Watertown leader. [volume] (Watertown, Jefferson County, Wis.) 1909-1911, 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 a. 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 decisis" is
followed, meaning literally that the court
Is following its own presidents.
Decision Not Obsolete.
The court says that despite the as
saults made upon this decision, in an
effect to secure reversal in the primary
law case, 1T is obvious that the decision
in Smith VS.. GAINESVILLE is not a neglected
or despised waif 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 as authority and 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 inn
portant matter of interpreting our con-
stitution with the assumption that cor
ruptiOn is rampant and that trust and
confidence may not safely be repOSed IN
coordinate branches of the government
ct frequently happens that laws are
proposed which involve a radical depar-
lure from the existing order of things'
no dim
in which he stated that he concurs only
upon the ground of stare decisis,"
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 prohibit
the holding of political conventions or
declarations of party principles, but
rather cOntemplates such action; nor does
it prohibit the suggestion of candidates
as before, subject to approval at the
primaries" That the act as to nominat-
ing candidates for United States senator
is valid because 1t leaves the members OF
the Legislature as free as formerly to ex-
ercise their judgment upon such evidence
as they can obtain that Under the act
as before the act its not only the right
but it 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 q legal duty
nor moral obligation to carry out the
verdict at the primary, except as 1t
comedies with their deliberate judgment
after being advised by the result of the
primary and in other proper ways"
Disposes of Objection.
Discussing the first objection to the
law that it was invalid unless it is in
force and effect by virtue of legislative
power delegated by the Legislature to
the voters of the state" the opinion
says:
at is Just as well settled that, while
the Legislature may not delegate it's
power to make a law, it can make a law
to become operative on the happening of
certain contingency or on the ascer-
tainment of q fact upon which the law
makes or intends to make its own ac-
ton depend"
The contingency in this case, says
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. COnsidera BILE
comment is had upon the citation of the
case of Smith VS.. GAINESVILLE, made thirty
years ago, upon which the rule Of stare
decicis" is applied.
May Not Be Wise.
"The wisdom of the proposed innova-
ton may he a matter of well grounded
doubt. and the enactment of the law
may be a matter of grave concern to
the public. A law when enacted affects
the people of the state, and not merely
the lawmakers who made it. 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 i'm
Ill FN,. f,n 10 IL
and make their own laws. Under our
form of government the majority may
not always be right, but it must of ne
cessity rule.
The majority of the people is as apt to
be right as is the majority of the Leg
islature. Where. in a doubtful case,
there is any improperly in the agents
consulting the wishes of his principal
upon questions of general public policy,
is not readily perceiyable. Where seri-
Gus harm will result by securing IN
expression of opinion from the principal,
is not apparent"
Law Is Effective
Regarding the second contention. that
the law never became effective because
it 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 q contin-
gency must be published after the con-
tingency arises in order to have yitali-
ty."
1t 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.
1.-THE people or their delegates may
now assemble, hold conventions and con