LEGAL DOCUMENT

Case: State vs. Town Council of South Kingstown
Citation: 18 R.I. 258
Court: Supreme Court of Rhode Island
Jurisdiction: Rhode Island
Decision Date: 1893-04-22
Docket Number: 
Pages: 258–276
Volume: 18
Reporter: Rhode Island Reports

Parties: State vs. Town Council of South Kingstown.

WASHINGTON COUNTY.
State vs. Town Council of South Kingstown.
Tlie Supreme Court has power to issue mandmnus to a town council requiring it to call according to statute an elective meeting to elect a senator and representatives to the State legislature.
This power is not affected by the constitutional provision that each house of the legislature “ shall be the judge of the elections and qualifications of its members.”
To interpret statutes and to declare what the law is, is a judicial power.
Neither house of the legislature can by itself make or authoritatively interpret the law as a rule for others.
A general statute does not repeal a special statute unless the purpose to do so is ' clear.
Hence Pub. Laws R. I. cap. 923, of March 26, 1891, does not repeal Pub. Laws R. I. cap. 710, § 18, of March 22, 1888.
Pub. Laws R. I. cap. 710, § 18, of March 22, 1888, is constitutional. In re the JSTarragansett Election, 16 R. I. 761, affirmed.
Pub. Laws R. I. cap. 710, § 18, of March 22, 1888, requires, in case no election is made, another elective meeting to be held within ten days.
Held, that this provision as to time is directory not mandatory. In re the Census Sux>erintendent, 15 R. I.' 614, affirmed.
Petition for a writ of Mandamus. On demurrer to the petition.
This petition preferred by the Attorney General sets forth that an elective meeting to choose a senator and representatives from the town of South Kingstown to the General Assembly of the State was holden on the first Wednesday in April, 1893, and failed to elect, no person voted for having a majority of the vote cast ; that pursuant to Pub. Laws R. I. cap. 710, § 18, of March 22, 1888, the town council ordered a new election to he holden April lé, 1893, which duly took place and also resulted in a failure ’ to elect ; that the town council thereafter neglected and refused to order another election and thereby violated its statutory duty. The petition was filed asking for a writ of mandamus to compel the town council to order a new election. The respondents demurred.
Pub. Statutes R. I. cap. 10, § 18, provides :
“Sec. 18. In cities other than the city of Providence, and in towns divided into voting districts, ward and district meetings held therein respectively for the election of senator and representatives, and of members of the town council, or of any one or more of them, shall, at the time of closing the polls therein prescribed by law, stand adjourned to the third day next from and after the day so appointed, unless the said third day shall fall on Sunday or on a holiday, and in that event, to the Monday, or the day following said holiday, with like adjournment therefrom, but no adjournment or adjournments shall exceed seven days from the first meeting.”
Pub. Laws E. I. cap. 710, §§ 17, 18, of March 22, 1888, incorporating the District of Narragansett in South Kingstown, E. I., provide :
“Sec. 17. The town council of South Kingstown shall proceed within two days next after the election to count the ballots in the same manner as is prescribed in section 11 of Chapter 10, of the Public Statutes for the counting of ballots by the moderators and clerks of town and ward meetings and shall forthwith declare the result.
“ Sec. 18. If no election shall have been made of senator and representative in the general assembly or of either of them upon the day appointed by law for any election, the said town council shall order a new election to be held not more than ten days from the first election and so on until the election shall be completed.”
Pub. Laws E. I. cap. 923, of March 26, 1891, is as follows :
“An Act in Amendment op Chapter 10 op the Public ■ Statutes.
“ It is enacted by the General Assembly as folletos :
“ Section 1. Section 18 of chapter 10 of the Public Statutes is so amended as to read as follows :
‘Sec. 18. In cities other than the city of Providence, and in towns divided into voting districts, ward and district meetings held therein respectively for election of senator and representatives, and of members of the town council, or of any one or more of them, shall, at the time of closing the polls therein prescribed by law, stand adjourned to the third day next from and after the day so appointed, unless the said third day shall fall on Sunday, or on a holiday, and in that event, to the Monday, or the day following said holiday, with like adjournment therefrom : Provided, however, that in Hopkinton there shall be no election held on Saturday, and if the third day fall on Saturday the meeting shall stand adjourned to the Monday following, being five days from and after the day so appointed, with like adjournment therefrom, but no adjournment or adjournments shall exceed seven days from the first meeting.’
“Seo. 2. All acts or parts of acts inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed, and this act shall take effect from and after its passage.”
The matter came on for hearing before Matteson, C. J., Stiness and Douglas, JJ.
Providence, April 22, 1893.

Per Curiam.
The court is of the opinion .that it has no jurisdiction to grant the writ prayed for, since'the Constitution Art. IV. § 6, provides that ‘ ‘ Each house (of the General Assembly) shall be the judge of the elections and qualifications of its members.” Should the court, by its writ require the town council to fix a day for a new election beyond the ten days specified in Pub. Laws E. I. cap. 710, § 18, of March 22, 1888, thereby impliedly holding that a new election so held would be legal and binding, and an election of senator and representative should then be made, the senate and house of representatives being under the provisions of thó Constitution quoted judges of the elections and qualifications of their respective members, might, nevertheless, determine that such election was void and thereby render the action of the court nugatary. The court is therefore of the opinion that it is for the General Assembly to provide a remedy for the failure of the town council to. call an election for senator and representative within the period limited, and not for the court. Weeden v. Town Council of Richmond, 9 R. I. 128, 131.
The petitioner then filed a petition for a reargument of the question of jurisdiction. This petition was heard by the full court of six justices, and its decision was given by Douglas, J.
Providence, May 3, 1893.