Rock Island Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1893-1920, 1915-08-14

10 vote Such form Of ballot is dis
cussed in the case of Harvey VS.
! Cook county, 2zI H. 81. and decisions
therein cited. The ballot was For ex-
. tension Of the Torreus land system
with the word yes following and 3
/ blank space 70 mark a cross. and
Against extension Of the Torrens land
+ system with the word no following.
/ with blank to mark q cross. The
! court in the opinion on page 81 reia-
/ tive to that ballot says: a vote in the
I blank opposite the word yes" would
/ clearly have been a vote IN the affir-
native, while vote opposite the
word mo" would at most have been
/ nothing more than an expression Of
/ the voter that he was not against the
+ extension Of the Torrens land system
] There was no clear and unmistakabIe
way Of voting against this PROPOSE
ton. Fairness and equal opportunity
to all voters TO express their choice
required that vote in the negative
could be as clearly and certainly in
/ dicated as could a vote in the affirma-
/ tive, That could not be done This
/ court can arrive at no other coucIus-
ion than that where. with reference
/ to some particular election special
/ provisions are made therefor that the
election should be held under said
/ special provisions. as, for instance.
relative to the incorporation Of cities,
villages, etc, as therein set out, es-
pecjally where the form of ballot is
practically submitted, as In the case
in Section . Of the act of 1872. and that
the same Is not repealed by Section Is
Of the Australian ballot system In
this connection attention Is called to
the case Of Swigart VS.. City Of Chicago,
223 Ill, 81, Further in that connec-
ton attention is called to the case Of
East Springfield, 238. Ill, 534. This de
cision expressly holds that the cleo
ton provided for I'm the annexation
of cities. villages, etc, under the law
Of 1889 is not repealed by the Austral-
ian ballot Law of 1891 The. court
there said in substance. The annexa-
ton act Of 1889 was not repealed by the
ballot law Of 1891. and hence in pro
ceedings to annex territory the cleo
ton should be held and the ballot pre-
ions Of the annexation act and not as
provided in section Is of the ballot .
law Now, if the section . Of the act Of /
1872 is in force, as this court thinks it IT !
then the ballot law Of 1891 cannot any .
more repeal the provision for election
provided for in said section than Ct.
can repeal the election proposition i'm f.
the annexation laws OF 1889. But
counsel for REALTORS says that this +
case does not override the case OF the +
County of Union Us. Jsserv. 14T Ill.,, f
204. but in fact upbolds that decision .
This to a certain extent is true. but .
had the court S attention in the Spring .
field case been called particularly to .
the proposition that where special pro
vision IS made in an act for an eIec-
ton On some special subject. the
court then would have had 10 make
some other disposition of the Spring
field case. or made some different COM
ment at least on the case i'm the laTfh
Illinois. In other words, they would
have had to upheld the case in the
147th Illinois upon some different
ground than stated therein, for tine
reason that on page 5t3 of the Spring
field case the following language is
used The act providing for cleo
tons upon the subject of annexation
is special in its nature, applicable
only to the particular class of cleo
tons and under the authority of the
decisions above referred to was not
repealed by the ballot law of 1891 ID
followed. therefore, that the election
should have been conducted and the
ballot prepared i'm accordance with the
provisions Of said annexation act and
not in accordance with the provisions
Of the act of 1891 as was attempted TO
be done But counsel for the REALTORS
further contends that the case in the
Attn III, 204, is in point because see
ton , Of the act Of 1872 SAYS that the 1
election must be held at a general J
election, and his real contention is :
that because the words general cleo d
ton are used that therefore The bal
lot law of 1891 must prevail In an =
swer to that proposition the court is 6
Inclined to call attention 10 the fact g
hat the law of 1889 providing for an +
election says that the question of an +
lexation may be submitted al either !
special election called for that pur- r
pose, or at any municipal election, or q
1t any general election, and provides +
hat the ballot shall be written or p
printed, or partly written and partly "a
'rinted For annexation Of and
Against annexation Of so that lhis .
curt can arrive at no other c0nclu- II
ion, the Springfield case, being the a
3S III above referred to. and be- q
ng the last decision Of our supreme 9
curt SO far found on this PROPOSE +
ion. having held expressly that the 5
lection law provided for in the law l.
{ 1883 is not repealed. and that the n
allots must be prepared in accord -
nee with that law. must necessarily n
ONE TO the conclusion that if an cleo =
ion on the annexation proposition had ~
cen called and fixed by the Judge of :,
ne county court at a general election. :,
nat the ballot would necessarily have
D conform to the provisions of the .,
~ Of 1889 and not to the ballot law -
1891. So, under the decisions and i,