
    State, ex rel. Peter Fowlie et al., v. J. A. Painter.
    [Filed March 9, 1892.]
    Original application for mandamus.
    
    
      Lamb, Ricketts & Wilson, and J. R. Webster, for relator:
    It is not competent for the legislature to restrict the right of division further than the people themselves in the constitution have seen fit to do. (Cooley on Constitutional Limitations, sec. 64; State v. Williams, 5 Wis., 308; Page v. Allen 58 Pa. St., 338; People v. Albertson, 55 N. Y., 55; Opinion of the Justices, 117 Mass.,' 604; Baird v. Todd, 27 Neb., 782.) The constitution clearly intends that only such electors as express themselves on the proposition submitted shall be considered in the count. (Oakley v. Aspinwall, 3 N. Y., 568; State v. Lancaster Co., 6 Neb., 482.) The majority rule is a fundamental part of the law and of republican government. (Sec. 1, art. 17, Const.; also sec. 19, art. 3; sec. 24, art. 3; sec. 2, art. 14.) Mandamus is the proper remedy. (State v. Graham, 17 Neb., 43; State v. Comr’s Lancaster Co., Id., 85-87.)
    
      Sullivan & Gutterson, Kirkpatrick & Holcomb, and Thomas Darnall, contra:
    
    
      Mandamus will not lie. (Ex parte Ostrander, 1 Den. [N. Y.], 679; People v. Commissioners of Emigration, 22 How. Pr. [N. Y.], 291; People v. Brooklyn, 1 "Wend. [N. Y.j, 318; Peoplev. Supervisors, 12 Johns. [N. Y],414; Hullv. Supervisors, 19 Id., 259; Pack v. Presque Isle Supervisors, 36 Mich., 377; Peck v. Kent Supervisors, 47 Id., 477; Post v. Sparta, 63 Id., 323; State v. Commissioners of Douglas Co., 18 Neb., 506; State v. Weber, 20 Id., 473; State v. Clary, 25 Id., 403.) Principles observed in determining the constitutionally of statutes. (Cooley’s Constituional Limitations, 183; State v. Robinson, 1 Kan., 17; Davis v. Portland Water Committee, 14 Ore., 98; Weister v. Hade, 52 Pa. St., 477.) Plenary power in the legislature for all purposes of civil government is the rule. A prohibition to exercise a particular power is an exception. (People v. Draper, 15 N. Y., 532; Thorpe v. R. & B. R. Co., 27 Yt., 140; Cresap v. Gray, 10 Ore., 349.) When the lowest limit only is fixed in the fundamental law, the legislature may act without restraint in the ascending scale. (Alexander Cou/nty Clerk v. People, 7 Col., 155; State v. Supervisors of Portage Co., 24 Wis., 49.) The effect of the statute is to increase the number of votes necessary to divide a county which is clearly within the legislative power. (State v. Winkelmeir, 35 Mo., 103; State v. Francis, 95 Id., 51; State v. Sutterfield, 54 Id., 393; State v. Brassfield, 67 Id., 331; State v. Mayor, 73 Id., 435; State v. Binder, 38 Id., 451; Bassett v. Mayor, 37 Id., 270; State v. Swift, 69 Ind.» 505; Stevenson v. Babeock, 17 Neb., 188; State v. Lancaster Co., 6 Id., 474; State v. Gosper, 3 Id., 285.) If in enacting section 11 the legislature exceeded its authority, not only the section mentioned, but the entire act is void. • (Cooley on Constitutional Limitations [6th Ed.], 211, 212; Monroe v. Collins, 17 O. St. 665; State v. Com. of' Perry Co., 5 Id., 497; State v. Donsowmay, 28 Wis., 541; Campan v. Detroit, 14 Mich., 276; Willard v. People, 5 111., 461; Commonwealth v. Potts, 79 Pa. St., 164; Baker v. Braman, 6 Hill [N. Y.], 47; State v. Kinzer, 20 Neb., 176; Myers v. Fhiglish, 9 Cal., 342; People v. Mathews 47 Id., 442.
   Per Curiam.

For the reasons stated in the case of State, ex rel. Packard, v. Nelson, ante, p. 132, the demurrer to the petition is sustained and the action

Dismissed.  