Mountain Home maverick. [volume] (Mountain Home, Idaho) 1906-1911, 1911-01-05

absolutely free to convey her sep
arate property without joinder Of her
husband.
There should also be a provision TO
the effect tat all property of record
in the name of married woman
should for the purpose Of transfer,
be conclusively presumed, in favor
of the transferee to be her separate
property, and such transfer by her
should pass title from any clean of
her husband to the property as COM
munity or otherwise.
In connection section 5713. re-
curing the probate of community
property upon the death of the wife
should be amended in such a way that
while It would adequately protect
the wife and her children, in the
event of her death it should also en-
able the husband to continue business
and support of his family without the
necessity of practically commencing
life anew. AS the law is now framed
husband must, upon the death of
the wife, procure probate Of the COM
munity property and divide that
property with his children. unless the
wife has left a Will vesting the con-
troll of the property in him. The ma
iority of people, and especially is il
true of women, do not make wills, and
to require every husband upon the
death of his wife, to probate the
community property, settle up his
business, and account to his minor
children for one-half of the prop
erty and placing him under the linn
/ itations and esponsibilities of guard
ianship. works an injustice which
must occur fore frequently than those
instances in which a husband on the
'eath Of his wife, would prove a ira
/ itor to her and their children by alb
adjoining them in some new alliance
Legislation of this kind must of nee
essity be a compromise and must pro-
tect all interests I refrain from urg-
ing any specific amendment but sug-
gest tentatively by which probate and
1 revolution of the community prop
erty intestate would be obviated in
ali cases where the wife had not ev-
arcised her right 70 make a viii
Under such statute as this, the wife
would be afforded protection in the
event that she thought her husband
would be likely to misuse the com
mon nroDerty to the detriment of
her children or others who might be
dependent upon her.
The Primary Election Law.
That the primary election law as
passed by the last session is defec-
tive and almost imperative is con-
coded even by its best friends. The
trial that has been given its prOvi-
sions during the past year will, ] APP
prehend, urge you to amend these
provisions The principle involved is a
correct one without doubt. The nom
nation of candidates should be
brought as close as possible to the
electors of the different parties, but
the method Of applying this princi-
ole. as defined in the statute in Ques-
ion. is radically wrong in many i'm
lpOrtant features. Especially is this Tho
case when st comes to that particular
,orvision If the law. under which the
construction given it by our supreme
court. ccmnels the voter at the nri-
nary election where more thon two
candidates are in nomination for any
particular office. to vote for both frs
and second choice for that particular
office, and If he fails in so doing hi.
ballov ia that particular is VOID.
believe provision authorizing az
elector TO vote a second choice waer'
there are more than two candidates
is q wise one To compel him, row
: ever, to do so will in some cases pre-
= vent him from exercising his rea
choice because the vote for secOnf
b choice often proves as important al
that for first l would suggest thii
section be amended by making il OPP
tional with the electOr to vote fo'
second choice where two or more
candidates are in nomination for th'
, same office on his party primar,
ticket
, woul suggest. unless such DlaI
woul raise a constitutional qestiuos
would raise a constitutional question
, that the law be amended by with
drawing the right to nominate by pc
tition A state wide petition make
the expenditure of large amour
of money necessary. and it infrinee
to a certain extent upon the secrec,
I Of the ballot In my judgement it Ii
= better for each candidate to file hi
< nomination papers, pay the required
p fee and thus submit the matter o
= nomination to the voters of his part
Y without the opportunity of beini
I given him to file his nomination b.
petition
= Another amendment should b
r made to the law; majority vot
o should not be required where ther
- are more than two candidates running
e on ticket for a given office, but
n smaller percentage of first choic
q votes should secure the nomination
) | suggest change in this regard
a Similar laws in other states contai
n such provisions and l have neve
J. heard the efficacy of those laws i
r. that respect questioned.
l. The amount permitted to be e,
d pended by candidates seeking nom
8 nation needs amendment. If it is tn
O desire of the legislature to prever
A. expenditures in order that the eleetoI
% at the primary election may vOiC