People ex rel. Koelling v. Cannon
| Decision Date | 26 October 1908 |
| Citation | 236 Ill. 179,86 N.E. 215 |
| Parties | PEOPLE ex rel. KOELLING v. CANNON et al. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Circuit Court, Cook County; Charles M. Walker, Judge.
Mandamus by the people, on the relation of John Koelling, against John C. Cannon and others, as board of election commissioners of the city of Chicago. From a judgment awarding the peremptory writ, defendants appeal. Appeal transferred to Appellate Court for the First District.Walter L. Fisher and Frank D. Ayers, for appellants.
Levy Mayer and Harry Rubens, for appellee.
On the 7th day of February, 1908, a petition was presented to and filed with the board of election commissioners of the city of Chicago asking for submission to the voters of said city at the election to be held April 8th following, to be voted on by separate ballot, the question: ‘Shall all places where liquor is sold or given away in this city on Sunday be closed upon that day?’ The petition was signed by more than 25 per cent. of the registered voters of the city of Chicago, and the right to have the question mentioned in the petition submitted to a vote, the petitioners claimed, was to be found in what is known as the ‘Public Policy act’ of 1901. Hurd's Rev. St. 1905, p. 967, c. 46. Objections to the submission of the question were filed with the board of election commissioners. One of the objections was that the question proposed to be submitted was not one of public policy in contemplation of law. This objection was sustained and the prayer of the petition denied by the board. Thereupon the petitioners, or some of them, filed in the circuit court of Cook County a petition for a writ of mandamus commanding the board of election commissioners and its clerks to submit the question, to be voted on by separate ballot, at the April election. The defendants to the petition filed a demurrer, which was overruled, and judgment entered awarding the peremptory writ of mandamus. From that judgment the election commissioners have prosecuted an appeal direct to this court.
FARMER, J. (after stating the facts as above).
The first question that confronts us is: Has this court jurisdiction to entertain the appeal? Appellants contend that the elective franchise is involved; also, that the validity of the public policy act, and section 10 of the Australian ballot law (Hurd's Rev. St. 1905, p. 929, c. 46) and the provision of the dramshop act (page 724, c. 38, § 259) requiring dramshops to be closed on Sunday are involved.
Section 10 of the Australian ballot law provides that objections to the nomination papers of candidates for office shall be considered and determined by certain public officials named. In case the nomination papers of a candidate for a state office are objected to, the objection must be considered by the Secretary of State, Auditor, and Attorney General. If the nomination papers of a candidate to be voted for by the voters of a division less than a state and greater than a county are objected to, the objection must be considered by the county judges of the counties embraced in such division; and, if the objection is to the nomination papers of a candidate for a county office, the objection must be considered by the county judge, county clerk, and state's attorney. In either case the decision of a majority of such officers is made final. A proviso to said section 10 reads: ‘Provided, that in cities, towns or villages having a board of election commissioners such questions shall be considered by such board and its decision shall be final.’ The only basis for claiming that the constitutionality or validity of this section of the statute is involved is that it is stated by appellants in their brief and argument that they insisted in the trial court that said section 10 was applicable to the case and made the decision of the election commissioners final, and that petitioners insisted there, as here, that said section was not applicable, and further insisted in the trial court that, if the court held...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Zehender & Factor, Inc. v. Murphy
...in the pleadings or during the trial. City of Sullivan v. Central Illinois Public Service Co., 287 Ill. 19, 122 N.E. 58;People v. Cannon, 236 Ill. 179, 86 N.E. 215. The record in this case shows that subsection 2(e)(5) was the only section of the statute attacked on constitutional grounds i......
-
McRell v. Jackson
...policy within the meaning of the Election Code. That problem, presented by this case, was stated concisely in People v. Cannon (1908), 236 Ill. 179, 182, 86 N.E. 215, 217, 'If the question presented by the petition was one of public policy within the meaning of the statute, the election com......
-
City of Sullivan v. Cent. Illinois Pub. Serv. Co.
...and not merely from the statement of counsel and argument, that some question is involved which authorized the appeal. People v. Cannon, 236 Ill. 179, 86 N. E. 215. It is further argued by counsel for appellee that, even though the claim of appellant in its answer as to the city being estop......
-
United States v. Hrasky
... ... the government's objection, for the reason that it conceded that people in the same business [88 N.E. 1033](saloon keeping) in this city and ... v. Dumbar, 95 Ill. 571, and People v. Cannon, 236 Ill. 179, 86 N. E. 215, tends to support the same holding. The ... ...