The evening times. [volume] (Grand Forks, N.D.) 1906-1914, 1912-02-20
THE INITIATIVE
AND REFERENDUM
Supreme Court Holds Prob
lem Is Legislative and
Not Judicial

Washington. Feb. 20.-only con-
gress and not the supreme court of
the United States may object to the
initiative an referendum method Of
legislation In the states, so the court
itself decided today.
That tribunal held that the question
of whether q state still maintained a
Republican form of government,
guaranteed b ythe federal constitution
after it adopted the initiative and ref
erendum method. was political
problem for congress and not a ju-
dicial one for the courts.
The decision was based on the
claim Of the Pacific States Telephone
and Telegraph company that a tax
upon 1t, 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
that character in many other states.
Chief Justice White announced the
decision of the court. None of the
justices 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 sim
gular misrepresentation had existed on
both sides of the case, but that the
''mists and confusion" was dispalled
by the decision of Chief Justice Tan
the DORIS rebellion question. That
was the case of Luther VS.. Borden. he
said. and decided that the enforce
ment Of the guaranty Of a republican
form of government to the states be-
longed to the political department Of
the government and came up. for in
stance, on the admission Of senator's
and members Of the house to their
respective bodies. The chief Justice
called attention to Chief Justice Full
ler's decision following Luther Va.
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 Jus
tioe White said:
ut ia indeed a singular misconcep-
ton of tn enature and character Of
our constitutional system Of govern
ment to suggest that the settled dis
tinction which the doctrine just stat
ed points out between judicial author
ity over justiciable controversies and
legislative power as to purely political
questions tends to destroy the duty Of
the judiciary in proper cases to en-
force the constitution. The sugges-
tion results from failing to distinguish
between things which are widely diff
ferent, that is. the legislative duty to
determine the political questions in
volved in deciding, whether state
government republican In form ex-
lists. and the judicial power and ever
nv A,,<x
necessary in a controversy properly
submitted to enforce and uphold the
applicable provisions Of the constitu-
ton as to each and every exercise Of
governmental power.
How better can the broad lines
which distinguish those of the defense
in this very case? The defendant
company does not contend here that
1t would not have been required to
paw license tax It does not assert
that 1t was denied an opportunity to
1t was taxed, or that there was any
thing inhering in the tax or involved
fntrinsically In the law which violated
any OF its constitutional rights. II
such questions ha dbeen raised they
would have been justiciable. and
therefore would have required the
calling into operation Of judicial pow
er. Instead. however, Of doing any
of these things, the attack. on the
statute here made 1s Of wholly DIFF
ferent character: Its essentially poll
tical nature is at once made mani
fest by understanding that the as.
sault which the contention here ad-
vanced makes 1t not on the tax as a
tax, but on the state as a state It
is addressed to the framework and
political character Of the govern
ment by which the statute levying the
tax was passed. It is the government,
the political entity. which (reducing
the case to it's essence) is called to
the bar Of this court. not for the
purpose Of testing judicially some ex-
ercfse Of powerassailed, on the ground
that its exertion has injuriously az
fected the rights Of an individual be-
cause of the repugnancy to some con-
stitutional limitation. but to demand
Of the government that it establish
It's rights to exist as state"
HALL is ADJCTANT.
Washington. Feb. 20. - Brigadier
General William p. Hall. automatical-