Page:Address of Frederick V. Holman at Oregon Bar Association annual meeting.djvu/22

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been validated.

16

the legal voters," or whether they mean any number less than eight per cent, or any number not exceeding eight per cent, has not been decided. Literally, "not more than eight per cent" may m.ean one voter or two, or half a dozen.

In the cases of McKenna v. The City of Portland, 52 Ogn. 191, and Farrell v. The Port of Portland, 52 Ogn. 582, it was held that the amendments of 1906 must be construed together.

It will be noted that said Section 1a of Article IV provides that:

The manner of exercising said powers" (initiative and referendum), "shall be prescribed by general laws, except that cities and towns may provide for the manner of exercising the initiative and referendum powers as to their municipal legislation.

It has been held by the Supreme Court of Oregon that the provisions of said Section 1a, so far as municipal corporations are concerned, are not self-executing, in the following cases:

In the case of the Acme Dairy Company v. City of Astoria, 49 Ogn. 520, the Common Council of Astoria, prior to the passage of the law of 1907, amended the charter of the city, without action by the legal voters of Astoria, so as to provide the manner of exercising the initiative and referendum powers by the people. The Supreme Court held that the Common Council had such power. In deciding this case Mr. Justice Moore, referring to said Section 1a of Article IV, said:

The right reserved by the Constitutional amendment is not self-executing, and cannot be carried into effect in the absence of a general statute prescribing the mode of its exercise.

In the case of McKenna v. City of Portland, 52 Ogn. 191, Mr. Chief Justice Bean, referring to the amendments of 1906, on page 194, said:

As no provision is made therein for the manner of exercising the power thus conferred, some law upon the subject was necessary to make it effective, and the law of 1907 was adopted for that purpose.

It was further held, in that case, that at that time, there being no legislation of the City of Portland conflicting with the provisions of said law of 1907, the Council of Portland having initiated and submitted an amendment to the charter