The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1912-02-20
STATES POWER
IS UPHELD BY
SUPREME court
Only Congress May Object to
Initiative and Referendum
Measures, It's Decision
Ten States Affected and Legis-
Iative Propaganda in Others
Cleared by Doubt
Case Brought by P. S. 7. & 7. Go.
Settles Validity of Bonds
Valued at Millions

Valued at Millions
TTT ASHTNGTON, Feb. 19.-Only
KH congress and not the supreme
court of the United States may
object TO the initiative and
referendum method of legislation in the
states, so the supreme court decided to-
day.
The tribunal held that the question
of whether state still maintained
republican form of government guar
anteed by the federal constitution after
imposed by the initiative and referen-
dunn was problem for congress and
not a judicial one for the courts.
The decision was based on the claim
OF the Pacific States Telephone and
Telegraph company that a tax upon it,
imposed by the initiative and refern-
dunn method in Oregon. was unconsti-
tutional. The initiative and referen-
DUN provisions in Missouri, California,
Arkansas, Colorado, South Dakota,
Utah. Montana, Maine and Arizona hung
in the balance. An adverse decision
would have affected the proposed legis-
lation of that character in many other
states.
Decision Is Unanimous
Chief Justice White announced the
decision of the court. None of the
justices dissented. The court also gave
a similar decision IN reference to an
ordinance in Portland. Ore. for the con-
struction of bridge
The chief justice said that "a singu-
lar misapprehension' had existed on
both sides of the case. but that the
rafsts ana confusion were dispelIes
by the decision Of Chief Justice Taney
years ago. in which he disposed of the
DORIS rebellion question. That was
the case of Luther vs. Borden. he said,
and decided that the enforcement of
the guarantee Of republican form of
government to the states belonged TO
the political department of the govern
meut, and came up. for instance. on the
admission of senators and members of
the house TO their respective bodies.
The chief justice called attention to
chief Justice Fuller's decision follow
ing Luther vs.. Borden in the contro-
versy over the Kentucky government
in the case of Taylor vs.. Beckham.
Justice Whites Opinion
Referring TO the doctrine as laid
down in these two cases. Chief Justice
White said:
1T is indeed singular misconcep-
tion Of the nature and character of
our constitutional system of govern
ment to suggest that the settled dis
tinction which the doctrine just stated
points out between judicial authority
over justiciable controversies and legis-
lative power as to purely political
questions tends to destroy the duty of
the judiciary in proper cases to en-
force the constitution The sugges-
tion results from falling to distinguish
between things which are widely diff
ferent, that is, the legislative duty to
determine the political questions in
volved in deciding whether state gov
eminent. republican in form, exists, and
the judicial power and ever present
duty whenever it becomes necessary in
q controversy properly submitted to en-
force and uphold the applicable pro-
and every exercise of governmental
power.
GRAVE DIFFERENCE POINTED
How better can the broad lines
which distinguish these two subjects be
pointed out than by considering the
character of the defense in this very
case? The defendant company does
not contend here thar it could not have
been required to pay a license tax.
1T does not assert that it was de-
MED an opportunity to be heard al to
the amount for which it was taxed, or
that there was anything inhering in
the tax or involved intrinsicaily in the
law which violated any of it's constf-
tutional rights. If such questions had
been raised they would have been JUS
ticiable and therefore would have re-
quired the calling into operation of
judicial power
Instead, however. of doing any of
these iHiHsS, lHe ditdtA On Inc statute
here made is of a wholly different char
acter. Its essential political nature is
a t once made manifest by understand
ing that the assault which the conten-
tion here advanced makes is not on
the tax as tax, but on the state as
state. 1t is addressed to the frame
work and political character of the
ing the tax was passed.
IT is the government, the political
entity. which (reducing the case to it's
essence). is called TO the bar Of this
court, not for the purpose of testing
1udicialIy some exercise of power, as
sailed on the ground that its exertion
Continued on Page ?. Column