The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1889-08-02
STATE AND NATIONAL RIGHTS.


estate Lines and State Rights" has been
misconstrued in some quarters, if not
misrepresented. As some discussion
has sprung up on the subject. it may
be well to state its origin. In an article
on the admission of Utah, and referring
incidentally TO States rights, the Jour-
nal said it wished 'to be on record
against that political heresy which is
rapidly striding to the front, as it did
thirty years ago, and fraught with as
many dangers-that any State may regu-
late all of its institutions in its own
way.n The purport of this was that the
Mormons could not acquire immunity
for polygamy by the admission of Utah
as a State-that statehood and States
rights could not be permitted to be used
as a cover and defense for such domes-
tic institution.
The New York Evening Post called
the Journal to account for questioning
the constitutional righf of the States,
and as reminder of the position of the
Republican party on the question, quoted
from the platform of 1860, on which
Abraham Lincoln was elected:
That the maintenance inviolate of the
rights of the States and especially the
right of each State to order and control its
own domestic institutions according to its
own Judgment exclusively, is essential to
that balance of power on which the perfec-
ton and endurance of our political fabric
depends.
To this the Journal replied that the
world had moved since 1860 and the Re-
publican party had moved with it, and
that while it recognizes and respects the
constitutional rights of the States, it
does not recognize nor tolerate the doc
trine of State sovereignty. We added:
"The better construction of the COnsti-
tuition, and the one now practically es-
tablished, is that a State may regulate
its domestic affairs in its own way, pro-
vided that way is not in conflict
with the national Constitution or the
general welfare" This statement has
elected further comment and criti-
cisnl. The Washington Press, for ex-
ample, takes the Journal to task for at
lacking the constitutional doctrine of
State rights, or what is we'll called
"the autonomy of the States"
and repeats the familiar cOnstitu-
tional axioms about the government
of the United States being lone of linn
tied powers" all powers not delegated
the central authority by express terms
being reserved to the States and people,
etc. The Press quotes from the Repub-
hcan platform of 1883 that "we reaffirm
our answering devotion to the national
Constitution and to the indissOluble
union of the States; to the autonomy re-
served to the States under the COnstitu-
tiOn.n 1t also quotes from recent ad-
dress of Justice Miller, in which he said:
"The necessity of the great powers con-
coded by the Constitution originally to
| the federal Constitution, and the equal
necessity of the autonomy of the States
and their power to regulate their do
nestle affairs, remain as the great feat
ures of our complex form of gov
ernment.n By this line of argument
the conclusion is reached that "the gov
eminent of the United States has no
right whatever to interfere in the purely
| domestic affairs of State" The Press
adds that the logical conclusion of the
Journals position would be to abolish
| local self government, and that no party
could stand single campaign on such a
| doctrine.
To all this the Journal has to say that
| it has not advanced any dangerous or
unsound doctrine. 1t is quite familiar
with the b doctrine that the
government of the United States
| is one of limited powers, and that
under the Constitution the States
have certain well-defined rights and
powers which cannot and should
not be interfered with. The theory
of ''the autonomy of the States and their
power to regulate their domestic affairs
| is the true theory of our government,
and must not be lost sight of. But the
| question is as to the extent of this au-
tonomy and power, and who is to be the
| Judge of it. We are told that the powers
of the general government are "lim-
| ited.n That is true in sense, but it
does not imply that those of the State
| governments are unlimited. 1t is true
that the powers not expressly granted to
the general government are reserved
to the States, but this does not imply a
States power to do anything and every
thing not prohibited by the Constitution.
Autonomy cannot be construed to mean
anarchy. The right of State tO.regu-
late its own domestic affairs is unques-
toned, but this does not include the en-
actment of laws or the establishment of
institutions at war with the principles of
free government, or opposed to the
general welfare. The Constitution was
established to promote the general well
fare,n and Congress has express author
ity to 'prOvide for the general welfare
of the United States" This provision
alone confers a tremendous reserve
power.
During the war Congress exercised a
great many new powers, and, with the
aid of the executive, abolished slavery
This interference with the domestic
institutions of the States was JUST.
fed as military necessity and
l A. axaro,ca of ,nxvar