The Indianapolis times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1922-1965, 1935-06-17

Wltlln the framework OF JLle udlLOu are GILL
braced states as diverse as Pennsylvania, Ham,
itonian from the start, and Texas which has
always paid lp-service to the doctrines Of
Thomas jefferson. States as diverse in interest
| as Connecticut which lives almost entirely ny
manufactures. and Texas, which lives almost
entirely by the production Of raw materials.
States as diverse in size as Rhode Island,
which is barely larger than Tarrant County
yet has two United States Senators, the same
as WEI, and Texas, which is larger in area than
many first ranking nations States, again, OF
almost as wide diversity in educational stand
ards, social customs, literacy, and many other
respects, though not in language, as European
nations
NVER all this great expanse and these many
~ varying commonwealths one flag was raised
$50 years ago and has remained there, despite
the vicisstudeS of time and quarrelS so deep
that one of them broke out into war. Never have
they entirely subsidized, and at present the con-
flict is as deep and is growing as tense as it
is likely to be within the lifetime of men now
living.
If the states have had any common char
acteristics during this time they are, first that
each state has eagerly accepted certain benefits
| accruing from a strong central government, but
has sought to resist those innovations which it
did not desire, or were against its pride or its
economic interest
And another characteristic is that in vary
1
Veniences improvements and standards Of civil
ization, of the point it might have reached with
out the continuing interest and aid of a strong
central government.
Let us be specific
Would Texas have had its present magnifi-
cent and modern road system had not the Fed
eral government donated many millions of dol
lars and encouraged state contribution by the
$3.50" plan? Or would it still be mostly lin
the mud?
What would Texas have done if the Federal
government had not contributed some $35 600, 900
outright to relief of Texas citizens, continuing
contributions on a $3.50 basis after the state,
grudgingly and under the threat of Federal with
drawal, finally began to contribute its own funds?
XXTHAT would have happened to the oil in
w dustry which supports 500 900 Texas citi-
zens and is now stable and strong, without the
threat of Federal intervention to keep Texas and
other states in line?
Would Texas be so safe a place to live, had
not the "G-men" thrown the fear of Uncle Sam
into potential kidnapers and murderers?
Has not the state government repeatedly &C
cepted Federal funds-as for instance $200O0,000
to build entirely intra-state power, irriga
ton and flood control project in the Colorado
Valley? Is it not now seeking Federal funds to
build 600 pipe line through five states,
to get market for waste Texas gas?
Where would the Port of Houston be if the
Federal government had not expended its funds
on the ship channel?
Where will Fl. Worth and Dallas, which have
suffered from the Federal waterways policy be
if the Federal government is restrained from
building the Trinity Canal?
To bring it a little closer home what chance
would we have had for modernized school sys-
tenn here in Fl Worth if the Federal government
had not granted and lent the necessary money
on terms we could afford?
We do not pretend that a strong national in
tegration has at all times worked out to the
benefit of Texas, any more than it has at all
times for other states. To select one outstand-
ing example, a tariff policy adopted at the in
sistence of the manufacturers of Pennsylvania
and the Northeast for many years protected their
products and forced us to pay high prices, while
at the same time our raw products we're unpro-
tected and sold cheaply And when our repre-
sentatives in Congress were brbed by offers of
tariff on farm products to throw in" with this
policy, the trade did not benefit us to say the
least.
Nor do we defend the unnecessary and at
times almost comic harassments undergone by
citizens not only with the recent NRA, but with
many longer continued Federal policies, such
as the collection of Federal income tax. We do
not contend that a strong central government
does not breed bureaucracy, because it does.
NOR do we pretend that all of the conSidera-
" tions herein discussed are affected by the
Supreme Court ruling for they are not. Many
of the relations between the states and the Fed
eral government are not so affected, and will
not be.
What we do think is that we ought to take
the bitter with the sweet. We have heard no
states Fighters, however ardent, argue that the
state and the city ought to reject Federal funds
for feeding their hungry. There have been few
to protest against taking Federal money to build
highways
Where the Federal government arouses re-
sistance is when it seeks to put a concerted
policy into effect to obtain what shall be- on the
whole, a national economic policy, to coerce the
states, if you WILL toward continually higher
standards of economic ethics, to match the
higher standards into which it has coerced them
in other respects.
Regard it as you will, any other policy means
economic weakness, diffusion and disaster. What
good would it do half the states to pass NRAs
of their own to control ntra-State business, with
resultant high wages decent standards of COM
petition, and economic and social soldity when
the other half Of the states may choose to re-
main the refuge of long hours, low wages, child
labor, chiSeling competition at the expense OF
employees, and all the other ills of which the
NRA was an experiment noble in purpose
though vastly marred in the conception and the
eXecution-to free us?
OF such irksome restrictions from going our
4S separate ways, apparently the Supreme Court
decision has rid us for the time.
The victory is that of the opponents Of a
strong central government and Of the friends
of the diffusion of economic and legal power
throughout the 48 states
It is not too much to ask them: Where do
we 60 from here, and to what will your policy
! lead uS?"
KEEP ON YOUR TOGAS
CENATORS who voted for the Gore amend
~ ment to the NRA bill may think it is i'm