The Mitchell capital. (Mitchell, Dakota [S.D.]) 1879-1918, 1915-03-18
-GovERNMEsr BY BIG sTIcKs?.
Says the Sioux Falls Press:

wrong and potentially vicious for
the legislature to attach the emer-
Rency clause to- the new primary law
that wassspassed to supersede the la
mented Richards primary in the
hotly-epressed opinion of the Mitch
ell Republican, which charges that
s1%og-rolling" in the matter of APP
propriations was employed in order
to get the necessary two-thirds vote
for the emergency clause after 1T had
failed the first time 1t came mp.
This position is tenable only upon
the assumption, apparetly cherished
by tho Mitchell paper, If it thought
the subject owe carefully, that no
emergency existed. An emergency
did.exist just the same, however, and
1t was recognized by nearly every
legislator, nearly every newspaper
and, WI believe, most of the thought
AXf@EfE
fnl voters of South Dakota. Between.
the two votes on the subject the
friends OF the new measu worked.
among their colleagues. Some had
voted against it either because they
feared the new law would be uncon-
stttutional or because they were OPP
posed to the emergency clause on
general principle. They were con-
vinced, we believe, by logic and what
they could e for themselves"
II is indeed a remarkable declara-
ton. this by the Sioux Falls paper.
that al emergency existed for the
passage OF the new primary law.
The constitution of South Dakota
puts in the emergency class ..snch
laws as may be necessary for the
immediate preservation of public
peace, health OF safety, support of
the state government. and it's exist
ing public institutions"
Will the Sioux Falls paper, can
the Sioux Falls paper, tell wherein
an emergency existed for the enact
ment of this new primary law.
Was this primary required to keep
the public peace?
Was it necessary for public health?
Did an emergency exist because of
lack Of safety for the citizens of
South Dakota. syWM
Was the primary indispensable TO
the support of the state government
or Of existing institutions?
Under the constitution, the Sioux
Falls paper must answer one of these
four questions In the affirmative in
order to say that a real emergency,
existed for this primary legislation.
Which one was il?
1t is simply astounding to find any
one saying. that the emergency did
exist. Not even its advocates before
the legislature made any such claim.
II was frankly admitted that there
was no emergency and that the emer-
gency clause was wanted simply to
prevent the use of the referendum.
No other position could be taken, for
the reason that the bill would be-
come law without the emergency pro-
vision on July LIST next. several.
months before a single provision Of
the law would go into operation. How
could it be said to be dealing with
an emergency, when 20 one sentence
of the law could be used in the time
between now and July 1st?
Does the Press consider that it is
a wholesome practice for the back
ers of any legislation, good or bad.
to- use the appropriations bill to
coerce members into voting against
their honest convictions on I'M pub
Zig measure?
The Press does not say that APP
propriations we're used to change
votes but implies that other means
were employed The Press evidently is
not well informed for it can find If
Il inquiries that threats to cut out
appropriations were used to put
through the emergency clause.
II it is right and proper and in ac-
cofdance with the principles of rep
resentative government to browbeat