The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1907-02-26
GREAT MAGAZINE DEBATE
OF BRYAN AND BEVERIDGE
Bryan Stands With the Pacific Coast People in Their Contention e
States RghtBcvcndge is for
Federal Unity.
From Our STAFF corrcspondent.)

Federal
(From Our staff corrcspondent)
| WASHINGTON, d. c., February 25.-
William Jennings Bryan stands squarcly
with the people Of San Francisco in
their demand that they be accorded tho
| right to regulate in their own way at
tendance on their own schools. Mr..
Bryan makes clear his position in the
current Issue OF Tho Reader, In which
magazine tho first instalment Of the
Bryan Bevcrldge debate upon great po-
lltical issues appears.
THE Nation versus States Rishts, Is
the topic OF this first debate. Mr.. Bryan
| speaking distinctly for tho old idea OF
| duality of government, while Senator
Beveridge writes himself down as de-
! fender OF that which he terms "the
peoples. instructive effort towards ma
tional unity" Both debaters indulge In
concrete Illustrations to support their
arguments. Mr.. Bryan goes to some
length into the constitutional history OF
| the United States. tracing the present
differences OF opinion to tho wide difrer-
ences that existed between the Hamil-
tonan and Jeffersonian schools at the
time the Constitution was In the max.
| ing. Senator Beveridge contents himself
| with Illustrations showing how the de.
| velopment OF the country and charSed
! conditions have given full warrant for
! the Supreme Courts construction which
recognizes the implied powers of the
Federal government.
| or the Japanese controversy, Mr..
Bryan says:
IAN argument has recently been
made in favor OF extending the sphere
of the general goyernment-viz., that
| 1t is necessary to do SO to protect the
treaty rights of foreigners. Some
lhave gone so far as to assume that
1.-the Congress has power to carry out
the terms OF treaty without regard
to constitutional provisions. This Is
II very palpnbie error, for the Presi-
dent and Senators who join In tho
| making of a treaty are bound by ~ati,
to support the Constitution, and they
can mako no binding treaty which
/ violates the Constitution. Constitu-
ton which can only DO amended by
the concurrence OF the people of
1 three fourths OF the State cannot be
l suspended by the mere concurrence
Of the President and the Senate.
!. 1.-THE exclusion of Japanese students
from certain of the schools OF Sal
Francisco aroused the discussion In
| regald to the treaty rights OF the
members Of that race living in San
IFrancisco.
4 Upon no subject will the people of a
i State insist more strenuously In con-
trolling their own affairs than In mat
ters of education. The schoolroon Is IN
4 close and constant contact with the
home. and the parents. having a Vital
4 interest In the instruction OF their chill
I. dren and an intimate acquaintance with
Il local conditions, would not and should
4 not consent to national control or SUI
/. pcrvision. No construction OF the Con-
stitution could bring state schools "ithn
Il the scope OF Federal legislation, and nc
3. amendment contemplating such change
would commend itself to any section OF
the country"
1 Enlargement of Power.
, sneakinp generally of the growing de-
mand in some quarters for the enlarge
/ ment Of Federal powers, Mr.. Bryar
traces this demand to two so9iNes. those
who believe with Hamilton In the theory
of centralization and those who wan
Z legislation which the States rights doc
trne obstructs. "Of these two classes.
4 lie says the last Is most influential
because the members of this class I'm
& mart 10 their method the strength sup
i
I stract theory seldom provokes discus
q sion. but wars have been fought ovel
+ theory embodied in q concrete issue
y With reference to the agitation II
Il favor OF national incorporation of rail
,yay and Industrial enterprises, MI
! BRYAN does not think 1t likely tina
such an amendment VIII ever p'
adopted, for the reason that u Is very
: UNLIKELY. as he secs 1t. that ma
: jorty of Congress can ever pc proush
/, IL favor any enlargement OF the powe1
: ~ com,narcial corporations. He
s thinks; however, that two constitution
!, 81 amendments have been shown to b.
! necessary--one relating to the metho,
; Of electing United States Senator's ans
the other to the income tax. Ih'
first or these" lie says us required
to make the Senator the servant
:. the peoplc whom he represents; tn
: second is necessary to permit an equi
!. table distribution of the burdens 9
the Federal government; but neither 9
these amendments would disturb u
Fl THE least the balance between the gen
ernl and the State government"
No Amendment Necessary. *
He does not think any amendment
i. necessary In order to insure to IN
Federal government tho neoessar!
l. power TO Cufp ftNe liuSs oSit 49,
a is" he says, "a real evil to be cor
i rected and real public sentiment 7
II BIO satisfied. A constitutional amend
: ment was proposed a few years ag
II specifically authorizing Congress ].
d deal summarily with tho subject. y
: was opposed by Democrats, on IN
d ground TINT 1t did not protect W
$ rights of the States. Whilo such q
I, amendment, properly drawn, confer
Z ring plenary powers upon Congress
d But reserving to the several States II
powers which they now have, would y
,mobiectionable, II has not yet bee
shown to BIO necessary. Congress ma
powcr to control Interstate commerce
! ana tho decision OF the supreme Goni
g a. the lottery case leaves little douh
i Tint that power con be 30 cXorclse
4 las To withdraw the interstate rail-
i. roads ana telegraph lines and thu
+ mails from corporations which contrt