Spriggs v. Clark

• Decision Date: 06 October 1932
• Docket Number: 1798
• Parties: SPRIGGS v. CLARK, SECRETARY OF STATE
• Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

14 P.2d 667

45 Wyo. 62

SPRIGGS v. CLARK, SECRETARY OF STATE

No. 1798

Supreme Court of Wyoming

October 6, 1932

ERROR to District Court, Laramie County; SAM M. THOMPSON, Judge.

Action by John J. Spriggs, a taxpayer and qualified elector of Fremont County, on behalf of himself and for the benefit of all taxpayers in the State of Wyoming, against A. M. Clark Secretary of State. From an adverse judgment, plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

The case was submitted for the appellant on the brief of John J Spriggs, of Lander, Wyoming, pro se.

The proposed referendum is a mere straw vote binding on no one. No good but much injury in a waste of public funds would result from its submission. Rights of the public are thereby violated and its submission should be restrained. Hawkes v. Smith, 253 U.S. 22. The resolution deals with a question not within the jurisdiction of states and is an attempt to infringe upon the powers of Congress. When procedure is provided for public expression as to constitutional amendments, any other procedure is excluded by implication, as a violation or orderly procedure. The resolution disregards the procedure prescribed by Article V of the U. S. Constitution. Its adoption would accomplish no result since it could not change the State Constitution. The resolution is not a legislative act. State v. Court, 159 P. 93; Brown v. Trousdale, 138 U.S. 389; State v. Hall, 159 N.W. 281. Defendant's threatened acts are merely ministerial. State v Brooks, 14 Wyo. 393. All matters pertaining to amendments of the Federal Constitution are within the exclusive province of that instrument. The submission of the resolution by the Secretary of State being a void act, should be restrained. Tolbert v. Long, 137 Am. St. Rep. 224; State v. Roach, 230 Mo. 408; State v. Cunningham, 51 N.W. 725; Garton v. Secretary of State, 115 N.W. 431; State v. Marcus, 152 N.W. 423. As the proposed election would be a nullity, it should be restrained. Solomon v. Fleming, (Nebr.) 51 N.W. 304; Cascaden v. City of Waterloo, (Ia.) 77 N.W. 333; Mayor v. Hughes, (Ga.) 36 S.E. 247; Ellingham v. Dye, Ann. Cas. 1915C p. 1507; Cooley Const. Limitation Lim. 61; Pope v. Mills, 4 P.2d 485. An affirmative vote on the resolution would be impossible of recognition. Davis v. Beason, 33 L.Ed. 640. Liquor is an evil and an enemy of government, of man and of society. Crowley v. Christenson, 137 U.S. 90. No legislature can bargain away the public health or morals. Stone v. Miss., 101 U.S. 816. A vote upon the resolution is a useless, arbitrary and illegal expenditure of public funds. State v. Aikens, 26 L. R. A. 365; Pierce Oil Co. v. Hope, 248 U.S. 498. Human law must conform to the divine law. It must be based on right reason, for the honest purpose of promoting the general good. Davis v. Beason, 33 L.Ed. 640. Drunkenness has been defined by the authorities. Vol. 2, Words and Phrases, pages 155-6. The proposed referendum rebels against every principle of constitutional law. It does violence to American ideals and theory of government, wastes the public funds. It is an arbitrary step beyond the power of the legislature and should be restrained. The judgment of the lower court should be reversed.

The cause was submitted for the respondent on the brief of J. A. Greenwood, Attorney General; Richard J. Jackson, Deputy Attorney General; George W. Ferguson, Assistant Attorney General, and R. Dwight Wallace, Assistant Attorney General, all of Cheyenne, Wyoming.

The resolution provides for a vote to ascertain public sentiment on the prohibition question. The issues presented by the pleadings are (1) the jurisdiction of the court, (2) the basis for interposition of a court of equity, (3) the validity of the resolution, (4) the legality of the acts of respondent in complying with conditions of the resolution. Courts do not have power to enjoin the calling of elections since the question is a political one, and not a question for judicial determination. Appellant does not have sufficient interest in the cause to warrant his bringing the suit, and he has been unable to show injury to his civil or property rights. He offered no evidence or proof of irreparable injury, or any injury at all, and did not prove the absence of an adequate remedy at law. The case of State v. Throson, (S. D.) 68 N.W. 202 is closely in point with the present case. It was there held that the submission of a question to the voters is within the legislative powers of the state and cannot be controlled by injunction; that a taxpayer does not have sufficient interest without alleging special injury to property, or special rights, to maintain a suit for injury for such injunction. See also Duggan v. Emporia, (Kan.) 114 P. 335. The case of Power v. Ratliff, (Mo.) 72 So. 864, follows the same rule; also Frothingham v. Mellon, 67 L.Ed. 1078. Courts will not interfere with political action of a coordinate branch of the government by the drastic remedy of an injunction suit of any individual who cannot show special injury to himself, nor attached to others in attending the conduct which he would enjoin. Asplund v. Hannett, 249 P. 1074. The same rule is announced in Galveston Ry. Co. v. U.S. 222 F. 175. The holding of elections is a political question, and courts will not interfere with the exercise of purely legislative functions. In re Initiative Petitions, (Okla.) 6 P.2d 703; McAlester v. State, (Okla.) 221 P. 779; State v. Court, (Minn.) 194 N.W. 630; Gaskins v. Dorsey, (Ga.) 104 S.E. 433. Courts will not enjoin public officers from performing official acts which they by law are required to perform. 32 C. J. 240; High on Injunctions, Vol. 2, p. 1322. The legislature has unlimited power to act in its own sphere, except so far as restrained by the Constitution of the United States and of the State. 25 R. C. L. 383, 6 R. C. L. 152; State v. Irvine, 14 Wyo. 318; In re Fourth Judicial Dist., 4 Wyo. 133; Zancenelli v. Central C. & C. Co., 25 Wyo. 511; State v. Carter, 30 Wyo. 22; State v. Read Co., 33 Wyo. 387; In re Winborne, 34 Wyo. 349; State v. Mercantile Co., 38 Wyo. 47; Midwest Hotel Co. v. State Bd. of Equalization, 39 Wyo. 461; Wyo. Central Irr. Co. v. Farlow, 19 Wyo. 68. The presumption is in favor of the constitutionality of any statute. 6 R. C. L. 97, 104. The expediency and wisdom of the legislature cannot be questioned by courts. 6 R. C. L. 108-110. Hockett v. State Board, 91 O. S. 176. The appellant has not made out a case warranting the interposition of a court of equity nor shown that respondent is acting outside the scope of his authority. There is no ground shown for the issuance of an injunction and the judgment of the court below should be affirmed.

RINER, Justice. KIMBALL, Ch. J., and BLUME, J., concur.

OPINION

RINER, Justice.

The plaintiff and appellant brought an action in the District Court of Laramie County seeking to enjoin A. M. Clark as Secretary of State of the State of Wyoming, defendant and respondent, from certifying to the county clerks of the several counties of the state for submission to the electorate at the next general election occurring on November 8, 1932, the question stated in a certain resolution adopted by the State Legislature and approved March 6, 1931. This resolution, omitting formal parts, is as follows:

"That in the present state of public agitation respecting the prohibition of the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors for beverage purposes by the Federal Constitution it is expedient to obtain an expression of the opinion of the electors of the State of Wyoming respecting the desirability of the repeal of the Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States;

"That to this end there shall be submitted to the electors of the State at the next general election the following question:

"'Shall the Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States prohibiting the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors for beverage purposes be repealed?'

"That it shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to certify the foregoing question to the county clerks of the several counties of the State of Wyoming not less than twenty-five (25) days prior to the next general election and it shall be the duty of the county clerks in the several counties to provide a place for the said question upon an official ballot in such manner that the electors shall have the opportunity of voting 'Yes' or 'No' to such question.

"That the Secretary of State be and he is hereby directed to transmit to the Congress of the United States a certificate of the results of the foregoing referendum."

Plaintiff's petition asserted the unconstitutionality of this resolution and the consequent illegal use and expenditure of public funds in election expense if the question embodied therein should be so certified; that the taxpayers and citizens of the state would suffer irreparable damage if the defendant should be permitted to thus act and that there is no adequate remedy at law afforded plaintiff.

The defendant, after the court had sustained in part his motion to strike out sundry portions of the petition as irrelevant, answered admitting his intention to comply with the requirements of said resolution and denied that plaintiff or anyone would suffer any injury by reason of such action. The answer further alleged that the resolution "was and is a valid, legal, and constitutional measure within the authority of the Legislature of the State of Wyoming to enact." Plaintiff filed a motion to strike out most of the allegations of the answer as constituting no defense and for judgment on the pleadings.

The cause was heard by the court solely upon the pleadings filed plaintiff's motions and a stipulation of the parties that plaintiff is a taxpayer and qualified elector of...