Montgomery County sentinel. [volume] (Rockville, Md.) 1855-1974, 1925-05-08
Gov. Richie Warns OF New Move
On States Rights.

Warning Of a new -attsck" by the Federal
Government on the rights Of States. the
seriousness Of which cannot be overesti-
mated" was sounded last Friday night by
Governor Richie. Of Maryland. in an ad-
dress before the Delta Phi Frsternity, New
York.
The occasion was the ninety-seventh
annual convention banquet Of the ffater-
nifty. held at the WaIdof-Astor Hotel
The Federal move denounced by the Gov
ernor was the action Of United States
authorities in Indiana In connection with
a dispute between the State Highway and
Drainage Commissions Of that State.
The dispute between the Highway Direc-
tor and the Drainage Commission arose.
Gov. Richie explained. when an effort was
made to determine who was to pay for
bridge over a canal. or detour road occa-
stoned BY the need for one Of the Drainage
Commissions irrigation canals to cross the
Lincoln Highway at point in Indiana.
As the dispute was not settled. he point
ed out. the Attorney General Of the United
States instructed the United States District
Attorney in Indiana to bring suit on behalf
Of the United States to enjoin the State
Drainage Commission from crossing the
highway. The suit was filed. he said. and
the United States Court in Indiana granted
q temporary injunction.
This 10 an attack by the { overnment
in field where. until now. no one has
thought Of questioning State supremacy
and responsibility" the Governor declared
IF this attack Is successful. then the idea
Of sovereign State will have passed for
ever and every State in the country will
become a mere geographical division. with
all power and authority over local matters
transferred to the Federal Government.
The Lincoln Highway in no sense is
different from thousands Of miles Of roads in
the other States in the country. II was built
with State money and Fedeal aid money.
just as more than half Of the road mileage
in my own State Of Maryland was built
IF any principle at all would seem to
be clear II is that the State Of Indiana
should decide for itself whether there shall
be bridge where the State canal crosses
the State highway or whether there shall
be detour road. and. in either case. which
State department shall pay the cost. II
there is an inter-department controversy
over the matter. then the Indiana State
Courts are there to settle it.
And yet the United States Govern
ment steps in and. in total disregard Of
the clear right and duty Of the State Of
Indiana in these respects. enjoins the State
Drainage Commission from going ahead
with its State work.
The Government bases its suit on the
claim that the digging Of the canal across
the highway win interfere with interstate
commerce. II the interstate commerce
clause Of the Constitution is held TO author
lie such contention. then the final step
has been taken in the destruction of the
rights Of the States.
IF the digging OF a canal interferes with
interstate commerce. so that the Govern
ment can enjoin II until local officials set
tie local road dispute. then the Govern
ment would have an equal right to claim
that interstate commerce is interfened
with because the Government does not
consider the State policing adequte or be-
cause II does not think that the automobile
traffic is regulated properly. and then there
would be nothing to prevent the Govern
ment from forcing every State in the
country to adopt the views of the Federal
Government as TO both State policing and
State regulation Of motor traffic on State
roads.
The seriousness Of this move Of the
Federal Government cannot be overesti-
mated. Nor can the object Of the Govern
ment In raising the question be mistaken.
Coming from the Attorney General Of the
United States himself. IL can only mean
deliberate design on the part Of the Gov
eminent to take over complete charge Of
the last responsibilities which were still
supposed to remain in the States"