Evening public ledger. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1914-1942, 1917-08-01
POLICY OR PRINCIPLE?

yIYRITrEN constitutions never amounted
NV to much until John Marshall reasoned
authority into the pronouncements OF the
United States Supreme Court and the
armies of the Union smashed to pieces
the organized forces that sought to prove
BY military might that the great Federal
instrument was nothing more than
eompact To be broken at will and dis
gsgarded at pleasure.
When It became apparent that In this
country constitutions meant something
being almost as Interchangeable as the laws
AZ the Medes and the Persians. enthusi-
ssts with fads perceived that to perpetu'
ate their reforms the sure way was 10
avoid simple legislation and write their
statutes into the constitutions them'
selves. That assured permanency. The
constitutions Of more than half the
States are filled with legislation. They
are long, wordy documents and codes OF
laws rather than statements OF vital prin-
eap,es of government. Principles do not
change with the years: policies, usually
outlined by legislation. do. That Is why
State constitutions often become obsolete
within a generation. They have within
them the seeds of their own dissolution
because they are filed with legislation.
A governmental policy Is no longer
good policy II it requires constitutional
clause to maintain It, The Monroe Doc
trine is not written into the Constitution,
because it does not belong there. 1t is
statement of policy, but of policy not
necessarily forever wise. Washington's
advice that we beware Of foreign entangle-
ments was a policy Of American govern.
ment for more than century; but 1t was
never incorporated in the Constitution
because It had no proper place there.
The Bill Of Rights. statements Of the
eternal principles Of liberty on which
our Government rests, definitions Of the
powers belonging to the several depart
ments, ETC., belong in the Constitution. on
which account they are there.
Legislation by constitution is bad legis-
lAting because 1t undermines and defeats
the purpose Of constitution. 1t would
seem, therefore, to be inherently wrong
IN principle to write prohibition into the
Federal Constitution. But may It not be
Q fact that prohibition has seemed to be
Q legislative affair only because legislation
offered tho FIRST and fairest opportunity
for progress? The Constitution, for in.
stance, prohibited the importation of
slaves after q specified date. Later, by
amendment, It prohibited slavery en-.
tirely. That was not legislation, because
opposition to slavery had become a prin-
ciple. It had ceased to be a mere policy.
Consequently, Prohibitionists are within
the limits Of reason when they claim that
the assertion Of general principle is
their purpose. They can point to Turkey
and it's centuries of prohibition in de-
fense Of that view. A sumptuary enact.
ment. however, IL always dangerous
enactment. and to write It into the funda-
mental law IL drastic proceeding. The
inviolability Of the Constitution is essen.
tial to order In America. II would be ruin
Gus to have in the Constitution any pro.
visions not sustained by popular opinion
IN every State.
It 10 altogether probable that the Con.
sress is Justified at this time in authoriz-
ing vote on prohibition amendment
certainly so. II It will relieve the Govern
nent now Of some of the harsh burdens
the Prohibitionists propose to put on It.
We should view with alarm. however, a
later situation II q minority of the people,
( acting through the smaller States, should
adonf the amendment against the wishes
81 the majority resident in the larger
states. The problem Of the Prohibitionists
should not be merely to win enough
ptstes 70 carry the amendment. but to
/ WIN for II majority support in at least
osrne Of the great States until now def
oifely ~ the vet column.
B. fuNoopaurp