The Barre daily times. (Barre, Vt.) 1897-1959, 1916-03-02
The Opinion.

Thomas W. Martin VS.. c. p. Fullam
and other members of the board of civil
authority of the town of Brookfeld,
apinion by Justice Watson.
Each, the primary act and the pro
hibitory act, is a public law relating to a
public subject affecting alike the entire
state. The subject matter of each is one
in which, from a legal standpoint the
people Of the whole state are equally in
terested. Each act has become law to
take effect at a future time irrespective of |
what the result OF the vote on the dues- |
tion submitted by the referendum may
be, but the time of taking effect is con-
tingent upon the result of such vote. |
The subject matter of each enactment is /
of such public Importance that the legis.
lature in its wisdom deemed it advisable |
in this manner to ascertain the real pub
he opinion concerning the act, and upon
that public opinion as it may be ex-
pressed in the way provided for was
made to depend which of the two times
specified in the act shall take effect.
'Such, in short, being the nature and
Importance of the act, was ii the inten-
tion of the Legislature to get such an ex-
preston of opinion by vote of all the
freemen of the state all of whom are
equally interested therein, or was it the
of the legislature to get such
an expression of opinion from those only
who by law are entitled to vote in town
on matters relating exclusively
TO the town or city in which the votes
IRE givenf If the latter and not the for
ner was the intention, then il was the
purpose of the Legislature to get an ex
preston of opinion concerning the two
public acts of statewide interest and inn {
from portion only of the free
men OF the state, excluding from the
privilege of expressing such an opinion
,ortion of the freemen because and only c
because, they failed to comply with a d
aw affecting so far as the individual a
reeman is concerned the interest of the +
town or city in which he re- $
ides. ~
"While it may not be constitutional fl
rivilege to vote upon these two ques- a
ions submitted by the legislature, IL o
rould not be going far astray TO say of
hat when such an expression OF opinion :,
" way OF referendum is provided for by NJ
he legislature it becomes public priv al
ege Of the freemen Of the state to ex- bl
rcise the right Of expression of opinion ri
hereon. If it may properly be classed as ef
lch a privilege, then 10 deny a freeman hi
he right to vote thereon in the manner Il
iyen 10 other freemen of the state for ot
,rne reason not recognized by the con
.itution. raises the grave question tu
neither his constitutional rights are not th
Ifringed. Section "a Of the state consti- cy
ltion provides that every man of the he
IN age Of twenty-one years and having fu
e other qualifications specified therein ne
ri who shall take the oath Of afIirrma- tl'
ans there following. shall he entitled 10 81
I the privileges Of a freeman Of this lie
ate while no constitutional question o.
- presented in argument. aud we do, IN
4 decide the one suggested. still the th
fxileres there guaranteed are not 10 he hs'
4 sight of. in determining the question ciI
fore us-
..Esch 81 the acts Of 1915 provides that
: ballot clerks hoard Of eivn authority
R