Daily capital journal. (Salem, Oregon) 1903-1919, 1907-08-08

tary of state. THAT WAS THT
oRDER OF THE SOVEREIGN PEG
PILE FOR A VOTE TO BE TAKEN
The legislature was prohibited
from undertaking to enact details II
the provisions of the constitution It.
self were set forth with sufficiently
definite detail to give the people the
Referendum. Judge Webster said
the people could not be restricted as
to whether they should have thirty
names, or a hundred names, or a
thousand, or one name on a sheet of
paper. If the legislature was not
trying to cripple the constitutional
right of the people, why did the
Legislature pass this law requiring a
warning clause with an emergency
clause? THE PEOPLE WERE
THUS DEFEATED AND DEFRAUD-
ED FROM EXERCISING THE
REFERENDUM RIGHT, when laws
were passed that took away this
ISVhSbiIutlOudi TlB0J llSelI.
Forms Were Empty.
NO SUBSTANTIAL LEGISLA-
TION COULD BE ENACTED IN
THE FORM OF A POEM. No part
lof a poem could creat.' law. Judge
Webster said so far as the petition
ers were concerned, each was an
original, individual petitioner as a
sovereign voter, exercising a privil-
ege which they had a right to prefer
and a check they could not abandon.
Shall the right of the people to
have a vote on any bill be defeated
by mere form, a form that is in its
nature merely directory. The OPP
position had relied upon technicali-
ties while the petitioners must E -ly
upon principle. There was great
principle involved and that principle
was back of the humblest slgner Of
these petitions.
The University Case.
Argument was opened by Mr..
Pogue in the mandamus proceedings
against the University of Oregon APP
preparation. He went over the
grounds heretofore covered by him
self and others. He held the atten-
tion of the court very closely. His
main point was that avs affecting
political rights of the people must
be construed literally and II the law
in this case was construed literally
It must be construed as only
directory and not mandatory. It
was admitted that the petition was
signed by the requisite number of
legal voters, hence II must be al
lowed to stand and go upon the bal
lot.
Mr.. Pogue referred to a passage
In italics from Mr.. Malarky's brief:
"It is dangerous for the courts to be
wiser than the law" He said 1t was
for the Legislature TO try
to be wiser than the constitution.
Thursday Morning.
Mr.. Pogue explained further when
the court resumed its session at o,
M. his position that all laws must be
deemed constitutional unless plainly
shown TO be otherwise.
Attorney General Crawford again
the invalldity IL the warn
Ing clause. II was ultra wires" and
he called 1t other hard names. The
legislature itself could not order the
on a bill. without petl-
lion, but THE PETITION OF FIVE
PER CENT OF THE VOTERS WAS
IN ITSELF AN ORDER TO PLACE
rHE BILL SOUGHT TO BE REFER
RED TO A VOTE ON THE BALLOT
and no Official or court could gain
say then. this right to demand and
exercise this constitutional privilege.
rhe warning clause was a gratuitous
or grlmcrack of no signifi-
,ance.
insufficient Handle.
In the university case General
Crawford thought the petition was
defective because they had got the
wrong handle. or no handle to the
ard-bucket. when the law said d
ample of the whole bucket. handle,
,ail. lard and all, had TO go before
he voter to enable him TO see wheth-
n he wanted II or not.
The bill itself that was TO be re-
erred, lock. stock and barrel, must |
,e sumbitted TO the voter. NOT THE |
THEREOF. The terms |