Trapp, Auditor v. Wells-Fargo Express Co.

1908 OK 204, 97 P. 1003, 22 Okla. 377, 1908 Okla. LEXIS 34
CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma
DecidedOctober 24, 1908
Docket403
StatusPublished
Cited by23 cases

This text of 1908 OK 204 (Trapp, Auditor v. Wells-Fargo Express Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Trapp, Auditor v. Wells-Fargo Express Co., 1908 OK 204, 97 P. 1003, 22 Okla. 377, 1908 Okla. LEXIS 34 (Okla. 1908).

Opinion

Williams, C. J.

(after stating the facts as above). The question involved in this controversy is whether or not the expenses of transmitting and transporting certain registration certificates, election supplies and pamphlets, relating to the initiative and referendum propositions, including the proposed constitutional amendments submitted by the Legislature, to be voted upon at the general election on the first Tuesday in November, A. D. 1908, from *381 (the state capítol, the place where the state election board and the Secretary of State maintain their respective offices, to various places in the state, shall be paid out of funds available for the state election board, or funds available for the expenses of .the office of Secretary of State.

“The Secretary of State shall submit to the state or public printer a copy of the title and text of each measure presented by initiative petition, referendum petition, and by the Legislature. Printed copies shall be supplied the document rooms, from time to time, and the chief of each shall supply copies to applicants and in such quantities as demanded, provided reasonable assurance is given that they will be placed singly in the hands of the people.” (Section 9, House Bill 174, Sess. Laws Oída. 1907-08, p. 446, c. 44.)
“The ballots and other election supplies for the state, as herein mentioned, shall be delivered to the state' election board on or before the fifteenth day preceding each election, and the printer with whom the contract was made, or the state printer, if done under the supervision of such an official, shall, before such delivery can be accepted by said board, subscribe to the following oath, which shall be placed on file by the secretary of said board: [Oath omitted]. The state- election board, shall require that the supplies for the several voting precincts be so packed that there will be a bundle for each precinct, in which shall be all the ballots, articles and supplies which belong to such precinct, and when the same have been checked over and found to be correct, they shall be placed in a box or bag and labeled with the names of the county, township- or precinct to which they belong. Such supplies shall be so packed that .they can be easily inspected when delivered to the county election board. On or before the twelfth day preceding each election, the state election board shall, after carefully packing in boxes or sacks, ship by express, the election ballots and supplies for the several precincts of the several counties to the secretary of the county election board, notifying him how, when and where said supplies were sent. Upon receipt of such supplies the county board shall immediately make a thorough inspection of the bundle for each precinct, to see that nothing has been omitted, and that the several precincts have the supplies prescribed by this act. Should there be a deficiency in the ballots, printing material or supplies, or in anything which the *382 state board alone can supply, the county board shall immediately notify said state board of such shortage, and said state board shall proceed to promptly supply the missing material. Should the missing supplies be such as the county board can procure, it shall immediately purchase the same and supply the shortage,” (Senate Bill 23, pp. 329-331, c. 31, art. 3, § 3 [Sees. Laws Okla. 1907-08].)

It is contended by the Attorney General that section 9, supra, contemplated that the Secretary of State should perform and do all things necessary to the distribution of each proposition submitted to the people either by initiative or referendum petition, or by the Legislature, whether statutory or organic and that section 3, supra, being broad enough to include all classes and kinds of ballots, conflicts with the provisions of said section 9. It is a proper rule of construction that the whole instrument or act is to be examined with a view of arriving at the true intention of each part, and if any section of the law be intricate, obscure, or doubtful, the proper way to determine its true meaning is by comparing it with other sections, and finding out the sense of one clause by the words or obvious intent of another, and in making such comparison it is not to be supposed that any words have been employed without occasion, or without the intent that they should have effect as a part of the law. Effect is to be given to the entire instrument or act, and to every section and clause, and if different portions seem to conflict, the courts must harmonize them, if practicable, and must lean in favor of the construction which will render every word operative, rather than to one which will make some words idle and nugatory. Statutes may not be revoked or altered by construction when the words may have their proper operation without it, but, in the nature of things, contradictions cannot stand together; and where there is an act or provision which is general and applicable, actual or potential, to a multitude of subjects, and there is also another act or provision which is particular and applicable to one of these subjects, and inconsistent with the general act, they are not necessarily so inconsistent that both cannot stand, though contained in the same act, or though *383 the general law were an independent enactment. The general act would operate, according to its terms, on all the subjects embraced therein, except the particular one which is the subject of the special act, which would be deemed an exception, unless the terms of ■the latter, which were general, manifestly intended to exclude the exception. If the general and special provisions are in the same act, or passed on the same day in separate acts, or at the same session of the Legislature, the presumption is stronger that both are intended to operate. Cooley’s Const. Lim. (7th Ed.) pp. 91, 92; Sutherland, Stat. Const. 1891, §§ 215, 217, 239-241, 325.

• Section 9, supra, is, in substance, contained in section 8, c. 226, House Bill 123, Gen. Laws Or. 1907, pp. 403-405. There it was contemplated that the Secretary of State should transmit by mail, with postage fully prepaid, to every voter in the state whose address he may have, one copy of the pamphlet containing arguments for and against measures submitted to the people for their approval or rejection. In certain cases the cost of paper and print, ing the arguments are required to be borne by the parties .presenting the same, the distribution being under the control and direction of the Secretary of State. Under the general laws of Oregon it is the duty of the Secretary of State to furnish, to the county clerks of the several counties, certified copies of the names of the candidates for state and district offices, and also a certified copy of the ballot, and title and numbers of the several measures to be voted upon at the ensuing general election; there being no state election board. B. & C. Comp. Or. 1902, § 2763; Gen. Laws Or. 1907 (24th Sess.), p. 402, c. 226, § 6 (House Bill 123). Article 2'4, § 1 (Bunn’s Const. § 446) Okla. Const., provides that:

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Sharp v. Tulsa County Election Board
890 P.2d 836 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1995)
Opinion No. (1990)
Oklahoma Attorney General Reports, 1990
In Re Initiative Petition No. 314
1980 OK 174 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1980)
In Re Farmers' State Bank
1937 OK 707 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1937)
O'Brien Packing Co. v. Martin
1935 OK 326 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1935)
Edwards v. Carter
1934 OK 46 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1934)
Porter v. Hall
271 P. 411 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1928)
Schaff v. Rea
1924 OK 831 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1924)
Board of Equalization of Oklahoma Co. v. First State Bank
1920 OK 104 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1920)
State v. Prairie Oil & Gas Co.
1917 OK 450 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1917)
Bd. of Com'rs of Creek v. Alexander, St. Treasurer
159 P. 311 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1916)
Lusk v. White
1916 OK 434 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1916)
Cherokee County Pub. Co. v. Cherokee County
1915 OK 298 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1915)
Ramsey v. Persinger
1914 OK 205 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1914)
Beaty v. State Ex Rel. Lee
1913 OK 201 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1913)
Groom v. Wright
1912 OK 35 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1912)
Bohart v. Anderson
1909 OK 142 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1909)
Arie v. State
1909 OK 25 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1909)
Arie v. State
100 P. 23 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1909)
Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Love
99 P. 1081 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1909)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1908 OK 204, 97 P. 1003, 22 Okla. 377, 1908 Okla. LEXIS 34, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/trapp-auditor-v-wells-fargo-express-co-okla-1908.