The Washington herald., 1911-11-04
INITIATIVE WILL
BEDECLARBD VALID
Continued from Page One.

indicated very clearly that the initiative
and referendum will be allowed to stand
as a political institution. This seemed
to be the Judgment Of the majority OF
the members of the bar who heard the
argument. -...
1t seemed to>>be the opinion around
the court room yesterday that the court
will refuse to take jurisdiction of the
case on the ground that the question
raised Is a political one and not a judi
cial one; or, If the court elects to adopt
the line of reasoning of George Fred
Williams, of Boston, who appeared in
defense of the initiative and referendum
on behalf of a number of States which
have adopted It, the court may dismiss
the case on the ground that the parties
who appear as plaintiffs in error have
no standing in court, not being in posi-
ton % complain of the violation of the
constitutional guarantee. Mr.. Williams
took the ground that the Federal guar
antee of a republican form Of govern
ment runs only to the sovereign States,
and that no private person or corpora
ton can be heard to complain In court
of denial of the guarantee Of repub-
lican government
Among the interested listeners in the
Supreme Court room were Senator Cham
berlain, Democrat, of Oregon, who, as
governor of that State, led the fight for
the new reform legislation; Senator
Sutherland, of Utah, leading Republican
conservative who attacked the principle
OF the initiative and referendum In
notable speech in the Senate last winter.
and Representative Henry George, tr., OF
New York, an advocate of the single tax
and a civic reformer.
Much to Condemn.
Senator Sutherland said. after hearing
the argument, that while he saw much
to condemn in the initiative and referen-
dunn as a political theory, and regarded
it as utterly fallacious, he had never
doubted that the courts would uphold 1t
as a republican form of government
Before Mr.. Pillsbury, who was the prin-
cipal assailant of the initiative and ref
erendum had proceeded very far in his
argument he found himself the object or
a fire of questions from the court. which
indicated clearly that his line OF argu-
ment was not adopted by the Chief Jus
tice and his associates. The effect Of the
questions was to make the lawyer shlit
his position somewhat.
He finally took his stand on the prop
osition that the sole issue in the pend
ing case turned upon a question OF TAXA
ton. He declared that only a represent
ative body could impose statutes. he
cited a number of cases which he claimed
upheld the view. Justice Hughes took ex-
ception to this line of argument, ana re-
ferred TO the situation in the State OF
| New York where, he cited, there was
a limit upon the amount Of a public dept
that might be incurred by the legislature
and said that anything in excess OF the
limit had to be imposed by vote OF the
people and had to be met by direct tax
voted by the people.
Fails to Get Protection.
Mr.. PfIlsbury declared that his client
had been denied the equal protection OF
the laws in that It was taxed under a
law passed by popular vote, while other
| interests in the State were taxed by
laws passed solely by the legislature.
He declared that in Oregon. under the
initiative and referendum. two powers
were recognized, either of which might
| impose q tax. one representative as
| sembly and the other a popular assem-
bly, This he declared 10 be a denial OF
| the equal protection of the law. FuI-
thermore, he insisted that under the bill
of rights the owner of property that IS
to be taxed under a proposed law had
a right to appear either in person or
by counsel before a representative as
sembly and show that the proposed tax
would be improperly imposed, or that II
was excessive. This right, he said, was
denied to the object of taxation where
the tax was to be imposed by a popular
| assembly.
| While Mr. PiIlsbury was arguing that
| the people had no right to legislate dl-
rectly through the initiative and refer
endum, Justice Lurton inquired whether
the people Of a State had a right under
the Federal Constitution to meet in pop
ular assembly and adopt a State con-
stitution. The attorney replied that that
right was conceded.
What Is a State constitution but ar
organic act?' inquired Justice Lurton
rs it not legislation by the people?'
The attorney replied that it was con.
ceded that the people of State had a
right to legislate under certain nmita.
tions.
What are those limitations?" inquired
Chief Justice White. Where in the
United States Constitution do you find
the language that puts a limitation upon
make their laws?"
Limitation Not Expressed.
Mr. PiIlsbury replied that the Iimita-
ton was not expressed, but that the Con-
stitution declared that the law-making
power should be vested In a representative
body, and Chief Justice White then asked
him If he meant to say that there was
an implied limitation in the Constitution
Upon the power of the people to make
law. The Chief Justice was anxious to
find the language. 1t was evident that
the attorney was driven in a close corner
by these questions, and he finally took ref
uge in the contention that 1t was suffi-
l1az Co. ill.,
involved a question of taxation, and that
only a representative body could impose
taxes. 1t was then that Justice Hughes
took Mr.. Pillsbury in hand and pointed
out to him that In the State ef New
York taxes were imposed by direct vote
OF the people.
Ralph S. Dunlway, attorney for the