Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1912-02-22

the United states may obJect 10 the
initiative and referendum method OF
in the States, so the court
itself decided to-day.
That tribunal held that the qnes-
ton Of whether "A state still main
tanned a republican form of govern
ment. guaranteed by the federal con-
stitution after it adopted tho initia-
tive 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
Telegraph company that a tax upon
II, imposed by the initiative and refer
endum method in Oregon. was uncon
stitutional. The initiative and refer
endnm provisions in Missouri. Callfor-
MIA, Arkansas. Colorado. South Dako-
ia. Utah. Montana. oklahoma, Maine
and Arizona hung in tho balance. An
adverse decision would have affected
proposed Legislation OF that character
in many other states
Chief Justice White announced the
decision of the court. None of the JUS
tees dissented The court also gave
a similar decision In reference to an
ordinance In Portland Ore. for the
construction of a bridge.
The chief Justice said that "A singu-
lar miSapprehension" had existed on both
sides of the case. but that the "mists
and confusion" was dispelled by the de-
cision OF Chief Justice fancy years ago
In which he disposed Of the Dorr rebel
non question. That was the case Of
Luther VS.. Borden he said and decided;
that the enforcement of the guaranty #
republican form of government TO the
states belonged to the political depart
ment OF the government and came m
for instance. on the admission of sena.
tors and members OF the House 20 theii
respective bodies.
THINGS WIDELY DIFFERENT.
The chief justice called attention ia
Chief Justice Fuller. following Luther
vs., Borden, In the controversy over the
kentucky government In the case of
Taylor VS.. Beckham. lettering to the
doctrine as laid down In these two cases
Chief Justice White said:
1T Ia indeed a singular misconcep.
tion OF the nature and character of
~'' SSoteIIl OF govern
ment to suggest that the settled dis.
tinction which the doctrine Just stated
points out between judicial authority
over Justclable controversies and leg
islative power as to purely political
questions tends to destroy the duty OF
the judiciary in proper cases to en-
force the constitution. The suggestion
results from failing to distinguish be-
tween things which are widely diff
ferent. that is. the Legislative DUTY tc
determine the political questions in
rolved in deciding whether state
government. republican in form, ex-
lists, and judicial power and ever-pre..
ent duty whenever ii becomes neces
sary in controversy properly sub
mitted to enforce and uphold the ap.
plicable provisions of the constitution
a. TO each and every exercise Of gov.
ornamental power.
'How better can the broad lines which
distinguish these two subjects DO point
Oh out than by considering the characte
OF the defense in this very case? TIL,
defendant company does not contend her,
that IL could not have been required I,
pay license tax. Ii does not asser
that IT was denied an opportunity t,
be heard as to the amount for which
II was taxed. or that there was any
thing inhering in the tax or involve,
|intrinsically IN the law which violate,
any Of Its constitutional rights. II sucl
questions had been raised they woul,
have been iusticiable. and therefore
would hay. required the calling int,
operation OF judicial power. Instead
however. of doing any OF these things
| the attack on the statute here mad
Is OF wholly different character.
POLITICAL NATURE EVIDENT.
Its essentially political nature IL a
| once made manifest by understandin
that the assault which the contentio
here advanced makes II not on the ia
as tax. but on the State as a State.
is addressed to the frame work and poltl
cal character of the government by whic
the statute levying the tax was passed
| 1t Is the government, the political entity
which reducing the case TO its essence
is called to the bar of this court. not 70
the purpose of testing iudcially som
exercise OF power assailcd, on the groun
that its exertion has iniuriouslv affecte
the rights OF an individual because G
| repugnancy TO some constitutional linn
| tation. but to demand of the governmer
that It establish It's right to exist as
State"