OCR Text |
Show 1 SUTHERLAND'S BAD BREAKS. I It is not often in recent years that the Salt (Lake Tribune has I been in harmony with the Ogden Standard on any subject, yet herd B 1 we find that the Tribune's editorial on "Sutherland's Breaks" on H popular government coincides so noarly with our views that we ap I ' j prove of the same in full and reproduce it for that purpose. We aro HL- -' ao pleased at seeing the Tribune take a firm stand in progressive Republicanism that we invite- the Tribune to abandon its American H party and join this paper in making Utah a progressive Republican I state. The people of Utah are ready for a progressive government H and with the Tribune's help, the achievement will be easy. H Ilero is the Tribune's editorial in full: H It is not easy to see why Senator Sutherland of this H ; state should concern himself actively against the wishes of H the people of Arizona, as expressed in their proposed state H constitution. There is absolutely no reason why anyone in Utah, from Sutherland up, should worry in the least about H the initiative, tho referendum and the recall as applied to ft . public affairs and officials in Arizona. The people of Ore- H gon have all these things in full degree, and in good work- H ing order, and yet no one in Utah has been harmed, or is H likely to be harmed thereby. Everything that is objected K to in the Arizona constitution, Oregon has And Oregon B is a mighty prosperous state, a great state, with a popula- ' H tion of 672,765, a gain of 259,229 in the decade over the ' census of 1900. The increase for that slate was 62.7 per m cent. Oregon, therefore, can reasonably say, and prove, H that whatever anyone may think about the initiative, ref- M v crendum, and the recall as being bad, that it certainly has H not hurt Oregon. And when Senator Sutherland flung the HI ' taunt that Oregon was a law unto itself, Senator Chain Hi bcrlain of that state made the effective retort. "So is Utah." H Tho stress of the Sutherland speech seems to have been H t against tho idea of legislation by the people He thought H 1 tho referendum, by way of popular vote as to constitutional H j amendments, is all right, but when it comes to statutes, the HL people "have neither the inclination, the specialized train- H ing nor the time requisito to enable them to master the H thousand and one details necessary to qualify them wisely H to discharge the fuuotions of ordinary legislation." The H " same thing precisely, and quite as justly, might be said of M tho average legislative bod. We do not believe that tho H average legislature of any stale, putting Utah in with the H ; lump, is any better qualified to legislate than the people Hti themselves. The legislators have not the attainments, tho K specialized training, nor are they masters of the thousand H and one details necessary to qualify them to legislate wisc- Hl ;h ly for the people. The fact is that they do not legislate Hj I . wisely. So that, even on this particular point which Suther- Hj land presents, he is baffled at once by the facts of the case HI 5 1 and by the limitations which he himself sets up. 'The leg- H j j ' islators do not have what he claims the people lack, and nci- H ther do they legislate wisely. The people at large could do H I no worse than legislators habitually-do. H I But what shall be said of the proposition that, the pco- H ' I pie may wisely and advantageously be entrusted to pass HI I upon constitutions and amendments to the constitutions, but Hi ': not upon mere acts of legislation? Surely a constitution H H . ' more important than a statute, and surely if the people lack H 1 1 the training, the intelligence, the judgment, and the experi- H enec to pass upon an ordinary statute, what possible sound- H 1 ncss can there be in a claim that they arc masters of con- stitutional law, and have the .specialized training, judgment, experience and ability to treat of constitutional provisions? Tho argument which Sutherland makes in this respect is exactly contrary to the log'icof the position Many people. .. understand, and arc able to judge oX statutes, who arc entirely en-tirely lacking in the ability to grasp constitutional provU sions, and arc wholly unable to interpret the meaning 'and make just amplication of a constitutional text. In fnet. it has always been held thatglo be a good expounder of, the constitution was among the highest attainments of groat minds. And yet. Mr. Sutherland would, have us believe that the masses of the people 'ore better able to apprehend and pass upon constitutional quostions than upon ordinary statutes. It is a most ridiculous, feeble position to. take; but even sr. he is estopped here, for the people of Arizona have approved this constitution, and according to his own position posi-tion they are competent to do this, which would end the matter. "We are not surprised to hear that when speeches of this kind arc made in the Senate, they are made to empty seats. Another break made by Mr. Sutherland was evidcutly a relic of his experiences in the Uouse. Tic is represented as declining to give way to quericf; which we do not wonder won-der at, as he was handled so severely by those who questioned ques-tioned him as to put him to the worse on the ground that, they could not do it in his time " This is a phrase which is quite common in the House, where the time is apportioned to different speakers on the subject in hand, and where a speaker is loth to be interrupted because the interruptions take just that much away from the time allowed him to speak. But in the Senate, where time is unlimited, tho remark re-mark has absolutely no application. There was no limit upon up-on Sutherland's time; there is never any limit on any Senator's Sen-ator's time in speaking in tho Senate. "When Sutherland simply made himself absurd when ho refused to be interrupted inter-rupted and stated that those who questioned him could not make their speeches "in his time," it was evident that Sutherland Suth-erland was non-plussod, and felt that he was getting the worst of it all along. He was confused, did not know what to say, and made the foolish break of talking about "his time,7 to which there was no limit. |