East Oregonian : E.O. (Pendleton, OR) 1888-current, 1908-06-12

,Pendleton, Ore, June ITO the
Editor)-Snce the suit instituted on
yesterday to test the legality of the
recent local option election is one OF
public interest, there ought to be a
clear understanding of the issues in
volved.
In the first place it should be re-
membered that the result of such
elction, II valid, is to practically con-
fiscate the property of many men by
the destruction of their business, and
the law provides no compensation. 1t
is no answer to say that the business
so destroyed is questionable in NOR
ais. The law for centuries has rec
ognized it as legitimate.
Under such circumstances, there
fore, considerate men will recognize
the right o. men whose entire prop
.eniy Us 5eopardized to insist that
II destruction is to come it must come
legally. With them it is not a ques-
tion Of ethics, social or moral. at this
time. 1t is the cold, hard question
of self protection. which sometime Oh
other may touch us all.
These men employed lawyers whom
they regarded competent, therefore,
to examine the record of the election,
to ascertain whether or not the pro-
ceedings were legal, not for the pur-
pose of any attack upon public Off
II H. II = H.. -, L..
tions the entire good faith of the men
upon whom the law imposes the duty
of experimenting the various steps
necessary in an election. Such ex-
animation disclosed two things which
seem to invaldate the vote on local
option in this county, and relying up
on these especially the suit has been
instituted.
They are these: The record shows
that a few days before the date Of
the order of court directing the cleo
tion upon the local option petitions
the county court adjourned, not to
any future time but adjourned. II
the language of such record is true,
then in law it adjourned for the
term. Such has been the decision of
the courts of other states clearly. If
a final adjournment was thus had
the order made by the judge directing
the election was void because an in
dividual cannot make such order.
and the court having been adjourned
for the term there was no court to
make such order. Such situation is
no reflection upon either Judge or
clerk. That method of adjournment
seems to have been long the custom
here, and does not relate to that
month or to this case. The question
involved is purely a legal one; the
suit is based upon the decisions of
other states, ana the decision of the
Oregon supreme court, Our court
has rendered several decisions con-
STRUNG the local option law and in
every instance where the subject has
been before it, it was held that an
order made by the county judge or
commissioners, when the court is not
in regular session is void.
The other vital question is the
place of posting the notices Of elec-
ton The law directs that there shall
be five notices posted in each pre-
cinct, posted IN THE VICINITY OF
THE POLLING PLACE OR PLACES.
The return of such posting indicates
that there is at least some question
that portion of the law was
with. This too, is a legal !
question and involves the reasonable |
of the term vicinity as
used in the statute. No election can be |
valid without the notice thereof |
which the law of the state requires. !
There are other matters pleaded, |
but these are the things especially re |
lied upon. Courts always are reIuc-
Iant to declare any election void, ex-
cept for fraud, but they sit to construe
and administer the law, and where
an election is clearly invalid, they |
have invariably so declared it. The
court of Oregon has already |
declared that the local option cleo
ton Is special in character, and that
every provision of the statute must
be strictly followed If In this case
he court should find that there was
40 county court sitting in this coun-
" when the order authorizing the
election upon local option was made,
Or that there was a compliance
with the law as to notices, there clear
y was no election.
This statement is made that the
public may understand the issues in