The log cabin Democrat., 1910-08-30
A AMENDMENT NO. 10.

kansas will be called upon to decide
question of tremendous importance
to the state. They will be asked to
say by their votes whether in the fu-
the power to enact or to reject laws,
or whether this power shall continue
to remain solely in the hands of the
| legislature, where it now resides. This
proposition is embodied in proposed
amendment No. 10 to the constitution
of the state, providing for the initia-
! tive and referendum.
Discussion of this fundamental
change in our system of government,
though slow in being started, has been
very vigorous during the past few
weeks. The advantages and disad-
vantages of the proposed amendment
have been clearly set forth by some
of the ablest minds of the state. So
thoroughly have the merits and de-
merits of the measure been argued
that there are perhaps few voters who
have become to some extent at least
acquainted with its provisions.
To the average man who has given
the matter little previous study but
who has followed this discussion, the
question resolves itself from one of
apparent complexity to one of exceed
ing simplicity. In all the tremendous
fight which is being waged against
the proposed amendment hardly a
word has been uttered in opposition
to the initiative and referendum prin-
ciple. In fact, almost all of its OPP
ponents have professed friendship for
the principle, which they concede is
wise one. If, then, even its enemies
admit the principle is good, there is
little need for the ordinary voter bur-
dening himself with an investigation
into the history of the initiative and
referendum its accomplishments and
its possibilities. And the rapidity
with which the states of the union are
adopting it would naturally lead him
to believe that it must be successful
where it has been in operation.
The objections that have been rails
ed against Amendment No. 10 are
based solely upon techncality; on a
phrase occurring in its wording, com
monty denominated ''joker," which
apparently permits counties and mu-
inequalities to invoke the initiative
and referendum in the same manner
as the entire state. The opponents
of the amendment predict that all
sorts of dire calamities will follow
the adoption of the amendment con-
tanning this Joker" That eminent
iurist, Judge U. M. Rose, goes so far
as to intimate that the state will i'm
medately lapse into anarchy or bar
bariansm.
Now it would seem that the friends
of the amendment could safely pitch
their battle lines on the ground that
the amendment DOES propose to give
to counties and cities the right to
enact laws governing themselves. No
law can be adopted, even for a coun-
ty or city, unless a majority of the
voters of that county or city desire to
have it adopted. Is there county or
a city in Arkansas in which anarch-
ists and barbarians are in the ma
jority? If not, how can the people
of any county or city lapse into an
archy or barbarism by means of the
initiative and referendum?
The change that the "joker" will
permit county to set aside the
states criminal law, permit licensed
gambling and horseracing and re-
move the penalty for murder if it de
sires, is of course too absurd for Sc
rious consideration. Everyone who
has the faintest conception of civil
government knows that in sover-
eighty the larger unit is SUI
perior to the smaller. The
laws passed by the city coun-
ell must yield to the laws passed
by the state legislature, and the laws
passed by the legislature must not
contravene those of the national con-
gress. If the initiative and referen-
dunn is adopted, all of our present
laws affecting the whole state will
stand until the legislature or the peo-
pie of the whole state vote to repeal
them. But, to grant that the initia-
tive and referendum will accord a
county the right to repeal state
criminal law, what county is going to
do it, even if it has the power? The
opponents of the amendment intimate
that some county might enact laws to
make hideous crimes civic virtue
But why do they make their SANDER