Equi v. Olcott
Decision Date | 29 July 1913 |
Citation | 133 P. 775,66 Or. 213 |
Parties | EQUI et al. v. OLCOTT, Secretary of State. |
Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
In Banc. Original petition for mandamus by Marie D. Equi and another against Ben W. Olcott, as Secretary of State, to compel the filing of a petition for the initiative and its submission to the people. Demurrer to alternative writ sustained.
W.S. U'Ren, of Oregon City, for plaintiffs.
A.M Crawford, Atty. Gen., for defendant.
By the act of February 28, 1913 (Laws 1913, p. 620), the Legislative Assembly passed a law, providing that: The plaintiffs have sued out of this court an original alternative writ of mandamus, requiring the defendant, as Secretary of State, to forthwith receive and file in his office an initiative petition, therein described for a "Woman Wageworker's Eight-Hour Law," and commanding him to submit the proposed law to the legal voters of the state of Oregon for their approval or rejection at the special election above mentioned, or show cause to the contrary. The defendant has demurred generally to the writ.
Two questions are involved. The principal one pressed upon our attention is whether or not the proposed law shall be submitted to the electorate at the special election mentioned. The other is whether or not the Secretary shall be compelled to file the petition on the showing made in the writ.
Affecting the first question, section 1, article 4, of the Oregon Constitution says that:
Legislation other than the act of February 28, 1913, has been provided by general laws for the guidance of public officers in relation to the initiative process, and these laws have been in operation for a number of years. The act authorizing a special election to be held in November, 1913, mentioned above, does not contain any allusion to initiative measures. It does not purport to repeal or amend any previous legislation on the subject of the initiative. It is manifest that the Secretary of State, as directed by the people in its Const...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Dryden v. Daly
...560, 126 P. 15; Scholl v. Belcher, 63 Or. 310, 127 P. 968; Shipman v. Portland Construction Company, 64 Or. 1, 128 P. 989; Equi v. Olcott, 66 Or. 213, 133 P. 775; Purdin Hancock, 67 Or. 164, 135 P. 515; Barnard v. Houser, 68 Or. 240, 137 P. 227; Gibson v. Kay, 68 Or. 589, 137 P. 864; Temple......
-
Seufert et al. v. Stadelman et al.
...the holding of municipal initiative elections, the state law controls. State ex rel. v. Poulsen, 140 Or. 623, 15 P. (2d) 372; Equi v. Olcott, 66 Or. 213, 133 P. 775; Hill v. Hartzell, 121 Or. 4, 252 P. 14. The initiative and referendum powers, as to all local, special and municipal legislat......
-
Fones v. Murdock
...61 Or. 403, 122 P. 33; Splonskofsky v. Minto, 62 Or. 560, 126 P. 15; Shipman v. Portland Const. Co., 64 Or. 1, 128 P. 989; Equi v. Olcott, 66 Or. 213, 133 P. 775; Purdin v. Hancock, 67 Or. 164, 135 P. Barnard v. Houser, 68 Or. 240, 137 P. 227; Templeton v. Cook, 69 Or. 313, 138 [80 Or. 345]......
-
Klovdahl v. Town of Springfield
...62 Or. 560, 126 P. 15; Scholl v. Belcher, 63 Or. 310, 127 P. 968; Shipman v. Portland Const. Co., 64 Or. 1, 128 P. 989; Equi v. Olcott, 66 Or. 213, 133 P. 775; Purdin v. Hancock, 67 Or. 164, 135 P. Barnard v. Houser, 68 Or. 240, 137 P. 227; Templeton v. Cook, 69 Or. 313, 138 P. 230; Farrell......