Brief for the Affirmative.P.K. WALCOTT and W. B. TRUESDELL.
Best references: Centz's Republic of Republics; No. Am. Review, 132: pp. 407-426; Am. Mag. of Civics, VI, pp. 533-542; Am. Journal of Politics, V. pp. 625-633.
I. The Federal Government has overshadowed the State Governments. A. It has encroached on the powers of the states in violation of the constitution in the following cases: (1) The "libel law" of 1798 lacked the warrant of the Constitution (N. A. R. 132 p. 410). (2) Under color of levying customs it has taken charge of nearly every industry in the country. (3) It has given to telegraph companies, created by one state, license to place their lines through other states. (4) Congress has appointed supervisors and deputy marshals to oversee elections (N. A. R. 132, p. 411). (5) State officers have been punished in Federal courts for violating state laws. (6) Congress created the National Bank and by means of a Bank Tax sought to extinguish the State Banks (Am. Mag. of Civics VI, pp. 538-541). (7) Congress in 1807 passed, over veto, a law placing the Southern States under military rule (N. A. R. 132: p. 412). (8) All these are unwarranted assumptions of power. (a) Can not be defended by the doctrine of implied powers.
II. The proposition once admitted, in however small particular, means, if carried to its logical conclusion, the extinction of state sovereignty and the annihilation of individual liberty.- A. It imperils the principle of self-government.- (1) It takes the power of consent from the States, thus denying their sovereignty.- B. It is a direct step towards centralization.- (1) Begins to deal-with the people as individuals, not as States.- (2) Tends to increase the reliance of the individual on the government.- (a) Nurtures the idea that it is a government function to foster business and supply prosperity. (3) Though it may be said that a successful centralized government is possible in so large a country, yet the experience of France invalidates the argument. (Journal of Politics, V, pp. 626, 631.)
Brief for the Negative.H. R. SCOTT and S. R. WRIGHTINGTON.
Best general refences: Bryce, American Commonwealth 1, ch. 32, 33, 34; Public Opinion, XVII, 331; Forum, XVIII, 11 and 12; No. Am. Rev., 133, p. 338.
I. Interference without State's consent is constitutional. A. Fact that the right is not literally granted by Constitution does not invalidate this. 1. Literal interpretion of Constitution would be inadequate to needs of government. (a) Conditions of life have developed far beyond the conception of the framers. 2. Uniform tendency of history has been toward free interpretation. (a) U. S. Bank declared constitutional. (Miller on Const., p. 389, McCulloch vs. Md.; 4. Wheaton 316). (b) Internal improvements made. (Story S 1138). B. This right implied in enumerated pwers. (Pub. Opin., XVII: 331 Atty. Gen. Olney). 1. Art. I, Sect. 8, clause 15 of Constitution. C. This right is recognized by Constitutional writers. 1. Story's Commentaries SS 1119-1203. 2. Von Holst, Constitutional Law, 167-171. 3. Cooley in Forum XVIII: 11-12. D. This right is confirmed by precedent. (No. Am. 159: P.187). 1. Whiskey Rebellion. (Lalor's Cyclopedia. 1108). 2. Nullification episode. (Lalor, 1050). 3. Civil War. 4. Chicago Strike. E. Right of interference concurred in by Senate and House Resolutions, July 12 and 16, 1894. (Nation. Sept 17, '96). F. Right embodied in law. 1. President given power to call out troops to protect property and preserve order. (Revised Statutes, Sect. 5298.)
II. It is wise to exercise the right. (A) It is in line with policy of U. S. for one hundred years. 1. Tendency of our history steadily toward centralization. (Harper's, LXXXV, 240, and Cooley, Principles of Constitutional Law, 27.) B. Interference may be necessary to protect interstate commerce and U. S. mail. 1. Local authorities, as experience proves, not always disposed to do their duty promptly. (a) Chicago strike. (2) Such delays affect peace and happiness of entire nation. C. Dangers of centralization cannot be urged in opposition. 1. It is a choice of evils. (a) Principles of centralization and localization, if carried to excess, alike dangerous. 2. There is less danger in centralization than in administrative disintegration. (a) Failure of Confederation proves it. (b) To cope with other nations in diplomacy, Government must act swiftly and firmly. (c) Dangers of so-called paternalism comparatively slight. (x) Educational value of local self-government may be otherwise obtained. (y) Claim that detorioration of local politics is due to parternalism invalid. (y) Development of machine politics and industrial and commercial expansion have been at least equally effective. (d) There is slight danger of centralized despotism. (x) Checks and balances of our Const. will prevent it. (e) Greatest danger our country has confronted was one of disunion. (f) There is distinct danger today of a disintegrated central government. (x) The Alteld version of State Rights would cripple the President. (Pub. Opin. XVII, 331, and Forum XVIII, 11-12. (y) This doctrine has been used to screen mobs, (Pub. Opin., XVII, 331. (z) It has been incorporated in the Popocratic platform.