Rock Island Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1893-1920, 1912-08-12

were gotten up and presented. Why,
IL the court please, We are just at the
Threshold Of the hearing. as to the
manner in which these petitions were
gotten up. and I am free to say that
these petitions cover more offenses
and crimes against the law than the
court could try in FIVE years II the
court should be so occupied every day.
We have no fault 10 find with the law.
The Law gives electors and citizens
the right TO proceed in the manner
provided by law. But in SC proceed
ing, they must present just cause, and
in presenting the matter TO your hon
or must strictly observe every rule
and every provision Of the law.
MUST FOLLOW LAW.
The law, if the court please, must be
transactions IN life. He who deviates
from the path pointed out by law, and
loses its guidance, will be like a ship
adrtft on the seas without compass or
rudder. He may gain 9 temporary ad-
vantage. but the law will always vim
dictate itself and come TO its own, and
AT the first appearance Of the storm
the man and his false case will fail.
We can show. II the court will permit
US. that not 500 OF the sign atures are
attached according 70 law, and that is
the manner in which we desire to pro-
+ coed. and, It seems to me, we have
exactly proceeded in the manner point
ed out by the court
CAN'T WITHDRAW PETITIONS.
Il don't know whether it is under
the control Of these gentlemen to say
that the matter should stop now. be-
cause We have commenced 10 disclose
the manner in which the petition was
gotten up. II is up TO the court for
the court to say, as a matter Of judicial
Interpretation. that the petition is in
sufficient and base its decision on the
facts in the case. and if the court is
not sufficiently advised, We will go on
with the proceedings"
UNDERSTOOD THE LAW.
The following controversy between
Attorney William McEniry and the
judge occurred following some remarks
by Attorney Cannon for the petition
ers:
Mr.. McEniry-f your honor please
would like to make a few remarks.
heard what your honor said this morn
ing with reference 10 the law. and in
the statement from the bench there is
but one paragraph that | cannot sub
he IN 7 no,
my able associate counsel and myself
have been unable 70 impress upon
your honor that we have construed
this law as now stated by the court
It is this phrase, And Of the further
fact that counsel for neither side ap
pear 10 have correctly construed the
law"
BY the COurt-Before going any fur
ther, let me point out to you the poin
about which think you make a mis-
take. If | have misunderstood you II
that regard, there is no disa greemen
between you and me. YOu have seem
ed TO assume that if certain sheet o
the petition was not properly sworI
70. every name on that sheet would b,
excluded from consideration regardless
Of whether the signatures were shown
70 be genuine by competent wimesse
presented here.
Mr.. McEniry-My position upon tn
law is this: The legislature Of thi
state has made the affidavit primi
facie evidence. When we overCom
the AFFIDAVIT by competent evidence
the prima facie case, falls. and the DC
tjtiCn falls, unless by other proof tn
signatures are shown to be genuine
have never said nor intimated tha
the petitioners could not come int
= court and prove the genuineness q
their signatures
!. BY the Court-If that is your pos
:. ton, there is no disagreement betwee
US.
Mr. MCEniry-I did that because "
put the witness on the stand and h
testified that ne did not swear TO III
!, petition construed it that the N
! 'ary public. with the exception of on,
O had been engaged in a villainous attac
). upon the city, and I know whereof
4, speak when I say that every one, br
@ one. could be called TO swear that h
,, had sworn the afiiant, and then you
?. honor WOULD have one oath that h
? did swear them, and one oath that h
< did not swear them. And | believ
h the notarisl seal would cast the weigh
N OF the testimony with the notary pu
r lie. That was my View.
r OF course | may have been wrong
r, that. but since the court has explaine
II that provision OF the statement, l full
/ agree with the court, that he has sta
Il ed the law most fully and clearl
II But this question arises now: VIII
% can be the procedure OF the court u
'hN law? Counsel who represeI
the petitioners AA-Assed YOU
- honor. The law does not provlu- 90.
= this petition can be dismissed. Tt
. Law provides that the court shall ent,
n a decree finding that It is sufficient {
= that it is not sufficient, and have I
8 doubt but that It Is entirely proper IL
the court, upon hearing OF the cas-
% If he makes up his mind that the pei
8. ton has not been proven. that he Cou1
. stop the hearing unless counsel f.
a. the petitioners will state TO the cou
< that they have evidence 10 overcon
fAa~ Nh E1L