Show blo BIO EFFECTS OF A SMALL MISTAKE LAST week J in an article on trustees and school meetings J we replied to some questions propounded by a country correspondent in regard to the ruling of the chairman at a recent school meet ing and also gave some come advice as to the best course for the people to take under the circumstances described by the writer of the letter we are now in receipt of a communication muni cation signed by the chairman of the meeting referred to with a request for ita its publication we cheerfully comply here is the letter minus only the introduction and signature the school meeting referred to was called by the trustees in consequence of petitions presented to them by a number of persons for the building of the schoolhouses school houses desired afler after an organization was effected the voters present decided to vote by ballot the chairman had bad by him the official list of registered voter voters he told the voters plainly several times that if they were in favor tavor of a tax they were to write yes yes yea on the ballot if ifton con write no As each person deposited his ballot be he gave his name to the secretary maeh bach name was compared with the official list and ail all were found to be regular there were found to be 39 names and thirty nine ballots on examining the ballots and counting the votes there were found to be 25 YES 10 no and four ballots unmarked the chairman then announced that as there were 39 qualified aed ded voters present it required 26 yens yeas to make a two thirds majority vote and that as there were but bat 25 yeas the vote to levy jevy the tax was lost with due deference to your dei doi cealon in the matter 1 still hold that the chairman was right according to section sub sec see 4 which says a two thirds majority y of the qualified voters present at a meeting not a majority of those who wrote or did not write on their ballots now if a vote had been carried to levy a tx tax I 1 do not believe that even the editor of the NEWS would rule that another meeting could be called within the same year to annul said vote but as the vote is for no tax why does not that vote hold good for one year on the same principle being that the tax is named in the law an annual tax we publish the foregoing to show how easily a person may maybe be mistaken and how bow careful every one should be who attempts to con atrue the law jaw it appears from the airmans ch own statement of this case that be he has set aside the expressed wishes of the qualified voters of his district through misunderstanding the law acting upon that error and being a little more technical than cautious reference ree Kee mence rence to the statute from which he quotes will show that he has hag altered the sense of the law by the ornis omission sion slon ot of a word a small thing in fact but a big affair in its consequences we do not accuse him of ot dropping this word intentionally tio nally but it is evident that his ruling at the meeting was based on his incorrect reading and the people eo so far have had to bear the consequences he quotes the law as US saying that the tax shall be decided by a two thirds majority of the qualified voters present at a meeting and adds in his own words not a majority of those who wrote or did not write on th their air ballots now the law reads gfa sfa a two thirds majority vote ac by omitting the word vote he changes the sense of the clause take the law as us it stands with the rule of the meeting that the voting should be by ballot and the effect is the exact reverse of what he endeavors to establish ta blish the question Is not how many voters were present at the meeting but how many votes were cast by qualified voters resident in the district and present at the meeting HO he shows himself that there were only 35 votes and that 26 25 of them were in the affirmative which is more inore than the two thirds majority required by the statute for the levying of a school tax the four blanks were not votes but the chairman by his bis ruling not only made the blank pieces of paper to be votes but virtually threw throw their weight as such auch against the tho votes of the majority the meaning of the law is plain it takes a two thirds majority vote to levy a tax and those who cast the vote must be first qualified voters v second residents in the dt district third present at the meeting when the vote is given the facts in this case as stated by both parties are that 35 votes were cast who voted had the necessary i qualifications and that 25 out of the whole number voted in the affirmative what can be clearer i then than that the yens yeas carried cardea the vote by the required majority now in reply to the last part of the above letter seeing that the vote waw was in favor of the tax we ask in the airmans ch own words if why does not that hold good for a year the answer is simply simp y through his mistake and we wo donot believe that even the chairman of that meeting would rule that the wishes of the large majority of legal egal voters lna ina in a district should be ren rendered ere abortive by the misunderstanding of one man we therefore repeat our advice that the trustees call another meeting get all the qualified voters in the dis brict to attend and then let all things bo be done according to law and equity with good feeling and fair dealing all round |