Saturday news. (Watertown, S.D.) 19??-19??, 1915-11-11
Decides That the Legislature Has the
Power TO Repeal an Initiated
Law In Absence Of Deniai.

Law IN Ausenceso soF8 3l,e ~ di.4ss
The supreme court Of the state of
South Dakota has rendered its de-
cision concerning the right Of the leg
islature to repeal on initiated law
The Richards primary was the spess
ciflc law under question
The last legislature repealed the
major portion or the law so far as ii
relates to the main features govern
ing the method OF placing candi dates
in the field, etc. The old Crawford.
law was resenacted in part
Mr.. Richards, following the filing
OF cer1ain prescribed anne ndments TO
The Richards law, appealed to- ths 8slis
ipreme court to determine the it of
the legislature 10 rei'eaI law which
the people thensel lyas had PLACED
upon the statutes, ;s
The appeal was SO ttt ken as to feorsl
an opportunity to carry the case 10
the supreme court Of the United
States. In the meantime At Is The
policy of MI Richards and lffis i 81
sociates. TO proceed with noIninati6a
SO far as practicable, and, III the
event of the United States uprenle
court sustaining the cause OF the
appellants. to claim the nominees l,n-
der the Richards law to be the true
party represent tatiyes, entitled to \ d
place on the ballot ais the official
nominees Of the respective parties
participating In the primary.
#, however, the supreme cour sus-
la.a,ns the South Dakota supreme
court. ii Is announced ais the policy
Eof Mr.. Richards to proceed with the
ticket anyway for the purpose Of as
certaining the sentiment of the state
with regard to the question Of the
sacredness Of an Initiated Law.
But 1T is not likely that The supreme
court of the United States will have
passed upon the question before the
general election oil 1916.
Thes upreme court holds to the opin-
ionthat If ii was intended to deprive
the legislature Of the power to repeal
an initiated law such provision would
have been incorporated along with the
adoption Of the initiative and referen-
dunn,
The Courts Views.
In passing upon the question, the
court says Ia part:
AS we view this constitutional
amendment there is nothing contain
ed which. either expressly or implied
1y, in any degree. conflicts with. In
hibits, limits, abridges OF prohibits
any part of the legislative power ori.
ginaily granted to it to enact, amend
or repeal any law which it might have
enacted before the adoption Of this
amendment. The fact that the peo-
1pe may themselves propose or enact
laws, in connection with the legisla-
ture, In no manner conflicts with Or
prohibits the legislature from Itself
also enactfng the same law that
might be desired by the people. III tie
legislature of its own volition should
enact the same law desired by the
people, the initiative would then be-
come unnecessary and useless as to-
such law. he evident purpose Of
this constitutional amendment was
not TO curtafl or limit the powers Of
the Legislature to enact laws. but the
purpose was to compel enactment by
the legislature of measures desired
by the people, and II the legislatu ture
neglected to act as so desired by the
people, that then, the people BY means
Of the initiative might enact ouch
measures into laws themselves. And 4
recognizing the right OF the legisla.
ture to enact laws as it pleased. With
IN all It's titutional powers. the
referendum was designed as check /
upon all legislative enactmenfs nott
favored by the people. The only BRO I
1ibftion on Inhibition or Limitation Id |
'elation to legislative power. appear
ng in the Initiative portion of fha
amendment is that which relates to
The veto power, and which reads
The veto power of the executive shalt;
lot be exercised as to measures re-
erred TO q vote Of the people. II the