Arizona republican., 1912-02-20
Supreme Tribunal Says the Initiative and Referend- um are Questions for Congress and Not For Judiciary.
DECISION Is AN
 UNEXPECTED ONE
Court Intimates That There Has Been Singular Ignor- ance With Respect to Functions of Courts in This Case.
I 4ssociafcd Press DiSbdtcb |

WASHINGTON. Feb. l9.-The United States supreme court today declined 10 annuI IS unconstitutional the initiative. referendum and recall The court in its decision declared 1t had no power to form government for the. states. as that matter is pure k political and within tine confines of congress.
 The tribunal held the question whether state still maintained a republican form of government guar antaed bv the constitution after It had adopted the initiative and re- rerendum. was a problem for con cress and not a judicial one for the courts The decision was based on the claim of the Pacific States Ieie- phone and Telegraph company that tax imposed by the initiative and re- ferendum method in oregon was un- constitutional.
 The initiative and referendum ID California. Arizona. Missouri. Arkan- sas. Colorado. South Dakota. Utah. Montana and Maine hung in the bal ance. An adverse decision would have affected proposed legislation oi that character in many other states.
 Chief Justice White announced the decision from which none dissented. The chief justice said: "A singular misapprehension" had existed "n both sides of the case but that the 'Inists and confusion" were dispellCd by the decision of Chief Justice Fancy years ago in which he disposed of the Dorr's rebellion question in the case of Luther versus Borden in which he decided that the enforcement oi the guarantee of 2 republican form oi government to the states belonged 10 The political department of the gov ernment and came up, for instance, on the admission of senators and members of the house to their respec- tive bodies. The chief justice called attention to Chief Justice Fulcrs decision in the controversy over the Kentucky government case in Tay- Tor versus Beckman. Referring to the doctrine laid down in these two cases. Justice White said: There is, in- deed. a singular misconception of the nature and character of our constitu tionai system Of government to sug- gest that the settled distinction which the doctrine just stated points out between judicial authority over jus tifiable controversies and legislative power as to purely political questions tends to destroy the duty of the jul dietary in proper cases to enforce the constitution. The suggestion results from failing to distinguish between things which are widely different. that is. legislative duty to determine political questions involved in decid- ing whether d state government is re- publican in the form in which it eX- ists and a judicial power, and the ever present duty, whenever it be- comes necessary in controversy properly submitted. to enforce and uphold as applicable the provisions of the constitution as to each and every exercise of governmental power.
 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 it could not have been required to pay a license tax. It does not assert is was denied an op- portunity to be heard as to the amount which was taxed. or that there was anything inhering in the tax or involved intrinsically in the law which violated any of its con stitutional rights. If such a ques- ton had been raised it would have been justifiable, therefore fl would have required the calling into opera ton of the judicial power.
 Instead. however of doing any of these things an attack on the statute here made is wholly different in character Its essential political na- ture is at once made manifest by understanding that the assault on which this contention is here ad- vanced. makes it not on the tax IS a tax. but on the state as state It is addressed to the framework of the political character of the government by which the statute levying the tax was passed.
 Tt is government. the political entity. which (reducing the case to its essence) is called to bar in this court. not for the purpose of testing iudicially some exercise of power as sailed on the ground its execution has iniuriously affected rights of an individual because of repugnancy to some constitutional limitation, but to demand of the government that It establish its rights to exist as a state"