Polk County observer. (Monmouth, Polk County, Or.) 1888-1927, 1910-12-23
MORE TINKERING.

Passing upon the supreme court
amendment recently adopted by the
voters of Oregon, the judges of that
court hold that the amendment does
not abolish all courts save the supreme
court as had been argued by many
lawyers, nor is the authority of the
circuit courts and county courts taken
away or abridged in any manner. Until
farther legislation shall change them,
the circuit and county courts will con-
tinue to exist and to exercise the same
power and jurisdiction they exercised
before the adoption of the amend
ment
AS to that portion of the amendment
which seeks to invest the supreme
court with original Jurisdiction in ha-
beas corpus, mandamus and quo war
ranto proceedings, the court is of the
opinion that it was not the intention
of the voters to thrust upon the su-
preme court the burden of hearing,
considering and determining in the
first instance every such application as
might be presented. Such a construc-
ton, it is pointed out, would over
whelm the court with mass of orig
inal businss, including the examination
of witnesses, hearing arguments of
counsel and considering the merits of
the causes presented which would in
terfere seriously with those duties for
which the supreme court was primarily
constituted, namely, the hearing and
decision of cases coming before it in
the usual manner upon appeal 1t is
farther pointed out that a defendant
has several other plain, speedy and
adequate remedies, without asking the
supreme court to exercise such extra
ordinary jurisdiction to the detriment
of other and more meritorious bus-
ness The court announces that 1t will
exercise no such jurisdiction except in
cases containing very unusual points.
The fact is. not one voter in a hun
dred knew what he was voting for
when he was dabblng with this
amendment. Probably not one in
fifty would know a "mandamus" or
quo warranto" proceeding if he met
1t in the road in broad daylight. What
title of this amendment was something
about providing for a verdict by
three-fourths of jury in civil cases."
That was enough. He wanted that
and so he voted his TX Yes" without
reading further. He didn't know what
jurisdiction he was comforting upon
the supreme court, nor what additional
I, !
body, and he doesn't know even now,
after the court has told him. The
court has apparently been spending
much valuable time in an effort to as
certain the voters real intention in
passing this measure. The voter had
no intention farther than to authorize
of a jury to return a
verdict in civil cases. Probably not
one voter in a hundred knew that any
farther change in the judicial system
was contemplated by the proposed
The U'Ren pills are always sugar.
coated and the jury clause was the
coating in this particular instance. The
pill tasted sweet. and the voter swal-
lowed it. without considering what
effect the inside might have, either on
the states judicial system or on his
own. The supreme court wastes time
In trying to ascertain the voters OBJ
iect in passing this amendment Far
her than to provide for a jury verdict
by nine men. the voter had no we'll
defined object. Farther than that
clause in the amendment, few took the
trouble to read