Montgomery County sentinel. [volume] (Rockville, Md.) 1855-1974, 1912-02-23
SUPREME COURT SAYS CONGRESS
ONLY CAN CHANGE LAW.

VAIL SAN NAA<lNbN A<AA w.
Only Congress. and not the Supreme
Court Of the United States, may object tt
the initiative and referendum method Of
legislation in the States, so the court itseli
decided Monday.
That tribunal held that the question Of
whether a State still maintains repubii-
can form of government guaranteed by
the Federal Constitution, after 1t adopted
the initiative and referendum method was
a political problem for Congress and not a
judicial one for the courts.
The decision was based on the claim OF
the Pacific States Telephone and Teie-
graph Company that tax upon it, i'm
posed by the initiative and referendum
method in OREGON, was unconstitutional.
The initiative and referendum provisions
in Missouri, California, Arkansas. Colorado,
South Dakota, Utah. Montana, Oklahoma,
Maine and Arizona hung in the balance.
An adverse decision would have affected
proposed legislation of that character in
many other States,
Chief Justice White announced the de-
cision Of the court None Of the justices
dssented.
The Chief Justice said that "a singular
misapprehension" had existed on both
sides Of the case, but that the "mists and
confusion" were dispelled by the decision
Of Chief Justice fancy years ADO in which
he disposed Of the DORIS rebellion ques-
ton. That was the case Of Luther VS..
Borden. he said. in which it was decided
that the enforcement Of the guaranty Of
a republican form Of government to the
States belonged to the political depart
ment Of the government. and came up,
for instance, on the admission Of Senators
and members Of the House to their re-
spective bodies The Chief Justice called
attention to Chief Justice Fuller following
Luther VS.. Borden in the controversy over
the Kentucky government in the case Of
Taylor VS.. Beckham.
Referring to the doctrine as laid down
in these two cases Chief Justice White
said:
1T is. indeed, singular misconception
of the nature and character of our con-
stitutional system of government to sug-
gest that the settled distinction which the
doctrine just stated points out between
judicial authority over justiciable contro-
versies and legislative power as to purely
political questions tends to destroy the
duty of the judiciary in proper cases to
enforce the Constitution. The suggestion
results from failing to distinguish between
things which are widely differentiated is,
the legislative duty to determine the politi-
cal questions involved in deciding whether
a State government republican in form
exists and the judicial power and ever
present duty, whenever it becomes neces-
sary in controversy properly submitted. to
enforce and uphold the applicable provis-
ions 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 case2 The de-
fendant company does not contend here
that it could not have been required to
pay license tax. 1t does not assert that
Il was denied an opportunity to be heard
as to the amount for which it was taxed
Or that there was anything inhering in the
tax or involved intrinsically in the law
which violated any Of its constitutional
rights If such questions had been raised.
they would have been justiciable and there
lore would have required the calling into
operation of judicial power
Instead. however, of doing any of these
.hings, the attack on the statute here made
is Of a wholly different character. Its
essentially political nature is at once made
by understanding that the assault
which the contention here advanced makes
il not on the tax as tax but on the State
as State. II is addressed to the Frame
work and political character of the govern
ment by which the statute levying the tax
was passed.
1T is the government. the political en-
lity, which reducing the case to its es-
sence) is called to the bar Of this court,
not for the purpose Of testing judcially
some exercise Of power assailed on the
ground that its exertion has injuriously af-
fected the rights Of an individual because
Of repugnancy to some constitutional limi-
tation. but to demand Of the government
that it established its right to exist as a
State" ...