The Nonpartisan Leader Newspaper, October 19, 1916, Page 5

i e > Farmers of South Dakota Once Won by Organization; Now Are Strugglmg to Recover Stolen Rights -J by the adoption, ugh a vote of the people, of the initiative and refenendum, the first state in the hmon to ‘take this ‘step; Today the people of South Dakota after -a long and bitter fight with the politicians for the right- to exercise direct legislation unhampered, find She - authority they reserved to themselves 51 i =-:peop1e \are fighting a battle” to get some 'of 1898 1grgsly nullified by the courts’ and the legislature, They " are: strugglmg more ‘or less unsuceessfully against the politicians to-get back some ;measure of - the power they gave themselves in 1898, e state presents a unique condition. Whereas most states-have won the right of initiative and reférendum by a slow process from the reactlonanes and poli- ticians, and. when ‘once yictorious have tetamed all or most of theu- advantage, South Dakota got the initiative. easily and quickly, and the fight has been' to ~ yetain it, or some vestige of it, and make .3t a means for getting the _péople what. they want... Bit~ by bit, “however; the advahtage given the people of SoutlL' Dakota by their adoption of the: : prin- ciple “of dn'ect legislation in 1898, has been: taken from them by lemslaWre ‘and courts; * until today the ‘initiative. and referendum’ ‘are " names only—names “written in the constitution, it is‘true, but practically ‘of no force or effect. 'The - ‘A PRIEST'S GREAT. IDEA .APPROVED .BY THE PEOPLE The farmers of Sonth DakotaJ who " constitute the great bulk of the yoters: ~and pay the great bulk of the ta:ges, put. 1orgamzatmn. The in most he: Umbed R . The suprenie court of South Dakota in session. Siasy ou:m DAKOTA placed itself in | the fmnt rank of progress-in 1898 South Dakotw was once. in the forefront of | - political progress. That condition was brought . about by a political organization of farmers, the old Farmers’ Alliance. Since then the poli- ticians and the courts have been steadily rob- ‘bing the . people .of their rlghts. Now . the them back. which erystalized in him was in the air at. that time.. The pioneers of South ‘Dakota were iprogressive andliberal in their ideas of government. They were malcmg a new state and they wanted the best in:the way of ‘a constitution. and fabric' ‘of laws, and they saw no reason for . following - blindly - the constitutions and ideas of government carried out in fother states, simply. because these ideas “were accepted: and. ‘backed by tradition. The constitutional. conventwn of. South Dakota in 1889 when the state was admitted to the umion, even. discussed Limiting- the -legislature :to the passage “of imere routine ‘laws, giving ‘it power:’ " ‘only-to.initiate general and fundamental laws, which could not be made effective unjess submitted to.and approved by: the = politicians, controlling the courts and the - . people. They seriously talked of vesting, . legmlature, lmve Seen to tlus. 3 all the legislative authority in-the:people themselves, makmg the legnslature a body % merely to discuss and propose. But that 'was a new and. radical idea.. It was not put in the eonstituuon, but the sentiment: in the state’ wlnch beheved in it~ con- - =-tinued; ‘until Father Haire developed it the' xmhahve and: refe;-emjnm into: the > into the “People’s: Legislature” idea; at - present :known' throughout. the world as the_ inif t.xve and referendnm e a8 in: 1885 A few _years~later,- “in’ this country ‘the: great Fanners',‘ alhance movement took up’ miccided i ‘having the initiative and referendum made part of the program of that - progressive " movement. out. ‘of the great. Farmers’ alliance came the ‘Peoples’ party, the Populists, whose strength’ was in: the farmers’ vote: - And it ‘was the People’s party that proposed the present initiative-and. referendum’ in -South Dakota, had. it submitted to: the people and, through its -contrpl - of the state, succeeded in’having it adopted in 1898 by ‘an’ overwhelming majority of the people. ‘Father Haire drew up the provision put’in:the constltutxon. ¢ WON BY ORGANIZATIO'N' o - LOST BY LACK OF IT .~ It was thus the farmers who took up Father Haire’s idea in South’ Dakota, fostered it through their great alliance‘ in the nineties ‘and finally. made ‘it law through the Populist party. -But if the farmers won this progressive principle of gévemment for South Dakota through organization in- these. two big ' political: movements, they have’ virtually lost it for South Dakota: through lack of organ-. ization sirice then.. Unhindered by the - ‘influence " and: power of nonpartisan organization among. the people, the poli- ticians' have practically taken away the; “right of direct legislation, step by step, T since then. The politicians, " reaction- anes and’ stalwarts: of ‘all parties, keep- s ing the people split-up ‘along' party: lines, : have themselves bmn umted, ‘regardless ; d: 0. ELECTING Growing although in the minority, to make the - in South . initiative and referendum Dakota a farce. The story of the breakmg down of the initiative and referendum in this state _ is'not quite as brief as the story of'its development and enactment . into the: constitution. +"The first assault by-the politicians on the principle of direct legislation was in 1901, when the begple sought by petition to gain a véte on a particularly unpop- ular ‘act of the legislature passed early that year.” The petitions were' circulated and filed in accordance with the 'initiats - ive and. referendum provisions of the constitution. But the legislature had tacked a - so-called”“emergency” clause on this -bill. - Like the direct legislation provisions of all states, that in the con, stitution” of South Dakota provided that laws bearing ‘an ‘emergency clause shall become effective at once, when passed by- the legislature, and shall not be subject to - referendum. The constltutlon pro- . vided, “however, ' that mno’ emergency’ clause should“be placed in 'a bill ‘except - “such laws-as may be necessary for the immédiate_ preservation of the public peace, health or safety, support of the state government and:its existing public institutions.” “While the law -sought - to " be referred to the péople in this case was not “an ‘emergency such as’described:in this language; the legislature, in the. - .- hope of preventing a possible referendum on the bill, had tacked on an emergency clause. COURTS DECISION A BLOW TO PEOPLE’S RIGHTS ' The matter Wwas taken to the supreme : a 'fake eémergency clause tacked on a bill’ by the politicians in'the legislature, who did not want the measure referred to the I9Y32YM Jo UONSOND U3 OpIAp 04 ‘3inod people, “was bmdmg and prevented a popular vote " under 'the referendum; he ‘case was . State ex rel, Lavin vs. Bacon. - The high court decided it was” not within its province to judge whether: O¢ ‘not' a - real emergency: existed and whether or:not.a fake emergency. clause te the cc plays:va’ nnportant part m thwart-, . ticians to strip ‘the people 'b_.:;thelr rlghts. THE QN THE ] 'SORT OF d. "Courts are FAR} e A A A LS had bflen attaqhed in tlus mstance ton. O e T S R S A PP R N S e § b o ST S Bl G S e LR AN D