Jamestown weekly alert. [volume] (Jamestown, Stutsman County, D.T. [N.D.]) 1882-1925, 1916-04-27
.b00TLECCINC LAW
PETITIONS INVALID
Record Of the Attempt to Ref
erend the Bill.

Bismarck, April 22.-In response
to repeated and numerous inquiries
as to the status of the bootlegging
law, as passed by the 1915 legisla-
ture, consequent to the fling of q
referendum petition against it, and
as to the occasion for the delay in ar
irving at a decision as to it's status.
and why the delay should stretch
over period from June 8, 1915, to
April 18, 1916, the following state
ment of facts is given to the public.
being compiled from the correspond
ence files of the state department
for the information and enlighten-
ment of the general public:
House Bill No. ia, now Chapter
1874, Session Laws passed to strength
en- the previous law, of 1918, def1n-
ing the crime of bootlegging and fix
ing the punishment therefor.
June 8, 1915. On this date John
F. Sullivan, attorney for petitioners,
filed with the secretary of state q
petition asking for the refs4 ending
of this law to the people at the gen.
eral election, 1916. BY the filing OF
this petition the law was automat-
ically prevented from going into ef-
feet until the people shall have a
chance to approve or reject it.
Immediately after it's filing the Pc
tition was examined by the clerks of
the state department., signatures
counted and the petition found SUI
ficient, as to number of signatures,
under the newly adopted amendment
to the constitution providing for the
referendum of legislative acts.
Later the petition was examined
by F. L. Watkins, superintendent of
the State Enforcement league. The
validity of the petition was attacked
by Mr.. Watkins, who asserted that
many of the signatures were mot
bona fide, and that because many
names showed no postoffice address,
no residence or county, they should
be stricken of. II such names were
stricken of, not a sufficient number
would remain to comply with the
new constitutional provision calling
for "ten per cent. of the legal voters
of the state"
The legislature had failed to take
advantage of the permission given in
the new amendment providing that
Legislation may be adopted to facili-
tate its operation" The secretary of
state was therefore without guidance
or law by which he might determine
the nature of petition required, its
validity, or as to whether or not he
was required to examine into the
form of petition or the manner of
attaching the signatures to it.
October 25, 1915. On this date
the secretary of state referred this
matter to H. ]. Linde, attorney gen
eral, and requested that he, as the
authorized legal adviser of the state
department, promulgated code of
rules for the guidance of the depart
ment in passing upon the form of the
petitions presented for filing, this be-
ing necessary in the absence of any
legal provisions.
This letter contained the follow
ing inquiries:
/. What constitutes a legal petit
ton?
+. 2. Must person circulating petit
ton make affidavit that the signers
were, to his knowledge, legal voters?
3. Would signature be invalid If
the name of the county appeared
where the postof1ce should be and
vice-versa?
4. If paper, other than the printed
form of petition, and containing sig
natures, is attached to the petition,
are such signatures valid and to be
counted.
s. Place construction upon that
part of the amendment to the consti-
tuition, reading: "by a petition signed
by ten per cent. of the legal voters of
the state from q majority of the
and give illustration"
The entire petition was submitted
at this time to the attorney general
for examination.
March 80, 1916. At this date
there appeared in the Fargo Courier
News an interview with the attorney
general in which the latter was cred
tied with stating that he had held the
petitions to be illegal in an opinion
given the states attorney of Stark
county, but that he had failed to file
it with Mr.. Hall, as such fling would
have prevented the secretary of state
from placing the law before the vot-
ers next November.
An inquiry addressed to the attor-
ney generals Office as to the giving of
this interview and this opinion to
the states attorney of Stark county
in q denial that such an in
terview was authentic or that such an
opinion has been issued.
April 10, 1916. The secretary Of
state directs q second letter to the
attorney general insisting upon hav-
ing an opinion as TO- the validity Of