The morning Astorian. [volume] (Astoria, Oregon) 1899-1930, 1900-02-04
PETERSON is
STILL THE MAN
Three Roads" Matter Is Yet
Undecided.
----
FULTONS STRONG OPINION
Declares the Petition to BE Illegal
on Several Points-No Final
Vote Yet Taken.
FULTONs STRONG OPINION


believe that the county commissioners
would take definite action. one way
or tho other. on the "three-r0ads" pc
tlion yesterday. the matter n just
about az far from final issue as II was
yesterday morning. The commissioners
adjourned yesterday afternoon without
hayiag taken final action in the mat
Ter although legal opinions galore had
already been submitted. The main fea-
ture Of the days proceedings was the
reception and discussion OF a solicited
opiulor Of Charles w. Fulton. When,
on the preceding day. Il was decided
to ask Dir. Fulton's advice on the mat
tei, Il was believed that this action
was beine taken with view TO accept
ing this opinion as conclusive, as far
az the legal merits Of the controversy
we're concerned, but the days proceed
lngs proved this conclusion In error
as the ultimate pgints Of disagreement
were evidently made without regard
for The opinions OF Mr.. Fulton or any
one else.
Il Is difficult to say Just wherein
the commissioners disagree. That
they 30 disagree Is proved by their in
ability to come TO an understanding.
Il would be neither improper nor un-
jus; TO say that upon the final vote
of Commissioner Peterson depends the
fat, OF the measure, for Il Is only Mr..
Pclers0n's vote that now remains In
doubt. Why he hesitatrs 10 so on
record h. connundrum but the pro-
ccedings show that ne does hesitate.
and that Il is this hesitation on his
part that holds the whole matter in a
state OF statue quo. This action is con-
trary 20 the wishes Of the friends Of
the measure. however, for they express
every desire to have the question
brought 10 an issue, one way or the
other so that some definite conclusion
may be reached on the proposition.
A. the matter now stands, there is no
question as TO the validity Of the Pc
,ton as far as the required number
of signatures $ concerned II is E.e
legal phase OF the matter which now
commands the chief attention. In this
connection 1t may be said that Mr..
Flltons opinion has a most important
bearng II is as follows:
Astoria. February 3.J-To the Honor
able. the County Court Of Clatsop Coun-
~. Gentlemen In compliance with
your request, / have investigated the
question you submitted 20 me. namely:
may one who Is shown by the poll
looks Of the last election to have voted
only for state and district officers, and
not for county officers, II he was then
and still Is an actual resident and voter
Of this county, Join in petition and
be counted as one of the petitioners, TO
the county court to levy a tax for 4
public Improvement, mentioned in Sec
lions 22ii and 22l2, Hill's Code?
have not been able to arrive at
conclusion entirely satisfactory to my
self. am not aware that our supreme
court has ever had occasion to construe
the statute in question in that particu-
lar,
The statute provides, that whenever
the majority Of the legal voters of any
county, as shown by the poll
books of the last preceding election,
shall petition the commissioners
OF such county," etc.
1t seems to have been the purpose of
the trainers of this statute to make
''the poll books Of the last preceding
election the conclusive test
Section Il of Article IL Of the consti-
tuition provides that, all qualified
electors shall vote in the election pre-
cinct in the county where they may
reside for county officers, and in any
county in the state for state officers, or
any county or congressional district in
which such electors may reside for
members of congress-
Thus, it will be seen, that il il ap-
pears from the poll books that voter
did not vote the county ticket, the fact
that his name appeared on the poll
book would not be evidence that he
was legal voter of the county.
He may have been resident OF the
county, but voting out Of his precinct;
or he may have been a resident of some
other county of this congressional dis
tnct present here ON election day, vot-
ing for state and district officers.
If 1t is the purpose of the statute to
make the poll books the conclusive and
only test by which ones right TO join
in petition shall be determined, then
1t would seem that one who is shown
by the poll books only to have voted
for state and district officers, could not
be recognized as petitioner.
1t seems to me, however, that such
a construction takes into consideration
the letter rather than the spirit OF the
statute. / have assumed that the stat
ute does not permit one whose name
does not appear on the poll books of the
last preceding election, to join In such
petition and that majority of those
whose names appear as voters Of the
county by svch poll books must Join
in such a petition in order to give the
county court jurisdiction to levy the
tax, and while am disposed to believe
that such is the proper construction Of
the statute, l have not considered that