Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1902-10-30

been passed by the one. shall have the
effect of. or he declared to be. a law,
without the concurrence of the other"
Not only the language but the spirit of
this article seems to delegate to the Cen
eral Assembly the whole legislative power
of tho neople, without reservation or limi
tation.
From tho organization Of the govern
ment to tho present time there have been
very few attempts by the LEGISLATURE to
relieve itself of the final responsibility
for the enactment Of such laws as the
wisdom of the Legislature determined to
he for the best interest Of the people.
While IL may be claimed that the sta
tutes of 1916 ard of 1852, relating to the
traH5c in intoxicating liquor each sub
mitted t. the people a proposition, each
was sustained by our supreme Court upon
thu ground that it was not a delegation
Of the legislative authority to the people.
A RESOLUTION NECESSARY.
The only way for TIE people to regain
any part of the legislative power. legiti-
matelY. must he by an amendment of the
constitution. For the Legislature to dele
Z gate this power to the people to be ex
| ercsed by them en- massc or through the
ballot box. or for the people to arbitrarily
| and forcihy resume any part of this pow
err of their own motion, must be revolu-
tionary.
Nhic the General Assembly has never
| attempted to delegate any part of its leg
| islativc power to the people of this State.
| if the scope of their action is to be finally
| determined frcm the decision of the Su-
| prcme Court heretofore made the people
| themselves are now demanding the right
| to exercise the ultimate legislative funC-
tions. in determining the policy Of this
state in reference to the traffic in intoX-
| catins liquor
Mr. Young here quoted the referendum
/ plauks in the republican and high license
| local option platforms, and said about
tpps of the voters of this State have
| endorsed the referendum proposition con
tanned in these platforms. In other words,
| about 60 go out Of about 20 coo of the voters
| Of this state. have claimed the right in
| themselves, by their vote at the ballot
| box, to exercise the ultimate legislative
| power in determining the policy of this
| state in controlling the liquor traffic.
| Il ,S4 voter. request this privilege to be
| granted to them % 3Dl voters demand it
| MS matter of right
There is nothing uncertain in either OF
these two propositions. If you take the
fair and usual meaning of the language
used in each, the one requests and the
9th, r demands. for the voters of Vermont
! through the ballot box, the right TO veto
or appr ove whatever act the Legislature
may see ft to pass, upon this subject
w Ill IL pc a Waste OF llIUt lOl US " Cbll-
slider the constitutional problem raised by
these propositions?
The judicial question involved is not
new. In different phases the question of
a referendum has been before the courts
Of several Of the States and has resulted
I'm a gerat diversity of judicial opinion.
Highly drawn pictures of the dangers
likely to result from pure democracy
and subtle reasoning will be found in the
opinions adverse to the referendum. on
the other side will be found great conf
= dcnce in the theory that ultimately and
after due delbera ton, the majority of the
people will vote right upon great ques-
tons of public policy. Ingenious, plaus
ible and convincing arguments tend to es-
, tahlish that referendum, properly framed
is not a delegation Of legislative power but
d law conditioned to become operative
upon the happening of a certain contin-
Eency provided for in the act itself,
COURTS AGAINST A REFERENDUM.
If the question is to be decided by the
r relative number of decisions in favor of,
, and adverse to the reference of gen
, cral law to the vote of the whole State
for acceptance or rejection, then, such
, practice is Overwhelmingly condemned by
the decisions OF the courts of last resort
in this country, Yet such proceeding is
not entirely without support in judicial
decision, and in strong sound, convincing
argument in dissenting opinions.
From the fact that to-day what is COM
monty known as local option, high H.
cense liquor laws are in force In so large
: a proportion of the States, | had assumed,
, before examining the matter, that the
, constitutlonalty of such laws was nm
questioned An examination of the sub
, jet shows that the earliest discussion of
this constitutional question, arose upon
local option statutes and that they were
held unconstitutional This was on the
lronDI that snpD law Uplplat ion
of legislative authority. and was sub
hitting to the decision of the voters of
a sub division of the State matter Of
general interest, thereby rendering il
probable that the public policy in the diff
ferent counties would not be uniform.
The same line Of argument which dem
onstrated and held these local option laws
TO be unconstitutional as delegation
of legislative authority was subsequently
adopted to demonstrate that general
law submitted to the vote of the whole
State, for acceptance or rejection, was
also unconstitutional.
VARIOUS FORMS OF REFERENDUM
Tho referendum has not been confined
In this country to laws relating to the
traffic In intoxicating liquor. 1t has been
adopted, or attempted and condemned
upon variety of subjects In some States
the same court which has declared the
principle unconstitutional when applied to
general laws. has sustained local laws
apparently depending upon the same prin-
cipe for their operation, BY sophistry
such courts have led themselves to be
licve that they could sustain local laws
upon the theory of consent of the inhabi-
tants OF city or county to be governed
by local laws approved by the majority
OF the voters of such city or county; but
could not thus sustain a general law.
Other judges insist that the same prin-
ciple which will sustain the submission
Of a local statute, to the acceptance or
rejection Of the voters of n locality to be
affected thereby will sustain the refer
ence Of general law to the acceptance or