Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1911-07-19

| Ihere are men In Waterloo paying
a couple hundred dollars per year in
taxes who are careful to have people
know they are worth a hundred thous-
and or so. They own no brick blocks.
| no factories. no wholesale nor retail
concerns: their visible holdings con-
sist of home for their families-and
the rest is in notes, stocks. bonds and
other papers hidden to the public; but
| when the assessor comes around they
are next to poverty stricken.
Beating the city. county and state
out OF their just share OF taxes to sup
port the commonwealth. in all its
branches. these people consider a bus
mess proposition
! FINE POINT AT FORT DODGE.
[Sioux City Journal
!! 1t will be interesting to observe What
the supreme court does with the Fort
Dodge saloon petition of consent when
it goes up for final deter mination of
| it's validity. The court already has
ruled against the legality OF withdraw
ais OF Withdrawals, but If good law Is
| good common sense the Withdrawals
Of withdraw at Fort Dodge must
| have exactly the same legal standing
as the original Withdrawals.
| F" HSkl lilc lSl2liOIl u NOuecHl was
filed at Fort Dodge it contained sew
eral hundred names more than the re-
quired majority of voters at the last
election. The petition was sufficient
at that moment. Before the supervis-
ors met to canvass the petition the
anti-saloon forces went over it. copied
| the names and began campaign for
| Withdrawals. Eventually enough with
drawals were secured to leave the pc
| tition short Of the legal minimum. But
meanwhile the saloon forces knew
what was going on and got busy with
a campaign for Withdrawals Of with
drawals Eventually they got enough
of these to restore the petition to a
state OF legal sufficiency.
When the board met to canvass the
petition OF consent it found three sets
Of documents before It. First. there
We're the original petitions asking that
saloons be allowed to operate in the
| city. which petitions contained more
than the required number OF names.
| Second. there were petitions from sew
eral hundred signers of the original pc
| tition asking that their names be not
counted on the petition. owing to a
change Of mind since signing. There
were enough Of these names. II with
IRA WILL W leave IIS iieAloi Ict!tici
short of the legal limit. Third, there
were petitions from a few hundred
sisners OF o-called Withdrawals ask
ing that their names be not withdraw
from the original petition N previous
ly requested. There were enough Of
these, il effective. TO restore the suffi-
| cheney OF the petition.
| All three classes of petitions were
taken up sim ultaneously for considera-
ton by the canvassing board. What
should 1t do with them? There WAS
the original petition containing the
name OF John x. Jones. There was
another petition asking that the name
Of John x. Jones be not counted. There
| WAS a later petition asking that the
name OF John x. Jones be counted af-
ter all The board must act in the
| light OF three different requests In
vo!ving two changes OF mind on the
part Of John x. Jones Should it count
| him as in favor Of saloons or against
them? His first word was for the sa-
looms, his second against them and his
third for them. And the board must
deal with all three at the same time.
| There was a supreme court decision
I confirming the validity OF Withdrawals
| after the fling Of petitions. There was
l
with drawals. The attorneys for the
saloons took the view that in consider
ing all the three requests together the
third one Cancelled the second and left
| the first one standing in It's original
strength. The anti-saloon people In
sisted that the first withdrawal took
| the name of the petition and that all
the kings horses and men could not
put il on again.
The dispute was referred to the dis
trict court The court upheld the view
OF the saloon attorneys. 1t admitted
that once of a petition name is of
for good. but contended that the
names Of the petitioners in question
rad never been OF. Before the board
had taken any action on the with
drawals they were withdrawn. There
fore. the names must be allowed to
stand on the original petition, as #
there had been no subsequent action to
remove or restore them. 1t is this rea-
soning on the part Of the district court
that the supreme court VIII have to re-
verse II the Fort Dodge petition IL to
be invalidated.
Essentially the point the court Will
have TO decide Is whether a with
drawa1 becomes effective when hled
or whether affirmative action by the
board in the way Of accepting it Is re-
CURED to make it effective. AS the
original petition does not become eff
fective when fled. and the privilege OF
Withdrawing is allowed until the board
acts, it is difficult to see how the
court can rule that withdrawal Is ef-
fecttve until it has been accepted by
the board, and the name thus removed
from the original petition. And IL a
withdrawal Is Ineffective before 2ctet!
upon by the board. why Is not With
drawal OF withdrawal rs feasible as
the original withdrawal?
Insurgents in Pennsylvania.
Minneapolis JournaI.
Politically. Pennsylvania is declared
to be a seetf,ing volcano OF discomfort
With Tener in the governors chair
pitching confirmed politicians into ju-
dicial places. Penrose in the senate dt
rect1ng the big work Of the machine