The Pioche record. [volume] (Pioche, Nev.) 1908-1925, 1916-07-29

legislature, and that all reasonable
doubts are determined in favor of
legislative enactments, and that |
courts have nothing to do with ques-
lions which go to mere policy or ex-
pediency of acts of the legislature.
1t is proper here to state that the ar
guments presented showed a wide
difference in opinion relative to the
constitltionality of the act in lues-
ton, bon cy counsel appearing for
the parties to the proceeding and
those appearing as friends OF the
court.
Title of Act
1t was commended, first, tLat the
whole act was void because the title
contains more than one subject, in
violation Of section !, OF article Nv,
of our constitution We think the
objections to the ti:lo of the act are
fully answered by 70 ne decisions
of this court, particular, the case Of
State vs.. State Bank and Trust Co.
(31 New. 1861
AppOrtiOnment
1t is also cOntended that section 3
of the act in question deprives petit
toner of his rights as an elector and
IIember of the Progressive party be-
cause that section apportiods dele
gates to the state and county con-
.ventions on the basis of the vote
for representative in congress at tho
last prec eding election, and that the
party of which he is member, ha,-
ing had no candidate for representa-
tive in congress at such election, is
therefore deprived of participating
in the primary election. II is con-
coded that under the provisions of
section 81 the act in question the
Progressive party is within the clas-
sification of parties entitled to the
privileges of the act in question. II
is not alleged in the petition that the
representatives of the party of which
petitioner alleges himself to be q
member made any attempt to avail
themselves of the privileges Of the
act by complying with the provisions
of section 8, or that petitioner mad,
any request of the state and count,
central committees of his party tt
apportion delegates to the state ant
county conventions as prescribed il
such section, prior to the time fixe(
in such state or county central com
mittees.
; Depriving Party of Privilege
Assuming, however, for the pur
poses of this decision, that the right
/ Of party elector may not be cut o.
> by reason of the failure or neglec
3 OF the duly constituted state Q
2 county party central committees, W
8 shall consider whether the provi.
0 ions Of section actually have tn
: enect OF depriving political part
8 otherwise entitled to the privilege
e or the act from participating in IL
# primary election. 1t is provided
4 section 29 of the act that This a
l. shall be literally construed, to Il
/ end that the real intent of the ele
e tors shall prevail" AS before poin
e ed out, section 2 of the act gives ii
ct Progressive party the positive rig
W to. proceed Ito elect delegates to pa
1t ty conventions as hereinafter pr
e. vided." If we were to assume tn
r. section 3 is unconstitutional, and
le hold, such holding would not dc
m troy the validity of other provisio
is of the act which could stand ind
" pendent of said provisions. 1t is t
T. contention of counsel for responde
+ that the provision in question is
s. rectory merely, and not binding u
r. on party otherwise entitled to t
lit benefits of the act, but which c
he not comply with this basis of app,
tionment. Authorities haye been {
ed which seem to sustain the vie
U.s. Morrow " Wipf. lis N. w. 112l
i'll AS the duly authorized represen
ms tives of petitioners party, so far
on appears from the petition, did n
TO- within the time prescribed by
as provisions of section 8, seek to D
re serve the rights of their party
&C. any other reasonable method of
In portionment, we can not see VIII
petitioner is entitled, particularly
Jaw this character Of proceeding, to gu
ed tion the validity Of this particu
err provision Of the act.
ct No Violation of Constitution
re- 1t is commended by petitioner t
on section IL of the act renders the
the tire act void because, under cont