The herald-advance. (Milbank, S.D.) 1890-1922, 1916-05-19

the repeal at the earliest possible mo-
ment of the present cumbersome, ex-
pensive, and unintelligible so-called
Richards primary law, which practi-
cally restores the old caucus and con
vention system
Voters Favor Repeal.
Upon this platform the party cam
didates went to the people with h
specific pledge that they would re-
peal the law. The party was en-
dorsed at the polls by a majority OF
almost 10000. The pledge was kept.
The 1915 session OF the legislature re-
pealed the law. Democratic leaders
Of the senate also voted for this re-
peal eve though they were not elect
ed IN the same platform as the re-
puDlicanS. They said their conStitu-
ents demanded the repeal.
In it's place was enacted the So
called Crawford primary law, which
was in operation prior to the Richards
law. Only the registration provisions
OF the Richards law were re
aimed. AS a matter OF tact this law Is
also Il ltlcharus law IN the main. Sens
ASNC4 SAAAAAAOu w w
the author. The enactment OF his
%so-calied Crawford primary law was
at that time a direct result OF the
campaign conducted by the primary
league, X. .. Richards. tor
political purposes, Mr.. richards now
calls thus Law the Norbeck law,
though he well knows hat this law
was first placed upon the statute
books in 1907, before l had taken any
active interest in public affairs. /
was not even a member Of the legis-
lature hat passed it. l am not its
defender now; but l am Of the same
opinion as about ninety-nine per cent
Of the voters Of the state, to-wit: it is
less Objectionable than the Richards
mo~nstrosity.
Mr.. Richards raises the point that
the legislature should not have au-
thority to repeal a Law enacted by the
people. There is room for difference
of opinion on this question. If they
should lot have the authority, the
constitution should be changed to SO
provide.
At the 1913 session Of the legisla-
ture, l tried to secure the submission
~ - RAo>
viding that no law adopted by the
people should be repealed until after
having had a fair trial. Mr.. Richards
says such laws shall not be repealed by
the legislature, even after fair trial.
My record is in the Senate Journal.
Many arguments have been brought
onward to show that this contention is
impractical. How can the people tax
the necessary steps to repeal an unpop-
ular or Anticipated law, if the represent
tatives elected by the people, in
structed by the people and paid by
h people, shall have no hand in the
matter? The only plan open would
be that of an initiative petition, but
who shall pay the expense to secure
h necessary signers? 1t will COS
about $500. Where will you find the
man or man who will put up the $500?
There is only one Richards in South
Dakota, and our state can hardly del
egate to him this exclusive authority.
He thinks he is the people, but he is
only the check book" though l will
admit that his check book has been
very effective in the past.
Example Of Headlight Law.
l will here recall a little political
history. The Legislature of 1905
passed the ~so-called Headlight law.
Prior to this time the railroads used
poorer headlight on their trains than
was used for the ordinary automobile.
Accidents We're common, resulting in
injury and death to passengers and
employees. Other states had taken
advanced ground and by laws had
provided for stronger headlights. Our
legislature passed the law also. but as
it failed to get a two-thirds vote, the
emergency clause had to be stricken
off. The railroads thereupon imme-
diaely secured the necessary referen-
dunn petition OF about 5000 names, the
cost of which would only be about
5000. The effect was two-fold: First,
to veto the operation of the law until
the next general election, nearly two
years. Second, to submit the law to
a vote Of the people. might say
here that l feel that t is a dangerous
public policy ito give any man or corr
poration the right to veto the opera
ton of any law passed by this COM
monwealth. by g. simple expenditure
Of 5000. There should be more safe
guards placed around it. l could
point out many other instances of this
power being abused, but my time is
short.
The referendum was placed in our
constitution with the hope that it
would be q weapon In the hands OF
the people to protect themselves: but
experience has taught that corpora
tions are more likely to avail them
selves Of this privilege: out l am di-
crossing.
The Headlight law was defeated In
the following election by a large ma.
jority. There was no organized effort
on the part OF the public to carry il
through. What is everybody's bust
ness il nobody's business.
When the next legislature met
was again a member. The law was
again up for consideration. Technical
lawyers Of pro-corporation convic'
lions argued with much feeling thai
It would be unfair to the people tt
choke this (headlight) law dowr
their throats'' two months after the,
had rejocted IL. But the fact was