The Madison daily leader. [volume] (Madison, S.D.) 1890-current, 1915-05-29
SENATOR URDAHL
DEFENDS THE REPEAL BY THE
LAST LEGISLATURE OF THE
RICHARDS PRIMARY LAW.

Madison, May 29.-I have read the
replies by r. o. Richards and Mr..
Farnham to my defense of the legis-
lature in repeating the Richards pri-
mary law. OF course, neither will
admit that the Richards law died
from its own medicine, and that the
legislature only administered the dose.
as prescribed by the law itself and
as instructed by the people. Mr..
Richards excuse that the platform
on which the legislature was elected
did not receive a majority vote of the
electors and was, therefore, not bind
ing on the legislature is certainly a
lame one. What guarantee have we
that any successful party platform
will ever receive the majority of all
the votes cast?
To give his reply a touch OF au-
thority Mr.. Farnham refers to s eye
$40 and SO eye 942, but what he is
able to find on those pages that will
give us any more certainty in the
matter is beyond me.
independence of Legislature
In his same article, Mr.. Farnham
makes this statement: Perhaps he
(Mr. Urdahl) would not be so bold
as to dispute the fact that the legis-
lature is the creature of the constitu-
ton, and its powers and duties ex-
pressly defined and limited" In
other words, the legislature has no
other power than that expressly given
to it by the constitution. 1t is by
aJsnnsnv IN chic 1nntrfnn nrnCnnn {
that Mr.. Richards and his friends
have become a little mixed on the
question Of constitutionality If the
legislature could exercise only such
Legislative power as expressly given
il by the constitution, there might be
a serious question as to the rights of
the legislature to repeal a law enact
ed by a direct vote. but to show how
extensive and complete the legisla-
tive power of a state legislature is,
and how Independent of the consti-
tuition, | can do no better than quote
a few of the many similar supreme
courts opinions or the subject
opinions which Judge Farnham, at
least, should have had knowledge of.
Cites Court Rulings
"The legislative power is primar-
lily %plenary, and constitutions are not
grants, but restrictions upon such
power" Martin VS.. Tyler. 4 N. D.,
27S; 60 N. W., 392.
There are no limitations on the
legislative power of the legislature,
except such as are imposed by the
state and federal constitution" Re
Watson, II S. u. 321; 81 N. w. 463.
THE state legislature of a state
does not look to a state constitution
for power 10 act. but only TO see If
the sovereign legislative power of
the state is in II a restricted or
limited by such constitution" Plat
VS.. lie Coca, $50 Fed, 391.
THE legislature has the power to
le~gislate on any subjects not prohib-
tied by express terms or by necessary
implication by the constitution"
State ex rel. Montgomery VS.. Ander-
son, so N. D., 40; $50 N. w, %.
Referred Law No Exception
Having this fixed in our mind that
a state legislature does not receive
its legislative power from the consti-
tuition, but that il has absolute and
complete power to legislate on any
and every subject unless clearly pro
hibited by the state or federal con
stitution. we have but to examine our
state and federal constitution as to
; such limitation of legislative power.
The only provision in our state OF
federal constitution that has any
bearing whatsoever on the subject OF
G the initiative or referendum Is found
Z in section l of article 3 of our state
q constitution as quoted by Judge
Farnham and referred to by Mr.
Richards. However, there is nothing
in that section that would place
initiated or referred laws in a differ
ent class from any laws enacted b!
the people through their representa-
tives in the legislature, or to indi
cate that initiated or referred law.
/ are subject to different rules of con
i struetion, nor will we find any i'm
It piled or expressed restrictions on tn
7 legislature to amend or repeal init
ated or referred laws.
No Restrictions Intended
The initiative and referendum be
g came a part of our constitution dur
ing Gov. Lees Administration. IN
above principle as 10 the source an
extent OF legislative power had bee
le elementary law with our attorney
,e and courts and with our legislator
long before we adopted the initiativ
and the referendum, and it canno
be said that the legislators and tn
a. people who submitted and adopte
re the amendment to our state consti
tuition reserving the right to enaC
1t laws by a direct vote were ignoran
al of the source and extent of the pow
D. ers of state legislatures. If the pee
lie pie had intended any restrictions o
,. the legislature to amend or repes
initiated or referred laws. they III
doubtedly would have had som
word or phrase to hat effect inserte
into tho amaudad c~aptiOn ahoya ri