Palmer v. Benson
| Decision Date | 03 September 1907 |
| Citation | 91 P. 579,50 Or. 277 |
| Parties | PALMER et al. v. BENSON, Secretary of State. |
| Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Marion County; Wm. Galloway, Judge.
Mandamus on petition of Eugene Palmer and another, against F.W Benson, as Secretary of State. From a judgment denying the writ, petitioners appeal. Reversed and remanded, with directions.
Tilmon Ford and M.E. Pogue, for appellants.
A.M Crawford and Geo. G. Bingham, for respondent.
On the 23d day of May, 1907, the plaintiffs and others presented to the Secretary of State for filing a petition directing a reference to the people, under the referendum provision of the Constitution, of a measure passed by the legislative assembly in February, 1907, known as "House Bill No 37," to increase the annual appropriation for the support of the University of Oregon. Defendant refused to receive or file the said petition, and the plaintiffs bring this proceeding by mandamus to compel defendant to file said petition. Defendant answered to the writ of mandamus, denying the allegations of the same and alleging affirmatively that said petition is not in the form prescribed by section 1 of the act of the legislative assembly of 1907 (Laws 1907, p. 399), providing for carrying out the initiative and referendum, in that it did not contain the warning clause provided for in said act, and, further, that it does not contain a full and correct copy of the title and text of the measure sought to be referred. A reply was filed to the answer, and the cause tried in the court below upon the pleadings alone, and only two questions raised by the answer are suggested upon this appeal.
The objection made by defendant that the petition does not contain the warning clause provided by the statute has been fully considered in the case of Stevens v. Benson, 91 P. 577, just decided, and the decision in that case disposes of the objection here adversely to defendant. The only other question for consideration is whether the petition for the referendum must be attached to a full and correct copy of the title and text of the measure to be referred, or whether a full and correct copy of the text of the measure is sufficient.
The constitutional provision and the form of petition provided by the statute, upon which the proceeding is based, are set out in full in Stevens v. Benson, supra. Section 2 of the act to provide for carrying into effect the initiative and referendum (Laws 1907, p. 399), so far as it relates to the question here discussed, is: etc. The petition in this case did contain a full and correct copy of the text of the act, but erroneously gave the title of the act as "A bill for an act to increase the annual appropriation for the support and maintenance of the University of Oregon," when the real title of the act as passed is "An act to amend section 3529 of Bellinger & Cotton's Annotated Codes and Statutes of Oregon, by increasing the annual appropriation for the support and maintenance of the University of Oregon," and this discrepancy in setting out the title of the act is the ground assigned for the insufficiency of the petition. The purpose of the title to a bill or measure before the Legislature is, as stated in Clemmensen v. Peterson, 35 Or. 48, 56 P. 1016 ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Norris v. Cross
...of those powers, are very similar to the constitutional and statutory provisions on the same subject in this state. In Palmer et al. v. Benson, 50 Or. 277, 91 P. 579, writ of mandamus was sought to compel the Secretary of the State to file a referendum petition, which he had refused to file......
-
State v. Carter
...provision of the Constitution of the state of Oregon was self-executing. Stevens v. Benson, 50 Or. 269, 91 Pac. 577; Palmer v. Benson, 50 Or. 277, 91 Pac. 579 (1907). Likewise on a similar provision of the Constitution, and under similar statutes for the carrying of the same into effect, it......
-
Kerr v. Bradbury
...in meaning). Prior construction of the term "measure," however, suggests that no such difference in meaning was intended. Palmer v. Benson, 50 Or. 277, 91 P. 579 (1907), for example, involved a referendum petition that contained a different title from the title of the act that had been pass......
-
Lowther v. Nissley
... ... and make it more available, and such laws must not curtail ... the rights reserved or exceed the limitations specified ... Stevens v. Benson, 50 Or. 269, 91 P. 578; Reeves ... v. Anderson, 13 Wash. 17, 42 P. 625; Beecher v ... Baldy, 7 Mich. 488; Willis v. Mabon, 48 Minn ... 140, 50 ... 3371, and 3373, Revised Laws of Oklahoma 1910. Only a ... substantial compliance is essential. Palmer v ... Benson, 50 Or. 277, 91 P. 579; Haines v. City of ... Forest Grove, 54 Or. 443, 103 P. 775. It is not even ... contended that the plaintiff ... ...