Court Opinion

ID: 9865134
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 16:25:02.000402+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:37:33.194901
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Adams
dissenting.
Irrespective of 1,785 names which the petitioners admit are illegal, I think that, disregarding hypertechnical objections, there are still enough names left to entitle the proposed amendment to a place on the ballot. I have less difficulty in agreeing with the majority opinion in some of its statements of law, than in their application. Problems of addition and subtraction are easy enough, but what to add or subtract is quite different. There was a gross disregard on protestants’ part of the requirement of section 31, C. L. 1921, that a protest must set forth “specifically the grounds of such protest and the names protested.” Thousands of names have been thrown out where this was not done. As a result, I think I can successfully challenge any man, lawyer or judge, connected with this case from beginning to end, to produce such names. We have said repeatedly that we do *421not decide cases on conjecture. It would make for the administration of justice to adhere to the rule.
For the above reasons, I respectfully dissent.