Gilpin observer., 1912-09-26
Initiative Law
is SUSTAINED
sUpREME COURT REvERsEs RID
DIE IN INITIATIVE AND REF
ERENDUM CASE.
GOES TO VOTERS NOV. 5
OPINION WRITTEN BY CHIEF JUS
TlCE CAMPBELL, ALL THE
JUDGES coNcURRING.
Western Newspaper Union News Service.

Western Newspaper Union News Service.
Denver.-The decision OF Judge Har-
ry e. Riddle Of the District Court in
ordering Secretary Of State Pearce to
re-advertise and re-submit the initia-
tive and referendum to vote of the
people. virtually killing the act, was re-
versed by the Supreme Court in an
opinion handed down Monday. The
cause was ordered rcmanded and
Judge Riddle commanded to dismiss
the petition Of w. H. Tate of Pueblo,
brought by his attorney. N. Walter
Dixon. Dixon has three days to file
motion for rehearing.
Justice Campbell wrote the opinion,
his six associates concurring.
The Western Newspaper Union had
made extensive advance preparations
In ordor to handle the initiative and
referred laws for the newspapers OF
the state In case the Riddle decision
was reversed. and had the amend
ments all In type and several extra
carloads Of paper provided when the
Supreme Court rendered it's decision.
The decision in full follows:
At a special session of the General
Assembly, convened in August, 1910,
BY proclamation Of the governor, there
was proposed, as an amendment to our
constitution, to be submitted to the
people at the general election in No
vember OF that year, for their approval
or rejection, what Is generally known
as the Initiative and Referendum law
A constitutional majority of the people
approved 1t.
Thereafter, large number of
amendments to the constitution, pro-
posed under authority of this new sec
ton, were filed in the office of the
secretary of state for submission to
the people at the general election to
be held in November. 1912.
The relator, Tate, conceiving that
the amendment in question was not q
part of our organic law. filed his pc
ttion in the District Court OF the Sec
ond Judicial District. setting forth
therein in what its invalidity consist
ed and praying for writ of mandamus
to compel the secretary of state to
publish and submit, or re-submit, the
same to the qualified voters at the
next general election. to be held in No
vember. 1912. and to hold for naught
and ignore any and all petitions which
cordance with its provisions, that con-
tanned proposals for constitutional
amendments and laws Hereunder. The
District Court granted the prayer of
the petition and issued its writ accord
ingly; to review which this writ of ef-
ror has been sued out by the secretary
of state.
One Defect Is Noted.
The only defect which the petition
points out In connection with the sub
.1ission of the proposed amendment
was the conceded failure upon the part
of the secretary of state to cause the
same to be published in the session
laws of the special legislative session
previous to the general election of
1910, at which the vote upon 1t was
taken.
Section Of Article XIX of the con-
stitution, which provides how amend
ments thereto shall be proposed and
submitted, is controlling of the ques-
ton. That part Of the section which
is pertinent here reads: "the
proposed amendment or amendments
shall be published with the laws Of
that session OF the General Assembly.
and the secretary of state shall also
cause the said amendment or amend
ments to be published in full In not
more than one newspaper Of general
circulation in each county for four sue
cessive weeks previous to the next
general election for members OF the
General Assembly"
Relates the Contention.
The contention Of relator, briefly
stated, is that the publishing Of pro.
posed amendments In the session laws
for four successive weeks previous to
the next general election !s all essen
tial condition precedent 10 the validity
OF their submission; that they may be
proposed only at regular. and not at
a special. session, OF the General AS
sembly; but, II at special session,
that must be done at such time as
that publication in the session laws
can be made as the foregoing language
prescribes.
BY Section Q of Article Nv of our
constitution. "the governor may. on ex-
traordinary occasions. convene the
general assembly. by proclamation
stating therein the purpose for which
il is to assemble"
There is no express provision in
stitution, which prohibits the Cover
nor from including I'm his proclamation
convening n special session OF the
General. Assembly proposals for
amendments to the constitution.
It is claimed. however. that the In
hibitior arises, by implication. from
tho language above quoted, which re-
quires that proposed amendmcr be
nublished I'm the session laws. But Ii
is obvious that If this requirement is
mandatory and applicable to insertion
in the session laws. the particular OBJ
lection here urged is untenable. for
the General Assembly may be con-
vened in special session sufficient
length of time in advance Of the gen
eral election to permit compliance
with publication In the session laws.
The objection goes. II at all. only to
amendments passed at 80 late date
That tho reuuirement Cnnnot no mat