The Daily Alaska empire., 1951-07-31
STATES RIGHTS

AmeTlcailS generally took great pride in state history and tradi- tion, and were usually offended by federal encroachment upon states rights. In public addresses and private conversation, the refer ence was to these United States rather than to. the United States"
 Like so much else that has had deep roots in American tradition this long-held attitude has lost some of its meaning. Maybe it is due to the automobile and good roads or to the radio and tele- vision. I think rather that this tendency should be attributed to the propaganda efforts of the new deal to make states administra- tive adjuncts of national admin istration. This propaganda has been continuous and intense for Is years, during which an increas- ingly large number of Americans have become interested in or de- pendent upon federal treasury checks.
 In the so-called tidelands cases California, Louisiana and Texas the Supreme Court has been laying down doctrine, which, while dealing with oil can be widely applied to the lessening of the sovereignty of the states.
 MT. Justice Douglas in the Lou isiana case stated:
 "The marginal sea is a national not a state concern. National 1n- terests, national responsibilities national concerns are involved The problems of commerce, na- tional defense, relations with other powers, war and peace, focu: there. National rights must there fore be paramount there"
 The learned Dean Roscoe Pounc who taught law to some of oul Supreme Court justices, asks:
 6. but as to such things a' are specified, namely commerc' with foreign states (E. G. obliga tions) and conduct of war. are no the rights or powers of the Uni ted States paramount also ovel the whole land? Such rights, in cidents of external sovereignty are not incompatible with owner ship, dominium, as distinct iron sovereignty. For example, tho power of eminent domain of tht federal government extends fo federal purposes over the who'll land. Private land may be uset for national defense throughout the whole land. It is not for tha reason excluded from privat' ownership. Private land may b. used for national defense through out the country and is none thu less private property because O this" if Co
 If MT. Justice Douglass theor, is correct, why should there b. any private ownership of proper ty in the city of New York? Th' financial affairs of the nation, in surance, banking, publishing, etc are concentrated there. A yer, large part of the internationa and domestic commerce of thi country either originates in Ney York or is handled there. Tn United Natoins is situated in tha city.
 Surely the Empire State Towe would, in war against us, D employed in the national defense Should it not now be confiscatec according to the reasoning of MI Justice Douglas?
 The intellectual difficulty whicl the followers of Oliver Wendell Holmes face is that they are for ced by their theory of the law t accept it as an instrument fo the exercise of power by the ad ministration in authority withou moral restraints. If that theor, is applied in all directions, 1t mus produce a state in which no indi vidual can have any "inalienable rights. Yet, the Declaration of In dependence specifics that that wa the reason for the founding Of ou country.
 In the tidelands cases, these de cisions probably will not affec the actual production of a barre of oil for private use or the ma tional defense. Therefore, that | not the issue.
 The issue is the right of thu state-of any state-to it's sov ereignty and the right of the m dividual to his property. as thu constitution provides. It is ques tion as to whether we are living under the constitution or under a rule of thumb federal Jurisdlc' ton which MT. Justice Douglas calls paramount national rights. As Dean Pound so aptly put | in an article in the Baylor Law Review:
 "If sovereignty with responsibil' ity for defense and internationa