Daily capital journal., April 27, 1911, Page PAGE TWO, Image 2

the capital journal
E. HOFER, Editor and Proprietor.
R. M. HOFER, Manager
sMepandant Newipapcr Devoted to American Principles and
the ProgreM and Development of All Oregon
Published Everr Evenins Except SuiuUr. 8sm, Ore.
SUBSCRIPTION RATESl
(Invariably in Advance)
Caflr, by Carrier, per year $6.00 Per month
Dally, br Mill, per year 4.W Per month-
air, by MaU, per rear 109 Six months
FULL LEASED WIRE TElXGRAPH REPORT
WHAT IS THE MATTER.
Where the recall is impossible to apply is where the
Salem Journal is shouting in leader editorials for it to
be applied. In 1906 the people passed a gross income
tax on corporations. The legislature elected at the
same time unintentionally or otherwise repealed it, and
a supreme court confirmed that view of its having been
repealed "by implication." The legislature cannot be
recalled. It has been succeeded by two other legisla
tures since. The supreme c ourt cannot be recalled, for
it ha3 changed its members ship by death, resignation
and election. Who does The Journal want to, have re
called? Why not keep quiet until it finds out? Why not
initiate another law, and, if necessary, put it in the.
form of an amendment to tlje constitution, so that it
will stay awhile? What is the matter with the think
tank of The Journal, anyway. Portland Labor Press.
.J .jr - ' '
The people should understand that the Labor Press is con
trolled, if not owned, by a group of politicians at the head of
which are the so-called champions of the recall and the initiative
and referendum.
They are supposed to be the deadly foes of the corporations
and the. big interests in Portland and the state and the nation.
These men masquerade as the champions of laboring men and
the grangers and the producer and the foes of the plutocrats.
But in a case where the best measures ever enacted by the peo
ple to tax the big interests hitherto untaxed has been wiped out
and given the deadly dagger thrust, they are silent.
The case has never gone to the supreme court where the gross
income tax was repealed "by implication."
"Who does The Journal want to have recalled?" asks the La
bor Press.
The Capital JoJurnal believesin the tax on gross earnings of
corporations as the most just way to get state revenues.
But The Capital Journal is not running the recall game, and it
is not posing as the champion in politics of the labor organiza
tions and the Granges.
It is saying that those organizations are very weakly, if not
basely, represented by the People's Power League or the reform
gang, who control so-called progressive politics in Oregon.
The people and the labor elements and the Grangers were
sold out body and soul in this matter of repealing laws enacted
by the people to get revenues from the gross earnings of corpora
tions. We will now humbug the people with some new invention, and
we have probably got our reward for serving the Standard Oil
and Wells Fargo Express and the Armour refrigerator lines and
the telegraph trust.
Laws enacted by the people to put a half million a year of rev
enue into the state treasury can be repealed "by implication,"
and the farmers can sweat for more direct taxes.
The progressive gang of politicians who are in control of the
Labor Press say it is all right, and "why not keep quiet."
A circuit court upholds the law creating a state tax commis
sion arid holds "by implication" the gross earnings taxes are re
pealed. One state official holds that under the circumstances there
should be no further effort to collect these gross earnings taxes.
Another state official concludes that the suggestion is a good
one and the laws enacted by the people, which have never been
in the supreme court, are nullified, and stops the collection of the
taxes.
Ilia amo time
out candid
In
The
qui ohoTcn
afternoon
attends;
or ai
1
V t
von t x . ivri
nr. I X. r find
"4
phyt
bui ...
suit Vlk
voiij Y3
i H
mini w' "
until
don
th I
Pteej
W
Seni
untl
cbje
mlU
thre
of the vjpy bw 1
!. f Of
rJr iS
YORK. Jan. 19,-PVrmr
Buffalo called
and discussed I
After leaving
Mayor Oa
8hepard.
cehan," said 4
aa any other
with only fou
t hesitate to wltlft
How Is Mr. Bheehak
T continued Mr. V"
of the people y
RepubTr
s
Itar.
Bf
crtt
a tor
the
hcrents of the va
j idle.
Bmy.
ppoae
held the
aiortedf
and no
' have fall
Senator i
.
irrey wore ni' i
and still iy"!
tli Sheehanjpl f"
UD fpn n 1 JUL,
xammmm
.air . .
This i3 not a small matter to the tax-ridden people of the
state, but, if everybody is satisfied, "why not keep quiet?"
It is up to those who are the champions of the recall and the
champions of sacredness of the laws enacted by the people to as-,
certain who put the stilletto into the heart of the gross earnings
tax.
The editor of this paper is noton the defensive in this matter,
for, as a member of the legislature in 1895, he secured the en
actment of the first gross earnings tax on insurance companies,
that has put nearly a million dollars into the state treasury.
Let those who secretly put the knife into such people's meas
ures be held to accountability, and not jump onto a man who has
never been a party to such political treachery in the interests of
the plutocrats.
It is up to the Labor Press and its management to find out how
the best measures ever enacted by the people were repealed "by
implication," and apply the proper remedy.
The legislature is not allowed to repeal a law enacted by the
people, and why should a court or state official be allowed to re
peal a law "by implication?" - ,
H
SWA sine)
SUPREME COURT PASSES
ON A FERRY BOAT; OR TWO
It Does Not Cross the River on Them, But Just Establishes
Their Status, Tells the Owners About the Necessary Licen
ses, and in Fact Instructs Them How to Run a Ferry Boat
and Manage Its Landings, Besides Furling Sails ,Reefing
Its Anchor Chains apd Other Nautical Matters.
OREGON SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
Foil Text Published by Courtesy of F. A. Turner, Reporter of the
Supreme Court
4Y JTUfirfr
'A
UoM
to d
h.ey
and
traf
ttvD
noo
olhe
any
i
i
aslec
111 onl
'enator.-
"alty wh
in witho
Wnfinor
Mayor
g""mfr Oaynoi
tr lp with :
i ipre :
Jtan
I S0 1 wouU
1 liBufi
f XhU
t
n't
iM
oil
ir
SB
101
lit
av
tm
lct
J
inl
I'll
ht
Jim
Js'
ait
Jllni
utlo lenatorl
f ed to stay
it may b
' Democrats wl
fed tills sftrt
filca wltli their
relieved they h
iieehan men that
Jeht." eal
Insurgent I
must corns
havo not
i and I do not
to concentrate our
ttrtnii'ir -f-"".".. Wa aoall
i snothur n)MUnc Wt this alieauaoru
.jflBng
1 ellrnmA I nr.
I la nslsteXy !lln
i jaers ana l imm
4 i to tnm; f i.jtj .ntot
t u r. r.H irrr- .
I 1 1 o combinf fusqi
s l.f lmpalred,l I
1 fT f 1 vlao'f In aV
I I I I".1 w")c'l I new
I I I 1"' M'f ! I
iVy Tf iW Af v
r 1 1 i r i i
f wi I,BA JtQoVsrf fh
Know ctTT,
1 A
iny to-day, and they jT -J l
was met at the rpi'iiiinilt
loner Aerlcultura Pearson and Go
nw mllltmV sois
Dpn, et nl, t. Washington 'nvlgn
tlon, et nl, Wnsco Connty.
O. C. Dean, Andrew Pearson, Al
fred Shepler and Theodore Shepler,
partners doing business under the
firm name of Dean & Pearson, re
spondents, v. Washington Navigation
Company, a corporation, W. S. Chap
man, C. D. Moore and William
Priest, appellants. Appeal from the
circuit . court for Wasco county.
Hon. W. L. Bradshaw, Judge. Ar
gued and submitted April 11, 1911.
Carter & Dufur and H. H. Riddell,
for appellants. A. A. Jayne and W.
H. Wilson, for respondents. Burnett,
J. Suit dismissed.
Burnett, J.: The plaintiffs here,
alleging that they are the owners
and operators of a regularly licensed
ferry across the Columbia River be
tween Hood River, Oregon, and White
Salmon, Washington, bring this suit
to enjoin the defendants from main
taining a rival ferry between the
same points. The averment of the
existence of a duly llcnsed ferry un
der the ownership of plaintiffs was
denied and as an essential element
of their complaint it became neces
sary for them to prove-it This in
volves the regularity of the proceed
ings of the county court of Wasco
county under which the plaintiffs
clnlm. The county court has author
ity and power, in this respect, "to
license ferries and fix the rate of
ferriage." L. 0. L. Sec. 937. It has
often been held, beginning as early
as Johns v. Marion County, 4 Or. 46,
and In many later cases, that when
transacting such business the county
court is a tribunal of limited Juris
diction. In respect to ferry licenses
It is required by Sec. 6491, I. 0. L.,
that "unless otherwise provided by
law, no such license shall be granted
to any person other than the owner
of the land embracing or adjoining
such lake or stream where the ferry
Is proposed to be kept, unless the
landing place of such proposed ferry
shall be at the end of a street in
an Incorporated city or town, or un
less the owner shall neglect to ap
ply for such license; and whenever
application shall be made for a li
cense by any person other than such
owner, the county court shall not
grant the same unless proof be made
thnt the applicant caused notice in
writing of his intention to make such
application to be given to such own
er, if residing In the county, at
least 10 days before the term of
court at which application is made,
unless the landing place of such
proposed ferry shall be at the end of
a street in an Incorporated city or
town as aforesaid." Section 6492
provides that "every person intend
ing to apply for a license to keep a
ferry at any place shall give notice
of such Intention by posting up at
least three notices in public places
In the neighborhood where the ferry
is proposed to be kept 20 days prior
to any gular terra of the county
court at which the application shall
be made; provided that when appli
cation shall be made for the renewal
of a license where the former license
has expired, the same may be grant
ed or renewed without previous no
tice or petition." It is contended in
the evidence and argument of coun
sel thnt the license of the plaintiffs
alluded to but not so described In
their complaint was a renewal of a
former license and hence no notice
of the application for the same was
necessary, but unless there was a
formal valid license there could be
no renewal within the meaning of
Sec. 6493. It waa Incumbent upon
the plaintiffs in order to sustain the
allegation of a license duly issued to
show that notice of the original ap
plication had been given to the land
owner where the ferry was proposed
to be kept. In brief It was' incum
bent upon them to duly prove their
original license as a foundation for
the alleged renewal. It Is conceded
throughout the case that the plain
tiffs do not own the land where the
ferry Is located on the Oregon side.
To form a proper foundation for a
proceeding to obtain a license the
petition to the county court should
either show that the petitioner is
the owner of the land at the point of
embarkation of the proposed ferry
or he muBt, flf not such owner, bring
himself within the exceptions of the
statute that the landing place is at
the end of a street in an incorporated
city or town or that the owner of
the land has neglected to apply for
a license and the latter exception
should be coupled with proof that the
land owner has been served with no
tice in writing of the proposed appli
cation. Moreover, it is a uniform
requisite to the Jurisdiction of the
county court in such cases that some
showing should appear In its record
that notice of the application was
given by posting up the same in at
least three public places in the neigh
borhood where the ferry is proposed
to be kept for 20 days prior to the
time of making the application. The
record is silent respecting any such
notices. An abortive attempt was
made by oral testimony at the trial
to show that some notice was given,
but that would not aid the record 'of
the county court. It is essential to
the Jurisdiction of the court that the
notice should not only have been
given, but that proof thereof as re
quired by law should be on file in
thatcourt before it proceeded to act.
The recitals of the record on the re
newal of the license are not sufficient
to show that the court had Jurisdic
tion in the i original Instance.
It Is not necessary to consider the
question of jwhether the county court
of Wasco county could license a fer
ry crossing' an interstate boundary
or any of the other questions in this
case. The plaintiffs have failed to
establish the essential alleagtion of
their complaint, to-wlt: the owner
ship of a duly licensed ferry. The
case is within the meaning of State
v. Officer, 4 Or. 180, where the defen
dant was indicted for obstructing a
county road and on a plea of not
guilty It was held to be incumbent
upon the state to show affirmatively
that the county court had Jurisdic
tion of the person and of the sub
ject matter affected by its proceed
ings in laying out the county road
and the record being defective in
that respect no. cause of action ex
isted against the defendant for ob
structing the supposed highway.
A decree will be entered dismiss
ing the suit
Chapman, et al, t. Dean, et al, Was
co County.
Winfield S. Chapman and Charles
B. More, appellants, v. O. C. Dean, A.
Pearson and A. Shepley, partners do
ng tmlness tinder the firm name and
style of Dean & Pearson, respond
ents. Appeal from the circuit court
for Wasco county. Hon. W. L.
Bradshaw Judge. Argued and sub
mitted April 11, 1911. Carter & Du
fur and H. H. Riddell, tor appellants.
A. A. Jayne and W. H. Wilson, for
respondents. Burnett J. Reversed.
The plaintiffs, alleging that they
art the owners in fee simple as ten-
ri
ri
II
II
II
II
II
11
n
n
ti
n
is
ii
ti
tl
H
IS
ti
ti
H
tl
U
tl
II
11
11
11
11
tl
11
11
II
11
II
II
n
ii
ri
ti
ii
ii
n
11
n
ii
11
ii
u
ii
ii
H
-4
LI k
it
NO W0NDER--it's
full of whole
some goodness;
it's rich with
nutrition; it's
made with skill
and honor.
Jill '
CLEANLINESS
The bread of
purity; the bread
made in the
cleanest and
most sanitary
bakery in the
world.
I!
I
n
8
tl
ii
11
n
u
u
m
B
B
I
I
Table Queen Breads
The famous product of the Royal Bakery & Confec
tionery, of Portland, is at your disposal. We recom
mend it highly as a perfect loaf of bread, honestly
made, well made, where no dirty fingers can touch
it, and where machines do the work of combining,
sifting, mixing and handling. Try a loaf it's elegant.
Roth
Gr
M
I
S
I
I
I
ocery
Co.!
410 to 416 State St. Phones 1885-1886 i
ants in common of a certain tract of
land adjacent to the town of Hood
River of which they were in posses
sion, complain of the defendants that
the latter being the owners of and
operating various boats and river
craft on the waters of the Columbia
River, upon which the . lands abut,
persistently and against the warn
ings, protests and commands of the
plaintiffs continued to land their
boats upon plaintiff's premises not
only daily but several times a day
and threaten to and will continue to
make such use thereof, unless re
strained, all to the great and irre
parable injury of plaintiffs.
The answer denies the title of
plaintiffs to the land, but the same
was abundantly proven bv record
and was not questioned at the trial!
or in the argument. The defendants
"admit that they have made use of
the place on the land described in
the complaint and are still making
use thereof as a landing for their
boats and water craft, passengers
and freight, daily and several times
a day, and that they will continue to
make use thereof, but defendants
deny that the said use thereof by the
defendants is to a great or irrepara
ble injury of the plaintiffs or that it
Is any injury to them or either of
them at all, and deny that the said
use thereof is In violation of the
rights of the plaintiffs or either of
them or that the same Is wrongful or
without color of right." Affirmative
ly the defendants allege In substance
that they own and operate a ferry
between Hood River, Oregon, and
White Salmon Washington, under a
license regularly granted by tha
county court of Wasco county and
another license granted by the prop
er authorities for Klickitat county,
Washington, and that they and their
predecssors in the "maintenance and
operation of said ferry have habitual
ly used the places that the defendants
are now using for a ferry
landing for freight and passengers
and the United States mails for a
period of more thanO years with
out interference or objection from
the plaintiffs and their predecessors
in interest, and the use made there
of by the defendants and about which
the plaintiffs now complain and seek
to have enjoined are the same and
similar to the use made of said
premises for a period of more than
30 "years, and the plaintiffs have
been guilty of laches and are es
topped from complaining of said acts
at the present time." Lastly, they
allege "that the general public has
used the premises mentioned and de
scribed In the plaintiffs' complaint at
the points and places therein men
tioned and complained of as a ferry
landing and public way, under a
claim of right, adversely, and not by
mere permission of owners, for a
period greater than the period de
scribed by the statute of limitations
beyond which actions for the recov
ery of real property cannot be main
tained, namely, for a period of more
than 30 years, which said use was
next prior to the commencement of
this action, and was continuous and
uninterrupted and substantially by
way of a certain and well-defined line
of travel for said entire period, at
all seasons of the year whea the
stage of the water in the Columbia
River would admit thereof, whereby
an easement was and is established
in favor of the public, and the use
thereof by the defendants and about
which the plaintiffs complain In their
complaint herein is the use by the
defendants and the public taking
passage on the defendants' boats, as
(Continued on Page 6.)
.'HtM
Can You Beat These
CAN I0U BEAT THESE J
95-acre farm; 40 acres set to prunes; balance all cultivated land.
$80 Per acre..
11 acres land all set to apple trees; 3 miles east of Salem;
$2,300
Good 6-room house, fine barn, 3 lota windmill, plenty fruit;
close in; $3,000-
36 ,icres fine Improved land, 9-room house, barn 40x60, 3 miles
of Salem. The price o this place has been reduced to $7,500
Terms. 71 acres Joining R. R. station, only $5650 per acre
15 acres all set to Italian prunes; good house; good barn;
$2,500
30 acres bearing orchard; prunes and apples, close to Liberty
Store, 2 miles south of Salem; $300 per acre. Good house and
dryer, all complete.
280 acres orchard of ' English walnuts, cherries and peaches
trees on the place; balance pasture land; $150 Per acre-
take some exchange on this.
230 acres all plow land; 8 miles of Salem, $60 Pr acre
100 acre dairy farm with. $3,000 resident cow barn for 60 cows.
At a R. R. station, $150 per acre.
11 acres prune orchard, house and barn; $2,250
100 acres highly improved land, good buildings, $110 Per acre'
6 miles of Salem.
House on 21st street, 7 rooms. Lot 50x156; $2,200
House on 14th street, close In; 6 rooms, modern basement,
nace; $2,300- i 100
8-room house on D and 17th all modern, two full Jots; $ J,DUv-6-room
house on Owen street; lot 70x160; $1,650
Fine residence on Center street, 8 rooms, all modern; $l,oW
Fine residence on Front; 9 rooms, close In, $6,500-6-room
house on South Liberty; $1,800- gnap
8-room house, full lot, close to Yew Park store, ,4CW-
Five hundred million feet timber all In one body; finest
timber on Pacific Coast and it is for sale.
Two lots, fine location; close in; 100x150; $550- mTated;
50 acres between Woodburn and West Woodburn; all cu
$100 per acre. ' ' '
197 acres 5 miles of Salem; Ana farm; $90 Per ac'
Lot 82 ft. front on corner of Court and Cottage, $,vvv
Will
J. U. WIUl
Tel. 579 Room 17, Bush Bank wo 8- j
4
M tt