Daily capital journal. (Salem, Oregon) 1903-1919, 1911-12-21
[NJUyCTION MADE PERMANEST.
Continued from Page 81

sources OF the citizen in the uneQu =
contest. II it were required in suOf
case that the plaintiff must maE<,
a distinct issue as to the validity o
each name challenged for fraud Oi
the crculator, the impossibility q
overturning the petition for that rea
son would be made certain by enarg
ign the fraud, for the larger the iraa {
the more dificult II will be to cha
len ge the legal sufflciency OF the pc
ihtion How would it be possible fOl
single citizen Of this state or an
number of citizens to produce speCIfEC
proof as to the fraud ulent charaCtel
Of each of 10000 names upon th5S
petition. The existen ce Of the powel
Of the court then to disregard tn {
whole petition upon the proof Of ma
teri al fraud in the making Of the pc
tltiOn by one who Is In charge thereo 1
supervising It's making must rest up
on public necessity
Londoner vs. People, is Colo. 55T
Upon this principle paintiff ha s
mad It's prima facle cause of frauC1
agai nst the following parts of the pc
tltiOn: Section 54 and 81, verified b.
Wal ter B. Thurber; 81, verified By
Stebrick and Thurber; 3S, verified by-
c, J. Woolwein and Harry Goldman
16, SO and 112, verified by e. Wallace
81 and 1O5, verified by Charles
Mat thews; 12, "a, 50 and SO, verfed
by r. NJ. Raymond 5, 10, "a. 50 50
and 94verified by otto Newman 64 =
veri fled by c.. Kirk; SIS, verified by
H. McNemey; 81, verified by w. A
Diebold; IT, 113, verified by ]. NJ
Hoy kas 26, 33, 80 and 1914, verified
by w L. Carpenter 23. 20, 40 S4
and 80 verified by W. T. Mende; 3.
81, 81, 81, SO. 80 and 100, verifet
by H. W. Marsten; @ 13, 80, 40 and
So, verified by C. H. Fitzgerald; 8.
verified by Charles Tellerfson; II,
% nd SO. verified by o. A. Erck-
son; IS, 90 and ia, verified by Roy
Meyer, the whole aggregating some
6110- names, which do not include
1922 names admitted to be fraudl-
lent. There is no reaso II why defend
ants counsel should have stopped in
their adm ssion when they came to
the work of Walter B. Thurber for
many pages Of his part of the petition
appear to be almost entirely made up
Of fraudulent and ficti tious names
Section 61 is in part yer flied by Har-
ray Goldman, whose other work in
this petition, amounting to 100
names, has been admitted to be void 1
for fraud. The work of C. ]. VOL
vein. who verified the remainder Of
that section, Is scarcely an improve
ment on his associates, Sections 49,
50 and 112, by E. Wall ace, ought to
be ca st out, If for no other reason
than that it is admitted that his true
name Is 3. ]. Rahes, but there Is
shown to be ficticious and forged
names therein, put there by the said
Rallies, alias Wallace, Sections 81
and l O5, verified by Chas. Matthews
are m ostly forgeries upon the face Of
the petition without the aid of ex-
trinsic or other evidence. The
strongest evidence Of the alleged
frauds is the petition itself The
identity Of the handwriting in the
face of the petition with that in the
affldavits, convicts this circulator not
only of fraud. but Of faIsifying his
own oath upon the witness stand
Mrs, N s. Starr, asslste by Miss
Minnie Burke, the defendants ex
pert witnesses, gave testimony tend
ing to show that many names in
Matth ews' petition were written by
one and the same hand Besides many
cases of specific proof Of forged names
in this part of the petition was shown
none OF which has in any way been
refuted by the defense. Many names
have been judged to be bad or forg.
cries by the defendants expert wit.
nesses- The same comm ents may be-
made as to the work OF F. M. Ray
mOnd, who. it appears fled the state
as soon as the investga tion of this
petition began, The reports made by
the defendants expert witnesses, and
put in evidence, shows that they ex.
amined 6753 names, and found only |
2sO2 of that number regis tered, while
1926 OF those found re registered re-
ported as having no evidence ;
in the appearance of the I
writing itself sufficient to say, that
they are fraudulent One hundred
and thirty-one other names we're cata-
logued as suspected Of being fraudu I
lent and 1873 we're listed as fraudu-
lent and void. OF these registered
names, 1883 appear upon that part I
of the petition attacked by plaintiffs
proof, and deducting that number
from the total of 9.7SS disqualified by
plaintiff's evidence and by the defen.
dants admission. leaves S.OOS names