Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1908-03-13
STATE SOVEREIGNTY QUESTION.
Interesting View of Judge Pritchard's
Position,

Position.
The action of Judge Jeter c. Pritch-
ard. of the United States circuit
court in forcing an issue with the gov
ernment and the judiciary of South
Carolina, is more arbitrary in his usur-
patton of authority than any judge
who has yet assailed the doctrine or
states rights since the recent revival
of that issue.
Hitherto this conflict Of authority
has arisen practically in every instance
in connection with railroad litigation.
While we have no idea of receding
from the position we have always TAX
en- on those questions as they arise,
the fact remains that the railroads
were engaged in interstate as we'll as in
intrastate commerce, and it is at least
conceivable how this dual function
might give rise to an honest doubt as
to whether certain proceedings should
come before the state or the federal
tribunal. The right of the federal gov
ernment to regulate interstate COM
merce is so clear and so broad That we
can at least comprehend the extreme
length to which the federal courts nave
gone in claiming Jurisdiction over mat
ters which, in point of fact, belonged
exclusively to the state.
But there is no such possibility OF
confusion in the case which Judge
Pritchard has made the basis OF ms
attack upon the sovereignty or the
state of South Carolina. The state, In
the exercise of its police powers, de-
cided to regulate the liquor trafhc by
taking it entirely into its own hands
II was distinctly as a sovereign right
that this police power was exercised; ;
it was only thus that it could be eXer-
cised. and to say that in exercising II
the state forfeited its sovereignty is a
ontrauictiOn in terms.
The state has made no attempt
whatever to extend its jurisdiction De-
yond its own borders. 1t has contned
its efforts to the regulation OF its own
domestic concerns. With the method
of regulation and control which 1t
chose to adopt no other state had any,
thing to do. South Carolina was at
tending to its own business in its own
way, and when it decided to abandon
the dispensary method of dealing with
the liquor traffic it was still a matter
with which no other state nor the fed
eral government had the slightest con-
Germ.
This is both the law and the COM
mon sense of the situation, and when
Judge Pritchard takes the amazing
ground that the state Of South Caro-
lima, in dealing as it saw fit with the
liouor business within is borders, for
feited it's sovereignty he brings on a
conflict between the state and federal
authority which seems to be far less
eXcusable than any Of the irritating in
stances which have gone before in
which the common carriers were in
VolVed.
South Carolina has history behind
her which inspires confidence in her
utterances and in her fOrtitude when
she says, through her attorney general
that she will resist federal usurpation
to the extremity of the law. she
stands on solid ground and it is hoped
that she will not doubt nor daily.
Judge Pritchard had better refresh
his memory as to the events which led
to the adoption of the eleventh amend
ment. in which Georgia, we are proud
to recall. bore leading part. More
than once we have related the facts.
but they will bear repeating
The federal government attempted
to assert it's authority over the Cher
okee terriory, which was then located
within the borders of the state Of
Georgia. When the half-breed, Corn
Tassel, murdered another Indian in
that territory, he was arrested by the
authorities of the state of Georgia,
tried and condemned to death.
The demagogues of his day, anxious
to strengthen the federal power, lost
no time in coming to his assistance. In
spite of the limitations of jurisdiction
already prescribed by the constitution,
the supreme court issued its writ Of
error and demanded that the case be
brought to that tribunal for review.
The state of Georgia ignored the
imperious mandate of John Marshall,
failed and refused to transmit the rec
ord to the federal court-and Corn
TaSsel was hanged.
The piOuS agitatOrs Worcester and
Graves who. in the name and under
the guise of missionaries. went into the
Cherokee territory, i'm defiance of the
clear prohibition Of the state, and for
so doing were placed under arrest,
made similar appeals to the supreme
court of the United States. Again the
state of Georgia was commanded TO re-
lnounce it's authority in favor Of the
federal government and again the state
refused
And when we say refused we mean
| it in the negative sense that the writ
of the federal court was not even dig
nified with a positive refusal. 1T was
contemptuously ignored.
And in srite of the usurped author
~ -" tn" federal court the criminals
who had violated the laws of Georgia
were sent to the penitentiary.
1t was as n direct outgrowth of this
conflict of authority that the eleventh
amendment was passed, in which the
federal court was given, at the hands
of congress and the people, the sever
est rcbukc that tribunal has ever re-
ceivcd.
1t is just as we'll to bear these facts
of history in mind when the tendency
of the federal courts in few cOnspic-
nous instances at least, is to uSurp
the authority of the states, and partic-
alarly when the state of South Caro-
lima is told that in exercising her po-
lice power in a certain fashion which
suited her best. she diveSted herself of
her Sovercignty!-Atlan Journal.