New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1904-05-23
NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY.
Turner Decision Interpreted as
Sustaining That Doctrine.
the Editor OF The Tribune.

bUoiottHeS - ttce1 DCS1btts
To the Editor Of The Tribune.
Sir: The decision of the Supreme Court In TIA
Turner case establishes TO the fullest extent tns
right of the United States TO exclude undesirable
immigrants, the ground of race. color igncr-
ance. bad habits. Objectionable opinions. or On
any other ground that seems to Congress sun
Client. To most readers Of the Judgment Of he
court. and of Mr.. Justice Brewers eoncur4ns
opinion. that will be the chief If not the snly
point determined in this case. Nevertheless
there is another point which is OF far mors in
terest TO the philosophical student OF consitu-
tional history.
Chief Justice Fuller IN giving the Indignant Of
the court. said:
Whether. rested on the accepted principle OF IN
tSe noWeT as inherent IN sovereignt1 and esnai
to preservation, to forbid the entrance II for
In such cases ana on such Conditions as it nay see
At to prescribe or on the power TO reguae COM
entrance Of ships the Importation OF goodsand the
bringing OF persons into the ports Of tbs United
States. the act before US Is not open TO onStitu-
tiOnal objection.
Mr. Justice Brewer used the following Ian
guage:
I agree to the proposition that the United States
any nation but i DO not SSree thai cngress s
authorized in all things to speak for ne nation.
Xth Article Of the amendments to the Constitu-
ton that the powers not delegated to he United
the States. are reserved to the States respectively
given to the general government are nIned in the
Constitution. and all not there named, either
pie. and be exercised only by them
II we analyze the circumstances q this case
we shall be forced to the conclusion that JUS
tiee Brewer read into the opinion q the court
the proposition which he finds it necessary per-
sonally 70 disclaim. Inasmuch as the decisions
OF the court and the written opinions by which
they are supported are discussed oy the JUS
tees before being announced. we nay be sure
that the clause from the opinion Of the court
above quoted was objected to by Justice Brewer
as implying the doctrine that congress-tha
nation-has powers which are neither expressly
conferred by the Constitution nor implied in
those which are conferred. The omission or
modification Of that clause wOuH have taken
away the necessity for Justice Brewers sep
arate opinion, with its expression Of dissent,
from the proposition relating TO inherent SOW
eign powers. Finally. the retention OF the
clause, after the logical inference from IL mad
been pointed out. leads to the heller that eignr
of the nine justices adhere TO the pflncipe
which Justice Brewer rejects.
What is that principle? IL may oe stared
thus: This government possesses m some one
of it's parts, national or State, every rlght Wnlch
Is possessed by any sovereign power. Inc Con-
stitutiOn cOnfers some OF those rights upon tne
national branch of the government. ana leaves
some to the States. the original possessors oL
all the rights. 1t reserves-under tue seLsn
article of amendment-tO the States ana me
people all powers not expressly delegated 70 VIC
United States nor prohibited 20 ths ota.Ss-
Nevertheless. Congress may assume anu Cno
court will sustain il in assuming. such powers
essential to preservation. although not dele
gated by the Constitution, as the states or 'na
PEOPLE are incapable OF exercising.
That is a generalization OF the princlpIes 90
nOunced in the Legal Tender Cases. ana OF ne
principle adopted by the court when quesuons
relating TO the ACQUISITION OF territory nave coma
before it. But in the Turner case IL seems %
have been not only generalized, but eAIehueus
For presumably, a State might pass q Ia" -
Guiding undesirable foreigners from entering Us
borders from a foreign country. Inc eNlStehcS
of a certain degree OF control over tmmlgratlohs
on the part OF the States. Is, indeed, Implied ID
the ninth section OF Article Of the Constltu-
tion-a provision which Is general IN us TERMS
although inserted with special reference 10 th9
slave trade At all events, the members OF tbs
court which adopted this opinion OF the ChleE
Justice would freely admit that the phrases IN
the passage quoted, essential TO SELF preserVa-
ton must be interpreted most hoerally- II -
NOT for the court 10 decide whether or not an act
of Congress was or is properly so described. IL
Is therefore permissible 10 read out OF the opil,
Ton that clause. and thus practlcaily 20 lesdtA
the decision as one formally nuInIylnS lhe VSu14
amendment to the Constitution II has long
been nuIlifed practically For a hundred years
virtually every power OF a sovereign governments
the opportunity for an exercise or whleh mas
newly arisen has been assumed by Congress OF
nv the national executive. and the court mas IN
the end sanctioned and upheld the national gov
eminent in the assumption
We are very far from the time when any one
seriously believed that the reserved rights OF
sign OF the times when Democratic Chief Jus
tiCe gives a mortal blow to the doctrine OF State
fights EDWARD STANWOOD.
Boston. May IS. 1904