« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »
Riggle v. Lens (Or.).
Rank v. Kansas City Packing Box Co. (Kan.)
Ransom v. Minick (Kan.).
Redding v. Spokane (Wash.)
Richardson, Hickman v. (Kan.).
.1019 Seattle, P. A. & L. C. Ry. v. Land (Wash.) 680 964 Seattle Seminary v. Seattle (Wash.).
167 Sebold v. Rieger (Colo. App.).
246 Seibert v. State (Okl. Cr. App.). Sevier V. Mitchell (Or.)..
Riggs v. German (Wash.).
413 Seymour v. Ellensburg (Wash.). 346 Shannon, George v. (Kan.).... Sharp Lumber Co. V.
Kansas Ice Co.
Riggs, Stone v. (Ökl.).
Shelton v. School Board, Dist. No. 22 of City of Tulsa (Okl.).
v. (Cal. App.).
Riverton Coal & Development Co., Rouse v. (Or.).
Sheppard, C. W. Kettering Mercantile Co. v. (N. M.)..
Sherman v. Glick (Or.).
R. N. Nason & Co. v. Stack (Wash.). Roberts v. Pendleton (Kan.)
Sherod v. Aitchison (Or.).
Shoudy v. Reeser (Mont.).
Roberts v. Roberts (Cal.)..
Sims v. Frew (Cal. App.).
Roberts, Swank & Letton v. (Cal. App.).. 104
Sinnes v. Daggett (Wash.).
Robertson, Cavitt v. (Okl.)..
Robison, Westinghouse Electric & Mfg. Co.
Smith v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. (N. M.).
Rockwell v. Junction City (Kan.)
Rogers v. Lummer (Cal. App.)
Smith v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. (Okl.) 398 Smith v. Eaton (Wash.).
Rogers v. Rogers (Wash.).
Smith, Edwards v. (Okl.).
Roos Bros., Collom v. (Cal. App.).
858 Smith, Griffing v. (Colo. App.).
Rosa v. Bandon (Or.).....
Rosa, Empire Coal Co. v. (Colo. App.)
339 Smith v. Gruber Lumber Co. (Wash.).
192 Smith, Harrison v. (Okl.)..
Rosenberg, State v. (Or.)...
624 Smith v. J. I. Case Threshing Mach. Co.
Ross v. Thomas (Cal. App.).
Rothweiler v. Mason (Kan.).
Smith, Kellogg v. (Or.)..
Round v. Land & Power Co. (Kan.)
Smith v. McDuffee (Or.).
Rouse, Gibson v. (Wash.)..
Rouse v. Riverton Coal & Development Co. (Or.)
Smith v. B. Schade Brewing Co. (Wash.).. 455 Smith v. Silverton (Or.).
Smith, State v. (Okl.).
Roy, Salin v. (Wash.).
Smith Sand & Gravel Co. V. Corbin
Russell Miller Mill. Co. v. Bastasch (Or.) 355 Ruth v. Flynn (Colo. App.)..
Smith & Co. v. Dickinson (Wash.)
Rutherford v. Holbert (Okl.).
Sommer, State v. (Or.)...
State, Hall v. (Okl. Cr. App.)..
State, Hildreth v. (Okl. Cr. App.).
State, Marshall v. (Okl. Cr. App.)
State, Montgomery v. (Okl. Cr. App.)
State, Parks v. (Okl. Cr. App.).
.1048 Tompkins v. Superior Court of San Ber-
State v. Paysse (Wash.).
State v. Pender (Or.).
Topping v. Great Northern R. Co. (Wash.) 425
State, Price v. (Okl. Cr. App.).
Town of Aurora v. Hayden (Colo.)
[Cases in which rehearings have been denied, without the rendition of a written opinion, since the publication of the original opinions in previous volumes of this Reporter.]
Bales v. Wichita Midland Val. R. Co., 141 P. 1009.
Kreitzer v. Monarch Portland Cement Co., 141 P. 1004.
Bell v. State, 141 P. 804. Johnson v. State, 140 P. 622. Myrick v. State, 140 P. 788.
1. STATUTES (§ 352*)-LEGISLATION-INITIA-print, and distribute, at the expense of the TIVE PETITIONS. state, the argument presented in favor of this initiative measure.
Under Laws 1913, c. 138, §§ 26, 27, providing that the person or organization filing arguments as to an initiative measure shall deThe petition recites that the relators have posit with the secretary of state sufficient mon- presented to the secretary of state an arguey to pay the cost of paper for, and the print-ment, and have tendered the sum of $31.50 ing and binding of, such arguments, the secreas a sufficient amount to cover the increased tary of state is entitled to demand of those who offer arguments a sufficient sum to cover the cost of the paper, the printing, and the binding in pamphlet form.
[Ed. Note. For other cases, see Statutes, Dec. Dig. § 352.*]
2. STATUTES (§ 39*)-CONSTRUCTION-ENRollED BILL.
The terms of the enrolled bill on file in the office of the secretary of state govern in case of conflict with the printed Session Acts.
[Ed. Note. For other cases, see Statutes, Cent. Dig. § 42; Dec. Dig. § 39.*]
cost of paper for the printing and binding of the argument, and that the secretary of state has refused to receive that sum and file the argument, but insists on $200 per page for said argument, to be paid by the proponents of the measure. No question is made upon the facts recited in the petition for the writ.
the secretary of state.
The initiative measure has been filed with The secretary of state insists that he is entitled to demand 3. STATUTES (§ 351⁄2*)—INITIATIVE MEASURES of the proponents of the bill, who offer an -PUBLICITY-CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS. Const. art. 2, § 1, relating to initiative argument in support thereof, a sufficient measures, declares that the Legislature shall amount of money to cover the cost of the provide methods of publicity for all laws or parts of laws, with arguments for and against, paper, printing, and the binding of such This is the so that each voter shall receive the publica- argument in pamphlet form. tion at least 50 days before the election at sole question presented. which such laws shall be voted upon. Laws 1913, c. 138, §§ 26, 27, provide that the person or organization filing arguments in support of. or against, initiative measures shall deposit with the secretary of state sufficient money to cover the cost of paper for, and the printing and binding of, such arguments. Held, that the Constitution does not prohibit the Legislature from requiring such a fee for the publication of arguments relating to initiative measures, and the requirement of Laws 1913 is valid.
[Ed. Note. For other cases, see Statutes, Dec. Dig. § 352.*]
Fullerton, J., dissenting.
Application by the State, on the relation of Fred J. Chamberlain and others, for a writ of mandamus against I. M. Howell, as Secretary of the State of Washington. Application denied.
The Constitution under which this initiative measure was filed provides at section 1, art. 2, as follows:
"The legislative authority of the state of Washington shall be vested in the Legislature consisting of a Senate and House of Representatives, which shall be called the Legislature of the state of Washington, but the people reserve to themselves the power to propose bills, laws, and to enact or reject the same at the polls, independent of the Legislature, and also reserve power, at their own option, to approve or reject at the polls any act, item, section, or part of any bill, act or law passed by the Legislature.
"(a) Initiative: The first power reserved by the people is the initiative. Ten per centum, but in no case more than fifty thousand, of the legal voters shall be required to propose any measure by such petition, and every such petition shall include the full text of the measure as proposed. Initiative petitions shall be filed with the secretary of state not less than four months before the election at which they are to be voted upon, or not less than ten days before
For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep'r Indexes 142 P.-1
any regular session of the Legislature. If filed
The Legislature shall provide methods of publicity of all laws or parts of laws, and amendments to the Constitution referred to the people with arguments for and against the laws and amendments so referred, so that each voter of the state shall receive the publication at least fifty days before the election at which they
are to be voted upon."
Pursuant to these provisions, the Legislature of 1913 passed an act to facilitate the operations of the provisions of that section, and to prevent fraud, and providing penalties for a violation thereof.
Such number of pamphlets shall be printed as shall fill the requirements as to distribution hereinafter provided.
Sections 26 and 27 contain a clear statement to the effect that the person filing an argument in support of an initiative measure must deposit with the secretary of state sufficient money to cover the increased cost of paper for, and the printing and binding of, such argument. These two sections are plain to the effect that it is the duty of the secretary of state to pay the cost of printing and binding the pamphlets, so far as the initiative measure itself is concerned, out of the money appropriated for printing. But the increased cost of paper and of printing and binding such arguments must be paid for by the person proposing the argument in favor of the measure. Relators apparently concede that the secretary is authorized to collect for the paper, because they allege that they tendered a sum sufficient to cover this item.
 The constitutionality of this act is not attacked directly. Relators apparently question the validity of sections 26 and 27 by
[1, 2] Section 26 of this act, found on page 431, Laws of 1913, provides that the person filing any initiative petition proposing a measure shall have the right at the time of filing such petition, or within ten days after such petition has been accepted and a contention to the effect that because the filed, to file with the secretary of state for Constitution says "the Legislature shall proprinting and distribution arguments advo- vide methods of publicity of all laws or cating the proposed measure, and that any parts of laws, and amendments to the Conperson may within 20 days file an argument stitution referred to the people with arguin opposition to such measure; provided that ments for and against the laws and amendno more than two separate arguments advoments so referred," that such arguments cating such measure, and not more than stand on the same plane as the initiative three separate arguments in opposition there- measures, and that, if one is filed without a to, shall be printed and distributed at the fee for printing and binding, the other must expense of the state. The section then pro- also be filed without such fee; that, if one vides a method of selecting arguments in is published at the expense of the state, case more arguments are filed with the secre- the other must also be published at the extary of state than above stated. It also pense of the state, and not at the expense provides that each argument, either for or of the proponents of the measure, or of the against the measure, shall not exceed two person offering the argument. The Constipages of the pamphlet required to be pub-tution appears to make no distinction between lished by the state, and then provides as fol
"The person or organization filing such argument shall at the time of filing the same deposit with the secretary of state sufficient money, the amount to be estimated by the secretary of state, to cover the increased cost of paper for the printing and binding of such argument." In the law as printed on page 432, the word "and" underscored in the foregoing quotation is omitted. This word is in the enrolled bill on file in the office of the secretary of state, and is therefore the law. State ex rel. Reed v. Jones, 6 Wash. 452, 34 Pac. 201, 23 L. R. A. 340.
Section 27 of the same act provides for the publication of the pamphlet by the secretary of state and what it shall contain, and then provides as follows:
"The cost of printing and binding such pamphlets shall be paid from the money appropriated for printing for the secretary of state: Provided, the increased cost of printing and binding such arguments shall be paid from the moneys deposited to cover the same and the balance of any such monies, if any, and the monies deposited for arguments not printed
the publicity of the initiative measure itself and the publicity of the arguments for or against such measure or proposed law. But there is nothing in the Constitution prohibiting the Legislature from requiring a fee for filing, printing, or binding either the proposed measure or the arguments. It is clear that, where the Constitution does not prohibit the Legislature from requiring a fee in such case, it is within the power of the Legislature to require a fee. This is elementary, and no authority is needed to sustain it. The Constitution does not in terms, or inferentially, require the state to bear the expense of the publication of these arguments. It simply requires the Legislature to provide methods of publicity without limitation as to fees. The Legislature, therefore, may require the proponents of any measure to pay the expense of the arguments or of the distribution or of the publicity. It has not, however, seen fit to do so. It has made an appropriation to bear the expense of printing the bill itself, and of distributing the pam