The Athena press. [volume] (Athena, Umatilla County, Or.) 18??-1942, 1906-02-02
SAY U'REN IS WRONG
SALEM LAWYERS QUESTION
HIS VIEWS ON INITIATIVE.
Each measure Submitted to a Vote
Stands by Itself for Adoption
or Rejection.

Salem lawyers do not agree with the
view of w. s. U'Ren, expressed that
where two measures are submitted by
initiative, each covering the same
subject, the one receiving the greater
number of affirmative votes shall be
considered to have been adopted. 1t
is asserted that the plain reading of
the constitution makes such view
untenable, for it is provided in the
initiative aud referendum amend
ment that any measure referred to
the people shall take effect and be-
come the law when it is approved by
a majority of the votes cast thereon,
aud not otherwise.
Ex-Governor Lord who was for a
number of years on the supreme
bench, and who is recognized as one
of the ablest lawyers in the state, de
clares that Mr.. U'Ren's Interpretation
of the constitutional provision is
wrong. In answer to an inquiry he
said:
"When two proposed laws are sub
mitted to vote of the people, each
bearing in part upon the same sub
ject, the people do not vote upon one
measure as against the other. Each
measure stands by itself, and either
or both may be adopted or rejected.
II each is approved by majority of
the votes cast thereon, both are
adopted, and see no authority for
the courts to declare that one shall
be in effect aud that the other shall
not When two conflicting acts are
passed by the legislature, one can be
upheld and the other rejected, for one
must be'passed after the other, and
the latest expression Of legislative
will must stand. But when two
measures are submitted to vote of
the people action upon them is taken
at the same time, and neither has
priority"
w. T. Slater takes the same view
and expresses the opinion that if two
laws should be approved by the peo-
pie, with some of their provisions in
irreconcilable conflict, the courts will
be compelled to declare them void SO
far as they are in conflict, and if the
provisions which conflict are vital to
the whole measure, the law must fall
entirely. Mr.. Slater says:
'There is nothing in the constitu-
tion which gives the courts right to
say which of two conflicting laws
shall become effective, where both
have received affirmative majorities
The constitution plainly says that a
measure referred to the people shall
become law when it is approved by
a majority of the votes cast thereon.
and not otherwise, and the fact that
one law receives 10000 affirmative
votes and the other only $4,000 affirm
ative votes does not form basis for
declaring that one shall be the law
and the other shall not.
1.-THE question submitted to the peo
pie Is not which of two laws shall be
adopted. Each law stands by itself,
and the people have power to adopt or
reject any and all laws submitted.
For myself, 1 shall feel compelled to
vote NO on nearly all measures,
as the only safe course. F."
A. 0. Condit is of the same opin-
ion and asserts without hesitation
that there is no authority for declar-
ing one of two conflicting laws effec-
tive and the other rot effective, be-
cause one received larger affirmative
vote than the other.
George q. Bingham, a leading
member of the Salem bar, says that he
does not see what foundation there
can be for the assertion that when
conflicting laws are adopted by the
people at the same election, the courts
can declare one effective and the other
not. He thinks it perfectly clear
that If both receive majority votes in
the affirmative, both are adopted, and
if their provisions are in irreconoil-
able conflict. the courts would be
obliged to declare them void, 1t
would require litigation to determine
to what extent the laws may be in
conflict.
Mr.. Bingham believes that il all the
proposed measures should be submit
ted it will be necessary to vote "No''
on them in order to avoid complica-
tions.