Image provided by: University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries, Lincoln, NE
About The commoner. (Lincoln, Neb.) 1901-1923 | View Entire Issue (Nov. 10, 1911)
smmasezsm 4 The Commoner. VOLUME 11, NUMBER 44 The Commoner. Direct Legislation Before Supreme Court 1 4f I w IV & i' l. as tX t S " K - $ . Ps . t . I Entered at tho Postofllco at Lincoln, Nebraska, an second-class matter. WlI.I.IAM J. TlnTAN GlIAnl.ES W. Buyak ICdltarntid Proprlotor Publisher llioiiAim L. Mktcat.kk Editorial Rooms nnd Business ABBOdato Editor onioo, 324-330 South 12tu Strcot One Ycnr 91.00 Six MontliN .CO In Clubs of Five or more, per year.. .75 Three Month 25 Single Copy 05 Samplo Copies Free. Forolgn Post, Gc Extra. SUBSCRIPTIONS can be sont direct to Tho Com moner. They can also bo sent through nowspapors which have advertised a clubbing rato, or through local agents, whero sub-agontB have boon ap pointed. All remittances should bo sont by post olllco monoy order, express order, or by bank draft on Now York or Chicago. Do not send Individual checks, stamps or money. ItBNHWALS Tho date on your wrapper shows tho time to which your subscription Is paid. Thus January 21, 11, means that payment has been re ceived to and including tho last Issuo of January, 1911. Two wooks aro required after money has been received boforo tho dato on wrapper can bo changed. . CHANGE OF ADDRESS Subscribers requesting a chango of address must give old as well as now address. ADVERTISING Ratos will bo furnished upon Application. Address all communications to THE COMMONER, Lincoln, Neb. WATCH IT GROW Mr. Bryan has given instructions that every new subscriber shall receive The Commoner for a period of two years (which will carry it beyond the presidential elction of 1912) for the sum of one dollar. Every Commoner reader is asked to secure at least one new subscriber. Many will be able to secure more than one. Everyone, however, may render some aid in this work. The following named readers have sent in new subscribers: W. E. Fowler, O.; H, D. Fink, 111.; Wm. M. Smith, la.; A. Anderson, Minn.; A. M. Way, Wash.; T. G. Harper, la.; J. H. Eckles, Ind.; A. F. Vandeventer, Okla.; F. X. O'Brien, Ariz.; Salem Graham, Fla.; W. H. Dempsey, N. Y.; L. Crim, Cal,; Jos. A. Bryan, la.; W. D, Barnes, Ind.; D. K. Brickley, Ida.; Sam. Anderson, Ida.; G. W. Shearer, Kan.; Jno. Farrington, Mo.; J. H. Lowrey, Cal.; Lorenzo Obert, Pa.; Silas D. Warner, Kan.; W. E. Freebaugh, N. Y.; B. F. McGraw, N. D.; F. R. Conklin, 111.; J. P. Hansen, Cal.; P. D. Sims, Tenn.; D. T. Woodard, 111.; J. E. Beckell himer, W. Va.; S. J. Svenson, N. D.; E. J. Marsh, Mich.; Jno. H. Brown, Neb.; G. W. Hall, Neb.; J. R. Harrison, la.; J. M. Queen, 111.; Thos. Ormond, Colo.; J. P. Lewis, N. M.; Aug. Bremer, la.; W. M. Roberts, N. J.; T. J. Catlin, Minn.; T. R. Dowd, Minn.; Henry Thode, la.; Geo. C. Moyer, 0.; N. L. Ward, Tex.; R: B. Marchard, O.; J. R. Baker, Wash.; D. N. Howser, 111.; T. R. Wllkerson, Kan.; Emmett Miller, Mo.; O. T. Brokken, Minn.; H. S. Parks, Ore.; Frank Hall, Kan.; W. A. Clarkson, Okla.; Mrs. A. Hamilton, Mich.; J. A. Gibson, Ky.; J.. A. Mc Corkle, la.; Eli Card, O.; Frank Cogswell, Mich;; Geo. W. Courtwright, Ind.; J. R. Holt, Ark.; A. H. Parks, 111.; B. Camahan, 111.; C. W. Am berg, Tex.; J. H. Shirter, N. Y.; M. P. Frink, 111.; L. Hammond, S. D.; Jas. Coyle, Arjz.; J. W. Williams, Ark.; J. J. Eddleman, Cal.; Jacob S. Quinter, Pa.; H. W. Scott, Tex.; E. S. Hallock, Utah; C. H. Bullis, N. Y.; Jno. P. Wolf, Ark.; Rev. F. Parker, N. H.; R.. M. Sherman, 111.; Jno. H. Shake, 111.; H. Holto, Minn.; W. A. Summerville, N. J,; J. E. Downing, O.; C. C. Miller, Ky.; J. E. Stutheit, Neb.; J. S. Barley, Ind.; S. Robbins, la.; E. C. Melton, Miss.; C. L. Shotwell, Mo.; David Dennis, W. Va.; J. H. Holloway, Mass.; G. W. Venard, Kan.; Clinton Reynolds, O.; D. F. Lambert, la.; J. H. Hesse bauer, O.; R. W. Harper, 111.; Alex Nicholson, la.; Dr. J. L. Sweeney, Mo.;W. L. Llghtner, Pa.; , Jno. Roush, la.; W. B. Baird, Cal.; P. M. Coul , lough, Minn.; O. H. Hubbard, Me.; Phillip Stuppy, Ind.; Jno. Bartholomew, Ind.; H. A. Jones, Kan.; Wm. Curts, Cal.; A. A. Cole, Neb.; 1 Jno. Pope, 111.; Jno. F. Rodman, Wash.; C. W. .'Smith, O.; H. J. Ventress, Ky.; H. Van Fleet, O.; F. C. Jones, Ind.; C. U. Crandall, Cal.; O. L. Niscolls, Tex.; E. E. Bird, 111.; M. J. Callbeck, ! Vt.;' L. P. Dickinson, O.; D. C. Lee, Okla.; W. P. I Baker, Minn.; Sam Wilkes, Ark.; Rev. G. Mc 1 Daman, Neb.; D. T. Sears, Ore.; Jag. W. Hagen, W. Va. The initiative and referendum will be passed on by tho United States supreme court. The suit was brought by the Pacific States Telephone and Telegraph company against the state of Oregon. Following is an Associated Press dispatch: Washington, Nov. 3. The critical manner in which the supreme court of the United States today listened to arguments that the initiative and referendum method of legislation in this country was unconstitutional brought encourage ment to the friends of the system. Oral argu ments on both sides of the question were com pleted before the court adjourned for the day. E. S. Pittsbury of San Francisco and R. R. Dun way of Portland, Ore., were heard in opposition to the method in two Oregon cases. When Mr. Pittsbury remarked that there could not, with due regard to the federal constitution, be two legislative powers in a state, namely the legis lature and the people, Justice Lurton interrupted him. "What is a state constitution but an organic act of legislation by the people?" inquired the justice. "That is expressly what I understand it to be," responded Mr. Pittsbury. "Then there is legislative power in the people." "To make a constitution, yes." Mr. Pittsbury suggested that the people might put into their state constitution anything not in conflict with the restriction of the federal constitution. "What are the restrictions which you claim are violated in this particular case?" inquired Chief Justice White. "The provision for a legislature." The chief justice asked him to read. "I can not read it; it is implied in a dozen places," said the attorney. "And also the con stitution has been construed by this court to imply that there must be a legislature." Tho chief justice asked -for the cases in which the point had been in issue, but the attorney did not give them. It was further argued that taxes imposed under the initiative method were not by "due process of the law" and violated "the equal protection of the laws," so long as some persons were taxed under initiative laws and other legislative enactments. Attorney General Crawford, of Oregon, de clared that the question of whether the method violated the guaranty of the United States in the federal constitution of a "republican form of government to every state" was a 'political question for congress to decide and not a judicial one for the courts to pass on. He inquired how the court would enforce its decision if congress and Oregon were opposed to it. Frank S. Grant and William N. Benbrow of Portland, Ore., spoke in the interests of "home rule." George Fred Williams, of Boston, argued that only a party to the "guaranty to the states could ask the United States to make good its promise that every state should have a republi can form of government. A corporation, he said, could not do so, because the guaranty was to the states. "I have heard no state objecting to the Oregon form of government," said Mr. Williams. Chief Justice White suggested that the word "form" in the constitution lent support to Mr. Williams' interpretation of the word "guaranty." Jackson L. Ralston of this city, contended that the opponents of the method were wrong in arguing that the word "republican" was used !n the constitution as a synonym for "represen tative." He aTgued it was used in contradis tinction with "monarchial." Justice Holmes suggested this interpretation would be in conformity with a rule of logic. Prominent lawyers from the Atlantic to the Pacific, representing the states of Oregon, Cali fornia, Arkansas, Colorado, South Dakota, Ne braska, Missouri and Washington, tho city of Portland, Ore., and a number of civic organiza tions were in the case fighting for the "exercise of sovereignty by the people." Two cases accorded tho basis of the conten tion. One was the constitutionality of a tax Imposed on tho Pacific States company. Another was tho validity of a bond issuo for the con struction' of a $2,000,000 bridge in Portland. Ore. . ' Both cases hinged on tho constitutionality of the Initiative and referendum method of legis lation adopted in Oregon by a state constitu tional amendment. George Fred Williams of Massachusetts has filed an interesting and instructive brief in this case. The Commoner will reproduce this brief in full and prints the first installment in this issue. The first installment of Mr. Williams brief follows: THE ISSUE: UNITED STATES CONSTITU TION, ARTICLE IV, SECTION 4 The real Issue raised by the assignment of errors is to be found in the eighteenth thereof, claiming an invasion of appellant's rights under U. S. Constitution, Art. IV, Section 4, as follows: "Section 4. The United States shall guaran tee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion: and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature can not be convened) against do mestic violence." (Exact form as engrossed; Farrand, Records of the Federal convention, Vol. II, p. 662.) The other claims under Art. I, Section 2, 3, 4, 8, 10; Art IV, Section 3; Art. V, relate to the requirements of the United States consti tution for legislative action in the states. It may be conceded that these requirements would impose upon the states the duty to maintain legislatures for national purposes, and the short answer to the' appellant's claims in this regard is that such a legislature is maintained in Oregon in due form and with full powers to conform to the requirements of the United States constitution. The claims under the Article of Amendment XIV are not to be considered, because the State of Oregon Has promulgated the tax law of which appellants complain,' every citizen of Oregon is subject to laws so enacted, and there was duo process of equal protection accorded to the ap pellant pursuant to the constitution of Oregon. That constitution and the form of law-making it provides are not subject to revision by this court unless jurisdiction is taken under above Art. IV, Section 4. The supreme court of Oregon has determined that there is no infraction of the constitutions of Oregon and the United States. "The courts of the United States adopt and follow the decisions of the state courts on ques tions which concern merely the constitution and laws of the state." Luther v. Borden, 7 How. 1. Duncan v. McCall, 139 U. S. 449. Taylor v. Beckham, 178 U. S. 578. "The people of the states created, the people of the states can only change, its constitution. Upon this power there is no other limitation but that imposed by the constitution of the United States; that it must be of the republican form." Chlsholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall, 448. I. THE SUBJECT-MATTER OP CONTENTION A. Tho Oregon System "The legislative power of the state shall be vested in a legislative assembly but the people reserve to themselves power to propose laws and amendments to the constitution and to enact or reject the same at the polls, Independent of the legislative assembly, and also reserve power at their own option to approve or reject at the polls any act of the legislative assembly." "The first power is the initiative" based upon a petition by eight per cent of the legal voters. "The second power is the referendum" based upon a petition by five per cent of the legal voters. Such is the plan at issue, adopted by Oregon in 1902. 1. THE PRECEDENT IN SWITZERLAND It was not an experiment. Some of the Swiss cantons had legislated in mass meetings from days of antiquity. After the republic was formed in 1848 by union of the cantons, all the vices to which free governments are subject rent the politics of the republic. Political bosses, legislative corruption, corporate Influences, partisan violence and intrigue were the rule in political life. In 1874 the referendum was adopted In na tional affairs, and, in 1891 the initiative was added. Experience justified these measures in the cantons and republic. The evils abated, popular verdicts were found to be considerate and wise, party virulence was allayed, ex perienced legislators were retained in office. I ' r?
