The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1898-03-20
MUTATIONS OF POLITICAL
PARTIES.

! --CoS DliAS 1 eieNe-HS 10 pubic Qealtn and
national quarantine. Senator Sewell. Of
New Jersey, said that from our earliest
history up to the present time the
/ matter had been confined to the states
He further said. in the course
of some running remarbs. Sena-
tor Vest had quoted matters in
relation to southern ports; that
those matters ought not to be con-
sidered as precedents, simply because
/ the southern people will not provide
1 quarantine for themselves. He then
said that when you come to strike our
northern people we are not so DESTROYS
of it. We have the energy and the
money TO spend for the protection of
our own people. We do not believe so
much in the flag and appropriations as
we might, and We think we can attend
to our own business to great extent"
The remarks, if not ill-natured, were
at least in bad taste, and they brought
a reply from Senator Vest. It was dig
( nified in the extreme 1T may be, Mr..
President" said he that the southern
states are poor. They have had war,
pestilence, overfiows, and it is almost
! a miracle that today they are not
hopeless and helpless before the great
, disasters that have come upon them.
But I do not believe that any such mo-
tive as that ascribed to them by the
senator from New Jersey is possible
with that people" After further run
ming debate. Senator Vest launched in
to his argument on the main question.
He took very strong grounds in favor
of the right of the general government
to enact national quarantine law. He
gave to the powers of the government
broad construction, though he repu-
dated the idea that he had any desire
to invade the reserved rights of the
state His position did seem anomalous
when viewed from the traditional DEM
ocratic point of view The view of
Senator Sewell--that quarantine is a
state and not a national matter-would
be the Democratic view considered his
torically, = Senator Vest championed
the doctrine of implied powers, while
Senator Sewell championed that of
strict construction.
All parties have at times modified their
views of the construction of the con-
stitution. The Democratic party has
ever been the party of strict construc-
ton. yet if one will carefully study the
politics of ante-bellum days he will
find that the Democratic theory of the
constitution was one of broad construc-
ton. The doctrine that the slave
owner had a right to carry his slave
"
opposed to the doctrine of state SOW
ereignty. This is an illustration of
what We have said that will occur TO
all. In 1876, when the presidential cleo
ton was so. close and the whole nation
was greatly wrought up over it, the
Democratic and Republican parties
adopted each others views when it
came to counting the electoral vote of
Florida, The Democrats insisted that
the commission had a right to go be-
hind the returns, while the Republicans
insisted that it had no such right; and
the Republican view prevailed. Had
either party been bound by its tradi
tons, the Democrats would have taken
the position that the commission could
not go behind the returns, while the
Republicans would have maintained
that they could. Political expediency
and not party principle determined the
action of each.
A more recent example of how the
two great political parties have
changed positions on a great question
is that of their attitude on the retire
ment of the oreenbacks. The Repub- /
lican party, that is the father of the
greenbacks. is in favor of their retire
ment, while the Democratic party, that /
has always been opposed to them, now
favors their retention.
The attitude of the two parties on the |
tariff question has also been radically /
changed. The doctrine of protection /
as advocated by Clay and Webster /
would today be termed the doctrine of .
free trade When the Dingley bill was /
before congress last summer, leading .
Republicans favored adding such inter- /
nal revenue provisions as would have
given it a distinctly Democratic char
acter. And this becames so patent to
all and was commented on so much
that the provisions were stricken from
the bill. At the same time the Demo-
Gratis arrayed themselves against the
increase in the tax on beer.
Nothing in all our history is more
than to study the muta-
tons of political parties. Parties today
retain their old names, and that is Of
ten all they do retain. Since the close
Of the war the political conditions of
the country have completely changed,
and the Importance and precedence
given to the states in ante-bellum days
are now given to the general govern
nent No matter to what theories par
lies or persons may hold today, the
actual practice is that the federal gov
eminent is one of general powers with )
United restrictions, instead of one of
specifically granted powers, where
powers that are not granted are pro-
libited, while the states occupy the old
ime position of the general govern
nent, with granted and prohibited
powers. The general government has
almost entirely lost its federal charac-
er. having taken. on a definitely ma
ional one. 1t is this fact that often
makes the constitution appear to have
1een outgrOwn. The relations of the
tates to the general government may Z
,e Iikened TO those of feudal barons to
he king. At first the king was little
more than a name, while the barons !
we're everything; they We're the real
,ower. and the king had to cater more
r less to them And then the kings ,