Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1902-11-28
The Referendum.

In the discussion OF the Incense Dill
in the House last Friday the strongest
point of opposition was laid on the
kind of referendum which the MAORI
ty bill proposes The opponents of
the bill urged that this was not the
kind of referendum contemplated by
the Republican platform, and that
1t is not fair referendum in that
it makes the law take effect wheth
err the people vote yes or no. The
referendum provision of the license
| bill is the following
Section 100. This act shall take
effect on the first Tuesday of March
| A. d. 1903 provided that if a majority
/ of the ballots to be cast as herein
/ after provided shall be no. then this
/ act shall take effect the first Monday
/ in December, A. ID. 1904.
Sections 101 and 102 which follow
| provide that the popular vote shall
! be taken on the first Tuesday of next
January, and specify the manner in
which the returns shall be made to the
county clerks and by them to the
secretary of state, who in his turn
must issue his proclamation certify
ing the result of the vote, and declar
ing the time when the provisions of
/ the act shall take effect The refer
endum provision of the Battell bill
is the following:
Section 40 The foregoing provi-
sions of this act shall take effect on the
iirst Tuesday in March. a. d. 1903,
provided, however that if a majority
OF the ballots to be cast as herein
after provided shall be no. then this
act shall not take effect or have any
force"
Sections 80 and 81 provide for the
time and manner of taking the vote
and for the certification and procla-
nation of the result. The provision
Of the Battell bill is for a direct"
referendum. while the majority bill
provides for an indirect" referen-
dunn 1t is well understood that the
only reason that the indirect method
was adopted and recommended by the
majority of the joint temperance
committee. and finally passed by the
House was to make sure that the
referendum vote meets the require
ment of the Vermont constit Ition,
and cannot be assailed or overthrow.
1t was under this kind of a referen-
DUN that the present prohibitory law
was enacted and carried into effect.
The courts of the state passed upon it
and approved it. and there will be no
question of its constitutiunality in
the present case. The essential idea
is that to be constitutional a law
must provide a specific date at
which it shall go into effect without
any contingent provision. 1t is the
opinion of many good lawyers that
the direct referendum would meet the
requirement and would be held to be
constitutional, but it is undoubtedly
the wise and safe thing to do to adopt
the indirect method. as has been done
We append the comments of two
leading state papers. the Burlington
Free Press. which is a staunch friend
OF prohibition. and the ST. Adams
Messenger, an active supporter of
high license.
lTrom the Burlington Free Press.l
II there were no legal or constitutional
objection OF course the simplest and best
method of taking the will of the voters
as between the so-called prohibitory and
license-local option systems would be by
direct vote. yes or no, on the new license
local option measure. But the question of
unconstitutionality of such referendum
having been raised anew as II was raised
fifty years ago the trainers of the local
option bill Thought best to adopt the in
. direct method, under which the original
so-called prohibitory law took effect.
The will of the voters can be ascertained
by either method. II the indirect ref
erendum. in the shape of a choice OF
dates upon which the law shall take
effect. Is adopted. the voters can general
ly be made TO understand that a vote for
the earlier date is a vote for the new
law and vote for the later date a vote
! against 1t; and they will vote accord
ingly.
We should be entirely willing to have
the issue decided by the direct method,
and do not believe the courts would in
l validate the law, IL sustained by the ma
jority of the voters, nor that the new
law would be permitted to take effect,
II the majority was against Il on the di-
rect popular vote. But the difference as
regards the practical working of the two
.
to be very great. Either can be made to
answer the purpose of obtaining the will
of the people on the main question.
l [From the st. Adams Messenger
Our friends who insist that the re-
? ferendum feature of the ma jorty license
, bill does not comply with the promise
! of the Republican state platform TO give
1 the people an opportunity to vote on the
acceptance or rejection of a license
local-option law should ask themselves
which has the greatest weight of author
ity, a party platform or the constitu-
ton of Vermont? The situation is,
not that the supporters OF the majority
bill did not or do not want to submit the
question to the people, but that there
is grave doubt to the constitutionality
of direct referendum and no doubt
whatever about the constitutonality of
the indirect referendum. On the other
hand, II would be equal in effect to a
direct Reputation of the platform pledge
II license law was passed only to be
! declared unconstitutional by the supreme
court simply because of a referendum
clause that the lawmakers knew was of
| a ftn