The daily Gate City. [volume] (Keokuk, Iowa) 1855-1916, 1910-08-02

PLAN REFUSED
Missouri Supreme Court Turns Down
the Plan of Changing the
Face Of tho
Map.
DECISION IN PART

Opinions in the Case
Before the
Court.
Four judges of the Missouri Supreme
court held in decision in the Halli-
burton mandamus proceedings that
Secretary of State Roach, being in
vested with discretionary powers, had
the right to pass upon the constitution
atty and the validity of the proposed
amendment offered by the Republican
State Committee for redistricting the
state into senatorial districts, and to
refuse to file the petition of $4,000
voters praying for the submission of
the amendment. This decision was
written by Judge Fox and was concur
red in by Judges Burgess and CAN'T.
/ Judge Graves wrote a separate concur
ring opinion dealing with the powers
and duties of the secretary of state.
Judge Woodson, in a strong dissent
ing opinion, declared the secretary of
state had no right to pass upon the
validity of tie proposed amendment,
and that the courts are without a,
thority to interfere with legislation In
process of enactment either by the
people through the initiative or by the
General Assembly. Judge Lamm, the
only Republican member of the court,
concurred with Judge Woodson in his
decision.
Judge Woodson said that "since the
adoption of the Initiative and refereld-
um there are two lawmaking powers
in the stae, namely, the people them
selves and the Legislature and the
courts have no more power to control
the former than they have to control
1.-THE action of the latter"
I Decision is Far-Reaching.
IL The effect of the majority decision
Twill be far reaching. Hereafter a sec.
Iretary of state may decline to file any
petitions for the submission of legis-
Ilation or amendments under the In
itiative until compelled to do SO by the
Supreme Court. The logical effect Of
the decision is to give the Supreme
Court the power of passing upon the
validity, if it cares to do so, of all
! amendments or legislation proposed by
the people, before it Is submitted to
voters for ratification
The decision Of the Supreme Court
will prevent the proposed amendment
from going on the ballots, and the pc
titions of $4,000 voters for the submis
sion of the amendment are without
avail
This will leave the matter Of re
districting the state into senatorial
districts to the Legislature, or to three
state officers, the governor, secretary
of state and the attorney general
Should the Legislature fail to decline
to redistrict the state the redistrict
ing falls into the hands Of the state
Iofficers mentioned.
The state senatorial districts have
never been laid out by the Legislature
but this work has always been done
by the committee Of three state Of
ficers. Bills introduced by Republicans
into the Legislature in 1881 and 1901
for laying out the state senatorial dis
tricts were either killed or smothered
in committee.
Republicans to Keep up Fight.
The districting, as the present
senatorial districts and their politi
cal complexion will attest, was al
ways handled as a matter of party
concern, and not in the interest o.
foir q mamie
,, Republicans can do nothing more
except to fight hard in the legisla
ture for a fair measure. But the
, democratic state senate will be able
to block any measure offered which
shows upon it's face that it is fair tc
. both sides. This would throw the dis
tricting into the hands of Gov. Had
, ley, attorney general and the secre
, tary of state.
The majority and dissenting opin
ions of the court, are as widely di
vergent. Judge Fox addresses him
: self to the legality of the proposed
amendment almost solely. Judge
Woodson bases his decision upon thu
= broad ground that the Supreme Cour
: of Missouri has not right to inter
fere in the process of legislation I'm
til it is enacted, be that Legislation
Constitutional or unconstitutional.
The nearest approach of Judge Fo'
g to Woodson's contention is when h
9 said I'VE are unwilling to give or as
sent to the contention that thes
y petitions should have been accept
= ed and filed, whether or no
# they were applicable to subject o
d a matter contemplated by the initi'
tive and referendum. There is n
controversy in this proceeding as t
d the validity of the initiative and re
j. erendum amendment to the constitl
n ton, but we are unwilling to say thu
5 the office of secretary of state sha
be made the dumping ground of pet
n tons of every nature and characte
which in fact do not fall within tn
nuryiew OF the initiative amendment