The labor journal. [volume] (Everett, Wash.) 1909-1976, 1916-09-29

( of 1915 become laws, and he therefore
cunningly arranged the matter in the
pamphlet in such manner as to mis-
lead the voters into voting in favor
of them and opposed to their real in
tention. Notwithstanding the fact
! that he yielded to the demand of this
suit, which was that he comply with
/ the plain provisions of the law, it is
important that the people of this state
know the character of man who holds
this important public office within
their gift; and l therefore make this
! plain statement of the three particu-
lars in which he violted the law in
the manner these matters were placed
in the pamphlet, and would have vio-
commenced.
Chapter 1873, Laws of Washington,
referendum measure shall be in this
language: PASSED by the legisla-
ture and ordered referred by petition"
Mr.. Howell stated this caption: "PRO-
POSED to the people by referendum
petition" A very cunning form of
suggestion that was undoubtedly in
tended to prepare the voter for favor
able action upon the bill.
AS second violation of the law,
Mr. Howell followed the title of the
measure, and Immediately preceding
the form of question to be voted upon,
these words: "To sustain the legis-
lative act, vote FOR" Is this not an
argument, or suggestion, to the voter
to vote in favor of the act? 1t costs
any outsider just 5000 per page to
| get al argument into the sta.e PAM
| phlet upon any measure contained in
it. Did Mr.. Howell pay 5000 per page
for this argument, or $1400 for the
seven arguments, or is this one of the
perquisites of his office?
Clear Violation Of Law
In the third instance Mr.. Howell
statement of the form of the question
to be marked on the ballot by the
voter. He originally stated it as fol-
lows, taking for an example Referen-
dunn Measure No. 8: For Initiative
and Referendum Act -''
and AGAINST Initiative and Refer
q 10 WI oh
lay before him for his guidance in the
preparation of the matter for both the
pamphlet and the ballot, each of which
must be identical with the other, pro-
vides in plain, direct and unmistakable
English that the form of the question
shall be FOR Referendum Measure
No. -" and AGAINST Refer
endum Measure No. -.'
OF course, Mr. Howell complies with
the mandate of the law when some
one takes the trouble to enforce it
against him, but what if he had sue
ceeded in putting this political job
over on the voters of this state? The
very form of the misstatement of this
question would have led many voters
who favor the initiative and referen-
dunn to have voted for this act, the
purpose of which is to make mop
erative the initiative and referendum,
when as a matter of fact they would
not have been misled into voting
wrong with the question stated as the
law provides.
An even more flagrant violation is
to be found in the statement of the
question in the matter of the anti
picketing bill, Referendum Measure
No. g. Here Mr.. Howell states the
question in the pamphlet, and it would
also have appeared on the ballot had
it not been for this suit, as follows:
FOR the Picketing Measure -"
and AGAINST the Picketing Meas
ure ---." Quite likely any voter
who favors the right to picket would
have voted FOR after reading that
it was A PICKETING MEASURE,
only to learn later what he was vot-
ing for was an ANTI-PICKETING
measure, which it is in fact.
Still Misleading Voters
/ am glad that this matter will now
go upon the ballot in the proper form.
The arguments and false suggestions
which Mr.. Howell injected into the
pamphlet, however, will go on doing
their work by preaching day in and
day out all through this campaign to
the people to vote against all referred
measures, including the proposed con
stitutional amendment, limiting the
right to suffrage, as the safe way o.