The Montgomery advertiser., 1903-10-17
A DANGEROUS PROPOSITION.

Something was said in The Advertiser of yesterday about the power of Con- gress to enact and enforce national mar riage and divorce laws. but that is not the only subject which the advocates of centralization are discussing. There is se- rious talk now of a movement looking to the passage of a National Incorporation law, taking from the States all right to pass laws for interpretations of any kind. Judge Grosscup, of the United States Cir cult Court, declared in a recent address In Cincinnati that i've must take our col porate policy from its flve-and-forty masters and make of it a national policy" adding:
 When so.ne great national party shall have t9kcn up this whole subject of cor porste combinations with this purpose in view. and shall have received the man date of the American people to go ahead. the constitutional means for the changes I have named will be at hand.
 The Judge evidently thinks that neither the Republican nor the Democratic Party will make this an issue but that some great national party may do so. and that when this is done "the constitutional means will be found. Where can au- thority be found in the Constitution for such a wholesale invasion of what has always been looked on as a prerogative of the several States? We note that James B. Dill. who. appears to be strong advocate of an all-powerful cen- tral government, takes the position that under the general welfare" clause of the Constitution Congress can legislate on in- corporations to the exclusion or suppress sion of State legislation.
 This general welfare clause is some what like charity in that 1t covers "the multitude of sins" Taking that view of the Constitution, the general government can go any length the Congress chooses and there will be no help for 1t. The New York Commercial thinks that such a law can be passed through the next Congress If that body were certain that such law would be Constitutional" and then argues in this way:
 It would surely tafe less time to pass such law and let the United States Su- ,reme Court pass ee the errliest possible moment on its conse1tut3enality than it would to get an amendment to the Con- s;itution passed by Congress and ratified by the States. On the other hand, it would be an extremely Dangerous assump- ton of power by Congress to wrest such stitution has not already clothed it with the requisite authority.
 It is a very vicious and dangerous line of reasoning to virtually advise Congress to pass any law the members see proper to vote for and then leave 1t to the Su- constitutionality. The members of that body should consider themselves the guardians of the Constitution as we'll as of the rights of the States and not thus their own shoulders. The Supreme Court has not always shown itself the friend or protector of the several States and 1t would be a cowardly evasion of duty if Congress should indulge in reckless and doubtful legislation and leave it to an- ether tribunal to rectify their wrongs We asree with The Commercial that such legislation would be ap extremely dan gerous assumption of power," but that paper uses the word 'if'' to indicate that the power to legislate for the States may already exist. To concede that is to con cede that Congress can enact any law a majority of the members favor. That means the destruction of every vestige of State sovereignty.