Milford chronicle., 1953-12-25
Decision Reserved
On School Bonds
CONTINUED from first page)

CONTINUED from first page)
the validity of a referendum held
there in October.
The court is being asked to rule
that the voter qualifications are in
cOrpOrated by reference or impli-
cation" in another section of the
1853 code.
The trustees, represented by Will
liam Poole of Berl, Potter and An
dersOn, contend that the other sec
ton says that such elections shall
be held Gin the usual place and in
the same manner as other school
elections" They claim to have fol-
lowed these provisions in deciding
who should vote in the referendum.
The provisions of this section.
they say, entitle any person to vote
who would be entitled to vote at
a general election if held at that
same time, whether or not he is
registered voter"
Need Not Own Property
In effect, this means that non
property owners, as well as proper
ty owners, can vote in a school
bond referendum.
The argument went back to a
decision of the court en- banc on a
legislative act of 1897 designed to
enable the RehObOth Special School
District to borrow money to erect
a new school, subject to a special
election ''in the same manner as
other school elections" In this case
provisions of the 1885 code were
involved in relation to the general
school law, and the question of in
corporation of terms of one section
into another by reference or by a
rule of statutory construction was
raised.
In three-tO-twO decision, the
court held in 1897 that the phrase
in the enabling act, "in the same
manner as in other school cleo
tons" did not refer to the right
of franchise at school elections and
incorporation Of one provision into
another section was not accom-
plished by that reference.
The trustees brought out that it
was this opinion which caused
doubt as to the validity of the AL
fred l. DUPONT District bond refer
endum.
Many Changes Made
The trustees pointed out that be-
tween the 1885 code and enactment
of the 1853 code, many sections
were amended, some numerous
times. and the 1853 code commits
siOners were confronted with a ma
jor task when they undertook the
compilation and consolidation. They
stressed that the code commission
sought to carry out the legislative
directive to omit redundant enact
ments, reject superfuous words.
cOndenSe consistent with clear and
exact expression of the will of the
Legislature, and-where possible
lntegrate a multiplicity of statutes
on the same subject, preserving the
legislative intent.
The trustees held that il was an
parent that the code commission
omitted the franchise qualification
section of the 1885 code on the
theory that the language of Sec
ton 212O of the 1853 code was ade-
quate to incorporate by reference
the provision of section 314 of the
1893 code setting out the qualifi-
cation of voters.
Old Decision Casts Doubt
Except for the RehOboth deci-
sion, there would be no doubt as TO
the fact that Section 212O incor-
porates by reference the uualifica-
tlon OF voters as set up in Section
3l4, the trustees said.
According to the argument of the
the ReOhbOth decision does
not preclude the Supreme Court
from upholding the validity of the
Alfred l. Dupont District referen-
DUN. They said the minority Judi
clal view in the Rehoboth case is
the more convincing, while the ma
jority view is strained and unrea-
sonable. They also claimed the Re
hObOth case has no application to
the present case, and has statutory
history completely different from
the statutory history of the present
case.
The trustees maintained that if
is to be presumed that the enact