Hankey v. Bowman
| Decision Date | 24 January 1901 |
| Docket Number | 12,486 - (244) |
| Citation | 84 N.W. 1002,82 Minn. 328 |
| Parties | C. G. HANKEY v. G. E. BOWMAN |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
The county canvassing board of Norman county having declared G E. Bowman to have received the highest number of votes cast and to have been elected to the office of county superintendent of schools of that county at the general election held November 6, 1900, C. G. Hankey, a rival candidate, appealed to the district court for said county. The case was heard before Watts, J., who found in favor of the contestant. From a judgment entered pursuant to the findings, the contestee appealed. Reversed.
White Earth Indian Reservation.
The laws of the state of Minnesota, both civil and criminal including the statutes on the subject of elections, extend over the White Earth Indian reservation, and election districts may be established therein upon petition to the proper authorities by the requisite number of legal voters.
Creation of Election Districts -- G.S. 1894, § 10.
A proper construction of G.S. 1894, § 10, does not confer authority upon the governor of the state to create and establish election districts in the organized counties of the state. The power there conferred is limited to unorganized or partly organized counties; and partly organized counties referred to in the statute are such as are not fully organized for judicial, record, and other public purposes, and not to counties with an incomplete township organization.
Irregularity in Appointment of Officers.
Elections conducted fairly and honestly, where no fraud or illegal voting is charged or shown, will not be set aside for mere irregularity in the manner of the appointment of the election officers or in the conduct of the election.
Creation of Election Districts by Governor.
It appears in this case that the governor of the state, acting under G.S. 1894, § 10, and following a long line of precedents set by his predecessors in office, which precedents were, by the silent acquiescence of the people, sanctioned and approved, upon a petition of the requisite number of legal voters created and established three election districts in Norman county, a fully organized county of this state. The governor acted in good faith, and upon a construction of the statute warranting the action. Officers of election were duly named by him; who legally qualified, and conducted the election honestly and fairly, and in accordance with the laws of the state. Held, that the election districts were created and established under color of law; the officers thereof were de facto officers, whose acts were as valid as though possessed with de jure qualifications; and, in the absence of fraud or illegal voting, the election was legal, and should not be set aside and the voters disfranchised.
E. M. Niles and Calkins & Calkins, for appellant.
M. A. Brattland and Ole J. Vaule, for respondent.
Election contest for the office of superintendent of schools of Norman county.
The facts are undisputed, and as follows: Appellant and respondent were both candidates for the office of superintendent of schools at the general election held in Norman county on November 6, 1900. Respondent received 1,486 uncontested votes at said election, and appellant received 1,459 uncontested votes. The vote of certain election districts created and established by the governor of the state was rejected by the district court, and respondent declared duly elected to the office. The votes cast in such rejected districts would, if counted, elect appellant. In reference to these three districts the facts are as follows: Norman county is a fully organized county of the state, having a full set of county officers, but a large part of its territory, namely, township 146 of ranges 40, 41, and 42; township 145, of ranges 40 and 41; township 144 of ranges 40 and 41; and township 143 of ranges 40 and 41, -- are within the White Earth Indian reservation, and not organized into townships. On September 21, 1900, the governor of the state, acting under and pursuant to G.S. 1894, § 10, by proper proclamation established and created three election districts within said county, and out of territory so within the Indian reservation. Such new districts were particularly described with respect to boundaries, and judges of election were duly named and designated. The districts are known as "Rice River," "Pembina," and "Twin Lakes." The section of the statutes under which the governor acted is as follows:
"Whenever any number of voters, not less than eight, residing in an unorganized or partially organized county, shall, at least eight weeks before any general and six weeks before any special election, petition the governor to establish a new election district, designating the boundaries of the same, which shall not be within five miles of the polling place of any existing district, it shall be the duty of the governor, and he is hereby authorized and directed to cause to be established such district, or districts, at such place or places as the petitioners may require."
An election was duly and regularly held in the districts so created and established, and of the votes cast therein appellant received a majority, which, added to his vote in the other districts of the county, elected him to the office in question. There is no claim of fraud, illegal registration, or illegal voting at such election. For aught that appears from the record, all who voted in such districts were legal voters of the county.
This contest is based on the grounds:
1. That the governor of the state had no authority to establish election districts within the Indian reservation.
2. That he had no authority to establish such districts in Norman county, because it is a fully organized county.
It is contended by appellant that election districts may be established within the reservation, and that the governor of the state has authority to do so under the statute above quoted; and, further, that, even though a strict construction of such statute would not confer such authority upon the governor, still that, by a long continued exercise of such authority by the executive officers of the state, with the sanction and approval of the people, the statute has been given a practical construction which should be followed and applied. And he further contends that, inasmuch as all parties acted in good faith, and took no steps to prevent the election in those districts, but participated therein, and contested for the votes to be there cast, the election should not be set aside, and the voters disfranchised.
1. May election districts be established within the White Earth Indian reservation? We think that the question must be answered in the affirmative.
There is no question but that the territory comprising the election districts in question was within the boundaries of Norman county, though wholly within the reservation. The status of the White Earth reservation with respect to the question whether the laws of this state extend over it and apply to citizens resident thereon is firmly settled by the decisions of this court in State v. Campbell, 53 Minn. 354, 55 N.W. 553; State v. Cooney, 77 Minn. 518, 80 N.W. 696; and Selkirk v. Stephens, 72 Minn. 335, 75 N.W. 386. The question is discussed in the latter case, and we need only to refer thereto for a very clear statement and understanding of the law. All the laws of the state, both civil and criminal, including the statutes with reference to elections, extend over this reservation, and the state has never relinquished its authority to enforce them, and apply them to citizens residing there. Citizens of the United States are permitted to reside on the reservation under certain restrictions, and property owned by them and located therein may be taxed. That the county has never extended its authority over this territory does not affect the question one way or the other. The fact remains that it is a part of Norman county, and all the laws of the state extend over and are applicable to it, and to citizens residing within it.
Whether Indians are legal voters is a question not before us, and we do not determine it. It does...
To continue reading
Request your trial