The Madison daily leader. [volume] (Madison, S.D.) 1890-current, 1916-01-03

1eld that am emergency declared by
The legislature was legal and not
open to judicial Interpretation? Now
comes the court and reyerses this
former decision. but too late to per-
nit the people to use the referendum.
Yet the court justifes its present
construction as an excuse Why
should the people, under any circum-
stances have TO keep up Hobbies and
pursue the Legislature with referen-
ium petitions in defense Of laws en-
acted by themselves? When the peo-
pie enacted the initiated Richards
primary election law they directly
spoke On that measure and should not
De called upon to use the referendum
o retain the law.
The court also mentions that the
governor exercised no veto power on
he repeating act. 1t is true the gov
srnor did not directly use the veto
power; but he accomplished the same
result, indirectly by approving a
measure to repeal the initiated law,
he same as the court did in vetoing
he initiative by extending the use of
he referendum to suspend initiated
avs Pray what Is the difference
between a direct or an indirect veto
I either accomplishes the same re-
suit?
The court also holds that because
he constitution does not contain a
numbering inhibition in form OF
words Thou shalt not repeal initia-
ed laws that the legislature can do
80. According to this sort of logic,
he legislature could likewise pass
avs to recall judges and repeal the
effect of other constitutional provis-
ons because the constitution does not
say Thou shalt not Pray in what
'orm does the court wish inhibitions
when it decides that words like Eek
,ept' and expressly reserve have no
restrictive meaning. See State ex rel
Richards VS.. Whisman. And that
words like thou shalt not take emol-
1ments above salaries have no
meaning; see Mccoy VS.. Handlin, 153
Y. w. Page Sol. And that the words
legislative appropriation is not to
mean seasonal but may mean per-
)etual, permitting over a million dol
iars to be paid out of the public
treasury from the miscellaneous
funds during the past four years,
without current appropriations of the
legislature as a check. See State ex
eel Longstaff VS.. Anderson. And that
he word may" means must" see
State ex rel Cook VS.. Policy.
1.-THE Court, In it's opinion, admits
the evident purpose of the constitu-
.ional amendment y y = was thai
t the Legislature neglected to act as
20 desired by the people. that then
he people by means of the initiative
might enact such measure into law
themselves. Does not this
evident purpose exactly fit the rec
ord OF the Richards primary cleo
ion law? The legislature OF 1911
'efused to pass it. The people de-
sired IL and approved the measure in
1912. The legislature of 1913 sub
nitted a substitute for repeal, on a
fraudulent petition, and the people
declined to repeal the Richards law
n 1914. From the record of this
aw, the evidence is clear that this
Initiated law is in accordance with
he intent of the constitutional pro-
visions. even as interpreted by the
language OF the courts own adverse
opinion, as above cited. 1t will thus
De seer that the court crosses itself
n it's W opinion and thereby proves
appellants contention.
Much is said in the Courts opin-
on about language left out OF the
constitution, instead OF interpreting
and UNFOLDING the intent of the Ian
guage that Is in the constitution.
South Dakota led in adoption of di-
'ect legislation and 1t would only
nave been fair to have supported 1t
without mixing the initiative with
he referendum, or with ~precedents
rom other states. Note the various
State ex rel proceeding quoted above
which were brought by different citi-
sen in behalf of public welfare. Also
note how the supreme court has in
each case decided against the people
On apparent technicalities of words
instead OF on the merit OF the accept
I'd meaning of words and statutes
sought to be upheld in truth, judg-
ment and justice. Webster's diction-
ary is upset. The Court has become
4 lexicon on p~recedents by it's own
oracle In etymology. The truth OF
words are shrouded with clouds OF
technique TO readily fit any applica-
ton desired. The court does not APP
pear to recognize the eternal truth
that the first rule of thought is its
Identification in a word, which rule,
or law, as accepted by the people.
under our form of government be-
comes morality in all things. A court
may wash its hands of the RESPONSE
bility OF upholding constitutional or
statutory integrity and yet make it's
decision infallibly legal; but 1t can
not make it moral or right IL IL is
not true I o judgment and justice in
the public mind.
The Effect
The supreme court decision has
turned the constitutional table and