The Manitowoc pilot. [volume] (Manitowoc, Wis.) 1859-1932, 1879-08-07
STATE RIGHTS.

The issue between the political parties
for this and next year will undoubtedly
| by the question of state rights and it is
but proper that the question as
/ believed in by the democratic
party should be clearly defined. The
idea that the democratic party holds it
to Se a corollary of the constitution That
state has the right to secede from the
union when United States laws are dis
tasteful to that particular state, is erron-
eous. This principle is repudiated in
toto by democrats. Nor does the demo-
cratic party hold that state has the
right to nullify United States laws, pro-
perly enacted even though their wisdom
should be questionable. The democrat
ic party holds that the national authority
is supreme on all matters in which the
constitution gives the United States con-
troll. The constitution is as valuable for
its limitations upon powers as for the
powers which it gives. In times of
great peril necessity supersedes pre-
scription or written law. But in times
of peace, safety requires the closest pos
sible adhesion to constitution and law.
If the United States can nullify a pro-
vision in the constitution it cannot with
good grace denounce state for claiming
like privilege. Hence the wisdom OF
conforming to established law. The
democrats hold that the following article
of the constitution is now in full force
and should so remain until amended in
the manner prescribed by the constitu-
ton itself:
''The powers not delegated to the
/ United States by the constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the states are reserved
to the state respectively or to the peo-
pie"
Republicans are seemingly anxious to
nullify this article. Democrats do not
contend for the assumption of any powers
/ by the states which are delegated to the
/ United States. A conflict of authority
cannot possibly arise between the state
and the nation when each confines itself
within the limits prescribed by the con-
stitutIon. If it is deemed advisable to
enlarge the powers of the government
and curtail those of the states, let the
constitution be so amended as to secure
this end. If the constitution gives pow
ers to the state which are menace to
national integrity, it also furnishes the
remedy.
A state is a sovereignty in the manage
ment of its own local affairs, when that
management is not repugnont to the
United States constitution, or laws made
i'll pursuance thereof or treaties. The
constitution declares that anything in
the constitution or laws of any state
/ which conflicts with the United States
constitution shall be invalid The SUI,
premacy of the United States in those
matters in which as nation they are en-
powered to act is here sufficiently enun-
! ciated. But state sovereignty in matters
| III which the United States do not and be-
cause of their own prohibition cannot act,
| doesnoti in any sense mean state supremacy
in national affairs. In certain particulars
a school district is supreme because it
! does not come within the province Of the
state to interfere IL these particulars.
The state can not say just what amount
Of money shall be raised for school pur
poses, nor state just the number Of
months school that shall be Taught, nor
the sex of the teacher employed. Let
the state attempt to regulate this matter
and many republicans would be earnest
advocates for ''district rights" This is
the kind of state rights democrats de-
mand for the individual states. Ii it be
deemed advisable to increase the meas
ure of power now accorded to the United
! States, let Us do it in the manner pre-
scribed by the constitution. For instance
if it be deemed advisable to place cleo
tons under the control OF the United
States let the constitution be amended
so as to state explicitly that elections
shall be under the exclusive control of
the United States, and let it be exclusive.
Let it not be as at present commended for
by the republican party, right held In
common by the state and the nation. II
the United States has a right to control
elections it should be exclusive and there
will be no danger of conflict. Where
The United States has the right to act
states should be excluded, If the United
States has no right to act, the states
should have exclusive control. If their
laws are not copsonant with the consti-
tuition of the United States they are
invalid. Here the general government
has means OF protecting itself. 1t has
prescribed standard to which al laws
must conform. Why then enter into
scramble with state1