The Brookings register. [volume] (Brookings, Brookings County, S.D.) 1903-1971, 1915-11-04
AT STAk E

SIOUX city JOUrnal.-Ihe supreme
court of South Dakota is now deliber-
ating over what is, perhaps, the most
potent case ever considered by it. This
is the Huron test case, involving the
validity OF the primary law adopted by
the late legislature as a substitute for
the Richards law, The case is of ma.
tion-wide interest, because il raises a
question of much greater import than
the kind OF primary law South Dakota
is to have. This is the question wheth-
er a legislature may repeal a law
adopted by the people under the initia-
tive. In order to sustain the legis-
lature.made substitute for the Rich
ards primary law, the South Dakota
supreme court must hold that the leg
islature has the right TO repeal an in.
itiated law and put q substitute into
effect without giving the people a
chance 70 say whether they approve
or disapp7oye the substitute. If the
South Dakota tribunal should decide
that the legislature has this power, it
would strike g blow at the adequacy
q TIE initiative and referendum in
every state II which the principle Of
direct legislation has been applied
South Dakota was the first state 10
write ne initiative and referendum
ITO rs constitution Il i should now
co-sc-ue -he amendment as placing
l-Ie o. % powe- Il - hands Of the
people {, would - l1flrc1-e q more
material injury upon tbs cause q d.
vac, Legislation Than could - inflicted
~ -ne rnu-ys OF any Other state The
Suu-t Dakota amendment ls Ta--ru-
lG~tv specific Il giving -he vo-e- T-ec-
edeurf il law uEEtrc over the lsgis-
lJ-u~e AND thE cLrcu-s-a-oeE under
vrlct Lna Richards law was repealed
made tae repeal Z particularly fla
grant reversal Of the popular mandate.
The lowsr court has held that the
legislature was within its rights in
tits repeal A ruling from the su.
pre-e court may be expected within
Z few days. II the Richards law is
stu in legal effect, the nominating
machinery must be ready to begin
grinding under It in a few weeks. The
hearing Of the test case was advanced
50 that there might be no actual com-
plications over the question of which
law was TO be regarded.
Understanding OF the facts is essen
tial 10 comprehension Of the thorough
ness which which the initiative prin-
ciple was undermined in the legisla-
tive repeal of the Richards law. The
substance of the Richards law was
first offered for the consideration of
the legislature, which would have none
of ii. It's author then circulated petit
tions which compelled the submission
of the proposed measure to the voters
at the election of 1912. The voters APP
proved it by a substantial majority,
and ii went on the statute books and
was used in making nominations for
the 1914 election. In the 1914 election
a substitute for the Richards law was
offered to the voters under the initia-
tive, and the voters turned down this
substitute, thereby expressing their
satisfaction with the Richards law for
the second time. The legislature met a
few weeks later and repealed the law
for which the voters had just refused
to accept an initiated substitute. In
adopting the substitute the legislature
made II an emergency measure, for
no other purpose than to prevent in
voking the referendum against the
substitute and giving the voters a
chance to disapprove it. 1t will be
seen that the legislatures denial OF
the right of the people to have any
thing to say about the primary law
TO be used In 1916 was as fat as it
could be made. i.
The right Of the legislature to fnact
a substitute for an initiated law is
defended on the ground that the initia-
tive amendment did not specifically
withdraw the right previously given
the legislature to amend or repeal any
law. The amendment did. however
refer to the matter in these words:
"This section shall not be construed
70 % to deny the legislature the right
To propose any measure" A reason