Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1929-04-01
Reply Made by Lanier
On Rights of States

To the Editor OF The Star:
Alden A. Potter asks me the follow
ing question In your issue Of March 20:
"If, as Mr.. Larlier contends, State
has q right TO reject the rule Of three
quarters Of the other States In any mat
ter In which 1t has not freely dele
gated that right TO rule to the central
Government. hiss 1t not, by the same
token. the right to withdraw any or,
indeed, all powers which 1t may have
already delegated? Does Mr.. Lanier
Cor Mr. Root wish to contend that this
issue as to the possession Of extra-con-
stitutional rights by these just now
ridiculously sanctified articles called
States was not settled by our Civil
WARP"
answer: Concerning the Rights
Of the States" the Civil War settled In
theory and fact the non-existence of
the right Of State to secede from the
Union, but 1t did not and cannot settle
the right of revolution, Of which the
United States Government Is the off,
spring.
II Mr.. Potter has ever read much less
studied, the Federal Constitution he
must know that ours Is a government
Of delegated powers, and that 1t can
exercise none others than those eX-
pressly conferred upon it or implied
therein. If acquainted with the history
of the country he must also know that
the States were independent sovereign.
ties before the adoption Of the Federal
Constitution, and that in surrendering
portions of their sovereignty to form q
more perfect Union they retained all
rights and powers which they did not
expressly or by necessary implication
surrender. This fact they put beyond
controversy by the ninth and tenth
amendments Of the Constitution, re-
spectively, as follows:
The enumeration In the Constltu-
ton Of certain rights shall not be con-
strued to deny or disparage others re-
tanned by the people.
The powers not delegated TO the
United States by the Constitution. nor
prohibited to it by the States, are re-
served to the States respectively, or to
the people.
The only changes wrought In the
Constitution by the Civil War were the
thirteenth, fourteenth and fifteenth
amendments. OF these amendments
the Supreme Court said In Slaughter
House Cases, Is Wall, SO, 90, that 1t
may be considered now as settled that,
with the exception Of the specific pro-
visions In them for the protection OF
the personal rights of the citizens and
people of the United States, and the
necessary restrictions upon the power
of the States for that purpose, with
the additions to the powers Of the gen.
eral Government to enforce those pro-
visions, no substantial change has been
made. The necessity Of the great
powers. conceded by the Constitution
originally to the Federal Government,
and the equal necessity of the autonomy
of the States and their power to reg
ulate their domestic affairs remain as
the great features Of our complex form
of Government.
In Barber VS.. Connolly. 1l3 u. s.,
and Soon Hing VS.. Crowley, 113
U. S., '7o3, the court said that
the fourteenth amendment does not
impair in any way the police power of
the States, nor limit the subjects in
relation to which it may be exercised
for the protection Of its citizens.
Justice Miller, one Of the ablest judges
that ever sat upon the Supreme Court
bench, said, In his great lectures on the
Constitution: I'm my opinion, the just
the States, and Of the general Govern
ment, as defined by the present Con-
stitution, Is as necessary to the perma-
nent prosperity of our country, and to
its existence for another century, as 1t
has been for the one whose close We
are now celebrating"
Among the original powers possessed
by the States, and which they never
surrendered, but expressly reserved,
with certain very limited qualifications
are what are known as police powers,
which relate to the health, morals, etc,
of their people, and which included the
right Of regulation or suppression of
the liquor traffic before the eighteenth
amendment. No State can be rightly
Invested Of these powers without its
consent. To hold otherwise is to admit
that SO States with total population
of less than one-third of the whole
could by amendment of the Federal
Constitution strip the remaining fourth
Of every veStige of their reserved rights
against their will and without their con-
sent. as was actually done by the eight
zenith amendment in the cases of Rhode
Island, Connecticut and New Jersey,
such q thing can be rightly done is to
deny and repudiate democracy and the
principle of representative government.
In reply to the gentleman's in
quiry as to what I think Of Thomas
jefferson and his statement as to
the right of the Federal Government
to compel q State to obedience to
the Constitution, I think Mr.. Jefferson
was q man of great talents and ability,
whose services to his country are worthy
of grateful and enduring remembrance,
but that they were unfortunately marred
to some extent by his pacifism and
tendencies to political demagogism. ]
fully agree with his statement as to the
coercive powers of the National Govern
ment in respect to all matters in which
State Is under q constitutional obliga-
ton of obedience, but not in regard to
matters which the States have never
committed to the National Government
and that lie outside its jurisdiction.
trust have satisfactorily answered
the questions submitted, and that the
gentleman in question will, after read
ing the foregoing, acquire an under
standing Of and more wholesome respect
for the reserved rights of the States.
ALEXANDER SIDNEY LANIER.