Cameron v. Stevens
Decision Date | 24 May 1927 |
Citation | 121 Or. 538,256 P. 395 |
Parties | CAMERON v. STEVENS, County Clerk. |
Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Isham N. Smith, of Portland, for plaintiff.
Newton C. Chaney, Dist. Atty., and Porter J. Neff, A.E. Reames, and John H. Carkin, all of Medford, Wm. M. Briggs, of Ashland and Rawles Moore, of Medford, for defendant.
By chapter 34, L. 1927, the Legislative Assembly enacted a law establishing the city of Medford as the county seat of Jackson county. As enacted, the act contained an emergency clause. The defendant is the county clerk of that county. Seeking to invoke the referendum on said measure, plaintiff presented to defendant for filing a petition signed by the requisite number of legal voters of the county which defendant refused to file, assigning as the reason therefor that the act was not subject to referendum because it contained an emergency clause. Plaintiff then made application to this court for the issuance of an alternative writ of mandamus, and an alternative writ was issued directed to the defendant as county clerk, requiring her either to file the petition or to show cause for not having done so. The cause shown is by demurrer to the writ upon the ground that the facts stated in the alternative writ are not sufficient to entitle plaintiff to the relief sought, and this presents the sole question for decision.
Article 4, § 1, of the Constitution, provides:
etc.
Article 4, § 1a, of the Constitution among other things provides:
For the purpose of providing means by which counties and districts may put into execution the powers conferred by article 4, § 1a, the Legislature by section 4111, Or.L., provided:
It is plaintiff's contention that section 1, the earlier amendment, is general in its terms, and that section 1a is a later special provision on a local subject, and is therefore the controlling provision upon this question upon the principle that, where there are two enactments on the same subject, and the earlier one is special and particular, and the latter, general in its terms, and there is a conflict between the two, the special act must be taken as intended to constitute an exception to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Greenberg v. Lee
...his erroneous reasoning in this respect. See Beezley v. City of Astoria, 126 Or. 177, 192, 269 P. 216, 60 A.L.R. 504; Cameron v. Stevens, 121 Or. 538, 543, 544, 256 P. 395; Kershaw v. City of Willamina, 119 Or. 543, 250 P. 235; Thielke v. Albee, 79 Or. 48, 153 P. The heart of the Kadderly c......
-
Garbade v. City of Portland
...it was held that article IV, § 1a, which extends the initiative and referendum powers to the legal voters of every municipality [121 Or. 538, 256 P. 397], 'contains no prohibition the legislature of upon the law-making body of a city or town to declare an emergency when enacting laws which ......
-
Multnomah County v. Mittleman
...powers are granted to the voters of municipalities, neither greater nor less. * * *' (Emphasis added)12 See also Cameron v. Stevens, 121 Or. 538, 542, 256 P. 395 (1927). ...