Ottumwa tri-weekly courier. [volume] (Ottumwa, Iowa) 1903-1916, 1911-05-27

general election in 1910 was 4,465. =
majority OF which would be 2,233.
There are 3OS9 names on the state.
ment OF consent, or 1855 more than the
necessary majority. or these, how
ever, proponents concede that sixty.
seven are not found on the poll list.
that 378 are duplicates, and 1858 names
were withdrawn before the final action
OF the board of supervisors, 80 that
they only claim In argument that the
statement contains 1885 valid sigma.
lures, or majority OF fifty.three.
There are nine signatures that were
either signed and dated on Sunday, OF
bear dates that are not within the
thirty days prior to the. fling OF the
statement, or that do not show the
date OF signing, or are dated on an i'm.
possible date. Code, section 2462,
These defects cannot be cured by the
allegations Of the affidavits accom-.
panying the respective statements on
which they appear, much less by parol
evidence. Scott vs.. Naacke, Supra
These nine names cannot b counted
There are three signatures Of persons
who themselves make the only affida
Wits accompanying the statements on
not q compliance with section 2452 Of
the code and these names cannot
count. There are two names appear.
ing on the statement that were writ
ten by others without authority.
Passing the objections to numerous
other signatures about which there
might be more or less question and de
Quoting these fourteen names about
which there can be no doubt leaves .
margin of thirty-nine signatures above
the number required.
1t is conceded there are many more
names than thirty-nine that are not
identical with names on either poll
book There are, in fact, at least LAC
of such names, sixty-seven Of which
are so radically different from the re
spective names on the poll book with,
which it is claimed they correspond
that by no possible liberality Of con
struction can they be said to be iden
teal. The other seventy-nine present
in the main, slight differences OF spell
ing. They are not identical, in a strict
sense, with corresponding names on
the poll books, but In many instances
are indistinguishable in sound. and
if the case turned, alone, upon their
validity. would present many perplex
ing problems. However, II only the
names above referred to
be deducted the statement is twenty
eight short of the required number.
It is, moreover, conceded by the pro
ponents that there are sixty-three
names on the statement signed BY
mark and not witnessed.
1t is, thus, apparent that in order to
find 2233 valid signatures upon the
ST lent Of consent-the number re
or 4 to make 1t sufficient woult
be necessary to count as valid many
names not found upon either poll book
in plain violation of the statute and
in disregard of the oft-repeated de
cisions of the supreme court, and also
to count names signed by mark and
not witnessed, notwithstanding that
courts holding that they should moi
be counted.
conclude, therefore, that the state
ment of consent. does not contain the
valid signatures Of majority OF the
voters residing in said city and votins
at the last general election as shown
by the poll list Of said election, ant
that 1t is insufficient.
To all Of which proponents duly en-
cept.
c. w. vermilion, Judge.