The copper era and Morenci leader., 1912-02-23
SUPREM M F COURT PUTS 0NUS IN
 CONGRESS
Decides that the Question of Constitutionality of the hi tiative and Referendum is
 Legislative Not Judicial

WASHINGTON, D. c. Feb. 19-
 Oniy congress and not the supreme
 court may object to the initiative and
 referendum method of legislation in
 the states, so the supreme court de
 cided today.
 That tribunal held that the ques- l ton of whether state after it adop- ted the initiative and referendum
 sill maintained a Republican form of
 government guaranteed by the feder-
 al constitution was a problem for
 congress and not a judicial one for
 the courts
 The decision was based on the
 claim of the Pacific States Telephone
 & Telegraph company that a tax uD-
 on it, imposed 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 bal ance. An adverse decision would have
 affected the proposed legislation of that character in many other states.
 Chief Justice White announced the decision of the court. None of the justices dissented. The court also gave similar decision in reference to an ordinance in Portland, Ore, for the construction of a bridge.
 The chief justice said that 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 Tan ey years ago in which he disposed of the Dorr's rebellion question: That was the case of Luther vs. Borden he said, and decided that the en- forcement of the guarantee of a Re publican form of government to the states belonged to the political de- partment of the government and |, came up, for instance, on the admis- sion of senators and members of the house. '
 The chief justice called attention to the opinion of Chief Justice Fuller following Luther vs. Borden in the controversy over the Kentucky gov : in the case of Taylor vs. ,, Beckham.
 Referring to the doctrine as laid { town in these two cases, Chief Jus ice White said:
 Tt is indeed a singular miscon- . ,ept1on of the nature and character : 'f our constitutional system of gov < ,rnment to suggest that the settled F distinction, which the doctrine just ' 'tated points out between judicial | | authority over justiciable controver- ties and legislative power as to pure y political questions, tends to de- | troy the duty of the judiciary in pro- U ,er cases to enforce the constitution. e The suggestion results from failing c o distinguish between things, that is D he legislative duty to determine the V 'olitical questions involved in decid- Il g whether a state government, Re D publican in form, exists and the ju- d lclal power an ever present duty C -henever it becomes necessary in. a W ontroversy properly submitted to en- p orce and uphold the applicable pro- isions of the constitution as to each e nd every exercise of governmental it over u
 How better can the broad lines tt -hich distinguish these two subjects p e pointed out than by considering e. ne character of the defense in this II cry case? The defendant company rt oes not contend here that it could II ot have been required to pay li- el enSe tax. te Tt does not assert that it was de- jed an opportunity to be heard as to le amount for which it was taxed, a, that there was anything inhering tc the tax Oy. iDv1Oyod trip l ci