New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1911-11-04
REFERENDUM At STAKE
IN US. SUPREME COURT
Great Legal Battle Over "Pro-
gresSive" Methods of
Legislation On.
JUSTICES QUESTION COUNSEL
E. S. Pillsbury Attacks Constitu-
tionality of System-Argu-
ments on Both Sides by
Array of Counsel.

rer in which the Supreme Court of the
United States to-day listened TO argu-
ments that the initiative and referendum
method of legislation i'm this country was
unconstitutional indicated the impor-
tance which the justices attached to the
presentation Of the two cases which
made the basis for the days contention.
tax imposed on the Pacific States Tele-
phone and Telegraph Company of ore
gOn. The other concerns the validity of
bond issue for the construction Of a
bridge costing S2.Goovoo i'm Portland.
Ore. Both hinge on the constitutionality
Of the initiative and referendum method
of legislation adopted In Oregon by a
constitutional amendment.
In these cases the Progressives are
fighting their first great legal battle.
Prominent lawyers, representing the
states Of Oregon. California, Arkansas.
Colorado, South Dakota, Nebraska. Mis-
souri, and Washington. were i'm the court,
either taking part in the arguments or
as greatly interested listeners. oral ar
euments on both sides OF the question
we're completed before the court ad-
journed for the day.
Evans :. Pillsbury. Of san Francisco,
and i. Il. Duniway. Of Portland, ore
were heard in opposition to the method
in two Oregon cases. When Mr.. Pills
bury remarked that there could not
with due regard for the federal Constitu-
tion. be two legislative powers in state
the legislature and the people,
Justice Lurton interrupted him.
What is a state constitution but an
organic act Of legislation by the people,
he inquired.
THAT is expressly what | understand
It to be-" replied Mr.. Pillsbury.
"Then there is legislative power in the
the justice inquired.
"To make constitution. yes" said Mr..
Pnsbury
The attorney suggested that tho people
might put into these state constitutions
ANYTHING not in conflict with the rcstric-
tons Of the federal Constitution.
Chief Justice Asks Questions.
What are the restrictions which YOU
claim are violated i'm this particular
case?'' asked Chief Justice White.
THE provision for Legislature
The Chief Justice asked him 70 read it,.
Il cannot read it; it is implied i'm a
dozen places" said the attorney And
also. the Constitution has been construed
by this court to imply that there must
he Legislature"
The Chief Justice asked for the cases
n which the point had been in issue, but
Mr.. Pllsbury did not give them.
II was further argued that taxes i'm
posed under the initiative method we're
not by due process Of law" and vio-
lated "thc equal protection of the laws
so long as some persons were taxed un-
der initiative laws and others under Leg
islature enactmcnts.
Attorney General Crawford, of Oregon
declared that the question Of whether
the method violated the guarantee in the
federal Constitution of a republican
form of government To every state was
. noliticaI one for Congress To decide
and not judicial one for the courts 10
mss upon. lie inquired how the court
,co,,Id enforce its decision If Congress
and oregon were opposed 10 it.
Frank s Grant and William c. Ben
bow. of Portland, ore, spoke IN the IN
terest of home rule.
George Fred Williams. Of Boston ar
gued that only a party to the gudrah-
tea" the states, could ask the United
States to make good its promise that
e,erv state should have republican
form of government. corporation Ne
said. could not do 50. because the guar
antee was TO the states.
Il have heard no state objectinG 20
the Oregon form Of government said
Mr.. Williams.
Chief Justice White suggested that the
word form" liz the Constitution lent
support to Mr.. Williams's Interpretation
of the word guarantee"
Jackson II. Ralston. Of this city, con-
tended that the opponents of the method
were wrong in arguing that the word
"republican" was used in the COnstitu-
ton as synonym for representative.
He said it was used in contradistinction
TO "monarchical." Justice Holmes sug-
gested that this Interpretation would be
in conformity with a rule of logic.
d. g. EOtnn1
The ardor of the numerous counsel APP
nearing i'm defence of the constitution
ality of the initiative and referendum
received check at the outset of the
hearing. Attorney General Crawford of
Oregon asked for as much time beyond
six hours as possible for the hearing in
order that he and each Of his four as
sistant counsel might have an oppor-
flInity 10 defend the initiative Chief
Justice White granted only four hours
and half for the entire hearing.
~he legal aspect of the case has been
somewhat obscured by the political con-
siderations it has suggested. The court
has been inundated with briefs, not only
nv counsel in the two cases at bar but
by counsel on behalf Of states other
than Oregon, and in which the initiative
and referendum idea is now uppcrmost.
In addition, briefs have beer filed
George II. Shibley. as president Of the
people's Rule League; Senator owen, Of
oklahoma, as chairman OF the national
committee Of the league. and j. Harry
Carnes. The rush To appear In defence
of the initiative idea has been remark
able. considering the nature OF the cases.
r. tho nrlefe the untlstlaI terms