Daily capital journal. (Salem, Oregon) 1903-1919, 1907-06-25
ARGUMENTS
AGAINST THE
REFERENDUM
CONTINUED from page one).
MaIarkey's Contention.

MaIarley's Contention.
Mr.. Malarkey cited Nebraska
decision that upheld a law declaring
that petitioners must give their age
when signing the petition. II re-
ferred to proof of bona fide sigma
lures, the genuineness of which It
attacked In this case.
He argued that because the legis-
lature required certain forms to be
complied with, that requirement was
material, and must be complied
with. Legislative requirements
were mandatory, not merely direc-
tory. He charged that signers were
secured for selfish purposes or for
pay. People signed then for self
defense. He also charged that peo-
pie would sign almost any petition
Only per cent had to be secured to
sign the referendum petition. The
95 per cent also had a right to be
heard. The legislature wanted to
preserve the purity of the ballot.
Mr.. Malarkey contended that no one
could be prosecuted for signing the
petitions illegally, when the warning
was omitted from the head of each
sheet. He said to escape harrass-
ment he had signed all petitions pre-
sented TO him. He had probably
signed some twice. Prominent men
al lW nd NJ h.
twice. If the contention is sustained
by the court that It Is mandatory to
print the warning against signing a
petition illegally, all referendum pc
titions prepared this year will be
nulllfied. Tls great argument for
his contention was that statutory re-
quirements to prevent frauds in cleo
tions, petitions and all political pro-
ceedings were held by the courts to
be mandatory
Judge Wcbstcr's Review.
Judge Webster said he would not
offer himself as witness, as Mr..
Malarkey had done In this case. He
could present a far different state of
facts II he went upon the witness
stand, lie oontended that Il was not
necessary to prove the last legsla-
ture guilty of any absurdity. 10 had
convicted itself. The warning clause
was not required by the law to be
printed on the petition. People who
signed petitions indlscriminately
would not he deferred by forty warn
Ing clauses. "THE FORMS HERE
IN GIVEN ARE NOT MANDATORY"
was the language OF the statute itself
That made them merely directory
This law went further and said no
merely clerical and technical defect
should defeat petition for the ref
erendum, The law did say Il was
felony TO sign these petitions twice
or illegally, but Il was not the petit
tion or part of the petition itself. by
the very terms of the law the warn
Ing was not "A part of the petition.
The power of the referendum was
exercised by the people of the state,
and signing II made IN eslgners' In
dlyIdual petition. the individual re-
sponslve action of each slgner The
absurdity of the petitioner holding
out red flag of warning to himself.
warning himself against committing
a felony against himself. Every
American citizen was presumed to
know the law. Why did they attack
this technical weakness alone, when
there was half dozen such technie-
al loopholes, and II was almost Inn
possible TO get up one of these PEE
titlons that was technically correct.
The legislature could tie up all the
constitutional rights of the people
with absurd teohnioalities, With It's
power To attach an emergency clause
the legislature could nullify the
right OF the people To annul the con-
stitution itself. IL sent by a man.
instead of brought by man" Il
was clearly illegal. The law itself