Atlanta tri-weekly journal. [volume] (Atlanta, Ga.) 1920-19??, 1923-05-19
ISSUE OF STATES
RIGHTS IS REVIVED
BY HARD|NG'S NOTE
Row. Over New York'S Dry
Law Repeal Likely to Az
feet Campaign "CentraI
Power" Policy Is Feared
BY DAVID LAWRENCE
blessed Wire Service to The JOurnal)


WASHINGTON, May IS.-DemO-
Gratis of prominence were today
questioning the propriety of Presi-
dent Harding's effort to influence
Governor AL Smith, of New York
to veto the repeal of the Mullan-
Gage prohibition law.
Far from arguing the merits OF
the liquor question itself, the view
expressed by many of the cham
pions of state rights was that the
president had overstepped tradition
and precedent in endeavoring to in
fluence the action of a state on a
matter of state law, and that if
this effort is successful the federal
administration in the future will be
tempted to reach out still further
in extending the powers of the cen
trail government.
President Harding, however, did
not act hastily. His letter was
drafted after careful copsultation
and represents Mr.. Harding's ma
tured Judgment of his responsibility.
His statement that the union cannot
exist half wet and half dry any more
than it could be sustained half slave
and half free, is based on the theory
that the eighteenth amendment is
a part of the constitution and as
such is a part of the state constitu'
tons just as much as is any other
power specifically held by the fed
eral government, which it is the
duty of the states to uphold.
Claim Power Usurped
In opposition to this line of rea'
soning is the contention of the state
rights advocates that the eighteenth
amendment in the first place
usurped the police powers of the
states and that the trainers of the
amendment knew it, because they
inserted in the amendment q com
promise idea when they proposed
athat the federal government and
the several states shall have econ
current jurisdiction" in enforcing
the amendment. .I
Have the states, therefore, yield
, ed anything to the federal govern
ment or do they stand on a parity
with the central government? Are
they obliged to accept the obl!ga-
| tons of enforcement if they choose
to do otherwise? Would it not be
possible to increase the burdens of
states by adding other obligations
with respect to other federal laws
and would this not break down Inc
whole idea of state autonomy and
sovereignty and erect central gov
| eminent of absolute power
These are the questions Demo
Gratis are asking and the queries, to
be sure, are in line with traditional
Democratic doctrine just as Mr.. Har-
ding's policy is more reminiscent OF
the Republican idea of strong cen
trail government-the basic theories
which have been the subject of de-
bate and discussion since the days
of Alexander Hamilton.
Mr.. Harding feels that apart from
| the legal complexities of the prob
lem Of state enforcement there
exists an obligation on the part Of
the state of New York to sustain the
federal constitution whose amend
ments it has formally ratified.
Effort on Campaign
Meanwhile the politicians are not
overlooking the effect which this
controversy may have on the next
campaign. Mr.. Harding again re
veals himself as 100 per cent dry
and as against modification OF the
existing order even to the extent Of
permitting a state to repeal its laws
The Democrats who have leaned
toward the wet side of the argument
and who attribute Al Smiths over
whelming victory in the Empire stat
tc his dampness on the prohibition
question think it will aid AL Smith
nationally as we'll as the cause O.
modified prohibition.
The Republicans think-in fac
they hope the Mullan-Gage repea
will eradicate Al Smith as a ma
tional political factor. If he sign
the repeal bill, they think the publi
sentiment of the whole nation will
rise not only against him but agains
the Democratic party. If he vetoe:
the bill, the Republicans think A
Smith will split the Democratic
party and tend to kill the wet ant
dry issue for the next campaign
driving the two big parties so close
together that no issue of Importance
will develop.