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

of the title of the bill on the petit
tion. No exact copy Of the bill was
attached to the petition. He waived
the alleged defect as to the warning
clause not being at the heads of the
petitions, or the size of the paper, or
LEGALITY of signatures.
Mr.. Pogue's Argument.
He contended that many of the
Iprecedents from other states had no
bearing on this case, as this state
was acting under new system, that
in the constitution itself was self
enacting. Direct legislation was a
new departure in which the people
sought to protect themselves against
Outrageous laws. The people re-
serve dto themselves the primary
fright to vote on all laws imposing
new taxes, and all laws guarantee
ing the right to a vote on any matter
were construed literally in favor of
the citizen and against the officials
attempting to limit that right. Such
rights could not be abridged by an
unreasonable act of the Legislature.
It appeared from the record that
the plaintiff sent a reliable agent to
the secretary of state for a copy of
the bill sought to be referred. He
did not ask for certified copy, and
was given copy of the bill as intro
dueed In the legislature. After
wards the title to the bill was amend
ed, not so as to change the title, but
to make 1t read in addition that it
repealed a certain section of the
code. The initiative petition re-
quires a full and correct copy of the
title and text of the measure" and
the referendum petition shall con-
tain a full and correct copy OF the
measure. The measure" was the
law sought to be referred to the peo-
pie, and the title of the statute was
not part of the bill. The title
was a legitimate aid In ascertaining
the meaning and intention of the
legislature. The title was part OF an
act, but not a part of the measure or
The law.
Was the petition good without the
title in full? The law was defined
md specified by the title. This pc
.ltion did set out a full and corr Nct
,opy of the measure itself. He
showed the court several titles of
bills enacted by this very legislature
with titles so long that no room
would remain for a single signature,
o say nothing of copy of the meas
ire itself.
II was absurd and unreasonable
o say that this was a mandatory
provision of complicated enactment
~ a careless legislature. The peo-
lie had a right to vote on this mat
er. and they asked that the statute
,e followed in It's plain terms and
he right the people had must be
In a reasonable manner as
| strict construction would make this
aw impossible to be followed.
What Crawford Said.
The encouragement argued that
he law of June Z. 1909. required
egislation to carry II into effect. He
lenied that the direct legislation
were not self-enactlng
General laws were enacted as to the
manner of exercising initiative and
'eferendum He did advise the sec
etary of state TO reject the petition
or the University referendum for
he reason that Il did not set forth
| correct copy OF the bill including
he title. Technical and clerical er-
'ors did not permit complete omls-
lions of a part of the whole of the |
title. No mans opinion could de-
'ide what was substantially the act |
n question.
Gould any man who read that Pc |
ition fail TO understand what he +,
vas signing?" asked Ford.
II will admit that no one was de-
'eiyed," said Crawford. '"But the !
'eople must have some rule 10 go
~ II the legislature passed a bill |
IS defective as this one is, the courts
would not sustain II. BY direct leg |
Station We must proceed as carefully |
IS the legislature itself. II would
lot do to depart from the forms laid |
lown, and the only safe rule was to
ollow the law. To follow the law
would not do In enact
ng laws, and was not safe in repeal
ng them. No omissions could be
olerated, He cited many learned
to sustain his contention
hat there can be no omission of any
me thing contained in the original.
This bill attached TO the petition did
nnfafn Nu.g..g,., "a