Grand Forks herald. [volume] (Grand Forks, N.D.) 1916-1955, 1919-01-15
COURT DID NOT RULE
SEPARATELY ON MOTION TO SET
ASIDE VALIDITY TEST ACTION
tition and submitted in the course Of
that progress known as initiative

I thorities in support of this conten-
ton. They Illustrate" 1t says, 1.-The
principle that public officials and
public questions are not to be en-
mere whim and caprice of any per-
son who shall have an interest upon
which to base such a proceeding no
more tangible or substantial than
that universal qualification of ~elector,
citizen or taxpayer. 1t Is incumbent
upon REALTORS herein to allege and
establish some peculiar personal or
property interest in the subject mat
ter involved by this proceeding"
Canvassers Within Law, LANCER Says.
In regard to the question Of juris-
diction, the attorney general Gets
forth hat the decisions in cases in
under such conditions "are now clear
ly in favor Of the present PROPOSE
ton" He declares that no n would
contend hat the judiciary has "been
granted by the constitution any pow
er whatsoever to interfere with a bill
introduced by a representative from
any county, and thai cit is not the
that bill shall be passed or what it
shall contain or the way it shall be
handled during the course of its maxi
ing"
The action of the .~canvassing board
was purely legislative. the brief says.
and that, as their action was only
lone of q series which lis to consum-
mate at some later date in a finished
piece Of legislation in the shape of a
action by the said board is beyond
the jurisdiction of this court"
The brief, then quotes at length
various authorities. which, it con-
tends, "bear out tho assertion Of the
respondent herein. that this court has
no jurisdiction of the matter in ques-
ton as it has been presented by the
REALTORS
In his brief upon the merits Of the
original action, the attorney general
reviews the procedure Of the state
opinion upon which the state board
based its action in passing the five
mendments in question. He quotes
from Judges Corliss, S%paulding and
other members of North Dakota SUI
preme courts and from he. supreme
courts of other states lengthy deci-
sjons which he declares uphold his
legal votes mean only a major
ity of the legal votes a s for or
against the particular question con-
cerned.
After reviewing the contention that
it requires only a majority of he votes
cast upon each particular amendment
and quoting from authorities, the at
torney general says:
"From the foregoing 1t will be seen
that a proper understanding of the
words electors, voters, votes and votes
cast is the key by which the inter-
probation Of the clause in question Is
made. This is borne. out by the con-
stitution and the language therein
tons dealing with similar subject
matter. 1t is laso carried through in
the statutes enacted by the legisla-
ture referred to IN this brief. This is
especially we'll illustrated in reference
to the phrase votes cast as used In our
constitution amendment section zoo
by the fact that 70 operate the same
separate ballot boxes are provided and
a separate count is had in determining
the outcome of the subject matter vot-
ed on. The foregoing authorities bear
out the principle that the interpreta-
ton Of ambiguous language in
character is based upon the words
electors, voters and votes case, and II
will be especially noted that this court
has disapproved those decisions
which fail to make this distinction. II
is further the contention of the re-
spondent herein that this court Is
bound by its former decisions upon
this Identical question to arrive at the
conclusion urged by the respondents
herein. It is u contention that the
c~anvassing board, consisting Of the
respondents herein, were acting in &C
cordance with the correct interpreta-
finn ~ tho Iou, uhnr fhov no,,rfoH
the vote with respect to the amend
ments upon each particular subject
and not or some other subject in de-
termining whether each passed OF
failed to pass at the last general cleo
ton"
The conclusions are that: the Ian
guage Of section 202 means a MAORI
ty of the votes cast on each propo-
sition, otherwise the word voters" OF
ELECTORS" would have cen used; that
the Gillespie case, quoted extensively
sis as fundamental in deciding this
case as n Of our own decisions. that
the construction placed on the section
in question both by the legislature
and the contrasting provisions Of the
constitution foreclose any but the
respondents views as set out; that the
weight Of authority to almost the
poin of unanimity upholds the case of
the respondents; hat the Barnes case
the Langley ase and the Blaisdell
case %foreclose all possible controversy
in opposition to the action Of the 70.
spondents.
Exceeded Their Authority.
The brief of W. H. stutsman, rep
resenting the REALTORS, contends that
the c~anvassing board exceeded its au.
thority and made a decision which
was contrary to law" It says that the
paramount question to be determined
is whether OF not subdivision 2 q
section ZOE" Of the constitution meanl
that Amendments must receive a
majority Of all the votes cast at such
general election, OF whether it means
that they are only required to receive
a majority of the votes cast for OF
against them"
The contention Of the REALTORS. OF
course, ia that the amendment means
what 1t appears to say, to-wit: tina,
| 9J1Nh am n,,u< vo~~a.~ -