Daily capital journal. (Salem, Oregon) 1903-1919, 1914-02-03

associates Of the supreme court in the
liquor cases today, Justice Burnett de-
clared that the Hillsboro election was
invalid for the reason that the petition
was not sufficient and that an election
resulting from petition which does not
meet the legal requirements cannot be
upheld. He considered the case at some
length. His opinion follows:
Dissenting Opinion by Burnett Justice.
It is conceded in this case that the
petition for the local option election
in question here was signed in control.
ling numbers by persons who were reg
istered as voters only under the social
ed registration law Of 1913, which this
court declared unconstitutional and
void in City of Portland vs. Coffey,-
Ur,-,-Pac,-, decided November
1919. In other words, if he question
of whether the signers Of the petition
were registered voters" within the
meaning of the local option law is to
be determined by any other statute
than the enactment of 1918, then there
were not enough signers to give the
county court jurisdiction to order To-
cal option election.
1t 10 hornbook law "that courts of
limited jurisdiction and courts Of gen.
eral jurisdiction, when exercising a spe.
cial limited power conferred by statute,
must show affirmatively that jurisdic-
tion has been acquired" This rule was
declared in Johns VS.. Marion county,
Or. 46, and has been reiterated in n
long line Of decisions since. This Ian
guage there used is peculiarly applica.
BILE to this case: "Under the statute,
the court has no power over the sub
ject until petition of the prescribed
character is presented,
and it is necessary that the record
should show affirmatively that juris.
diction has been thus acquired, or the
proceeding cannot be sustained" state
Vs. Officer, Or. 1906 State vs.. Myers,
20 Or 442 Biting vs. Douglas County,
"a Or. 400, 80 Pac. 0S1; Cameran vs..
Wasco County, 27 Or 31s, Al Pac, 1907;
Grady VS., Dundon, 80 Or, 1888, AZ Pac.
0l5; Sine vs. Spencer 30 Or. $40, AZ
Pac. 0l0; Mulkey vs. Day, 40 Or. 3l2,
so Pac 057; Dean VS.. Washington Nav.
Co., 50 Or 81, ll5 Pac. 2S4. More espe-
cially is this true when proceedings un.
der the statute, as in this instance, may
be commenced and carried as far as
making the order for the election with.
, out any previous notice or giving any
opportunity to contest the validity Of
the petition.
Depends Upon Petition.
BY the provisions Of the local option
law the authority Of the county court
TO submit to the electors the question
Of prohibition Of the sale Of intoxi.
eating liquors is made to depend upon
filing with the county clerk ga petition
therefor signed by not less than ten
per cent Of the registered voters" in
the territory involved. Such an In
strument 80 signed IS therefore a iuris
dictional necessity with which the coun
ty court cannot lawfully order an elec
tion. It is restriction which The
people themselves have imposed upoI
that tribunal, for the local option Law
was enacted in the initiative process
80 far as signing the petition is con
cerned IL is not an exercise Of III,
electoral franchise, and the constitu
tonal right to vote is not involved 1
is taught in Roesch vs. Henry 81 Or
$50, 1903 Pac, 4349, that, as signinl
such petition is not an exercise Of th,
electoral franchise, II is not In deroga
tion Of the constitution to require al
such petitioners TO be registered voters
There the opinion cites the section o
the statute requiring a petition Of tel
per cent Of the registered voters an,
the other section directing the county
clerk to compare the signatures on th