The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1912-02-20
Question Tor Congress.


washington. February 19.-Only Con-
gress. and not the Supreme Court OF
the United states, may object to the
initiative and referendum method OF
legislation in the States. SO the court
itself decided to-day
That tribunal held that the question
OF whether State still maintained a
republican form OF government, guar
anteed by the FEDERAL Constitution.
after it adopted the initiative and
referendum method. was political
problem for Congress. and not a ju-
dicial one for the courts.
The decision was based on tho claim
Of the Pacific States Telephone and
telegraph Company that q tax upon it,
imposed by the initiative and refcrcn-
dunn method in oregon, was unconsti-
tuuonal.
The initiative and referendum pro,
visions in Missouri. California, Arkan-
sas. Colorado, south Dakota. Utah,
Montana, Oklahoma, Maine and Art-
iona hung in the balance An adj
verse decision would have affected pro-
posed legislation OF that character In
many other States.
Opinion Unanimous
Chlef Justice White announced the
decision of the court. None OF the
Justices dissented. The Chief Justice
sald that "a singular misapprehensionn
had existed on both sides OF the case,
SUIT that the mists and confusion wera
itspelled by the decision of CHIEF nus
lice fancy years ago, in which he dis
oosed OF the DORIS rebellion question.
mat was the case OF Luther vs. Bor-
Zen. he said, and decided thai the on
,orcenent of the guaranty of a repub-
hcan form Of government to the States
belonged to the political department.
Or tho government, and came up, for
instance, on the admission OF Senator's
md members OF the House to their
respective bodies. The Chief Justics
ger following Luther VS.. Borden in
the controversy over the kentucky
government in the case of Taylor ys.
Beckham. Referring to the doctrine
as laid down In these two cases, Chief
Justice White said:
ut is indeed singular misconcep-
tion OF the nature and character OF our
constitutional system of government
10 suggest that the settled distinction
which the doctrine Just stated points
out between judicial authority over
Justiciable controversies and leSisla-
tive power as TO purely political cues
tons tends TO destroy the duty of the
judiciary in proper cases TO enforce the
Constitution.
THE suggestion results from falling
TO distinguish between things which
are widely different: that is, the lecis
latiVe duty TO determine the political
questions involved In deciding whether
state government republican in form
exists. and the judicial power and ever
present duty, whenever 1t becomes
necessary In controversy properly
submitted. to enforce and uphold the
applicable provisions of the Constitu-
ton as 70 each and every exercise
of governmental power.
Its Nature Political.
How better can the broad lines
which distinguished these two sub.
jects he pointed out than by consider. I,
ing the character OF the defense ia
this very case. The defendant COM
pany does not contend here that i,
could not have been required to pay a
license Tux. II does not assert that II
was denied an opportunity TO be heard
as 10 the amount for which it was
taxed, or that there was anything ;n-
herring in the tax or involved in
trinsicaily in the law which violated
any OF its constitutional rights. II
such questions had been raised they
would have been justiaable, and
therefore would have required tho
calling into operation OF judicial pow
cr. Instead. however. of doing any ot
these things. the attack on tho
statute here made is of wholly Diff
fcreni character. It's essentially poll
ilSdl lidtuI . u ~ ulISe MADE. manifest
by understanding that the assault
witch the contention here advanced
makes is not on the tax as tax, but
or the State as a state 1t Is adj
dressed to the framework and poll.
teal character OF the government oy
which the statute levying the tax was
passed. 1t IS tho government. the
political entity, which Producing the
case to Its csssnce) is called TO tho
4, .Nf &. HI. 70. l. j. -
pose o. testing judlcially some cNer-
else OF power asG&lcd on the ground
THAT its eXcrtion has inJuriously ar.
fected the rights OF an Individual bed