Grand Forks herald. [volume] (Grand Forks, N.D.) 1916-1955, 1919-04-04
upon q question submitted to a vote,
II IN the affirmative, carries it, unless
n legislative will to the contrary is
clearly exnressed in thu Constitution

sor the law.
"5. In a strict legal sense, although
the vote on a change In the cc..nty
%~boundaries is cast at q general cleo
ton. 1t is the holding Of a separate
election" but held in connection with
to save expense, and because Of the
numerous subjects then voted upon, q
more complete expression of the pref
erence of the electors is obtained"
In its opinion-(after having an
nouhced it's conclusion on the points
syllabus quoted above)-the court
said: 1T is commended that the words
at such elections enlarge the appli-
~tAation of the words votes cast and
clearly indicate that the highest vote
east on any question at h general
election Is the criterion by which q
majority must be arrived at. But.
have stated above, and particularly
from a consideration OF the meaning
Of the words votes cast" 1t is clear
to US that this contention is
It certainly leaves the meaning am
biguous, and in that event 1t Is con-
east on the question at issue controls.
rs N. D.. 40).
How can it reasonably be asserted
that three decisions are determinative
of the question involved in this case.
The provisions involved in State VS..
Barnes and State VS.. Langlie. were so
entirely different from the provision
involved here, that the cases distin-
guish themselves from the instant
case. Some of the ~reasoning in State
vs. Langlie is against rather than IN
favor Of the conclusion reached by
the majority members of the instant
case. In hat case certain language
5000 .--l - xA> A~~k xNn~k ~ Tho 0NN.'
ton relating to the number OF cleo
tors who must sign a petition for an
election to relocate q county seat. In
the latter part Of the section other
language was used as to the number
of Votes required at the election. III
constituting the meaning Of the latter
language the court called attention to
he language contained in the first
part of the section, and the failure to
use this same language in the latter
thereof. The court said: 1T (tne
rAAtarute) carefully excludes the idea
that two-thirds OF the electors must
vote for a place to make it the county
seat. When speaking Of the number
of signatures to 1.-THE petition required.
1t in terms declares that such petition
shall be signed by two-thirds of n
qualified voters tof the county. But
| when it specifies that the vote neces-
sary to relocate the county seat at an
other place. it studiOusly avoids n
use of this explicit language which 10
very appropriate to express tho idea
! that a~ppcdlantS' counsel contends Is to
\ be found in the statute" This reason-
| ing Is directly applicable to the In
slant case. The frst subdivision of sec
! ton 2O2 in terms declared that a con-
| s%titutional amendment proposed there
The electors voting thereon" But with
! this explicit language before them,
the trainers and proposers OF h sec
! ond subdivision 'studiously avoided"
! It's use, and in place thereof expressly
| provided that amendments proposed
4 by initiative petitions must receive =
! majority OF all the legal votes cast at
1 such general election"
&. While State VS.. Blaisdell involved
J "a constitutional provision. and the
4 Language there construed Is more sim
liar to that involved in. the instant
case than that involved in the other
two cases, the language is neverthe-
soning in State vs. Blaisdell is preai-
Gated upon the difference between the
Language contained In section 1853 OF
the constitution, and that contained
in the second subdivision of section
2G2. 1t will be noted that the conclu-
sioh in State vs.. Blaisdell is predicat-
ed upon the premise that the general
election is nevertheless a separate
election" Hence, the court said that
f,when section 1853 speaks of the votes
u cast = " at such election" it Is am
u biguous. That is, the words, .''such
election" are capable Of being under
stood in more senses than .one-they
ton, or the separate election upon
the question of country division held
in connection with the general cleo
ton, and that for this reason it will
be presumed that they refer to the
separate election.
This reasoning is manifestly not ap-
plicable to the case at bar. Here there
is no ambiguity. The trainers Of the
provision involved in this controversy
eliminated the very ambiguity re-
ferred to in State VS.. Blaisdell. They
left no room for doubt as to which
election they had in mind. They speci-
fically provided that a constitutional
receive a majority Of all the legal
votes cast at such general election"
' They carefully repeated the term "all
the legal votes cast at such general
election every time they had occa-
! sion to refer to the number of votes
required to ratify such proposed
amendment. I fail. to find any reason
for the application of the doctrine Of
stare deoisis. Clearly the phrase in
volved in this is different from that
construed in the former decision.
It should. also. be remembered that
the provision involved in this con-
troversy relates to the amendment OF
is manifestly the most important po-
litical function which the people can
perform. In constituting the meaning
OF words and phrases, we should no
forget the subject-matter to which
they are applied. (Lewis Sutherland