Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1911-09-21
the HOUSE OF GOVERNORS AND STATE RIGHTS.

President Roosevelt
eren States and three citizens of each of the respective
monweas assemble White House for conference in
relation to the conservation of the nations resources he prob
ably little thought that of the gathering would
ment which would have effect Numerically opposite to that
he tried to inaugurate.
President Roosevelt stood for strongly centralized federal
movement with which the authorities of the different States
were expected to for the development well the
OF the natural resources OF the 'ed states AT
this first conference in the famous East Room which the writer
was privileged to attend the discussion developed disposition
to resent the tendency toward federal domination and
at that early day some of the took occasion to flock
by themselves after the stated conference
Out of that conference called by President Roosevelt has
grown what has now come to be known the House of Gov
ernors body not contemplated by state national con
sution statutory law but which probably destined to
figure large in the struggle between Capitalization in Washing
ton ana decentranzed government.
The last half of the nineteenth century witnessed
movement toward the contradiction of in the national
swung far IN the opposite direction The bitterness generated
by the war which crushed the rebellion caused the people to
demand strongly centralized government.
With the beginning of the twentieth century came the
great general movement toward consolidation of industries and
transportation lines and financial institutions These vast
bnations manifested disposition upon the rights
of the individual and the people led by of those who had
previously cried ont against cenanaton demanded action by
the government that would protect from the trusts
Whether the people realized il this still further
Capitalization of power in Washington
Ihc House OF Governors at its recent meeting gave the
tent to which the condition of affairs the sub
stituon of federal for State control For example there
absorption of lines which were formerly wholly or
almost entirely within State boundaries but which
Interstate in their commerce As result the Interstate Com
mercc Commission has have almost entire jurisdiction
of the railway system Of the United States regards general
traffic
State public service bodies railroad commissions still
have jurisdiction of various questions affecting transportation
quent conflict between the national and jurisdiction
as result of this crossing of state lines by railways
The control of interstate raises but of various
questions that have developed with the increased
demands of people the federal government for aid relief
or protection as the be We ask the federal
ment to improve harbo and the general pro
poses federal tax upon incomes. We ask the department of
agriculture o aid in teaching
and somebody IN Washington national inheritance
tax In one breath we demand paena government in the
next insist upon State and individual rights
The specific invasion of State rights of which the House of
Governors took cognznce its recent meeting had reference
to interstate and action took the form Of protest
to the Supreme Court of the United States against
decision by Judge Sanborn in the Minnesota These
in equity the original proceeding having been for
injunction such damage the property of railroads
would result from the enforcement of the orders of the Mime
sofa railroad commission The authority of the Vermont Pub
lie Service Commission under certain conditions also thus in
directly involved and the thing true of other States
was shown during the discussion by the governors that the
question of railroad rates presented is under
dua system of government Of extreme difficulty The fed
crai government Is charged with the DUTY OF regulating inter-
state commerce. while commerce within the States is subject
to the regulation OF lawmakers representing the people of the
1t evident from this reference the problems of
poraton affected by national and regulation that this
whole matter Of cenralzation of control is likely
to raise many ar-reaching problems in the future
What we desire to emphasize at this time, however, the
fact that this clash of authority between federal and
troll in some cases TO ncnazc BOTH For example
if it is established beyond question that State
ulae commerce within its borders then the question arises how
such be reached? udgc Sanborn decided
affecting interstate Congress
traffic within the States except under certain conditions
involving interstate commerce?
How to reach conditions that are clearly
under the jurisdiction of the State and which affect
commerce?
The House of Governors undoubtedly did foolish thing
in protesting they did against the federal court and yet
there plainly problem which the attention of both
people should be directed The performed
distinct service in making conspicuous the need of tackng
this problem.
The House of Governors unw the adopted
they wise emphasize the need of eliminating
twilight zone which has separated the jurisdiction Of
the federal and that Of the of the respective
monweahs particularly with reference the control of
and