The Guthrie daily leader. [volume] (Guthrie, Okla.) 1893-1996, 1910-02-17
INSISTS ON OPINION
FROM SUPREME COURT
Declines to Place Upon The
People What May Prove an
Unnecessary Expense
~'-'----.---'

1 Governor Haskell blocked the Ming
0f the petition, containing 5v,8f7
names asking the initiation OF nigh
license and local option law by refus-
ne TO oIflclate at the filing oil tho pc
! tition until the courts had passed bpth
On the legal correctness of the petit
tons themselves and the legality of
an attempt 70 initiate repeal OF cols.
st'tuttonal prohibition, especially fov
the Indian Territory side OF the state.
as congress made prohibition obliga-
tory for twenty-une years The petit
tons were brought 10 Guthrie yes
tcrday by w. ID. Cardwell of Oklaho-
MA CITY
The governors statement to the
secretary Of state follows
II have been invited to attend at
your Office and witness the limitations
OF proceedings TO amend Section Z,
Article I OF the constitution, repeating
| The prohibition provision and substl-
! tlting q variety OF conditions there.
for. and after having read copy OF
the petition and studied In that coil-
rcction the constitution and laws OF
cur state Insofar as my official du-
hes are concerned, ] find that the
constitution OF the state OF Oklaho-
ma, yltallaed by legislative act, has
wisely reserved unto the people of
cur state the power to amend the con.
stiutlon and to leglslate by their
cwn act initiated by petition, and that
L is b duty, regardless OF my per-
scnal opinion Of the question involv-
ed, when This privilege Is properly in
Ycked, to perform whatever duty the
law imposes upon mo 10 aid In the
conduct Of such proceeding and elec-
/ tinn
abuse OF referendum
This reserve power to the people
Of our state Is one OF the blessings OF
which Oklahoma is entitled to con-
graluiatIon by the people of less favor
ed states II demonstrates the wis.
dom and justice of our people In the
constitution they prepared aud adopt
ID; but there is q wide distinction be-
tween tho use that the people intend
| 10 make or the initiative and refer
eadum, and the abuse thereof that
| might easily tsse. Nothing could
more readily discredit the Initiative
and referendum privilege than It's
/ eclSless use, creating extravagant
burdens upon the taxpayers of our
state by seeking TO use the Initiative
and referring powers whore the act
/ would be void II The petition were
recognized and granted, and the use
/ egs expense OF an election imposed
/ apon the taxpayers OF our state. and
therefore. In my Judgment. when the
aw provides as plainly and distinct
I ~ as ii does for the filing and refer
I Ing ali election upoa question OK
! publlc interest, IL can only sensibly
lne construed 10 refer TO such ques-
tons as may within constitutional lin
Is, be operative, II adopted by the
veto OF the people, and whore 1t clear
Is appears that the subject matter
proposed in the petition Is such. by
reason Of us improper form, OF ito
Substance. as 10 be void II adopted
rs a majority vote. clearly the tax
payer OF this state should not be bur
dened with the cost OF an election
upon such an obviously void PROPOSE
don and when thera is ground for
cubt In the mind OF an executive OF
ilcer, he would not be warranted Ia
brrdening our people with an cleo
lion that would cost not less than
; $4,000 until the courts have removed
tho question OF doubt and given as
surance that # the proposition should
be adopted by the people Il would bs
operative rs valid uct.
Waste OF Money Feared
We are presumed to benefit by ex-
perlence. We have but TO recall at
tie lasf general election. the people
~ Oklahoma voted upon a referen-
dun measure submitted by the state
legislature and the expense Of such
election having been incurred and
paid. we shortly found by decision
Of the supreme court of our state.
lhat the whole proceeding was void
because OF the improper form Of the
question submitted, and for other
reasons stated BY the court, and that
, therefore the entire eEpense incident
,, 10 that election, paid BY the istate,'
was a waste OF the money SO expenf
! ed
! with that object lesson OF the re-
cent past, am not warranted In do
, lLg any official act that viii cause
, the useless expenditure Of money and
other expenses, when II is apparent
TO me that II submitted to the people,
, voted upon and adopted, the proposl.
which we now have before MS would
, be set aside as void, |, therefore
shall refuse to do any official act.
, recognizing this proposition as an init
icted proposition, entitled TO be req
ognized by the state In requiring
such a large expense TO be assumed
by the state. until the courts have
/, decided ttat 4 Is rvonsr subject
! Tor legislation and would be valid y
J adopted.
Confined on Page = .A,