Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1891-03-19
A FRESH PROBLEM.

The position in which the United States
Government finds itself as q result of the
New Orleans outbreak, reveals q pecul-
iarity in our form of government, which,
in the light it is presented, must be
regarded as a weakness. 1t is ex-
pressed in the simplest form to the
effect that while the general Government
undertakes to guarantee protection to the
persons and property of foreign citizens, it
has to depend entirely on the good faith of
local or State authorities to make the guaran-
tee good. In other words the United States
Government has assumed obligations which,
by the letter of the Constitution, are the
supreme law of the land; but on the other
hand is deprived by the Constitution of the
power to discharge that obligation when
necessity arises.
The division between the functions of the
State and the Federal Governments are ad-
mira bly, adapted to preserve local self-gov-
ernment 1t is national credit that the
policy of this country in relying upon the
people themselves for the maintenance of
law and order has proved as a rule, not to
be misplaced. But it is not a national
credit that in instances where people fail to
maintain the law the Government should be
forced to the confession that it has no power
to make good its treaty obligations or to en-
force the protection to the persons and
property of foreign residents which it has
undertaken to guarantee.
Yet this is exactly the position revealed
by the New Orleans affair, which may be
repeated in various forms elsewhere. Un-
der the Constitution and the present practice
the Federal Government cannot intervene
to suppress domestic violence in any State
unless called upon by the Legislature or Ex-
ecutive of the State. 1t is very easy to i'm
agine that the State government may be so
negligent or so overcome by popular clamor
as to fail to call upon the United States
Government with the result that the mob
overrides the law and the Government must
stand with its hands tied while the nom
inally supreme treaty obligations are
trampled under foot. 1t is not necessary to
take New Orleans as an especially fragrant
example. 1t is quite easy to conceive that
similar state of affairs would arise from
White Capism or riots, resulting from va
rious causes.
1t is possible to maintain the theory that
treaty obligations, being the supreme law of
the land, the Government has the righf to
interfere to enforce them whether called |
upon BY the State or not. But what trav-
esty upon the functions of government it |
would be for the United States to maintain |
military police to protect foreign citizens |
from violence at the same time, when il |
confesses its inability to protect its own cit |
izensl The present absence of any efficient |
means for doing either suggests the very |
cogent question whether the Constitution and |
laws should not provide that the Federal |
Government may step in to maintain order |
where State authorities fail to do SO. If |
White Cap mob law, for instance, should |
rule an entire State, ought not the national
tanning order? Although this would in
volve a serious departure from the present
constitutional theory, the credit of the ma
ton and the maintenance of selfgovern-
ment by law demand that when the State
powers fail to do their duty the hands of |
the United States Government must not be |
tied to prevent either the fulfllment of its
treaty obligations or the protection of its
own citizens.
Certainly the time has come for dispas-
sionate inquiry into the question whether
the powers OF the United States Government
may not be extended so as to afford prompt
action, where it is necessary, to prevent
domestic violence or to keep the law su-
preme in the land.