New-York tribune., 1912-02-20
slypreme Court Holds Such
LEGISLATION Purely a Political
Question and Only Con-
gress May Act.
OREGON TAX CASE AT ISSUE
thief Justice White Cites De-
cision in DORIS Rebellion
Action in Laying Down
Doctrine Appli-
cable.

Washington, Feb. 19.-only Congress
and not the Supreme Court of the
United states, may object to the initia.
tive and referendum method Of legisla-
tion in the states, so the court itself de-
cided to-day.
That tribunal held that the question oi
whether a state still maintained a re
publican form of government, guaran-
teed by the federal Constitution, after il
adopted the initiative and referendum
method was political problem for Con-
gress and not judicial one for the
courts.
The decision was based on the claim,
of the Pacific States Telephone and Tele-
graph Company that a tax imposed on 1:
by the initiative and referendum method
in Oregon was unconstitutional The
initiative and referendum provisions in
Missouri, California, Arkansas, Colorado
South Dakota, Utah, Montana, Okla
homa, Maine and Arizona hung in the
balance. An adverse decision would
have affected proposed legislation of ths;
character in many other states.
No Dissenting Opinion Filed.
Chief Justice White announced the de-
cision Of the court. None Of the justices
dissented. The court also gave a SINH
lar decision in reference to an ordinance
in Portland, Ore, for the construction
of bridge.
The Chief Justice said that "a singU-
lar misapprehension" had existed on
both sides of the case, but that the
'mists and confusion" were dispelled by
the decision of Chief Justice Taney years
ago. in which he disposed of the Dorr
rebellion question. That was the case
of Luther agt. Borden. he said, and de-
cided that the enforcement of the guar
snty of a republican form of govern
ment 10 the states belonged to the politi-
cal department Of the government, ind
came up. for instance, on the admissi On
of Senators and members of the House
to their respective bodies.
The Chief Justice called attention to
Chief Justice Fuller following Luther
agt. Borden in the controversy over the
Kentucky government in the case Of
Taylor agt. Beckham. Referring to the
doctrine as laid down in these two cases,
Chief Justice White said:
1t is, indeed. a singular misconception of
nj nd NhQr oota af etgt gt,.-
uonal system of government to suggest
that the settled distinction which the doc
trine just stated points out between judi
cial authority over justiciable controversies
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 dif1erent-that is. the legislative
duty 10 determine the political questions in
volved in deciding whether state govern
ment republican in form exists, and the
judicial power and ever-present duty when
ever II becomes necessary in a. contro-
versy properly submitted TO enforce and
UNFOLD the applicable provisions OF the
Constitution as to each and every exercise
Of government power.
Quotes Case at Issue.
How better can the broad lines which dis
tinguish these two subjects be pointed out
than by considering the character of the
defence in this very case? The defendant
company does not contend here that II
could not have been required to pay a
license tax. 1t does not assert that II was
denied an opportunity to be heard as 10
the amount for which II was taxed. or that
there was. anything inhering in the tax or
involved intrinsically In the law which vio-
lated any of its constitutional rights. II
such questions had been raised they would
have been Justiciable, and therefore would
nave required the calling into operation OF
judicial power. Instead, however, of doing
any OF these things. the attack on the
statute here made is of a wholly different
character.
It's essentially political nature is at once
made manifest by understanding that the
assault which the contention here advanced
makes II not on the tax as tax, but on
the state as q state. 1t is addressed to the
framework and political character of the
government by which the statute levying
the tax was passed
II Is the government. the political entity,
which Producing the case TO its essence) Is
called 90 the bar Of this court not for the
purpose of testing judiclally some exercise
OF power assailed on the ground that its
exertion has injuriously affected the rights
OF an Individual because of repugnancy "a
some constitutional limitation, but 10 de-
mand Of the government that II establish
It's rights TO exist as a state.