Evening star., 1925-05-30
Control Vested i'm State.

Ihat statement cannot be too much
emphasized. The country's growth
has compelled the Federal establish.
ment to exceed by far the Govern
ment plants Of even the greatest
States. With this growth in physical
extent. in revenue, in personnel, there
has inevitably been the suggestion
that the Federal Government was
overshadowing the States. Yet the
State governments deal with far more
various and more intimate concerns
Of the people than does the National
Government. All the operations of
the minor civil divisions, parishes.
wards. school districts, towns, cities,
counties and the like are depend
encies Of the State. The maintenance
Of order through police, the general
business of enforcing law. is left to
the States. So is education. PROP
erty is held and transferred on terms
fixed by the States. In short, the
structure of social and business reIa-
tionship is built chiefly about the
laws of the States. 1t depends upon
the exercise by the States of that
vastly greater share of Government
power which resides in them. to the
exclusion of the Federal Government
In ordinary times nearly the entire
burden of taxation represents State
and local demands. Even now, de-
spite the enormous increase of Fed.
eral taxes from pre-war years State
and local taxes far exceed the Federal
requirements. Moreover, the national
burden is being continually reduced,
while that of the local units is grow
ing and likely to continue to grow.
Such Is the real distribution of du-
ties, responsibilities and expenses.
Yet people are given to thinking and
speaking of the National Government
as the COEernment." They demand
more from it than it was ever intend
ed to provide; and yet in the same
breath they complain that Federal au-
thority is stretching itself over areas
which do not concern it. On one side,
there are demands for more amend.
ments to the Constitution. On the
other, there is too much opposition
to those that already exist.
Sees Duties Neglected.
Without doubt, the reason for in
creasing demands on the Federal Gov.
ernment is that the States have not
discharged their full duties. Some
have done better and some worse, but
as a whole they have not done all
they should. So demand has grown
up for greater concentration of
powers in the Federal Government.
II we will fairly consider it, we must
conclude that the remedy would be
worse than the disease. What we
need is not more Federal government,
but better local government. Yet
many people who would agree to this
have large responsibility for the lapses
of local authority
From every position of consistency
with our system, more centralization
ought to be avoided. The States
would protest, promptly enough, any.
thing savoring of Federal usurpation.
Their protection will lie in discharging
the full obligations that have been
imposed on them. Once the evasion
Of local responsibilities becomes a
habit, there is no knowing how far
the consequences may reach Every
step in such a progression will be
unfortunate alike for States and Ma
ton. The country needs, in graphing
with the manifold problems of these
times, all the courage. intelligence,
training and skill that can be en-
listed in both State and national ad-
ministrations.
One inSidiouS practice which sugar
coats the dose of Federal intrusion
is the division of expense for public
improvement or services between
State and national treasures The
ardent States-rights advocate sees in
this practice vicious weakening of
the State system. The extreme fed
eralist is apt to look upon it in cynical
fashion as bribing the States into
subordination. The average Ameri-
can, believing in our dual-sovereignty
system, must feel that the policy of
national doles to the States is bad