the result
of an election in forty-five precincts
not constituting prima facie proof as
to the result of an election held in fifty
one precincts, the whole county of Nc
Lean.
4. The burden Of establishing that
county division carried by majority
of all votes cast in said county of Nc
Lean at said election is upon the relator,
who by his pleadings and from the
nature of the relief asked, must estab-
lish such fact before the court can find
that majority existed in favor of
such county division proposition.
S. Prima facie proof as to the result
Of such an election as to forty-five pre-
cincts covered by such abstract of re-
turns by precincts is insufficient to
entitle relator to relief, the further
burden resting upon him to establish
that the actual value Of such six pre-
cincts could not in fact change the re-
suit of the election as canyassed in said
forty-fve precincts; and there being no
proof whatever Of the vote on such
question in such omitted precincts. and
in which precincts the court win pre-
sumo some vote was east in each upon
county division, il u impossible to de-
termine that majority Of Ill votes
cast in the whole county ware in favor
Of county division. Accordingly. re-
lator has not met the burden Of proof