Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1929-04-05
Centralized Authority
Extension Is Forecast

TO the Editor OF The star:
have noted the reply in your issue
Of April ! which Mr.. Lanier offers to
my inquiry Of March %. His exhibition
Of legal knowledge is impressive and I
feel myself at disadvantage in attempt
ing to uphold my point Of view. How
ever, I fail to flnd In his learned dis
cussion CT these issues, all Of which has
a familiar ring to 1t despite my lack of
legal erldition, any reply to my question
as to the right of State to withdraw
such powers as 1t may have already dele
gated to the central government, unless
that reply be contained in his first
paragraph, in which he states that our
Civil War did not and cannot settle the
right of revolution.
| This seems rather bellicose sugges-
| ton for the solution of the difficulties in
which Mr.. Lanier's point Of view puts
us, yet, when coupled with his feeling
that Jefferson's career was "marred by
pacifism," seems to be what he intended
as his reply. May I, then, ask him what
kind Of constitutional revolution he
would suggest, such as would not involve
secession from the Union?
| Isn't 1t a bit forced, though, to at
tempt to discuss the conStitutionality OF
revolution on the part of a State or
Y
eminent? Jefferson did not characterize
coerciye power as a constitutional right
his words were that it was a mat
uraP right. In the face of situation
which calls for revolution and coercion, of
what significance can constitution be?
II the constitutional system does not
prevent war by leading to peaceable con-
sideration and settlement of controver-
sial issues its whole purpose and value
fails and it becomes a mere scrap of
paper In SO far as the situation in queS-
ton is concerned. AS between a revolu-
tionary and a coereiye power, there can
be no constitutional rights. Such rights
maintain their sanctity only while they
save us from violence through the wise
willingness of the minority to be ruled
by the majority.
| But why attempt to solve these
very human problems solely from the
point of view of the legal traditions
of our dead and dying past. tradi-
| lions whose complexities are be-
coming as a milestone around the
neck OF progress? Our worthy fore
fathers were not SO ilnWiSe as to suppose
that they had established government
which should remain unchanged In the
face of changing conditions. They pro-
vided a method of change, and despite
Mr.. Lanier's hypothetical case Of the
rule of two-thirds by one-third of the
population, through the miscarriage OF
this system. such case has never oc-
Cured, least of all in the eighteenth
amendment, and it seems uncongru-
Gus, yet none the less true, that the
solution OF Mr.. Lanier's Hypothetical.
difficulties obviously lies In destroy
ing the very thing he seeks So
earnestly to maintain--namely, the en-
tity of the individual State-thus leav-
ing to the majority of the whole people
the right to establish central authority
and law as they see fit.
! agree with Mr.. Lanier that the
eighteenth amendment delegates police
power to the Federal Government, and
In spite of Mr.. Roots learned arguments
to the contrary. agree with the deci.
sion of the Supreme Court that it was
done in due form under the Constitution
And in the face of pending investiga.
ton of the subject by presumably
learned presidential commission. ven.
ture the prediction that the solution oil
our criminal problems land many other.
besides) will involve an extension, anc
not repression, of centralized author.
ity. ALDEN A, POTTER.