The Daily Alaska empire., 1936-08-15
The Ins And The Outs


 In important respect the campaign of 1886 begins with the traditional roles of the two ma parties reversed The advocates of cenrazation and the apostles of home rule have shifted sides It is the Republican party historically the advocate of a strong central Government in Washington which now complains that the Roosevelt Administration is constantly seeking to usurp the rights reserved to the States It is the Democratic party traditionaly the champion of States rights, which insists that there many activities that inevitably overflow State boundaries and thereby "call for both State and Federal treatment"
 That shift of emphasis has occurred is obvious enough. But it would be mistake to believe that a sharp line has always been drawn between the two parties on the issue of States rights No such line was drawn in the case of national prohibition. On other occasions the attitude of the two parties toward States rights has depended in large part upon whether they were in or out of office
 Consider the record of the Democrats. In 1912 the Democratic party had been out of power in Wash ington for sixteen years. Having been in the oppo- Sition for so long period and having resisted policies which successive Republican Administrations had sought to accomplish by expanding the powers of the national Government, the Democratic party found itself staunch defender of States rights in 1912 Its platform that year vigorously denounced Republ- can efforts to usurp" such rights and vigorously de- manded the full exercise by the States of their re- served sovereign powers"
 But four years later the Democrats themselves had been in power for term in Washington. During this period they had created centralized banking system which ignored State lines and greatly increased the authority of the national Government through the enactment of such laws that which established the Federal Trade Commission. Do we find the Demo- cratS in 1916 still insisent and still eloquent on the question of States rights? The subject is not even mentioned in their platform. In fact it was not until 1924 after the tide of political fortune had turned again after the Democrats had been out ot office Tor four years and after the Republicans had once more begun to shape the platform of national leglslatlon, that Democratic interest in the issue of States rights suddenly revived We demand that the States of the Union shall be preserved in all their vigor and power" said the Democratic platform of l924 They constitute a bulwark against the cen trazng and destructive tendencies of the Republican party"
 In 1856 1t is now the turn of kle Republicans to seek pulWark against the centralzing and destruc- tive tendencies" of the Democratic party and there lore to demand that the rights of the States be strengthened But does this newly acquired interest of the Republicans in the issue of States rights snrino primarily from changed Republican conception of the powers of the national Government or primarily from Republican dissatisfaction with the way in which these powers have been used by MT Roosevelt? Ger talnly the latter explanation seems more credible considering the fact that the Republicans themselves now propose to expand the powers of the national GoVernment In such matters farm relief and regl- atlon of monopolies provided this is done in man. her satisfactory to Republicans
 There is natural and almost inevitable tendency TOT the m party to use the powers of the national Government as shortcut to the achievement of us purposes and tendency for the out party to eihphaslze states rights as of resisting the party m power. Democrats who have bitterly pro- tested against Republican invasion of State preroga- uVes have invaded the field. Republicans who now express themselves as greatly concerned over tba dangers Of centralized power when the process of standardization IS in the hands of Democrats have in the past been quite content to centralize power in order to achieve Republican obiectives