The Holbrook news., 1912-02-23
Congress Alone May Object to Initiative and Referendum Method of OfLawmaking in Sovereign States.
CHIEF JUSTICE WHITE
 HANDS DOWN DECISION
Holds Enforcement of Republican Form of Government Guarantee Belongs Solely to Political Department.

Washington, Feb. 19.-Only congress and not the supreme court of the United States may object to the initiative and refer endum method of legislation in the states. so the court decided.
 That tribunal held that the question of whether state after it adopted the initiative and re- ferendum still maintained a re- publican form of government guaranteed by the federal con stitution, was a problem for con- gress and not a judicial one for the courts.
 The decision was based on the claim of the Pacific States Tele- phone & Telegraph Company, that a tax upon it imposed by the initiative and referendum met bod Tn Oregon was unconstitu- tlonal.
 An adverse decision would have effected proposed legisla- tion of that character in many states.
 The court also gave a similar decision in reference to an ordin- ance in Portland, Oregon, for the construction of a bridge.
 The chief justice said in his de- cision that a singular misappre- hension had existed on both sides of the case. but that the ''mlsts and confusion" were dispelled by the decision of Chief Justice Fancy 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 a republican form of government to the states belonged to the political depart ment 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 following Luther vs. Corden in the controversy over the Kentucky government in the case of Taylor vs. Beck ham.
 Referring to the doctrine as laid down in these two cases. Chief Justice White said:
 Tt is, indeed, a singular mis- conception of the nature and character of our constitutional system of government to suggest that settled distinction which the doctrine just stated points out between judicial authority over justiciable controversies and leg islative power as to purely polit- ical questions. tends to destroy the duty of the judiciary in pro per cases to enforce the constitu- tion. The suggestion results from failing to distinguish between things which are widely differ ent: that is. the legislative duty to determine the political ques- tions involved in deciding wheth- CT a state government, republi- can in from. exists, and the judi cial power and eyer present duty whenever it becomes necessary in a controversy properly submit ted to enforce and uphold the applicable provisions of the con- stitutions 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 con tend here that it could not have been required to pay license tax.
 It does not assert that it was denied an opportunity to be heard as to the amount for which it was taxed. or that there was