The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1911-07-21
THE spINE1Ess SENATOR.

THE SPINELESS SENAToE.
The Smoot organ, as In duty boundi
rallies to the support of Senator Suth'
erland on his speech against the lniti-
ative, referendum, and recall. But 1t
does this in it's usual ignorant, inef'
fective way, undertaking to deny Inc
facts and the plain report of that speech
as made by the Associated Press Re
ferring TO our quotation Of the report
of his speech, which said that Suther-
land agreed that the people were compe-
tent to pass upon constitutional ques-
tions and amendments, but were not
competent TO pass upon statutes, the
Smoot organ says, "Of course, Senator
Sutherland did not say the people were
not competent to pass upon ordinary
statutes. - And then it maunders off to
the proposition that if he had said so,
he would have distinguished sup
port. But the Associated Press report
of his speech printed in The Tribune
Wednesday morning. July 18th, express
Iy says that he did take that position.
Here is the paragraph referred to:
Accepting the application of the refer
endum principle az wise where IT aPples
TO such general enactments as state
constitution. Mr., Sutherland contended
that the general public never would give
sufficient time to general legislation 10
pass intellieent1y upon IL. What he op-
iected 10 in the referendum was not its
historical application. but Its historical
extension.
Further along in his speech Suther-
land said that "the people as whole
have neither inclination, specialized
training, nor time requisite to enable
them to master the thousand and one
| details necessary to qualify them wisely
TO discharge the functions of ordinary
| legislation.
1t is proved, then. by the Associated
Press report of Mr.. Sutherland s speech
that he did accept the proposition that
the people are competent to pass upon
! general provisions and amendments OF
State constitutions, but are not compe-
tent to pass upon statutory legislation
The organ, therefore, is directly con.
futed on the main point involved.
The Smoot organ proceeds further to
| undertake to apply Sutherland anti
referendum arguments to National legls'
lation; but there was no such application
Of them in the Sutherland speech. He
was dealing with the provisions of the
| Arizona State constitution, and was
also obiecting to certain provisions in
the Oregon State constitution. where
upon Senator Chamberlain called him
down very forcibly. There has not
been anywhere any proposition that the
people should have the initiative OF
referendum on National legislation; 81
that the bringing in Of this proposition
! by the Smoot organ is entirely aside
from the question, and altogether silly
The sole question that brings this mat
ter before the Senate is the proposed
admission Of Arizona under its consti
tuition providing for the initiative, ref
erendum, and recall, the lntter includ
ing also the recall Of judges; and II
was to that point that Senator Suther
land addressed his criticisms, The or
gan is altogether off its base on this
proposition, as it commonly is when ii
undertakes to discuss anything.
But the organ says that number OF
papers have praised Sutherland 4
speech. No paper has praised it e1
cept papers representing the opposition
to the initiative, referendum, and re
call. These endorse Sutherland s speecl
simply because his ideas fall in linz
with their own, and their approval Of
his speech amounts to nothing mor
than would their endorsement of one o.
their own editorials. But very few
papers have spoken of it at all.
The Tribune, in commenting upoI
Sutherland IS speech, commented upol
it moderately and reasonably, anC
pointed out the things wherein we con
slider that speech worthy of condemna
tion, One of the chief objections w
have to it is. as stated, that Sutherlan,
took in that speech the wholly illogica
and indefensible position that the peo
pie as a mass are competent to pas
upon constitutional questions, and Z
vote by way of referendum on constr
tutional amendments, but are not abl
to pass upon matters of ordinary legis
lation. AS to the latter point, the Der
Yer News also criticised him for hi
statement that the referendum as az
piled to legislative enactments woul'
make spineless legislators. The Den
Yer News pointed out that no legislato
could be more spineless than SutheI
land himself. The history of SutheI
lands political promotion fully SUI
ports this criticism of the Denver New.
, and his speech in opposition to the in
a tiative, referendum, and recall wa
2 made, not on any basis Of principle, be
cause it is evident from the reading c
c that speech that Sutherland does no
= understand the principles involved a
$ all, but that he made il simply t
1 please reactionary standpat Senat,
4 And We will add that If any one be di:
posed to defend Sutherland s position