Daily capital journal. (Salem, Oregon) 1903-1919, 1911-12-21


1t was done, and the connection OH.
J. Parkison herewith, and this acts
regarding the same. AS we have
said, this suit does not involve the
adjudication and settlement of mere
private rights. but rights Of very
broad and universal interest.
The right of petition, reserved by
the constitution to refer to a vote Of
the people any measure passed by the
Legislature. was not Intended to be
used to settle or adjust private and
local grievances; but the right con-
templates the rights to express the
honest sentiment Of disaffected vot-
ers upon public matters only. The
evidence in this case disclosed that
the petition originated in a case Of
local neighborhood contention and
spite; that in carrying into effect
this unworthy motive, means were
employed to obtain signatures upon
money basis and to further a per-
sonal spleen and revenge by a COM
mittee Of Cottage Grove citizens. An
order was first given to H. ]. Park
son to procure 3OOr names which he
was to be paid at the rate Of seven
cents for each name SO secured to
each Of the two petitions referending
the two acts in this cause. This
dealer in names for price, pro-
cured agents for which he at one
time vouched to go out into the street
and most questionable places In
Portland to procure names. Some Of
these agents went under assumed
name, and in this manner made the
AFFIDAVIT required to verify the peu-
ton. Long before this petition was
fled, Mr.. Parkison was advised that
large part of the names handed in
to him by his agents were fictitious
and fraudulent He so notified his
principal at Cottage Grove and
agreed to replace 900 or 500 names
admitted to be fraudulent, among
those delivered by him to the CON-
mittee of that place. A dispute arose
among these gentlemen who originat-
ed the petition as to what should be
done with It, and between some OF
the committee and Mr.. Parkison as
to the manner in which he should
perform his contract. There is some
testimony to the effect that he and
Mr.. Abrams filed the original 8 1000
names without taking out the 500 or
800 fraudulent names, but Mr.. Park
inson swore that he did not file them
II is certain, however, that he did not
eliminate all of the fraudulent names
for the defendant has been compelled
to admit the existence of 1872 frau
dulent names and others suspected in
the petition as filed. 1t is shown,
however, that Mr.. Parkison knew
that Chas. Falk had furnished him
fraudulent and forged names, still he
employed this untrustworthy person
to procure more names, and he took
no steps to ascertain the validity of
these latter names, but fled them
with the others. These names form a
part of those now admitted to be
fraud ulent.
Now Mr.. Parkison appears to be
the one man who has stood back of
the state officers and insisted upon a
strenuous and technical defense of
the purity of his petition, and through
the medium of the attorneys for the
defense he has insisted that this
court delve into the circunl stances
surrounding each signature on this
petition to determine, If possible, its
all at the expense of the
state and the citizeus who have un-
this fraud and are now con-
tributing to the maintenance of this
suit But we are firmly Of the opin-
lon that such persons who are indi-
reCtly. If not directly, responsible for
Lhe frauds that are shown and admit
red to have been committed in the
preparation of this petition are not
now in a position to ask an equity
court to perform the unusual, and we
my say the herculoan task, of sift-
Ing out. name by name, the good from
rhe bad to ascert Tin, II possible
whether there may not be sufficient
untainted names to maintain this pc
rition so that some spite may be
worked out aglnst an institut tion of
The state. People who desire to pre-
sent such a petition are under obli-
cation themselves to see that there
IS no fraud in it before presenting it
Tor filing. The proof in the nature Of
an oath, specific in foym, must be en-
1orsed on each sheet OF the petition,
and If it is shown that these. afida-
yits are to great extent false and
knowingly so. or the circum stances
are such that those filing the petition
ought themselves to have known of
he falsity of the petition and took no
sare to protect it from fraud, they are
n no position to complain If a court