Devils Lake weekly world. (Devils Lake, N.D.) 1911-1914, 1913-05-02
THAT SUPREME COURT DECISION.

On Saturday of last week the North
Dakota Supreme Court handed down
the decision in the case of S. Kerlin
W. the City Of Devils Lake, reversing
tho order Of tho lower court.
Briefly stated, the case grew out
of the special election held something
moro than year ago to vote On the
question of whether or not the city
should issue bonds in sum not to cx-
coed $4,000, tho money to be raised
to be used for the establishment of a
municipal electric light and power
plant.
The question carried at the election
and S. Kcrlin, for the Devils Lake
Improvement Company, Immediately
started an action against the city with
the ultimate aim of having tho eloc-
ton declared illegal and void.
The first step in this action was an
application to Hon. j. F. Cowan, then
judge of the second judicial district,
for temporary restraining order, to
prevent the city authorities from is
suing and disposing Of the bonds SO
voted. This was granted by Judge
,Cowan..6
The city, through its attorneys, then
asked for an order from the district
court setting aside the temporary in.
junction. ~.
Judge Cowan, wishing to be fair TO
both sides in the controversy, and
knowing that he would be blamed
which ever way he decided, called in
Judge Winchester, who, after hearing
the arguments, dissolved the temper.
airy injunction. Plaintiff Immediately
appealed to the supreme court and
decision has just been handed down, as
stated above.
We would not have taken the time
and space to go into these details (the
case now being for all practical pur-
poses dead one) were it not for the
fact that the Journal, in its report Of
the matter, deliberately falsihes and
attempts to discredit Judge Cowan and
the former city administration.
In the first place, Judge Cowan was
not reversed. It was Judge Winches-
ter, who dissolved the restraining or
der and it was his order that was ap-
pealed FROM.
In the second place, the then cit,
counci, respected every statute, sud
were sustained by majority Of the
voters of the city In their attempts to
rid the municipality Of a grinding and
arrogant monopoly.
The only mistakes made were in the
submission Of the two separate ques-
tions on one ballot, and the indefinite
ness of the phrase "not to exceed
$4,000" and these only being an ov-
ersight. on tho part Of the then city
auditor.
The syllabus by the supreme court,
tollows:.
A special city election was held to
determine the question Of whether such
city would increase its debt limit and
issue bonds to establish city lighting
plant. The election was held at one
central voting place instead of having
place for voting in each ward as an
election precinct as required by sta
tste. The place of election was where
city special elections for years had
usually been held. A large vote was
polled for special election. Ample
opportunity was offered all electors to
vote. No fraud is alleged in the call.
ing of or in the conduct of the cleo
ton. HELD:
[1) As by statute an election SHOULD
have been held in each ward the cleo
ton was irregular but not void.
(2) Sec. l2l of our constitution, as
amended, in defining the qualifications
Of an elector, does not prescribe a rule
for voting, nor compel qualified cleo.
tor to necessarily vote at place with
in the boundaries Of the ward in which
he resides, though every ward is by
statute a voting precinct.
(3) Where the election is held as
called for at the place designated by
the lawful municipal authority, and is
regularly conducted and fair and reg
ular canvass and return made of all
votes cast. with no fraud charged, in
the absence Of statute expressly in
validating the election it will be up.
+ held.
~ General statutory registration
requirements o not apply to special