*1 495 City powers privileges Park, and of con Avon materially provisions tains different bonds the issue of city, provisions which in at were followed tempting to the bonds. Under issue Sec. of Article .III provisions special law of the State Constitution applicable provisions are exclusion of to the inconsistent City Apalachicola State, of law. See v. applicable This rule is to statutes 921, 112 Fla. So. R. 618. day. effective same that became Reversed. J., con- P. J. J., Terrell and

Whitfield, Buford, and cur. J., concur J. opinion Brown,

Strum judgment. County County, of Leon Commissioners, Board

The of George as Chairman Florida, and J. Sullivan, County, Flor of Leon Commissioners Board P. R. T. ida, and C. M. J. Ausley, Miller, Strickland Members of the Board Coun and W. W. Williams, County, Florida, L. Leon and W. ty Commissioners Error, Florida, The v. State Clarke, Plaintiffs in Error. rel. H. E. ex Moore, Defendant En Banc. 16, 1928.

Opinion filed October *2 Myers, Wm. Bloxmt Clarice, S. JD. Oven, W. J. B. F. Winthrop Finlay son, and D. Attorneys A. for the Plain- in Error; tiffs

C. L. Waller and Pepper, Attorneys Davis & for the De- fendant in Error. J. This cause is before us on writ of error to Brown,

review the action of the circuit court of Leon overruling and denying motion respondents, *3 plaintiffs in here, error quash the alternative writ issued in mandamus said cause and judg- also the order and ment said court in granting peremptory the writ of prayer mandamus for in the Moore, of H. E. com- manding the Board of Commissioners of Leon county persons composing and the said board to cause the name of Moore, said H. E. as a candidate for the office of tax assessor of Leon on county, the bal- in to be used the lots election to be in held county 6, on November 1928.

It appears from the relator, Moore, record that the H. E. respondents, only and one Clarke, of the W. L. were the candidates for the tax assessor of Leon in election held the Democratic .the party on 1928. 5, June The canvass of the votes for east respective the candidates showed the re- vote had tie, 1,437 in a each having sulted candidate received votes. canvassing This result was certified the board to the County Executive party, Committee of the Democratic meeting shortly at a of such held thereafter committee respondent of both names relator were placed before said committee for nomination as candidate of the assessor, the office of tax and that on the first ballot the vote was 7 to 4 in favor of the re- Clarke, spondent, whereupon nomination was made was named respondent, Clarke, and the as unanimous present. eleven members vote of all the nominee meeting of the com- relator, however, alleged that this The void, and action of no effect be- invalid and its was mittee acting represented eleven out cause the committeemen given persons to certain precincts, and no notice was years, on as far back previous who had been elected as committee from five as members executive county, theory being mem- that the precincts to hold until their previously elected continued bers thus elected, as Rev. and that inasmuch Sec. were successors vote, can- in ease of a tie Stats., provides that Gen. notify chairman of the executive vassing board shall duty thereupon of such be the and it shall committee meeting days, giving notice within ten chairman to call a committee of the writing members of the said to the ineeting null and void because was purpose thereof, this five statute to given required, the- no notice was alleged the'peti- It is not alleged holdover members. members persons had been elected as these who tion that years had ac- previous ever executive committee on It is membership such committee. cepted or exercised *4 voters of Leon inasmuch as the Democratic alleged that of the executive to elect a member were entitled twenty-one in precincts one of the from each committee precincts, in of its county, failed to elect ten these the but pre- from other .eleven elected men who were eleven meeting at such a could not act respectively cincts writing given to of notice in in the absence committee years, in to-wit: previous had been-elected members who precincts. in of the other One five 1914, 1920 and allegations is that the implication from these astonishing precincts of Leon in of the voters Democratic five of the Democratic executive elected members had never adopted, in primary law was while committee since precincts several other there have been no committeemen quite a period. elected for appear considerable It would legal questions therefore that, involved, aside from the political party members of said in residing precincts such had shown any indifference exercise voice in party give-them ground affairs as to no moral for com- plaint if precincts which had pro- elected members ceeded through the members elected to exercise com- plete power county. within the Whether the action of such composed executive committee of all eleven of the members who had been elected not, was is, however, question valid which it is unnecessary for us to determine this case. It further appears from allegations petition nomi- nation of respondent, Clarke, W. L. as a candidate for said the vote of the composed, committee thus through secretary its chairman was certified to the County Commissioners, Board of and such board at a meet- ing filing adopted held after the of such a reso- certificate lution that said providing placed Clarke’s name be on the general ballot election be held on November 6th September 7, 1928, as such nominee. On Relator Moore County petition filed with the Board of Commissioners signed by twenty-five than county, more electors of Leon qualified general election, to vote the said requesting said place Commissioners to the name of said relator general on the election, ballots to voted on which conformity petition was with 12038 of the although Laws of Florida of 1927. That relator had thus fully complied entitling with the law Florida him to have his name election ballot as aforesaid, yet the said commissioners refused to grant place the said and refused to the name of the relator on the adopted ballot as aforesaid and formal *5 resolution to that effect. attorney in said general

That the filed had therefore qtio circuit court an information in the nature of warranto the seeking respondent, Clarke, to right to test the of said proceeding had been aforesaid, nomination as but that such attorney ground that dismissed the Court on the authority to maintain an action was without filed the relator that nature said cause. That thereafter seeking injunction restrain an the same court a placing ing commissioners from nominee of "W. L. on the ballot as the said Clarke authority action of Democratic under'the aforesaid, September persons and that on said eleven judge, Love, the same Hon. E. C. did enter an order decreeing jurisdiction that the court was without to hear and determine said cause and dismissed the bill of com plaint. any That relator is therefore without other ade quate remedy petitioned than the writ of mandamus for. granted

The court below the alternative man- writ of prayed for, damus as to which in- respondent, Clarke, terposed quash upon following grounds: motion to (1) Because said clear complete writ showed no right performance sought the relator to the of the acts thereby. (2) compelled to be Because the said writ showed duty enjoined by peremptory part no clear and law on the respondents. (3) Because court is without questions jurisdiction to hear and determine the collateral necessary adjudicated involved and to be and controversies any right in as shown the writ before the relator anj'- duty upon part respondents performance "sought compelled to be could be shown. of the act county commissioners also filed a similar The board of quash. motion to overruling made an order September 21, the Court

On declining further, respondent plead motion, and the *6 an per- Court entered order for the issuance of the emptory commanding writ of mandamus said board of county commissioners, jointly severally, to cause Moore, name of E. said H. as a candidate for printed of Leon on the ballot to be used in to be election held on November 1928. brought Both are of these orders before us for review assignments this writ of error and the filed in connection herewith. major questions emphasized

Three have been counsel namely: arguments, their and oral written 1. validity Was the vel non of the committee’s action such a collateral matter as could not be considered on this' application for mandamus county to the of board commis- t sioners give

2. Did the failure 'to written notice to committee- years men who have in previous been elected pre- those cincts where none were elected in the June of this year, meeting county render the executive committee invalid ?

3. Regardless validity invalidity of the com- respondent, mittee’s nomination is the Clarke realtor Chap. entitled, under of the Laws of to man- require damus board of commissioners to print coming general his name on the ballot ? election question

If the third and last be answered in affirma- tive, questions consideration the first two becomes un- necessary. 1927, provides 12038 of the Laws of that -the board of each commissioners shall cause to be respective on the ballots to be used in their coun all

ties, put “the names candidates have who been by any any convention or nomination election of state or in this State political national when *7 same has been certified and filed with them not than more days 60 days nor less than 20 previous day to the of elec tion, which certificate shall contain person the name of each nominated and the office for which he is nominated signed by shall presiding secretary officer and by convention or canvassing primary board of such election, duly acknowledged by and be one or more' of them an acknowledgements before officer authorized take in provides this State.” It “Any qualified further that: elector participated who has not candidate, as a voter or in political furnishing a party nominee, a affairs of aforesaid, durimg its last convention primary election, or shall be entitled to have his or her name on said any office, upon request ballot for for him or her to be by petition candidate, signed, written in case of a candi twenty-five date for state or federal office at least qualified county participating therein; electors from each county municipal twenty- case of or at least qualified county municipality five electors within such or qualified ensuing gem which electors shall be to vote in the (Italics ours). eral election to be held.” fur The statute provides petition ther that such written shall be filed with days commissioners not more than 60 nor less days than before election. amended 9293 of the Laws of

This statute itself an Act amend Sec. 256 of Rev. which was amendatory Acts, Chaps. Both of these 9293- Gen. Stats. Stats., differ from Sec. of the Rev. Gen. original provided that said section for the board of print commissioners to on the ballots the name of all can- put by “any didates had caucus, who been nomination convention, meeting, mass election or other as- ’’ sembly any political party or faction this State. It will be observed only provide the amendatory Acts printing for the on the ballot of the names of candidates put been “any who have in nomination convention any election of political state or national party By this amendments, State.” these Legislature con- duty fined of the board of commissioners, so far as concerned, nominees were providing for the printing on the ballots of the names of such candi- “ dates as had been nominated convention or election.” printing As to the on the ballots of names qualified of a elector, petition, on amendatory Acts .changed the signers number of in case *8 of candidates'for state or federal office, from 500 electors but left the number as to candidates for office, 25 as it was before. But the most radical and im- portant change by made amendatory these in Acts Sec. 256, Eev. Stats., Gen. was the inclusion aof clause which evidently was designed impossible to make it for a defeated candidate in a primary election get or convention to his name on the general ticket in the election as a candidate against his opponent successful who had received the nomination of primary in the or convention. Sec. . 256, Rev. Stats., Gen. which was Sec. 10 of the Acts of amendatory as stood before the Acts of 1923 and to, provided any qualified 1927 above referred that elector by petition filed with board commissioners prescribed, require within the time could such board to cause his name printed, to be a candidate, upon as general official in election, regardless ballot of whether had participated, he as a candidate, pre voter or in the primary vious or Thus, convention. under as the law amendment, very it stood before the it was a easy matter candidate, for a defeated in primary, against to run opponent his general successful in the election. This evi oversight dent statute, or unforseen result original cured, part least, by providing at the amenda- was tory qualified get that for a his acts order elector by name on ballot election he petition, participated, candidate, “must have voter or political party affairs furnishing a nominee” primary “during election or convention its last conven- tion made, however, or No mention election.” is of a nominee furnished committee action. relator,

Was the E. Moore, EL entitled his name to have printed on the provisions ballot under the of Laws of 1927? he, substantially Was to use the lan- guage qualified the statute, par- elector who had not ticipated as a voter or in the political candidate affairs aof party furnishing a nominee and during its last conven- tion or election? relator, Moore, Counsel contend that question this should be answered in the affirmative; whereas counsel for respondent, Clarke, and board of commissioners, negative contend for a answer. It will be observed this statute confers a positive right qualified on a partici- elector who had- not pated, aas voter candidate, in the political affairs aof party furnishing a nominee convention or election, to have his upon peti- ballot *9 by twenty-five tion signed qualified county. electors of the duty It is the ministerial of county the board of commis- respect right sioners to this when it is shown to exist. The court below took the view that such right existed this respondent case. Counsel the for in the court below insisted, however, that inasmuch as Mr. Clarke had been by party’s nominated the committee, executive he was the party nominee and that as the participated relator had against candidate him primary, the he was not entitled to the of benefit this statute. that,

It is true Sec. 354 under and 355 of the Rev. Gen. candidates for nomination to an Stats., where two duty equal votes, becomes an number of it the receive notify the canvassing board to chairman the effect, and it there- the committee to that executive upon duty becomes said chairman to call a meet- ing of within days, said committee ten and at meet- such ing power by majority has committee to nominate vote, office, a candidate certify through and to secretary its chairman and the nomination to the board county commissioners, duty whose it would be- then come, under statute, to cause such nominee .of the. placed to be on official ballot be at voted ensuing election. So only the committee nominates when the which had been held fails to nominate. language The of this statute recognizes that this nomina- by tion made executive committee can be made after “the results of the said primary election had been convassed” and a tie shown. There is a clear distinc- tion between a nomination the voters in a elec- tion, and nomination an executive committee in case of although the election, tie in in either case the nominated person party. becomes the nominee of the It must ad- that, law, under mitted the nominee exec- named an lawfully utive committee legal party constituted is the nom- inee, provisions Stats., where the of Section Rev. Gen. apply complied party nominee, and are with. As the Legislature would seem that the would have accorded the nominee of the executive committee, resulting a tie from primary, protection vote in same as that accorded a nominee named in a election where was no there case, party. tie. In either the nominee is the nominee of the language Chapter But 12038 does not'afford protection. Counsel for the relator contend that omis- this Legislature protection sion extend a com- this *10 may to intentional, mitee’s nominee well have been so as safeguard rights party the members of the in case of by power abuse a committee. Counsel for relator also 354, call attention to the fact that under Section Rev. Gen. in Stats., given power, the committee a tie is case of vote a candidate by majority “to for nominate office.” Thus power the committee has the to nomi- nate, candidate, person a a has as who not been a candidate preceding primary in the case, election. In such it could hardly be contended that such committee’s nominee was nominee of election. While an executive com- recognized necessary mittee im- is our statutes as a machinery portant part political fact party, that a remains nomination a committee is not a nomina- by primary tion or convention. 354, Stats.,

Under Section Rev. committee’s Gen. right nominee has the offi- placed to have his name cial ballot the Board of Commissioners party. right 'nominee of the think is do not that this jWe by Chapter provides printing which for the repealed all have the names of candidates “who the ballots of on elec- by any convention or in nomination put been ’’ cumulative two statutes are tion, respect, etc. In this contradictory field inconsistent. There is a or rather than regard, in this and both operation of both statutes given must effect. Legislature, Chapter purpose the evident

It was right grant positive to an elector on eases, get printed upon his name the ballot certain thereto, provided, therein but addition petition as participated, right an elector who had withhold the from candidate, political in the affairs of a as a voter or preceding convention furnishing a nominee purpose plain words, In other was primary.

507 Legislature the prevent to an elector participated who had aas voter or candidate in primary, bolting the from the primary by action of that getting his on the against ballot as a candidate the such primary nominee of election. oversight part It was no a mere doubt Legislature that this protection same was not extended a party to candidate nominated after the party executive committee on account of failure to name a nominee reason aof tie vote between primary. Possibly oversight two candidates this was necessity due to the fact that the for such committee nomination is of such rare and unusual occurrence. Be that as may, we opinion, are of the as the lower evi- court dently was, that the right supply courts have no this part Legislature. omission on the To do so would be indulge in an legislative exercise of the power. Where language a ambiguous statute is mean- or doubtful in ing, may purpose courts well look policy the statute explain to elucidate meaning language used, but it is a well settled construc- principle of long language tion that so as the unambiguous, used is departure plain justi- from its and natural meaning is not by any consequences fied consideration of public its or of policy. It is also well settled that where a statute is incom- plete question or defective because the case was fore- beyond seen contemplated, or it is province of the courts supply omission, t'o though, even a result, the statute appears unfair, impolitic, nullity. Cyc., 36 complete or 1113-1115; Interpretation seq.; Black on of Laws, 35 et Moran, Fla., 417, 533; v. Simpson, Fine 74 77 R. v. So. State 542; 94 Fla. Simpson, So. R. v. Fla. Osborne 793, 114 So. R. 543.

In Moran, case of supra, Fine it was said this .v. court, speaking through Mr. Justice Ellis :

‘‘ construing interpreting In words of statute *12 be should borne mind that have no the courts legislation, of function and seek to ascertain the will Legislature. may imagine The courts an not intent, intent and bend of the letter the Act to that less, Maryland court, much indulge “can we inserting the license of striking out and and re- modeling with making express the view of the letter an which intent the statute its form does not native evidence. See Worthington, 471, Alexander v. 5 Md. legislator text 485. presumed The is to know mean- ing of words grammar, and Supreme rules of said the Court of the United States United v. States Gold- berg, 168 U. Sup. 95, S. Ct. 42 394, R. L. Sup. Ed. 18 Ct. 2 R. cited in Lewis’ Statutory Sutherland Con- struction, 366. Sec. In of State, the case ex rel. Jordan Buckman, v. 18 Fla., 267, Mr. Westcott, speak- Justice ing court, for the said that when of language a con- stitution or clear, statute plain is ambig- without uity, effect given must be to it accordingly. The lan- guage being plain uncertainty clear and there is no to explained. In speaking- case another the court ‘‘ Parkhill, Mr. through Justice said: The first rule of that, language construction is is and admits clear legislature meaning the should be of but one held plainly expressed what it and there have intended has Parker, v. for See is no room construction.” Palmer 389, 42 Fla., 52 It is allowable in- So. R. 398. interpretation. 2 terpret what has no Lewis’ need Construction, 366; Sec. Talbott v. Sutherland Stat. York, & Fidelity Casualty Md. 22 Co. of New 74 395; Rodebaugh Philadelphia Co., R. v. Atl. Traction 953. Pa. St. 358. Atl. R. words used AYherethe precise meaning have a definite and courts have no power go elsewhere in conjecture search order to meaning. restrict or on In- extend the Black terpretation of Laws 37. sup- Courts cannot correct posed errors, legislation. omissions or defects in “The object interpretation bring is to sense out used, words bring not to into them.” Black sense on Interpretation Laws, supra.

It appears that, regardless therefore of whether the' of respondent, Clarke, nomination by such executive com- mittee, not, was valid .or having he not been nominated either a convention or a primary election, court be- low was without error in awarding mandamus to the board of county prayed by relator, commissioners *13 Moore, he, Moore, for had participated not as a voter or candidate party in the a political furnishing affairs of for nominee question primary convention or election. compelled by This language is the conclusion inevitable of judgment statute. and The orders the court below must therefore be affirmed.

Affirmed. J., J. Strum, and

Whitfield concur. J., J. Buford,

Terrell dissent. J.- The record in this case shows that Wil- Whitfield, Party liam L. is the nominee of for Clarke the Democratic County, Florida, by Tax Assessor Leon virtue County action the Democratic Executive Com- taken Stats., 354 section mittee Sec. of the Rev. Gen. which under requires names of commissioners to have the certified, duly printed party, nominee of the when on at the election. Sec. 357 Rev. the ballots See Gen. Stats.

510 ‘‘ ’ ’

Although Party a nominee Democratic did furnish party through Committee, yet its Executive because primary tie vote election because party held convention, party no did not “furnish party nominee” of the “by any convention or “during election” or its last convention or elec tion.” Under amending Chap. Acts 9293 Acts' 1923 which Stats., amended Sec. Rev. Gen. ‘‘ ’’ any qualified elector, though participated he as a candi party date in the primary, last “shall be entitled have his” name ballots, election not aas candidate party upon but written signed by at least twenty-five county, electors of the party when the not had “by “furnished a any nominee” convention or election” or “during its last convention or primary elec ” tion.

Under the statutes as amended one who was a voter or party candidate in a primary election cannot his have printed on election ballots with name of the party candidate who was nominated a convention or primary election; but the statutes as amended do re- quire such exclusion of names of other candidates from ballots, party the election when the nomination is made primary. after a election Executive Com- pursuant mittee to Sec. of Rev. Gen. Stats. Even *14 party made Executive Com- though a nomination primary election law provided is mittee nominating provisions, Sec. 256 Rev. Gen. part of its Stats, the nam'es of unsuccessful can- as amended excludes primary gen- from the ballots at the in a election didates party nominated when the candidate is eral election 312, primary Secs. a convention or election. See An .Comp. Laws of 1927. executive com- 411 and 414 Gen. primary or a election. meeting mittee is not a convention specific is statute, Chap. 12038, Acts of The amended beyond plain its limitations terms, its to extend consti- judicial legislation permitted would be not tution. : (dissenting) J.

Buford, discloses appears in this case It to me that record nominee primary W. Democratic L. Clarke was the County. That for the Tax in Leon office of Assessor accomplished by and action nomination was the vote County (pur- Democratic Executive Committee law) had precinct suant to after the returns canvass for him disclosed a to exist in of votes cast tie the number opponent ma- for his election. The jority opinion his holds that Clarke 'is entitled to have placed general on the election nominee name ballot as the for the Party office of Tax Assessor of Democratic majority Leon agree opinion. and in this I with the is Party, Democratic he If is the nominee of the Clarke held result of the election such nominee as the County. Leon provisions of me that appears clear

It a candidate who was preclude one Acts of in a Democratic action of subject to the election having his from pur- has, opponent his when pursuant ballot governing the laws and the primary election suant I, therefore, party. can nominee same, become majority opinion. concur