The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1906-12-14
Mr., Root on Tendencies.

Possibly the eloquent u~tterances OF
Secretary Roof or Federal Capitalization
would not have sounded so radical to the
attentive ears around him If he had
begun his speech with this passage.
which occurred somewhere well along
toward the peroration:
IL is useless for the advocates OF state rights TO
inveigh against the supremacy Of the constitutional!
laws OF the United States or against the extension
of national authority In the fields of necessary con-
srol where the States themselves fail in the perform
snce OF their duty"
We have italicized the word which is
the heart of this sentence and thek key TO
its true meaning, just as the sentence
itself is the heart and core of the Secre-
tary's remarks in their entirety. The
supremacy of the constitutional laws
of the United States" The passage
uuoted above could have been improved
only in one way, and that is by intro
ducing a second time the word that ex-
planned the thought, thus:
9 1t is useless for the advocates OF State rights TO
mveirh against the supremacy of the constitutional
laws Of the United States or against the eonsffu-
tsondI extension of national authority In the nelds OF
necessary control where the States themselves fail
N the performance OF their duty"
Secretary Roof is a greS lawyer and
n profound student of constitutional
philosophy. Here, as almost always,
he is right. The advocates Of State
rights will never inveigh against the
supremacy of the constitutional laws OF
the United States. They will never in
weigh against the constitutional extern
sion of national authority in the fields
OF necessary control. All that they de-
mand is that the laws in which the Fed
eral Government asserts its supremacy
shall be constitutional laws, and that
the method of extending national au-
thority in the fields of necessary control
shall be the method prescribed by the
Constitution itself.
If Mr.. Roof holds 20 that doctrine the
advocates Of State rights have no quarrel
with him. That he did mean in his
speech of night before last to provide
that the assertion of Federal supremacy
must be by laws which are constitutional,
and that the extension OF Federal au-
thority must be by constitutional amend
ment only, we have not a shadow OF a
doubt. Any other form of assertion,
any other method of extension, would be
revolutionary.
In this view of his meaning, the Secre-
tary's position il so clear that we venture
TO 90 further and express the opinion
that the remarks of Justice BROWN OF
Pennsylvania on the political impor-
lance of the judiciary as the safeguard
of constitutional institutions, instead OF
constituting a reply" to Mr.. RooT's
~radicalism, as they seem to have beer
regarded at the time, we're, in fact, only
the e%nunciation of ideas concerning which
the Secretary Of State would yield &c
nobody in the celebrity and enthusiasm o.
his approval and acceptance.
These authoritative dissertations or
national tendency are of the highest
order Of interest. Would that the oc-
casion might come for the same elo-
uuent speaker and broad minded politica
philosopher to discuss a subject o.
equal, II not even superior present inter
est: namely, the Capitalization Of Fedora
activity in the Executive department o.
the Federal Government, TO the deple
ton OF the Legislative department anC
Of the Judiciary.