The Virginia enterprise. [volume] (Virginia, St. Louis County, Minn.) 1893-19??, 1898-09-09

could not not be improved upon;
that % add anything to It would
|injure il and tend to uncertainty
instead Of an Improvement.
Judge Mitchell, ID State ys.
Rapp, SO Minnesota, page e5, IL
speaking Of the description Of 4
proposed new road, says:
Tor the purposes Of informa-
ton 70 those residing in and IA !
mlliar with the neighborhood, it
would oe difficult to suggest q
better description that this. In
IS not pretended that the road
and lake referred to do not ex-:
ist, or that the points Of begin.
nlng and termination Of the pro-
posed highway cannot be readily
ascertaiained. The description
is perfectly good" =.
The purpose there, as here,
was to furnish a description
which would be INELIGIBLE to
the people who were to consider
the subject, 49,. -.
No member of my firm but
myself ever examined the petit
ton in question with a view/of
determining its sufficiency. I
did not dictate the petition, but
it there are any mistakes in in !
am willing TO take the response
bility, for I saw it before it was
put in circulation, but I deny
that there are any and in this
view I am supported by at least
q dozen lawyers in Duluth with
whom I have talked. aud I have
not heard of a contrary opinion
from anyone, except Mr.. Win
dom and John NJ. Martin, kr.
Martin, if sober, may possibly
know the difference hetween
a ''jurisdictional defect" and q
dishonest bubble, but I believe
there are times when he would
not be able to make the prope,
distinction.
/: MIR. Berg's first objection is
bad, aad his other nineteen are
not only bad, but large number
Iof them are dishonest and, if no,
absolutely false, are intention
ally misleading.
+ Mr.. Berg calls attention K
three petitions that he says have
no certificate following the petit
ton. I deny that there are OF
ever have been any such peti
lions in his office on the St
Louis county division question
and he knows it. The fact il
that the certificate of the person
lgettiug signatures follows thu
petition in every instances; il
some cases the certificate. i.
/ placed before the :: signatures
but in no case before the petit
ton. and there is nothing in tn.
4 statute that directs that the GER
4 tiicate shall be after the sigma
4 lures and nothing to indicate
any preference for. the position
Of the certificate, as to whether
4 it shall be before or after thu
signatures.
Mr.. Berg calls attention K
several petitions upon which, he
says there is no certificate.
say that there is not: one, ant
my statement can be verified BY
an examination of the petition:
j and Mr.. Berg's cannot. The
fact Is that sometimes the per
sons circulating the petition
would fill more than one page
headed with the. petition, ii
some instances two*$or three
pages, or more; than !, the three
or four sheets OF paper were
bound together and a: certificate
followed the last one, reciting
that the person signing the same
obtained all the signatures of all
the signers upon. the foregoing
petitions. To say that there was
no certificate because there was
not a seperate one attached tc
each piece of paper, is worse
pettifogging than is generally
INDUCED in before a Justice OF
the Peace, by even the most dis
reputable lawyers.
Mr.. Berg also says that one
list Of names has no heading for
the petition. Mr.. Franz Hicks
of the City of Duluth circulated
one of the petitions and certified
to the number of names that he
lOhfa,npd ,nOn If and Mr. 1omoe