Arizona republican., 1910-12-05
Direct Legislation, in Practice.

Among the amendments to the con- stitution of Oregon, adopted at the late election under the initiation and referendum system, is a clause which in the judgment of lawyers abolishes every court in the state except the supreme court.
 At best the judiciary system of that state has been thrown into con- fusion, and in order to continue the courts heretofore established it will be necessary for the supreme court to do some extraordinary ''construing'' of the new amendment. By main strength and awkwardness a meaning will have to be read into the amend ment which the language of the amendment itself does not convey.
 Of course, the people of Oregon did not intend to abolish their trial courts. What they intended was to adopt a constitutional amendment which would eliminate the tyranny of tech nicalities. The reasons for the re- form movement are thus set forth by the Portland Oregonian:
 Men have been deprived of prop erty rights because some, indifferent clerk had failed to affiX the seal of the clerk of the court to a writ of attachment; criminals nave gained unmerited freedom because of the omission of the article the" from the indictment or inforamtiOn; taxpayers have suffered the imposition of un- necessary court expenditures through reversal of cases on errors wholly un- prejudical to either side. The record of every criminal case where the de- . fendant has been able to offer little or no real defense, and has been lep- resented by an astute lawyer is bur dened with multitudinous exceptions to court rulings. It has even reached the point where the reputation of criminal lawyers is largely gauged by their ability so 10 confuse the trial court that reversible technical errors may be slipped into the record.
 In view of these deplorable condi- tions there is no cause for wonder ment that public sentiment swung the pendulum to the other extreme in in fluencing the adoption of the judiciary amendment in the recent Oregon elec- ton.
 The failure of the people to get what they thought they were getting. and the mess in which they now find their judiciary system, is explained by the fact that the amendment was an initiated" measure It was drawn by jealous reformers who apparently did not know how to state their meaning in clear English, and there was no opportunity to amend it as would have been the case had the amendment been discussed by a rep resentative body of men in a legisla- ture. Intending only to abolish cer- tain inferior courts, they seem to have abolished their circuit, or trial. courts.
 Anothef section of the amendment. drawn in ambiguous language. like the rest, clearly warrants the con
  not examine any fact that may have influenced the jury in reaching its verdict, even though that fact may have been a moot issue prejudicial to one or the other of the litigants and admitted in evidence through error of the trial court. Here aga;n the people did something they did not intend.
 It appears that the people of South Dakota, also wrestling with the in itiative and referendum and a seven foot ballot" at the late election, now complain that the result at the polls did not express their real sentiments. Discussing some of the details of the mixup in South Dakota, the New York Sun says:
 Exactly such chance considerations have determined referendums in the past and undoubtedly will continue to do so in the future And were it not for the present minimizing hue and cry for more democracy" no one would expect anything else. In truth there is no need of complicated po- litical theory to support the represen- tative system of government founded by our ancestors. Plain common sense would demand it. The voters of state or a city cannot draft and prop erly consider complex legislation any more than the stockholders of a large corporation can pass upon the de- tails of its business.
 If our nasty reformers of South Dakota and elsewhere would spend the time which they devote to under mining the representative system to laboring for a better quality of repre- sentation, something beneficial might be accomplished. At least they would not be turning the country back to- ward a primitive and long discarded form of government"
 These matters are of live interest to Arizona, for our constitutional con-