Arizona republican., 1910-11-05


 tionality of the initiative and refer
 endum in that state. The court says:
 'The initiative and referendum Amendment does not abolish or destroy
 the republican form of government or
 substitute another in its place. The Representative form of government still mains. The people have simply reserved
 to themselves a larger share of legislat- i've power."-74 Pac. 710.
 This is a surprising statement to find
 in law book. The court taeitly admits
 that republican form of government is one by representation, and at the same
 time says that a law aimed at the de- struction of this system is valid. and for the reason that it does not destroy at one blow the whole and entire sys- them. It says in effect; "A republican form of government is a government by representation; a law that would wholly destroy government by repre- sentation is invalid, but law that only destroys half of the representative power is valid" But, as before set out, the statement of the power of the supreme court of ! oregon that only part of the power of | the legislature is taken away is not correct, for there is not a law that may be passed by it that may not be repealed without it's consent, with some trifling exceptions, and there Is not law that may be proposed that may not be passed without it's consent. It is difficult to believe that such a body is the repository of any real power The oregon case, just cited. is now on appeal to the supreme court of the United States.
 In the case of Kilbourne vs. Thomp- son, 103 U. S. page 16S, Mir. Justice Miller, at page 190, says:
 Tt is believed to be one of the chief merits of the American system of writ ten constitutional law, that all the pow CTS intrusted to government, whether state or national, are divided into three grand departments-the executive, the legislative, and the judicial. That the functions appropriate to each of these branches of government shall be vest ed in a separate body of public serv- ants. and that the perfection of the sys- tenn requires that the lines which sepa- rate and divide these departments shall be broadly and clearly defined. It is also essential to the successful working of this system that the persons entrust- ed with this power in any one of these branches shall not be permitted to en- croach upon the power confided to the others, but that each shall by the law of it's creation be limited to the exer- else of the powers appropriate to its own department and no other"
 The Beginning of Anarchy.
 If it lies in the power of the people of this state, under the constitution of the United States to destroy the legis lative and take the law-making power into their own hands or retain it in their own hands. they must have the same power to destroy the executive and the judiciary. All are forms of re- publican government, all instances of delegated power, of government by rep resentation. If the law-making power may be destroyed so may the law-en- forcing power and the law-c )nstruing power. one is no more sacred than the other. If you may say to the legis lature., We reserve the right to undo all that you have done or may do" you may reserve the same right as to the l judiciary and the same right as to the 1 executive.
 Indeed, it is now proposed to destroy l the power of the executive by denying l it the power of veto and to seriously | impair the judiciary by denying it the | power to declare unconstitutional any | law passed by the people. This last | proposal, if put into effect. destroys | the constitution, for, if there be no | power to declare a law enacted by the | people unconstitutional, then every | new law will be just as supreme as the itself, and the constitution would consist, not of the instrument, | so- called, but of every law that might 1 be passed. And, if there be no judici- ary, with power to say which law is supreme. in case of conflict, what is left but that uncertainty which leads to an- archy.
 Repugnant to Enabling Act.
 Again, I conceive the initiative and repugnant to the enabling act in another respect. By section 34 of the enabling act. the laws of this territory shall remain in force until changed by the legislature, except as changed by the enabling act, or this The proposed constitu
 
 does not change the existing laws, but only provides a means or method of legislation by which they may be only the legislature may therefore change the existing laws. They cannot be changed by the refer sndum. nor can they be repealed by inn Dlication by initiating a new law in conflict with them. The initiative and cannot then apply to exist ng laws. and the broad statement con- aimed in this proposal, that any law nay be initiated or referred is not per nissible under the enabling act. The | ;lause or phrase of the enabling act ust mentioned indicates also that con- 'ress. in passing the enabling act. con emplated that the legislative power mould be vested in the legislature.
 The constitution of the United States the supreme law of the land, and