, 1923-07-11

matter of economy to use the Off
GERS and men of the army and navy
to enforce laws in time of peace
Undoubtedly some money might /,
saved in that manner, but the saw
ing in money would be at the sac
rifice of a great and highly i'm
portant principle. Secretary Weeks
put the matter briefly but compre-
hensively when he said:
"Subordination of the military to
the civil is fundamental in our gov
eminent. I would not desire it al
tered in the least respect. I an
opposed to use of the army for
enforcement of civil laws unless all
civil police power shall have been
exhausted and there results that
state of instruction and rebellion
which Federal law provides shall
alone justify use of troops in aft
fording protection guaranteed state
governments by the Constitution"
II Mr.. Weeks were governed by
inordinate ambition he might easily
subscribe to the view that it is de-
sirable to use the army in time of
peace to enforce civil laws. Such
a use of the army would make the
Secretary of War a very powerful
figure in our national life. What
ever his legal status, he would be,
under such circumstances, almost a
dictator. Using the army to enforce
the liquor laws would be but the
stepping stone to use of the army
for the enforcement of other laws,
and, with an organized force of
law-enforcers subject to his every
order. a Secretary of War would be
little less powerful than the Presi-
dent himself. His political influ-
enc would be enormous.
But Mr.. Weeks is influenced by
patriotism and ~far-seeing statesman
ship-not by selfish ambition. He
fully ~perceives the ultimate serious
consequences of subordination of
the civil to the military authority,
and he wants none of it. He would
not even be a silent recipient of
the power that was proposed to be
placed in his hands; he warns the
country of the consequences that
would inevitably follow in the course
of time.
The American colonists had some
distasteful experience with use of
British troops to enforce laws among
them, and, when they framed the
constitution for the Republic, they
took care to define the place of the
military forces in the system of
government. They gave Congress
power to raise and support armies,
but, lest the army gain ascendancy,
they restricted the authority Con-
gress might grant by providing that
no appropriation of money for the
support of the army shall be for
a longer term than two years There
was expressly reserved to the states
the appointment Of the officers and
the training Of the militia, thus
guarding against centralized FEEDER.
al military power in time of peace.
No soldier could be quartered in
any house in time of peace without
the consent of the owner and there
could be no search or seizure with
out warrant issued upon probable
cause set forth in affidavit specify
ing the place to be searched and the
persons or things to be seized.
These are some of the provisions
of cur constitution to which Secre-
tary Weeks alluded when he said
that "subordination of the military
to the civil is fundamental in our
government" 1t is highly crafty
ing to read his assertion that he
would not have this altered Gin the
least respect" Individual liberty
and the rights Of the people under
our system of representative pop
ular government are entirely safe
under an administration made up of
men who entertain sound ideas of
the fundamentals