The people's voice. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1939-1969, 1945-11-16
BUREAUCRATS-STATESR PROFESSIONALISM, ETC.
VS..
A MISSOURI VALLEY AUTHORITY
BY E. H. MANSON

sponsibility is confined to the bureau
or department to which they have
been assigned, usually by the governor
who has the appointive power. | know
several chiefs of departments (bureau-
crats) in our governmental set-up, both
state and federal, and l can assure
any doubtful person that not one of
them has horns, hoofs, or a forked
tail, although they come under Web
ster's definition. OF course bureau
crat must have authority; otherwise
he would be useless. 1t is true that
some bureaucrats, like some elected
officials, abuse their authority, but in
that case we do not abolish a useful
bureau; we seek a different head for
it. This fact should be kept well in
mind Whatever is done toward the
development of the Missouri Basin,
whether for irrigation, flood control,
power development, or all three, the
work will be done under the direc-
tons of bureaucrats connected with
the Bureau of Reclamation and/or the
Department of Army Engineers. May
be that is sufficient reason for defeat
of the Murray bill. I leave it up to
you folks who have real interest
in the matter.
Second. States Rights. Our is the
only nation on earth that permits its
courts to nullify laws enacted by its
law-making bodies. Under our sys
tenn of government, the United States
supreme court may and does invali-
date laws made by both congress and
the state legislatures, especially laws
affecting the public welfare. States
rights have rested upon decisions of
that august tribunal from the time
that Marshall was appointed Chief
Justice, in 1901, until now, and many
of those decisions have limited the
rights Of states to very narrow
scope. If all the legal papers, all the
arguments and briefs of contending
lawyers, and all court decisions af- |
fecting states rights, human rights, |
and property rights (all of which are
inextricably interwoven) were printed
in bound volumes, each containing |
1000 pages, it is doubtful if ten box
cars, each with a capacity of fifty |
tons, would hold them. l do not be-
lieve the U. S. supreme court should
have the power it exercises, and |
hope that in the not too distant future,
action will be taken by the people to
deprive it of authority which many
believe it usurped. 1t would not seem
so contrary to reason If all decisions
of the court were by unanimous agree
ment, not as they all too frequently
are, by bare majority Of the courts
membership, five for, four against.
Some Of the courts most important |
decisions have been made on that
basis. Whatever the majority deci-
sion, the congress and state legisla- |
lures have been bound by it, whether /
supreme court are appointed by the
president, with the consent of the SEN |
ate, "a majority of quorum, not a |
majority of the senate's membership
may confirm a nomination to the
COURT and the only way to get him
off is by impeachment, which has
never yet been resorted to. In only
two instances have states rights been
affected by action other than by the
supreme court; in 1892, when Jackson
interviewed in the attempt of South
Carolina to nullify an act of congress;
and in 1868, when Lincoln issued his
Emancipation Proclamation, freeing
the slaves. Lincoln not only overrode
decision of the supreme court, (the
bred Scott case) but at the same time,
by that war measure, destroyed the
effectiveness of Section 3 Article w
of the Constitution, which legalized /
slavery. In view of past supreme
court decisions, and with no certainty
of what future decisions may be, we
do not know what States Rights are,
nor do we know what state may do
that will meet with the approval of
the court.
Notwithstanding our past expert
ences, there remains one undisputed I