Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1912-02-20
INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM.

Washington, Feb. 19.-Only Congress
and not the supreme court of the
United States may object to the in
itiative and referendum in legislation
in the states, so the court itself de-
cided, today.
That tribunal held that the question
of whether state maintained re-
publican form of government, guar
anteed by the federal constitution at
ter it adopted the initiative and ref
erendum method, was a political prob,
lem for Congress and not a judicial
one for the courts.
The decision was based on the claim
by the Pacific States Telephone. and
Telegraph Co, that a tax upon it, i'm
posed by the initiative and referendum
method in Oregon, was demonstrations
al. The initiative and referendum pro-
visions in Missouri, California, Arkn
sas, Colorado, South Dakota, Utah,
Montana, Oklahoma, Maine and Arizo-
ma hung in the balance. An adverse
decision would have affected proposed
legisltion of that character in many
other states.
Chief Justice White announced the
decision of the court None of the JUS
tees dissented The court handed down
similar decision in reference to an
ordnance in Portland, Ore, for the
construction of a bridge.
The chief justice said that "A sin
gular misrepresentation" existed on
both sides of the case, but that the
.'mists and confusion was dispelled
by the decision by Chief Justice Tan
new, year ago, in which he disposed of
bn bel
the case of Luther VS.. Borden. he said,
and by it it was decided that the en-
forcement of the guaranty of the re-
publican form of government TO the
states belonged to the political de-
partment of the government and came
up. for instance, on the admission of
senators and members of the House to
their respective bodies The chief JUS
tice called attention to Chief Justice
Fullers decision following the case of
luther VS.. Borden in the controversy
over the government of Kentucky in
the case of Taylor VS.. Beckham.
Referring to the declaration as laid
down in those two cases, Chief JUS
tice White said:
1T is indeed singular misconcep-
ton of the nature and character of
our constitutional system of govern
ment to suggest that the settled dis
tinction which the doctrine just stated
points out between judicial authority
over iusticiable controversies and leg
islative power as to purely poliaical
questions tends 10 destroy the duties
Of the judiciary in proper cases to
enforce the constitutions.
The suggestion results from falling 10
distinguish between things which are
widely different that is, the legislative
duty to determine the political questions
involved in deciding whether state gov
eminent republican in form exists, ana
the judicial power and ever-present duty
whenever it becomes necessary IN con-
troversy properly submitted to enforce
and uphold the applicable provisions OF
the constitution as to each and every ex-
ercise of governmental power.
How better can the broad lines which
distinguish these two subjects be pointed
out than by considering the character
of the defence in this very case! Inc
defendant company does not contend here
that 1t could not have been required to
paw a license tax. 1t does not assert
that it was denied an opportunity to be
heard as to the amount for which 1t was
taxed, or that there was anything inner
ing in the tax or involved intrinsicaliy
in the law which violated any OF its
constitutional rights. If such questions
had been raised, they would have been
iusticiable. and therefore would have re-
CURED the calling into operation of judi
cial power Instead, however. OF doing
any of these things the attack on the
statute here is made is one wholly diff
ferent character.
Its essentially political nature is at
once made manifest by understanding
that the assault which the contention
here advanced makes it not the tax as a
tax but on the state as a state. 1t Is
addressed to the framework and political
character of the government by which
the statute levying the tax was passea.
1t is the government, the political entity,
! which Producing the case to its essence)
is called to. the bar of this court not for
the purpose of testing judicially some ex-
ercise of power assailed on the ground
that it's exertion has injuriously affected
the rights OF. an individual because OF re-
pugnancy to some constitutional limita-
ton, but to demand of the government
that it establish its right to exist as a
, state