The Washington times., 1925-05-30


When dealing with the distribu-
ton OF powers between the Gen.
eral Government and the States,
Chief Justice Marshall declared:
"When the American people
created q national legislature with
certain powers, IL was neither
necessary nor proper to define
the powers reserved by the states.
These powers proceed, not from
the people Of America, but from
the people Of the several States,
and remain after the adoption Ok
the, Constitution what they were
before, except 20 far ag they may
be abridged by that instrument"
Our constitutional history start
ed with the States retaining all
powers Of sovereignty unimpaired
save those conferred upon the ma
tional government The evolution
OF the constitutional system has
consisted largely In determining
the line Of demarcation~ between
State and national authority. The
scases involved are many and COM
plicated, but there isa fairly good
popular understanding 4of this
continuing struggle between these
contending sovereignties. Because
OF better communication and
transportation. the constant ten
dency has been to more and more
social and economic uQificatiOn.
The present continent-Wide union
Of forty-eight States is much
closer than was the original group
Of thirteen States.
Certain Regional Differences.
This increasing unification has
well-nigh obliterated state lines 30
far as concerns many relations Of
life. Yet, In q. country OF SUCH
enormous expanse, there must be
certain regional differences In
social outlook and economic
thought. The most familiar illus
tration- Of this Is found In the his
tory OF slavery. The Constitution
did not interfere with slavery,
except to fix time when the for
eign slave trade should be abol-
ished. Yet within q generation
the country was confronting =
sharp sectional division on this
issue. Changing economic condi-
tipns made slavery profitable In
the. south, but LETT 1t Improbable
In the. north. The resulting war
might have. been avoided II the
south had adopted policy OF
ultimate abolition. But as this
method was not pursued the diff
ferences grew sharper until they
brought on the great conflict.
Though the war ended forever
the possibility OF disunion. there
stiIl remain problems between
State and Federal authority.
There are divisions OF interest,
perhaps more apparent than real,
among geographical sections or
social groups. The seaboard
thinks 1t has interests In mari
time transportation and overseas
commerce which differ greatly
from these Of interior, which IL
peculiarly dependent upon rail.
roads. Difference In climate and
physical conditions throughout so
great territory tend to varied
social habits and modes Of living
which react upon the economic
and political attitudes. The In
dustrial development OF some sec
tions contrasts with the agricul'
tural character OF others. Obvi-
ously, these differences give rise
to many problems in govern
nnent, which must always be rec
-ognized. But 1t :s hardly con-
ceivable that really menacing
contest between the sovereignty
OF the State and OF the Union
could ever again arise.
Changing Conditions Of Society.
Our country, having devised
this dual system Of government,
and lived under it longer than
any other, is deeply concerned
to perfect and adapt 1t to the
changing conditions Of organized
society. A community compris-
ing half q continent and more
than q hundred million people,
could not possibly be admins
tered under q single government
organization. We must main
tain a proper measure Of local
self-goVernment while constantly
making adjustments to an In
creasinR interdependence among
the political parts.
Our national history has pre-
eented various phases OF this
problem. Slavery showed one;
the complexities OF interstate
commerce have kept others con-
stantly in mind On the day the
Constitution was finished prob.
ably more people : would have
seen seeds of conflict and dam
gers to the Union in future COM
mercial relations than In slavery.
But commerce became a source
came a cause Of division. It
brought the Union into danger;
and in the end was destroyed
itself. Where there was sincere
acceptance Of the dual sovereign
ty theory; where the States
sought to do their full part, and
accepted the determinations Of
the National Government as to
the rest, the plan worked. Where
the States sought more from the
Federal authority than 1t could
. give, and resisted national de.
mands-then came dissension
and, at length, war.
Interstate Relations.
1t would be folly to deny that
we still have problems Of inter.
state relations to handle. We
boast that this is a land of equal
+ opportunity for all. We insist
that there Is one law for all the
Npeople. But that equality suffers
often because Of the divergehcies
between the laws Of different
States. So long as some can go
to distant State for divorces
which others are denied at home,
there II not equality in this re-
gard. When some States grant
yAlAlAhlo exemptions from tax