The true northerner. [volume] (Paw Paw, Mich.) 1855-1920, 1892-08-03

Minus the Jewel"
Under the above heading the Decatur
Republican of the 2Sth ult. makes "A
vicious attack upon the Board of Super
visors of this county because, forsooth,
they declined To accept the prosecuting
attorneys Interpretation OF the law re-
garding the resubmission of the local
option question. Because this journal
cannot look upon the question from the
narrow standpoint of the Republican,
that sheet charges bribery and all sorts
of corruption, and the writer of the ar
ticle referred to cached i'm his bones" to
charge the Board with being bought up
by the ''saloon interests" but this he
hardly dared do. But the charge he
did make was no less preposterous. He
says: "There is well defined idea that
it was democrat pressure brought to
bear in a tender spot and where 1t
would do the most good" OF the fifteen
supervisors voting on the motion To re-
submit, ten were Republicans, and does
the Republican mean to charge these
gentlemen with selling out the interests
of their party to the five Democrats The
only mentions Mr.. Killefer) present?
The idea is too ridiculous for serious
consideration.
The positson taken by the prosecutor
was, substantially, that only voters
whose names appear on the poll list for
the general election of 1S90-two years
ago-were eligible as petitioners for
new election. The Board did not ac-
cept this Interpretation of the law. At
the local option election in 1890, the
petitions, verified as required by law,
were accepted as being regular aoithom
reference TO the poll lists, which were
IN, han
a doubt as to the petitioner being n
qualified voter. Had the theory of the
prosecutor obtained, the petitions of
1890 would not have contained the
requisite number of voters and the
election could not have been called. 1t
would be eminently unfair to adopt
different standard for the two elections
and require as petitioners at the pres
ent time only such electors as happened
to vote at the election of 1890. Further,
the law requires that in cases where a
transcript of the poll list is not furnish
ed the petition must be accepted as reg
ular, if properly verified. If the theory
of the prosecutor prevailed we should
see the townships of Geneva and Covert
furnishing petitions on which were the
names of persons who are legal electors
at the present time, while in every other
township in the county only such cleo
tors as voted at the general election of
1890 and still reside IN the township,
would be eligible. Does the writer of
the Republicans article believe that
such state of affairs was contemplated
by the law We think not
Again: The writer says that the pros
ecutor ''read decision of the Supreme
Court in the Eaton county case that
L.. - al
Mills conceded that the prosecutors
"advice on this point was correct"
Neither the position of the prosecutor
nor the statement of the Republican is
correct In Friesner VS. The Common
Council of Charlotte, SO n. w. Rep. Is,
(the decision cited by the prosecutOr,)
the Court holds that if for any reason
certified transcript of any poll list
shall not have been procured, it shall
be sufficient If the UhOte number Of all
the petitioners is equal TO One;fourM of
the number Of all the qualified electors Of
such county, as shown by the returns or
county canvass of the last preceding
election" 1--WE quote ger bdtim from the
decision cited.) From this it is evident
that the Supreme Court holds the law
to mean that any legal etect0r may sign
such petition and that because voter
did not happen to vote at the last gen.
eral election is no reason that he should
be disfranchsed, as the prosecutor held
and as the writer in the Republican at
tempts to have us believe.
The Supervisors were guided by the
best legal advice obtainable and dis
charged IA plain duty in the only way
they could discharge it,
Such vindictive attacks on an honor
able body of gentlemen as the RepubH-
can INDUCES in will neither make
friends for itself nor for the cause it
espouses.