Eagle River review. [volume] (Eagle River, Wis.) 1890-1927, 1910-04-08
PRIMARY LAW
IS UPHELD BY
HIGH TRIBUNAL
WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT De
CIDES ELECTION STATUTE IS
CONSTITUTIONAL.
STATE WINS ON EVERY POINT,
Five Allegations Made by State Senator
Lehr as Counsel for Van AlStine
Are Overturned.
FOLLOWS ITS OWN PRECEDENTs.

MADISON, Wis, April 81 Special
WISCONSIN supreme court today handed
down a decision in the case of the state
ex rel A. B. Van Alstine, appellant. YER
sus James \. Frear, secretary of state,
ct al, respondents, upholding the valid
ity of the Wisconsin primary law.
The opinion of the court, which was
written by Justice Barnes, notes at the
start that the rule of stare decisls' Is
followed. meaning literally that the court
is following its own precedentS.
Decision Not Obsolete.
The court says that despite the as
sauts made upon this decision, III an
effect 10 secure reversal IN the primary
law case, 1t is obvious that the decision
in Smith VS.. GAINESVILLE is not neglected
or deSpSed wait in the sea of judicial
decisions, but is one that has never been
doubted nor criticised by the court that
promulgated it, and on that has fire.
Quently been cited rs authority ana re-
ferred to with approval
Nor can we concur in the views of
some courts that the approval OF the
referendum principle will tend TO make
legislators Shirk responsibility and be
come cowardly and corrupt. Courts can
not presume that legislative power will
be abused, nor that legislators, other
wise inclined to be honest, and fearless.
will become craven and dishonest simply
because the right Of referendum is up
held. and we should not approach the lm-
nOrtant matter Of interpreting our CON
stituti0n with the assumption that cor
ruptiou is rampant and that trust and
confidence may not safely be repoSed III
coordinate branches of the government.
at frequently happens that laws are
proposed which involve radical depar..
lure from the existing order of things.
Justice Marshall filed Il memorandum
in which he stated that he c0ncurS only
upon the ground of stare declsls,
meaning literally following early prece-
dents established by the same court.
The court holds in substance that the
constitution permits general laws to be
made by the referendum method; that
the law does not violate the bill of rights
because it not only does not prohhlt
the holding of political conventions or
declarations of party principles, but
rather contemplateS such action; nor does
il prohibit the suggestion of candldateS
as before, subject to approval at the
primaries" That the act as TO Nominate
ing candidates for United States senator
is valid because it leaves the members OF
the Legislature as free as formerly to eX-
erclse their Judgment upon such evidence
rs they can obtain that Under the act
rs before the act its not only the right
but il is their duty to exercise their own
Judgment and not to act as mere agents
to carry out the judgments of others;
that the act creates neither legal duty
nor moral obligation to carry out the
verdict at the primary, except rs 1t
comedies with their deliberate Judgment
after being advised by the result of the
primary and i'll other proper ways
Disposes of Objection.
Discussing the first objection to the
law that it was invalid unless it is III
force aud effect by virtue of legislative
power delegated by the Legislature tt
the voters of the state the opinion
says:
1T is lust as we'll settled that. while
the Legislature may not delegate It's
mower to make a law, it can make Il law
TO become operative on the happening OF
a certain contingency or on the ascer-
tainment of fact upon which the law
makes or intends to make lis own ac-
ton depend.
the opinion, seems to be that the primary
law was to become operative on its APP
prevail by a majority Of the electorate
voting on the question Considerable
comment is had upon the citation of the
case of Smith vs.. JancSyille. made thirty
years ago, upon which the rule OF stare
decicis' is applied
May Not Be Wise.
sThe wisdom of the proposed innova-
doubt aud the enactment of the law
NAV he a matter of grave concern to
the public \ law when enacted affects
the people of the state, and not merely
the lawmakers who made il. Members
of the LEGISLATURE simply act as servants
and representatives of the people who
elect them. These representatives are
chosen in a democracy because it is inn
practicable for the people to assemble
and make their own laws. Under our
form of government the majority may
not always be right, but it must of ne
ceSSty rule.
The majority of the people is rs apt to
be right as is the majority of the Leg
iSlature Where, in a doubtful case,
there is any improperly III the agent $
consulting the wishes of his principal
upon questions of general public policy,
is not readily perceivable. Where serl-
GUS harm will result by securing an
expression of opinion from the principal,
is not apparent
Law Is Effective.
Regarding the second contention. that
the law never became effective because
il was not published after the electors
had voted to adopt it, the opinion says:
There is no more reason for saying
that this act should have been published
after it was ratified by the popular vote
than there would be for saying that
any other law which does not become
effective on the happening of Il contin-
gency must be published after the con
tngency arises i'll order to have yitali-
ty."
Ii is denied by the court that the law
violates that portion of the constitution
which guarantees to the people the right
''Peaceably to assemble, to consult for
the common good" etc
THE people or their delegates may
now assemble hold conventions and con