Rogue River courier. (Grants Pass, Or.) 1886-1927, 1912-10-25
LOCAL OPTION PETITION
LEGAL, SAYS JUDGE

'o0dl option election will bt
neid on November 9Th in aceordanc,
with the order OF the county court
Judge Calkins of the circuit eourt
having denied the injunction asked
Oy the citizens of Grants Pas,
through their attorney, Geo. w. Col
wig. w. Oo'
Petitions bearing sufficient sigma.
lures We're presented to the count,
court some weeks ago asking that
'ne local option election be called
ana IN accordance with the law. the
e'ec'lon was so called. One election
was to be held for the city of Grants
'"Ss alone, the balance of Josephine
TO constitute the unit for a second
election.
Alleging that the petitions upon
which the elections were called were
deh1ient in describing the territory
embraced, action was instituted in
the circuit court, complaint being
filed Tuesday, the plaintiffs of rec.
ord being Messrs. T. P. Cramer w
L. Ireland and R. X. Hackett. repre-
Sented by G. W. Colvig as their at
torney, and the county clerk in mis-
o'ncial capacity being the defe,d.
ant the latter being represented by
W. c. Hale and Deputy Prosecutor
Jesse Johnston. Argument was heard
In the cases before Judge Calkins at
Ashland Wednesday, and decision
was rendered Thursday evening.
The decision read as follows:
The only question presented is.
whether the petition in each case is
sufficient to base an election on in
the city in the one case, and in the
balance of the county in the other
case.
Section 1920 l.. o. L. provides
that in the case of a petition for an
election in a subdivision of a county.
the subdivision shall be describ-
ed in the petition by metes and
bounds, and give the names and
numbers of the precincts composing
the subdivision. If the territory
comprised in the petition in each
case is a subdivision" within the
meaning of this section, then the Pc
tition in each case is insufficient,
otherwise it is sufficient.
In State VS.. Schluer 115 Pac
Rep. page 1861, our supreme court
says The alteration in the funda-
mental law divorces such munich
Ipalities from a county of which they
form part, so that the remainder Of
the county and incorporated cities
and towns therein constitute, in eff
feet separato noIiticaI entitios with
respect to each other In State VS..
Perkins 121 Pac. Rep. 79S, the
court says: We have then at least
four subdivisions within which q voto
might ba taken. The whole county.
anv nracinc4 I'm tba county ~. corsol-
idatior Of nrecincts. any ward IN q
citv. ana +bo cirr itso1f Tbot - wos
tbo infant of tbo law ~ norn,it , citv
as sansrate artitv or any ward IN
citv 70 oc+ os o. so,arato artit,. or
srbdi,tsior 10 indicated Inv 7 n T.
1000, ,1so .Tba municinalitv nc q
whole stands nc tba qrea+ar rnit and
tbo yariors wards or nrecincts If
roro +bor ono ovists arc tho lassar
rrits
ar- sooms cra,r from these state
rerts of tbo law Inv onr srnreme
count +bot f. is ,o+ tbe correct con-
...,,o.for 70 DESIGNATE oitbor tbo citv
os rr.rts pass os o subdivision, or
,ho balance of ,ba county ,subdi-
vision, within tba meaning of the
town 90 nssd in section 4q2os And
:, would resrr+ in deriving every
arv conntv in the state Of the right
oror yote an the subject were