Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1902-08-29
referendum UNCONSTITUTIONAL y


Referendum unconstitutional" is
the heading G. II. Davenport gives
to his indictment against the refer
endum plank in the Republican party
platform, published in the Reformer
of August 22nd Proceeding in his
savage fashion of sweeping assertion
he declares that the plank is a trick.
He says, "in other words it is only a
referendum that refers nothing mater
| ial that is constitutional" Further
along he saysA The only question
is how many of the people who de-
sire a change can be fooled by this
referendum trickery?"
These are serious charges and
should only be made with strong
case to support them. Now the first
witness for the defense offered is Mr..
Davenport himself Before Mr. Dav-
enport became candidate for county
senator. and in the calm of his unique
Office in Crosby block, in October,
1900, he discussed the referendum.
The Reformer of October 2, 1900. in
an editorial entitled AN Honest Ref
erendum" said
We'll, no believer in our American
institutions can properly object to
referendum. In other words. the ref
erendum should be on a specific meas
ure, showing exactly what is proposed
under local option, how the liquor
traffic is to be guarded and restrained
and how the people of each commun-
ity can have the power to regulate the
matter for themselves under the great
principle of home rule, in which lies
the largest measure of human pro-
gress and the best practical result in
matters of government Such a ref
erendum no fair man ought to op-
pose"
Then one week later the Reformer
of October 8, 1900 still further recon-
mended the referendum by saying:
The least that can in fairness be
asked is that the referendum for re-
pealing the prohibitory law be made
IN the same way as was that for it's
enactment In 1852. That, it will be
remembered. was in the shape of a
complete bill and attached to it a pro-
vision that the law should be sub
mltted to the people at special town
meetings to be held on the second
Tuesday of February, 1853, and that If
approved by them it should take eff
rect the second Tuesday of the follow
ing March. What is the objection to
ioilowlng similar course now, If it
is really the deliberate and we'll con-
sldered will of the people that it is
desired to get?"
NOW, OF what does this Republi.
can trickery consist? 1t consists in
recommending a referendum. What
this good Democrat was recommend
ing in 1900 becomes treachery
when recommended by the Repub-
lican party. From what does Mr..
Davenport infer sit is only a refer
endum that refers nothing material
that is constitutional? He predi-
Gates this conclusion on the case of
state VS.. Parker and makes quotations
from the case to support his conten-
tion. What that case decided was
that this prohibition law of 1852. re-
viewed in Mr.. Davenport's editorial of
principles were laid down in that
same case not considered by Mr..
Davenport in his indictment? Chief
Justice Redfield wrote the opinion of
the court in that case, and the follow
ing is the gist of his argument
as to referendum, in his own language:
III the mode of proceeding under
consideration is equivalent to giving
legislative power to the people at
large II Is, no doubt, in conflict with
the constitution"
Ana 1t is admitted on all hands that
the legislature may enact laws. the
operation or suspension of which shall
De MADE to depend on a contingency.
ms could not be questioned with any
snow or reason or sound logic. II |
mas Deen practiced in all free states |
ior hundreds of years, and no one has !
peen lynx-eyed enough to discover |
or certainly bold enough to declare /
that such legislation was, on that AZ. |
count, void or irregular"
Then after referring to the large
number of laws passed by Congress-
whose operation is contingent unon
revenue laws of foreign states and
those depending upon the will of our
executive government "and upon a
hundred other uncertainties" he con-
tinues:
This is all recognized as sound law
ana established precedent by those
courts and by those judges who have
attempted to argue that law, made
different in principle from one de,
pendent upon other contingencies.
But all such attempts seem to me |
iilusory, and, to some extent cap |
tious, not to say frivolous"
And these are the words of a Demo !
cratic judge in 1854, nearly fifty years
before our recent Republican state |
convention, and relied on as law and
sense ever since.