Daily capital journal. (Salem, Oregon) 1903-1919, 1907-06-25

Iulu 0OJ SpeClty LudI the wal ulue
must be part of the petition. There
was a general presumption that
these petitions we're genuine and
honestly and fairly obtained. II the
substantial right thing has been
done, IL the spirit of the law and con-
stitution have been complied with,
this should stand. They were at
tacking defect, not a single sigma
ture was called in question. There
was no lack of compliance with the
spirit and general purpose of the
| law. Whether one bill or the other
stood or fell was not material, as a
far deeper question was involved. 1t
was here contended that on a merely
technical defect, in a special act of
the legislature could defeat the SOL
emnly enacted amendment to the
constitution. Could the fundament-
al rights of the people be nibbled
away by constant encroachment.
This referendum amendment, was a
solemn declaration by the people
that they stand above the legisla-
|ture. The unlimited and unbroken
power of the legislature to make
laws ended when the direct legisla-
|tion amendment was added to the
constitution. The people were placed
above the legislature and and above
the government, and Judge Web
ster contended th' legislature had
no right to define the form of petit
tion or the style of same II mani
festly and Intentionally attempted to
limit and embarrass the constitution
In the law of the recent legislature.
All that was required was that five
per cent of the voters sign a petit
tion for the referendum, and file 1t
with the secretary of state, and
whether IL was rolled on corncob
and tied with a tow string, or on
pink paper scented with some deli
cate perfume, as the legislature
might declare, as was contended by
counsel against the referendum,
There was no legislation permitted
as to the forms of the petition. The
legislature could provide for submit
ting the questions referred TO the
people after the petitions are got up
and filed. The enactment of the last
legislature. hedging about the right
10 submit petitions with all kinds of
technical details and red tape, was
In derogation of tho rights guaran-
.eed to the people by the constitu-
ion. was clearly unconstitutional.
More Technically.
Mr.. Malarkey in reply attacked
he position of Judge Webster. that
he warning was not part of the pc
ition. He argued that every word |
,f the law must be considered In the |
OF the law.
"Why didn't the legislature say
he warning should precede and be
4 part OF the petition?" asked the !
ut meant that Il should precede |
he petition II Il did not say So"
,aid Malarkey Mr.. Malarkey then t,
made some extended general re-
marks Intended TO illuminate the |
mind OF the court, but In which the |
reported could not trace the slightest |
'elation TO the subject in controver- !
~. He still hinged all his conten-
ion on the warning clause being |
omitted as fatal defect of the pc
itions.
More by Webster.
He offered as rejolnder that the |
direct legislation clause of the con-
ititutlon was self-actlng. II re-
lulred no hand-out information from |
4 set OF men calling themselves leg
slators whose aggregate wisdom
was no greater than of any other
equal number of men.
A Word by Crawford.
The attorney-general said the |
warming was not In any sense nee
sssary part OF the procedure of sub
hitting a matter To vote of the |
people. II stated no fact necessary |
10 the determination of anything. |
and hence was not material
Objected to bingham.
ITnon CaO a. Ringham haing an
louneed as associate counsel, attor-
neys for tho Linn county counsel |
objected to his appearing In a gener-
II manner. Unless he showed his I
or stated who employed |
him. he could not appear. He then
stated that he appeared for the Uni
'ersity.
Mr. Pogue said the University had