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


Intoxicating liquors therein. Upon the
trial of this suit the court denied the
application of the plaintiff, and de.
creed that the order of prohibition was
aid. The plaintiff appeals,
Five Contentious.
Eakin, j, The following contentious
are made by plaintiffs: (1) That the
signers on petitions for local option
election were not registered voters; (2)
that the order Of the county court call
ing the election was invalid; (3) prop.
er notices of the election were not
given; (4) that the election was not
held upon the day appointed by law;
and (5) that the votes Of SOC persons
who were not registered were cast and
received. The petition before the coun-
ty court asking that an election be held
to determine whether the sale Of intox.
icating liquors in the municipality of
Hillsboro shall be prohibited alleges
that the petitioners are legal voters Of
the municipality of Hillsboro. His
place of residence within Hillsboro is
given opposite the signature of each
petitioner, The clerk certifies that 143
of the petitioners were registered vot-
o,, ,,,b,ob ,,,aro ,,ora +hon tbon tba
number required, OF course, the clerk s
certificate was made from the regis
tration law Of that year, which this
court thereafter, on November 25, 1913,
held to be unconstitutional; but the
election was held on November 4th
prior to the decision, and it was too
late for the plaintiff to question the
qualifications Of the petitioners after
the election had taken place, at least
without proof that the petitioners were
not legal voters within the city, The
registration law was held void only be-
cause the taking effect Of it was made
to depend on the approval Of the su-
preme court. The registration taken
Hereunder actually disclosed that those
registered were legal voters when Ger.
titled by the clerk; and the election
and vote taken thereat should not be
held void and community disfran-
chised by reason Of defect in the
law that would affect the right Of the
petitioners to sign the petition. In
the designation of who may petition
for local option election in section
1920, Il. o. L., namely, registered vot'
ers - the word "registered" may be
considered as surplusage under the cir
cumstances found here. Had the peti
tioners been registered only under the
1899 registration law, the petitions
would not have been received or acted
on by the county court; and If it was
not sufficient that they were registered
under the 1913 law, then section 492C
contains an impossible requirement al
to registration when there was no mean
Of compliance available to the petition
ers, and the petitions, If signed by vot
J ers qualified as to such under the re
, quirements Of the constitution, consti
tuted a substantial compliance with th,
} statute. The court will not hold th
petitions irsufficient for that defec
without proof that the signers were no
I legal voters, the duty to establish whiel
. devolved upon the plaintiff The pur
. pose Of the petitions and the order o
. the court are only a method by whic
l the electors may secure the submission
. Of the local option question to the vol
ers; and the election having been cal
Z, ed and the vote taken, the result shoul
r not be disturbed by reason Of an II
j regularity in preliminary proceedin
{ that does not 90 to the qualification
q Of the signers. IL may be jurisdiction
J. al that the petitioners be registere'
/ but that can only be true in case thei
:, is a recognized registration, or an ol
o portunity to register, II must be born
;. in mind that at the time Of the signiu
n Of the petitions asking for the election
4 at the time the clerk certified that II
u netitioners Mera registered voters. an