4 The States-Rights Fetish A Plea for Real Nationalism Leffm ann / t Class o t I 5 2j €> Book - !■> PRESENTED BY I The States- Rights Fetish A Plea for Real Nationalism By Henry Leflfmann, A.M., M.D. Member of the Democratic Club of Philadelphia Single- Taxer 1913 .L4 TO THE MEMORY OF THE FEDERALISTS, WHO IN THE FORMATIV PERIOD OF THE NATION DID ALL THEY COULD TO SECURE A REAL UNION CarBe^L'* Institution of 'Wasnington 1913 Preface Many years ago, I was, like most yung Amer- icans, a member of a debating society. I deliverd an address "On the Advisability of Abolishing all State Governments." Tho I was applauded, no one of the audience supported my views. Some years later, by request, I repeated the address, and found one supporter. I exprest my satisfaction, saying that as my party had doubled its strengtl^ in a short time, its ultimate victory was assured. I do not dout that if I was to deliver the address before the same audience now, I would find much more support. I hav long had the notion of put- ting my views in print and hav now done so. Eminent Americans hav written lately on the new freedom and the new nationalism; the present essay is a protest against the "crazy quilt" system of government that has so long afflicted the United States. E pluribus unum; Amen. H.L. 1913 INTRODUCTION Six score and seventeen years ago, the repre- sentativs of thirteen colonies independent of one another in their poHtical systems, in many ways rivals in commerce and trade, but closely allied in language, racial origins and social customs, bound themselves by a document, prepared, rati^ fied and publisht in a formal and solem manner, to mutual support in a struggle against the author- ity of what was considered by all as the Mother Country. This document containd declarations concerning principles of government, that wer then regarded as novel and radical. A careful study of history informs us that the Declaration of Independence is a re-statement of political dogmas of high antiquity, but that fact does not detract from the merit of those who prepared and ratified it. Its leading motiv, the equality of all men as individuals, and therefore the dependence of government on the consent of the governd, establisht a basis for organization when the strug- gle had ended in the destruction of the authority [5] of England. It is conceded, however, by all who hav compared the Declaration with the Consti- tution, that the latter is a retreat from the radical- ism of the former. When it became necessary to "form a more perfect union," the "glittering and sounding generalities of natural right" could not alone suffice. The close of the rebellion found the thirteen states deeply in det. The issues wer, in the last analysis, essentially those of the middle class, and as far as control was exercised by any group it was by this class. The ministerial army had with- drawn; the traitors to the King were in full pos- session. As the war had been successful, it is known in history as a revolution and its supporters as patriots. The terms are merely conventional. Had the effort faild it would hav doutless been described in English textbooks of history as the American Rebellion, the heds of Washington, Jefferson and Franklin might hav adorned pikes on State-House roof, as a warning to restiv colonists, and Benedict Arnold and Joseph Gallo- way hav got back the lands taken from them when attainted of treason. The close of the Revolutionary War presents one unusual feature, the unselfishness of the great commander, who promptly withdrew from his [6] office and, exacting no conditions, returned to a private station, to busy himself with plans for ad- vancing the prosperity of the country, and welding its interests in more harmonius association. His action finds few counterparts in history, for from Cincinnatus to Washington, most leaders of success- ful wars hav secured for themselves power and do- minion. Popular narrativs of the revolutionary period giv inaccurate views of the state of public opinion and of the causes of the uprising. The theory that "taxation without representation" was the mainspring is without foundation. Nor was in- dependence a primary motiv. In the early 70's, no wish for separation from the Mother Country was in the minds of the mass of the people, and positiv expressions against such separation can be found in the letters of some of those who afterwards became leaders in the rebellion. This spirit of loyalty to Great Britain was not wholly dictated by patriotism or "ties of blood." The colonists were deeply conscius of the fact that other Euro- pean powers wer contesting with Great Britain for supremacy of the seas and extension of territory, and that deprived of the protection of the Mother Country, they would soon fall a prey to France or Spain. Such conquest would be more than a mere [7] change of masters. To the English, Dutch, Scan- dinavian and German colonists, the idea of con- trol by a Latin race, with its low standard of sexual principles, its opressiv, unscrupulus, political meth- ods and its bigotry in religion, was terrifying, and they preferred to bear the ills they had than fly to others that wer worse. Events, great or little, in history ar not the out- come of conditions immediately preceding them, but of a long course of prior occurrences. Nor do those who take part in the events control the course or outcome of them entirely. The beginnings of the American Revolution can be traced back to the earliest period of English history. Those who pro- moted it in its beginnings did not foresee the deep consequences of their work, no more than the people of the United States foresaw the outcome of the Spanish-American war, which, promoted by the capitalistic class, resulted in giving us the Philippines which the capitalists did not want and releasing Cuba, which they intended to get. The colonies were forced into nominal union by the course of events between 1775 and 1781, and when peace, with independence, was obtained, it was evident that this independence was not as- sured unless the union could be made more firm. The articles of confederation that went into [8] effect in 1781 mark in some ways the acme of States-rights theories. They provided for a con- gress, each state having but one vote and the affir- mativ vote of nine states was required for all im- portant actions. No executiv head was appointed; the utmost power given in this regard was the appointment of an executiv committee to sit when the congress was not in session. Unless nine states agreed, congress could not declare war, make treaties, coin money, make appropriations, appoint a commander-in-chief or even determin on the sums of money that it would request from the states. ("The American Nation" series, vol. 10, p. 48.) These provisions gave constant dissatisfaction, as would be expected by any one familiar with the history of government and its fundamental prin- ciples. In all the discussions, we see the local colonial pride and exaggerated notions as to the re- lations of the state government to personal liberty. Even Jefferson was caught by the glamor of state- rights, and as late as 1801, in his first inaugural address, spoke of "The support of the State govern- ments in all their rights as the most competent administration of our domestic concerns and the surest bulwarks against anti-republican tenden- cies." Hamilton stands out as a man of clearer [9] mind on this question, but he had few supporters. Washington, tho not lacking in state pride, was able to rise above the petty interests of locality, and writing to John Jay, under date of Mar. 10, 1787, concerning the prospect for a closer union of states and an increase in federal authority, says {Jay Correspondence, 3) "My opinion is that this country has yet to feel and see a little more before it can be accomplisht. A thirst for power, and the bantling — I had like to have said monster — Soverenty, which have taken such fast hold of the States, individually, will when joined by the many whose personal consequence in the line of State politics wil in a manner be annihilated, form a strong phalanx against it, and, when to these, the few who can hold posts of honor or profit in the National Government, ar compared with the many who wil see but little prospect of being noticed, and the discontents of others who may look for appointments, the opposition would be altogether irresistible, til the mass as wel as the more discerning part of the community shal see the necessity." The force of decentralization in the colonies is shown even in rivalries between different parts of states. Thus, when after the conclusion of peace with Great Britain, Washington took up activly flOl the promotion of the company which was to de- velop the slack-water system of navigating the Potomac River, he found that to get the support of the Virginia legislature it was necessary to favor also a company for the improvment of the James River, that is, the inhabitants, at least the middle- class portion, of the southern part of the state wer so little interested in the improvment of the north- ern part that the "pork-barrel" method so wel known in modern legislation had to be applied. Washington took but little interest in the James River company; he was offered the presidency of it but declined. By special act of the Virginia legislature he was given a large block of stock in it, and his letter accepting this, sent in reply to one from Benjamin Harrison, then Governor of Virginia, is still excellent reading. As fate would hav it, the Potomac company to which Washing- ton gave so much thought and energy was a finan- cial failure, while the James River venture became a success, and his shares, which he left by wil for educational purposes, became valuable. That jealousies should arise between different parts of the same state is merely a result of the principle by which the states themselves hav been founded. The initial settlements along the Atlan- tic coast were not made with any co-ordination. fill No careful adjustment of boundaries was made by the original settlers. The grants of land by Euro- pean rulers wer often mere paper assignments. When by the increase of population, the settle- ments wer extended beyond the original foci, conflicting claims of jurisdiction began to appear, Connecticut claimed a large part of the territory now included in Pennsylvania; Lord Baltimore claimed for his colony a large portion of Delaware and southern Pennsylvania, and had it not been for the accident that a colony of Europeans had settled in Delaware, before the grant was made to him, Philadelphia would hav been included within the boundaries of Maryland and would be a southern city. It is not necessary to set forth at length these disputes. The division of state lines in the territory outside of the area included in the thirteen colonies has been made as a rule with equal want of system, a stake stuck in a prairie being considered sufficient for a boundary, and divisions of large areas determined not by geo- graphic, economic or sociologic considerations, but by the desire of politicians for the multiplication of offises. The establishment of a new state makes opportunities for men to secure such lucrative of- fises as governor, congressman, and membership in two legislativ houses, for, of course, each state must [121 hav the bi-cameral system. This, Hke state sov- erenty, is held to be one of the bulwarks of our liberty. Often, as in the case of Pennsylvania, liberty is supposed to be secured by a very numer- ous membership in both houses, a dogma which inures to the advantage of offis-seekers, but to no other persons in the community. Products of unsystematic, hap-hazard develop- ment, existing state lines, especially in the eastern United States, cause the most exasperating con- fusions of jurisdiction, separating communities that ar by all other conditions interdependent, and placing under the same jurisdiction communities that hav no common local interest and ar even, in some cases, rivals. Thus Camden, N. J., is, in all its social and business relations, a part of Phila- delphia; Jersey City is a part of New York; Pitts- burg and, indeed, the whole of Pennsylvania west of the Alleghanies, hav no common interest with the cities on the Delaware and Susquehanna; north eastern Pennsylvania, with Scranton as its focus, is affiliated with New York, the lines of transporta- tion to tide- water at that city being direct, while to the Delaware and Susquehanna water-routes the transportation is indirect. Buffalo has little com- munity of interest with southeastern New York. New Mexico and Arizona refused to join; West [13 1 Virginia was carved out of Virginia, but the in- habitants who constituted the new state, would probably almost unanimously hav refused to be ab- sorbd into either Ohio or Pennsylvania, altho these adjacent states wer both strongly devoted to the northern cause, and it was for devotion to that cause that the section now constituting West Virginia was torn from the original jurisdiction. If we read the documents contemporary with the period from the close of the revolution to the adop- tion of the Constitution, we are deeply imprest with the difficulties that the founders of the United States encounterd and the patience, ingenuity and foresight that they brought into play in overcoming absurd, selfish and unreasoning opposition. That they left some profound problems, such as the ex- tension of slavery, unsettled, should not astonish us; our astonishment should be that they accom- plisht so much. Apparently nothing but dire necessity arising out of the confusion of the so- called "confederation" compelled the people of the colonies to accept the suggestion of a conven- tion for forming a more definite compact. When the really wonderful document was about ready to be presented to the people, one of the principal states (N. Y.) withdrew from ofiicial connection with the convention, leaving Alexander Hamilton [141 alone as a supporter from a district which was des- tined to acquire and deserve the title of the "Em- pire State." Rhode Island declined even to enter the convention. In many of the states the adop- tion of the new constitution was opposed with great bitterness, some of those who had been delegates using their best efforts to prevent its acceptance by the states that they had represented. By nar- row majorities in several cases was the "more per- fect union" formd, and to this day no unanimity exists among the people of the nation as to whether the union is a mere compact between soveren states or a complete fusion of the people into one nation. The appeal to arms in 1860 is often quoted by enthusiastic nationalists as having settled the matter, but this is not so. An appeal to arms, unless it results in the extermination of one party, settles nothing forever. The Irish Home Rule issue is as much alive today as it was when England first enterd upon the line of conquest in that iland; Alsace and Lorraine are still cherishing the hope of re-union to France, and France is only deterrd from the effort to retake them by the un- certainty of the outcome. The United States has taken possession of the Philippines, but it has not taken possession of the Filipinos, who stil cherish the hope of freedom, and regard the conquering [15 1 nation as an interloper, tho that nation regards itself as a beneficent protector. In discussing the causes of any series of events, we may conveniently adopt a classification much used by doctors, and speak of predisposing and ex- citing causes. The predisposing causes of the fram- ing and adoption of the Constitution of the United States must be sought thruout the preceding centu- ries; one of the exciting causes may possibly be found in an interstate agreement, due largely to Washington's initiativ. The military and political fame of this leader has overshadowed his merits as afar-seeing economist. Great as was his devotion to the revolutionary cause, and to his duties as president of the new republic; he never forgot that the best bond of union between the colonies would be economic interdependence. His experiences in early life as surveyor for Lord Fairfax in north- western Virginia, and as an ofiiser in the military operations in the '50's, made clear to him that un- less the territory watered by the Ohio and its trib- utaries could be opened to the Atlantic ports by some efiicient method of transportation, the people who would soon occupy that region would lose their interest and with it their allegiance to the original colonies; states lukewarm or even hostile to the coast settlements would arise and the in- [161 fluences of France and Spain would be dominant in the Mississippi valley. Prevented for seven years by his duties as commander-in-chief from giving any systematic consideration to plans for such communication, he began to urge them as soon as he had relinquisht his command. His plan in- volved, as has been noted above, a slack- water system on the Potomac, and to this the consent of Maryland as well as Virginia was needed. After some opposition an agreement was secured; the pourparlers incident to its accomplishment led to suggestions to include Pennsylvania and Delaware. This broadning of interstate comity helpt to pop- ularize the more extended efforts to secure a gen- eral convention to frame a stronger union. Enuf of the debates in the Federal Convention, and in the conventions of the several states cald to ratify the Constitution, hav been preservd to enable us to appreciate the intensity of the antag- onism to federation and the main causes of this feeling. As in all such conflicts, many of the most intense conservativs wer actuated by a commend- able motiv, believing that a union of soveren states, retaining as much as possible of original powers and privileges, would secure the greatest liberty and happiness. Each state had an individual his- tory of more or less dramatic type, especially in fl7l the early period, and, while the general racial, reli- gius and social characters wer much the same thru- out the land, diflFerences existed to a degree suffi- cient to develop a sort of tribal ethics, by which those not of the state wer regarded as natural rivals. This feeling, of course, intensified the loyalty to the state and diminisht that to the na- tion. Massachusetts had been settled largely by English non-conformists fleeing from Anglican per- secution; Pennsylvania by quakers, against whom the hand of every other Christian sect was held in hostility; Maryland largely by Roman catholics, likewise fleeing from persecution. The sincere and disinterested opponents of fed- eration wer probably in small proportion. Most of the anti-federalists were actuated by selfish con- siderations, such as the hope of offis, local advan- tages in interstate commerce, and, incidentally, opportunities to issue paper money and escape from taxation for payment of the public debt. We may glean a good deal of information as to what led men to favor or oppose ratification by noting the districts in which majorities for either side wer given. Almost everywhere, the cities and large towns wer federahst, the outlying, sparsly settled and lumbering regions, antifederalist. The extent to which economic determination [181 operated on the minds of the people is wel shown in a letter from Timothy Pickering, who repre- sented the Luzerne district in the Pennsylvania Convention of 1787, and who was a stalwart fed- eralist. Under date of Dec. 26, 1787, he said: "Much opposition is expected in New York. That State has long been acting a disingenuus part. They refused the impost to Congress because half of New Jersey, a great part of Connecticut, the western part of Massachusetts and Vermont receivd their imports thru New York, who puts into her own treasury all the duties." In appor- tioning the causes, a large share must be given to the desire to prevent the diminution of offises. This is one of the most common and most per- sistent causes of antagonism to political reforms. It stands in the way of every simplification of public and private business, great and small. As it interfered with the formation of a "more per- fect union," so it has multiplied state governments unnecessarily, until now nearly fifty common- wealths constitute the United States and the same spirit prevents the consolidation of districts that should be under one administration. A local, but striking, example was the opposition in the mid- dle of the last century to the jconsolidation of the twenty -nine separate jurisdictions containd within [191 the boundary of Philadelphia County, of a total area of less than 139 square miles. The "fetish" of decentralization was vividly shown in the speech of a democrat in the Pennsylvania legis- lature when the bil was under discussion. He held that the movement for consolidation is the first step to centralization and imperialism. If the different jurisdictions of Philadelphia county ar welded into one municipality, the next step wil be the obliteration of county lines, then of state lines and then the overthro of republican government. Such nonsensical utterances delayed for many years the advancement of Philadelphia. Of course, the actual motiv was in most cases the desire of every "petty, pelting offiser" to hold his job. It is interesting to note that while the larger states wer mostly tardy in ratifying the consti- tution and accomplis^ht it only by narro margins, some of the smaller states wer prompt and unani- mus. Delaware was the first to ratify; on the 7th of December, less than three months after the document was finisht by the convention. New Jersey was also early and unanimus. These states had everything to gain by the provisions that gave them equal representation in the Senate and protected their interstate commerce. Lying between two great states, the respectiv principal [201 cities of which wer alredy beginning to sho signs of great industrial and commercial power, the in- habitants of New Jersey, altho not entirely satis- fied with the plan, saw that if it was not adopted, the anarchical conditions of the old federation or even worse would be maintained. In spite of many forms of antagonism, the twelv states that had met in convention ratified the Con- stitution and the United States was establisht. Rhode Island came in later, and the thirteen that had publisht the great Declaration wer in one union. Disputes as to the conditions of that union and as to the powers of the general govern- ment, began at once. By its very nature and re- sponsibilities, the federal government was obliged to assert its authority in all cases in which -the Constitution did not explicitly forbid. The con- trolling elements wer mainly federalistic, altho by no means intensely so. The President, Vice-Pres- ident, Secretary of the Treasury and Chief Justice wer all inclined to the federal side. An early case, Chisholm vs. Georgia, was past upon by the Supreme Court with one dissenting vote (out of 6) in such a way as to sho that under the inter- pretation given by the Court, state soverenty would be a mere name. The antifederalists took alarm, and an amendment was made to the Con- [211 stitution rendering invalid the doctrin that the Court promulgated. It would be tiresome to folio the course of events during the first half -century of the Republic that bear on the struggle between the centralizing and decentralizing tendencies. The former receivd a serins chec when Jefferson reacht the presidency. Thru the first quarter of the 19th century many threts of secession wer made, but, as is wel known, it was in 1832 that South Carolina made formal declaration of its intention to resist the enforce- ment of a federal law, and President Jackson was obliged to proclaim his intention of using the na- tional forces. The issues remaind sources of irrita- tion for about a quarter of a century longer, and then found intense expression in what is termd, ac- cording to the prejudis of the speaker, a rebellion or a civil war, but which is only correctly entitled as the " war between the states." As this war is the most serins stress thru which the nation has past, and as its origin and course wer very largely deter- mind by the doctrins of state soverenty that had taken deep root in the nation, the introductory portion of this book may be aptly closed here and some of the disadvantages of state soverenty as understood in the United States pointed out. BALEFUL EFFECTS OF JEFFERSONIAN THEORIES THE WAR BETWEEN THE STATES I say " Jeff ersonian " theories, for altho many prominent Americans, under the spel of the fetish, behevd that state soverenty was necessary to the preservation of personal hberty, Jefferson's acces- ^ sion to the Presidency afforded opportunities for impressing on the new Repubhc systems of admin- istration that tended strongly to accentuate such views and diminish the federalizing movement. Jefferson's successors, for several terms, wer of like mind and, to use a banal expression, it was the irony of fate that Jackson should be the one upon whom lay the duty of first asserting the supremacy of a national law over a state law framed especially in an atmosphere of state soverenty. As his ex- pressions ar eminently federalistic in tone, it may be wel to quote a paragraf (Proclamation, Dec. 10, 1832; Richardson's Mess. & Papers of Pres., Vol. 2, p. 643) : "I consider, then, the power to annul a law of [23] the United States, assumed by one State, incom- patible with the existence of the Union, contradicted especially by the letter of the Constitution, un- authorized by its spirit, inconsistent with every principle on which it was founded and destructiv of the great object for which it was formed." The whole proclamation is worth reading as a statement of the incongruity of state soverenty and national existence. The action of South Carolina was due to the pas- sage of a tarif law that an agricultural community could not find otherwise than burdensome. The labor in the state was almost entirely by chattel- slaves; wage-slavery was quite unimportant. No labor-union problem could arise there; orators could make no appeal to the necessity of a tarif for protecting workmen from competition with the pauper labor of Europe. Altho, therefore, it is tru that the exciting cause was a difference on the propriety of a taxation system, the predisposing cause was slavery, and the filosofic historian wil find in the nullif action incident in 1832, the pro- drome of the war between the states. The framers of the Constitution did not meet the slavery issue squarely, but they must not be blamed for this. It is apparent, on reading the debates in the Convention of 1787, that union would [24 1 hav been impossible if the abolition of slavery, or even the immediate suppression of the slave-trade, had been carried. Nor wer the slave states en- tirely responsible for this attitude. New England and Middle States communities benefitted by the trade and wer unwilling to lose its profits. In fact, in spite of the prohibition of it in 1808, se- cret importation of slaves from Africa, and thru interstate commerce, continued until the out- break of the war, which destroyed the market for them. (Dubois, Suppression of the Slave-Trade.) Some of the members of the Convention dout- ^ less believed that the question would settle itself thru the evolution of labor conditions. Ellsworth, of Connecticut, said "Let us not intermeddle. As the population increses, poor laborers wil be so plenty as to render slaves useless." This result might hav been attained much earlier than it was if the cotton-gin had not been invented. The compromise by which the slave-trade was continued for twenty years after the adoption of the Constitution was due largely to New Hamp- shire, Massachusetts and Connecticut, the dele- gates from which gave their consent to the pro- vision in consideration of the removal from the document of all restriction on Congress to enact navigation laws (Wilson, Rise and Fall of the Slave- [251 Power) . The extension of the frontier made the issues much more intense. The southern capi- tahsts insisted on estabhshing slavery in the ter- ritories, and after many compromises, the election of Lincoln made evident the essential unity of the North or, at least, its effectiv unity against such extension. South Carolina took the initiativ, and even the most intense unionist, if a "tru sport," cannot but admire the manner in which the State proceeded. It simply repealed the ordinance by which it had accepted the Constitution in 1788. Other states acted promptly, and before Lincoln's administration was six months old a new compact had been formed and the nation was ablaze with war. Nothing is more certain than that the extent and rapidity of secession wer promoted by the existence of separate states with all the attributes of soverenty, such as executiv offisers, legislatures, powers of internal taxation, militia organization, and, perhaps the most powerful of all, consciusness of state loyalty, fostered thru many years of Demo- cratic administration, a legacy from Jeffersonian theories. From its inception to its close, the slavery ques- tion was economic in every practical aspect. The arguments drawn from the Bible and from other less important sources, by which the capitalistic [261 exploiters of slavery and their henchmen tried to justify it as a system founded in morals, ethics or religion, wer mere dust-clouds concealing the tru issues. Three years before the battle of Lexington, the Virginia House of Burgesses unanimusly peti- tioned the King to put an end to the slave-trade in the colonies, basing their action not on "higher law" or "natural rights," but on the economic dangers of the system. Witness the language (text from article by R. L. Brock, Va. Hist. Soc, n. s. 6): "The many instances of your majesty's ben- evolent attention and most gracius disposition to promote the prosperity and happiness of your subjects in the colonies, encourage us to look up to the throne and implore your Majesty's pater- nal assistance in averting a calamity of a most alarming nature. The importation of slaves into the colonies has long been considered as a trade of great inhumanity, and under its present encourage- ment we hav reason to fear wil endanger the very existence of your Majesty's dominions. We ar sensible that some of your Majesty's subjects in Great Britain may reap emoluments from this sort of traflSc, but when we consider that it greatly re- tards the settlement of the colonies with more use- ful inhabitants, and may in time hav the most \ 27 1 destructiv influence, we presume to hope that the interests of the few wil be disregarded when placed in competition with the security and happiness of such numbers of your Majesty's dutiful and loyal subjects. Deeply imprest with these sentiments, we most humbly beseech your Majesty to remove all these restrictions on your Majesty's Governors of this colony which inhibit their assenting to such laws as might chec so pernicius a commerce." Tho not germain to the subject under discussion, I cannot refrain from a few obiter dicta on the pro- fessions of humility and loyalty in this petition. Those of us who hav been born and reared under the Republic cannot appreciate the abject attitude of members of the House of Burgesses who framed it, and who undoutedly, in its literary form as wel as in its doctrin, exprest the sentiments of the great mass of the people of Virginia. This is, how- ever, the normal state of mind of those who ar subjects of a monarch who claims to rule by divine right. A more startling phase is that, on May 6, 1776, four years after this petition was presented, Virginia, by a convention, adopted a series of reso- lutions declaring the abrogation of the power of George III, and, anticipating the phraseology of the Declaration of Independence in many respects, asserted that rulers ar the servants of the people, [281 that the source of civil power is primarily in the people, by natural right, that religion is a matter of reason and conviction, and that no specific dogma can be establisht by law. Note, also, that the profit of the slave-trade is held to accru solely to persons "in Great Britain," whose interests found no response in the colonies. It is certain that if any considerable part of the inhabitants of the colony had then profited by the system, the peti- tion would not hav been adopted unanimusly, indeed, bearing in mind how the capitalistic por- tion of the community often compromises among^ its own members for the purpose of exploiting the proletariat, it is possible that the petition would hav been deemed "inexpedient" by a sufiicient number of the burgesses to prevent its adoption. If state soverenty had not existed in the early part of the 19th century, the slavery question would hav been dealt with under wholly local con- ditions. The autonomy of cities and towns would hav developt antagonistic interests and feelings, and it would hav been impossible to set a whole section of the nation aflame in a few months. Indeed, even with the favorable conditions that this artificial allegiance produced, local influences played a considerable part. Northwestern Vir- ginia refused to accept the ordinance of secession, [291 and was erected into a separate state; Eastern Tennessee would probably hav done the same if it had not been surrounded by districts in sympathy with the secession movement. The action of the eleven states that withdrew formally from the union was based upon the theory of "compact," that is, that in accepting the Con- stitution of 1787, each state merely became a part- ner in an enterprise and reservd the right to ter- minate its relations when it saw fit. It is not prob- able that any statesman, however enthusiastic he might be as to the doctrin of state soverenty, ever tried to work out the problem as to what would become of a state if it should be permitted to withdraw from the union and set itself up as an independent nation. South Carolina, the first to make the formal thret, endeavored in 1832 to secure the co-operation of other states, but failed entirely, tho it is likely that this failure was not due so much to the loyalty of other states, as to the fact that the particular grievance of South Carolina — -the tarif — was not a serius one else- where ; the ears of the greater portion of the nation wer dul to the economic woes of slave-owners of the land of the palmetto. That the independent existence of states was not seriusly contemplated is shown by the fact that they wer no sooner out [301 of the United States, as far as their own acts could take them, than they united in a confederacy and imposed upon one another definit obligations, essentially national in type. The Confederate States of America, composed of eleven soverenties, acted as one nation in all important matters. Under the circumstances of their withdrawal from the old Union, they could not consistently deny to each other the right to withdraw from the new. The preamble to the Constitution of the Confed- erate States specifically declared that each state retaind all of its soverenty. Notwithstanding % this, we cannot think that any state would hav been quietly permitted to withdraw from the Con- federacy during the war, and allow the armed forces of the United States to enter its ports and occupy its territory. Jefferson Davis, in his speech (Jan. 21, 1861) on retiring from the United States Senate, on the secession of Mississippi, made a point of the dis- tinction between nullification and secession {Cong. Rec, 2nd Sess., 36th Cong., Pt. 1, 487): "I hope none who hear me wil confound this expression of mine with the advocacy of the right of a state to remain in the Union and to disre- gard its Constitutional obligations by nullification. Such is not my theory. Nullification and seces- [311 sion, so often confounded, ar indeed antagonistic principles. Nullification is the remedy it is sought to apply within the Union, and against an agent of the States. It is only to be justified when the agent has violated Constitutional obligations, and the State, assuming to judge for itself, denies the right of the agent thus to act, and appeals to other States of the Union for a decision, but when the States themselves and the people of the States hav so acted as to convince us that they wil not regard our Constitutional rights, then, and then for the first time, arises the doctrin of secession and its practical application. "That great man who now reposes with his fathers, who has been so often arraigned for want of fealty to the Union, advocated the doctrin of nullification because it preservd the Union. It was because of his deep-seated attachment to the Union that Mr. Calhoun advocated the doctrin of nullification, which he claimed would giv peace within the limits of the union, and not disturb it ****** Secession belongs to a different class of rights, and is to be justified upon the basis that the States ar soveren. ****** The phrase "to exe- cute the law," as used by General Jackson, was ap- plied to a State refusing to obey the laws and yet remaining in the Union." [32] The argument seems to be that state soverenty is — to borro a phrase from physics — potential rather than kinetic as long as the state remains in the Union. While one sits in the game, one must obey the rules, but the privilege of cashing chips and withdrawing at any time is conceded to every player. It is not clear to me, however, what Mr. Davis meant in saying that Mr. Cal- houn favored nullification in order to prevent secession, unless it is that a state should be per- mitted to suspend the operation of national laws within its borders if it regarded them as contrary to the provisions of the compact. Such a theory of government would be mere filosofic anarchism. A nation thus constituted would fall to pieces by its own weight. The nullification acts of South Carolina in 1832 grew out of resistance to tarif acts of Congress. These acts wer offered as revenue measures, but wer, as usual with such legislation, in the interest of certain capitalistic ventures. The statesmen of South Carolina, not misled, formally declared that inasmuch as the acts wer not for the purposes claimed and the revenue derived might be used for purposes not within the scope of constitutional powers, the citizens of their state wer not bound by the legislation and would prevent the coUec- [331 tion of duties within its borders. President Jack- son considered these objections at length and dem- onstrated the. untenabihty of the South CaroHna position. His language, quoted a few pages above, is specific upon the point; nullification is on all fours with secession. The Southern statesmen who led the secession movement had the early history of the nation on their side, for, in rebelling, the colonies took the same stand that the eleven states did in seceding, but the arbitration of war determins the opinion of posterity. The American Revolution was the success of patriots ; the war be- tween the states was the failure of rebels. "Treason doth never prosper; what's the reason? Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason." Nothing is more striking in the Constitution of the Confederate States than the positiv prohibition of the slave-trade and of the importation of negroes from non-slave-holding states (Art. 1, sec. 9). A specific provision was made giving to the Congress power to prohibit the importation of slaves from any state not a member of the confederacy, or from territory not belonging to it. If one of the slave-holding states should hav refused to ratify the Constitution of the confederacy, an interest- ing complication would hav arisen, and probably [34 1 the war would hav been much shorter. It is un- fortunate that, in human history, we can make only one set of experiments; we cannot turn time backward and try out a new lead. The fact that the government had past into the hands of the Republican party was known early in November, 1860. The Southern states took immediate steps to sever their connection with the United States, and, as might hav been expected, South Carolina was the first, seceding in December. An examination of the election returns for 1860 indicates that if the concentration of authority in^ the hands of a few leaders representing arbitrary jurisdictions (states) had not existed, the develop- ment of organized opposition to the federal gov- ernment would hav been much more difficult. Four presidential tickets wer in the field. Of these, Lincoln and Hamlin stood for the anti- slavery view, altho the platform on which they wer nominated admitted the right of each state to "order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusivly." Breck- enridge and Lane represented the extreme South- ern principles. The Douglas and Johnson, Bell and Everett tickets wer efforts at compromise; the platform of the latter was mere "glittering generalities." [351 Of the eleven States that afterwards made up the Southern Confederacy, Virginia was the only one that had Republican electors. South Carolina, as usual, chose its electors thru the legislature. When the popular vote from the other ten States is totald (figures obtained from Stanwood's Hist, of Pres. Elections), it is found that Breckenridge and Lane had 352,651 votes and the other three tickets 281,058. This is a ratio of 5 to 4. When it is con- sidered that many parts of the South wer in the control of a social and political oligarchy almost as absolute and uncompromising as the overlord- ship of a feudal fief, and that, in many districts, the election managers may hav returnd the votes as they saw fit, just as the managers of the re- publican party hav been doing for twenty years in Philadelphia, it is evident that an election by dis- tricts, insted of by states, would hav shown much opposition to the views held by the Southern leaders who afterwards entered into the secession movment. Without the fatal system of state autonomy there would hav been no equal repre- sentation in the Senate; in fact, in all probability, but one legislativ body would hav been establisht. Such elimination of an artificial method of repre- sentation — a sacrifice to a fetish — would hav not only simplified the national government, but hav [36 1 led the several states to establish one house as they had in colonial times. All thru the period of ferment on the slavery and cognate questions that embittered the people of the United States for the half century before the election of Lincoln, a great element of strength of the slave holding power lay in the right of equal representation in the Senate. Under the economic methods that they had chosen to adopt, it was im- possible that they should develop diversified in- dustries or receive any considerable share of the European immigration which was building up th^ nation in such a unique manner. It was fortunate that in the convention to frame the Constitution, the opposition to slavery had sufficient strength to prevent the slave population being represented in ful number. By a compromise, it was counted at three-fifths. If ful representation had been ac- corded it, the decentralizing elements would hav been materially strengthened in the Lower House, and the extension into the territories of the social and economic conditions that made for state sov- erenty would hav been much promoted. It is not a question here of the moral, economic or ethical relations of slavery or whether the Afri- can negro was better off as a slave in a cultured community than as a member of a savage tribe. [371 It is a question of facts. The population of the United States grew with great rapidity during the early part of the 19th century, while great ques- tions of policy wer hotly discust by the people. The gain in the southern states was largely by the importation and rearing of slaves; that of the northern states and in the new areas thrown open to settlement was by white races from northern Europe. The statistics taken from the U. S. cen- sus reports show these facts distinctly. PROPORTION OF WHITE TO NEGRO POPULATION IN TYPI- CAL NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN STATES, EXPREST IN PERCENTAGE OF THE WHOLE NUMBER AND COMPARED IN TWO CENSUS PERIODS. 1820 1850 White Negro White Negro Massachusetts 98.7 1.3 99.1 0.9 New York 97.1 2.9 98.4 1.6 Pennsylvania 96.9 2.9 97.7 2.3 Delaware 76.0 24.0 77.8 22.2 Virginia (Inc. W. Va.) . . .56.6 43.4 62.9 37.1 North Carolina 65.6 34.4 63.6 36.4 South CaroHna 47.2 52.8 41.1 58.9 Georgia 50.8 49.2 44.3 55.7 Alabama 66.8 33.2 55.3 44.7 Mississippi 55.9 44.1 48.8 51.2 Louisiana 47.8 51.8 49.3 50.7 Arkansas 88.1 11.7 77.3 22.7 Tennessee 80.4 19.6 75.5 24.5 Slight discrepancies in the totals in some cases ar due to small percentages of other races. [381 It wil be seen that in eight of the states that subsequently enterd the Southern Confederacy, a marked increse of proportion of negroes occurred, while the states under the influence of the white European immigration diminisht their negro per- centage, and this in spite of considerable numbers of negroes continually escaping from slavery and locating in the border states. Louisiana is the only typical Southern state that shows a gain in percentage of white inhabitants. Thru the unfortunate theories of state soverenty, and by reason of the self-consciusness of a few ^ small states, a legislativ body had to be formed in which Rhode Island, the area of which is about 3irroth of the contiguus United States, has the same representation as Pennsylvania with an area 35 times as great. Nevada, with a population of 82,000, has the same representation as New York with over 9,000,000. Sixty-five cities of the United States hav populations larger than Nevada. These abnormal conditions, due originally to selfish motivs, hav been perpetuated under the absurd notion that there is something conserving of human liberty in such inequalities. 39 TARIF LEGISLATION General Hancock said in 1880 "the tarif is a local issue," for which utterance he was savagely attackt by the beneficiaries of protection and by their dupes. Today, no one who watches the de- bates in Congress can fail to see the correctness of Hancock's statement. No tarif bil, in fact, has ever come out of the American Congress in which the local issues wer not dominant. A protectiv duty is not an economic error, if we accept the chauvinistic doctrin that finds so much support in this country, namely, that the rest of the world is our oyster which we wil open — with the sword, if necessary. A nation that desires to secure all the advantages of situation and progress for itself, de- sires to develop a diversified industry, that it may be self-reliant when occasion arises, is justified in establishing any imposts and other interferences with commerce from other nations, but while such objects hav been the usual pretenses for tarif legislation, the essential influences hav been the financial advantage of certain classes of individu- als or certain districts of the country. In the pres- ent Congress, we see the members from Louisiana, antagonizing free sugar, as they hav always done since their State has been growing sugar-yielding plants. [40] All thru the history of the country, the senator- ial oligarchy has been able to prevent progressiv legislation and to protect the holders of privilege. The helplessness of our House of Representatives contrasts very strongly with the power of the British House of Commons, which even in days when the rights of the aristocracy wer much less in question than today, secured many concessions from the King and Lords. The expedient of at- taching advisable legislation to a "Money Act" and compelling the lords to accept the reforms or sacrifice the revenues has been common in British % politics, but when, a number of years ago, the Lower House of Congress exprest an intention to use this method to force necessary legislation thru the Senate, a cry of "revolution" was at once raised by those opposed to the legislation contem- plated, and those who considered the Senate as the "palladium of our liberties." It is gratifying to note that the national con- sciusness of the absurdity of the system of repre- sentation for which the Senate stands is at last be- ing awakened, as is shown by the progress of the movement for the election of the senators by popular vote. A complete relegation of the choice to the people wil do something towards removing the decentralization for which the Senate stands, [41] but as long as the theory of state soverenty obtains, complete reform is impossible. The Senate, after all, is merely an outward, visible sign of an inward, political error and the only satisfactory method of dealing with it wil not be to reform it indifferently, but altogether, that is, to destroy it, and to hav but one national legislativ body, the members of which shal represent individual districts with no state allegiance, nominal or real. SOCIAL PROBLEMS When the Constitution was submitted, one of the most serins objections was that it contained nothing formally assuring to the people the liber- ties of speech, religion, and person that had be- come so dear to them. Some states, indeed, ac- cepted the document upon condition that a "Bill of Rights" should be provided without unneces- ary delay. Under this pressure, eight of the first ten amendments were added before the nation was two years old. Their language is wel known to all educated Americans; the text containing probably the most concise and comprehensiv code of per- sonal liberty ever given to the world, yet the blight- ing hand of state soverenty has been laid upon them, and we ar told by lawyers that the declara- [421 tions apply only to the citizen in his federal rela- tions, and that any state is at liberty to deprive its citizens and the citizens of all other states that may be within its borders, of all the rights vouch- safed by the amendments. Thus, Coudert {Cer- tainty and Justice, 67) says: "It has been held by "a long line of authorities, both before and after "the adoption of the 14th amendment, that the " so-called bill of rights contained in the first eight "amendments to the Constitution applied only to "the federal government and did not limit the "power of the States." A state can abridge any freedom, and in 1854 it was held that the first amendment does not pre- vent a state from abridging the freedom of religion. Pennsylvania has just enacted a law of this type, namely, requiring ten verses of the Bible to be read at the opening of every scool conducted by the State. This is manifestly setting up a system of teaching religius dogma, since, for instance, it compels a Jewish student to listen to the denuncia- tion of Jews exprest in certain parts of the New Testament. Such an act could never hav been put thru the National Legislature. In the early days of the Union, many restrictions on the liberty of citizens wer to be found in the several States. In some the right to vote and hold [43 1 offis was given only to those professing Christianity ; indeed, in some, the rights wer limited to those professing certain phases of that religion. It was not until 1825 that Maryland removed civil dis- abilities from Jews. Thus it appears that, under the baleful influense of the theory of state soverenty, the rights for which the people of several states so strongly con- tended when the Constitution was submitted, and in response to which demands the eight amend- ments wer made, ar not guaranteed to any one living in an organized state. It follows, therefore, that, as the natural evolution of territory within the jurisdiction of the United States is from the so-called "territorial" government, in which the area is directly under federal jurisdiction, to soveren statehood, the residents of unorganized areas ar more secure in their persons, property and opinions than those in organized communities. Surely, here is a reduction to absurdity as definit as any in Euclid. The danger is all the greater in view of the recent tendencies of the United States Supreme Court. In one of its early decisions — the Dart- mouth College case — the effect was to restrict state action, but since then a line of decisions tend- ing to increase the authority of what is called the [44] ** police power" confers upon the voters of each state, thru their legislature, entire control over the liberties of the residents of the state whether cit- izens or not. It is, however, not merely in the taking away of liberties that the exaggertition of state authority has its dangers, but in interfering with many phases of advancement. The advances in scientific meth- ods in all phases of life hav necessitated many public works that cannot be carried out by govern- ments that control only limited jurisdictions, espe- cially when not determind by natural boundaries. At the founding of the Union, some of these mat- ters wer fully in evidence and the states had to concede to the federal government the entire con- trol. Among these were the post-ojSice, the mint, the treaty-power, the war power, the control of interstate navigable streams, the protection of American citizens and property on the high seas. Many problems, however, that now bulk largely in management of government wer then either non- existent or so trifling as to escape attention. When abundance of land is open to settlement on liberal terms, and when forests and streams ar practically free to all, most of the necessaries of life can be se- cured easily and cheaply. The Atlantic slope is wel-watered. Every one of the thirteen colonies [45 1 had at least one good harbor and some of them several. Large streams navigable for deep draft vessels far above the point of contamination with sea-water furnisht fresh surface water; the abun- dant rainfall, with the large extent of fairly level, porus, soil, diminishing the run-off, gave enormus supplies of subsoil water, mostly of excellent qual- ity. It was many years before even the most rapidly growing areas began to feel the need of artificial purification of water-supply, and it is only within the past few years that the further problem of the purification of sewage has loomed largely in public helth administration. In the questions of forest preservation, reclama- tion of waste lands, irrigation, preservation of purity of streams, protection of drainage areas, purifi- cation of sewage, state lines must be ignored. Even in the weather prognostications these artificial distinctions ar ignored. What kind of a service would we hav if the collection and interpretation of data wer left to state authorities.^ I might go on at great length enumerating the matters of public import that can be properly administered only by the national government. Quarantin may be taken as one of these. Originally a purely local service, it past into state control in the ad- ministration of the several ports, but has of late [461 been passing into the hands of the national govern- ment. This latter has much greater facilities for carrying out the work. Thru its wel-organized Marine Hospital service, with strict disciplin and in touch with the consular agents of the United States in all parts of the world, it can determin much more quikly and better than any state authority could do the precautions necessary to prevent the entrance of contagius diseases thru commercial intercourse. So completely is this recognized that the quarantin authorities of the several states ar lookt upon as little more than ^ perfunctory, indeed, there can be no dout that they would be abolisht wer it not for the political patronage that the appointment means to the politicians and the revenue that it gives to favor- ites. Pennsylvania, in this way, maintains at great expense a quarantin station on the Delaware river, tho the station maintained by the United States is ample for all protection. To abandon the Pennsylvania station would, however, be to yield some of the so-called "dignity" of an inde- pendent Commonwealth, and besides to cut out some rills of patronage possest by the governor of the state. The difficulties in securing labor legislation, es- pecially laws relating to the labor of women and [471 children, ar greatly increast by the multiplicity of governments. The Constitution of the United States puts the whole country under one economic system, as far as regards fundamental principles of business. No state has any advantages, other than those that arise from natural conditions or the enterprise of its inhabitants. It is not to be denied that at the time of the adoption of the in- strument an economic advantage was indirectly conceded to certain states, but the right to hold slaves was not denied to any part of the union. Local conditions made the slave-holding states almost entirely non-competitiv with the non-slave- holding. The former wer devoted to lines of agri- culture that had no value in the north, had no im- portant manufactures, and only moderate com- mercial activity. If the South had early developt great industries, such as iron and steel products and textiles, ship-building, mining, or activ com- mercial enterprises, the north would hav promptly felt the competition and would hav either also resorted to slave labor or hav insisted upon some compensating condition. Indeed, it is very likely that had such competition been manifested at the time of the revolution, even the loose union then formed would hav been impossible. Had England left the colonies to their own economic control, [481 allowing them to develop freely trade, manu- factures and mining, and imposing only a reason- able levy of taxes for support of the empire, nothing would hav been heard of the Declaration of Inde- pendence. Our forefathers would hav borne with a good deal of sentimental tyranny if they had been left free to exploit the riches of the new coun- try. The boundaries of most states ar purely arbi- trary, but in the case of the original colonies, the number was determind by peculiar natural con- ditions. On examining the map of the Atlantic slope an abundance of good harbors wil be noted. Hence, the several colonizing expeditions found opportunities to locate at many points along the coast and wer able to start independent foci, a condition all the more desirable in view of the fact that the different parties wer more or less hostil. The Quakers who came with Penn would surely not hav been welcome in Boston harbor; the Roman catholics who came with Lord Baltimore would not hav found comfort in Virginia. To each one of the original thirteen states there is convenient entrance from the sea. New Hampshire has Ports- mouth; Massachusetts, its bay; Rhode Island and Connecticut, the harbors on the great sound; New York, its bay ; Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Del- [49 1 aware, a great bay and river; Maryland and Vir- ginia also the abundant harbors of the Chesapeake; North Carolina, Wilmington; South Carolina, Charleston harbor; Georgia, the harbor of Savan- nah. Had the territory further south been settled or acquired by English people, another indepen- dent soverenty would hav been establisht, for Florida has several good harbors. There might then hav been fourteen states, Pennsylvania would not hav been the middle one, and its title, "Key- stone State," would hav been unknown to history. The significance of these geografic conditions is emphasized if we compare the Atlantic with the Pacific slope. On the latter, few harbors exist. Within the limits of the isotherms — or perhaps one might better say, isoclimes — acceptable to inhabi- tants of western Europe, there are but three good harbors that can be entered directly from the ocean. If such had been the configuration of the Atlantic coast, it is probable that but three or four inde- pendent colonies would hav been formed and much of the sentimental side of the revolutionary move- ment would hav been changed. 50 THE UNWISDOM OF STATE SOVERENTY SHOWN BY THE TENDENCIES OF NATIONAL LEGIS- LATION From the beginning of the administration of Washington to the present, the evolution in pohey has been unbroken, tending to the suppression of state soverenty and the increase of the functions of the national government. For a long while this movement was retarded by the slave-power. The beneficiaries of this system saw clearly that state soverenty was essential to its maintenance. Nor was the support of the system limited to slave- ^ holders or their immediate co-citizens. Many persons in the non-slaveholding states derived profit from the smuggling of slaves, secretly favored the trafiic, and openly defended the institution as necessary to the development of the Southern States. Not a few prominent merchants of the commercial centers north of Mason and Dixon's line owed a large part of their fortunes to slave- handling. There is ground for the view that from such a source was derived part of the en- dowment of a certain charitable institution, the founder of which was known as an owner of slaves, and who, in the directions for the administration of the trust, specifically limited it to "white" children. The war between the states was a desperate [51] appeal to the principle of state-autonomy in its greatest range. The failure of the Southern Con- federacy is held by many to hav settled forever the right of secession. This, as remarked in an earlier part of this essay, is an error. War never settles anything except when it exterminates one of the parties, but slavery was destroyed and with it went a great deal of the passion for "state rights" that characterized the speeches of statesmen North and South in the period "befoh de wah." After the turmoil of the reconstruction period, an era of nationalization set in that has continued to the present day and shows no signs of abating. The war itself necessarily did much to develop national power. The national-banking act was an impor- tant step in this direction. Those of us who recol- lect the confusion, uncertainty and fraud grow- ing out of the power given by the several states to incorporate banks of issue, can realize the benefit conferred by the national legislation that wiped out, by the simple resort to the taxing power, all these institutions. If it was not for the fact that most of us feel that party platforms are made to " get of and on by, and not to stand on," we might be alarmed by the occasional silly declarations of the Democratic party in convention in favor of the repeal of the tax on state banks of issue. The [521 declaration in its last national convention (1912) that the levying of duties on imported articles, except for revenue, is a state and not a national power, is of the same type as the state-bank policy. Fortunately there is no likelihood that, tho the party is in full power, it wil even pretend to carry out the plank. Among the important steps towards nationali- zation that hav been taken of late years may be mentioned the federal food law, the work of the Interstate Commerce Commission, and of the Geological Survey. The maps issued by the las* named are delimited by lines of longitude and latitude and ignore state boundaries. Thus the maps respectivly of the New York and Philadel- phia districts include considerable portions of New Jersey, for the territory included in Camden and Burlington counties is as much tributary to Phil- adelphia as is that of Montgomery and Delaware counties; Jersey City is as much a part of New York as is Brooklyn or the territory on Staten Island. Public Health Questions. — Progress in san- itary science has been one of the most striking features of recent years. Not that methods of public and private hygiene hav not been regarded formerly, for even the ancients gave much atten- [531 tion to both phases, but the modern progress has been along more exact Hnes than our forefathers wer able to utilize. The discoveries in bacteri- ology and pathology, the authoritativ collection of morbidity and mortality statistics, and the ex- tensiv intercommunication between nations hav tended to inform us of the manner and method of propagation of disease. The advance in knowl- edge of remedies and disinfectants has greatly in- creased the power of restricting contagion and in- fection, and diminishing the mortality of many diseases. Now bacteria, whether carried in air, water, food, clothing, or bodies of animals, have no respect for political boundaries, and scarcely any for natural boundaries. Hence, the control of an epidemic is a national not a state matter. Indeed, in many cases it is an international matter, and nations that hav no particular attachment for each other hav been obliged to make agreements for mutual action in dealing with certain diseases. It is not surprizing, therefore, that we find a growing interest in the establishment of a national helth department. The fetish of "individualism" has operated in a peculiar manner, for it has kept the human resident of the United States a prey to many dangers to life and helth, and has permitted all other living creatures, animal and plant, to be [54 1 protected. The national government has for years had the duty of investigating and controlHng the diseases of domestic animals and valuable plants. Nor has the nation's care been limited to the animals and plants naturally existing in a given region, or introduced with settlers; advantage has been taken of the great variety in climate and soil in the United States, and plants from other climes hav been successfully introduced. The efforts of state administrations hav usually been to waste many natural resources; the national efforts to conserv. At the present time the "land grabbers*' who ar trying to interfere with the great conser- vation methods of the national government find one of their best means is to hav forest and other reservations returned to state control, making the pretense that this is giving these areas and de- posits "back to the people," whereas it is really giving them to the exploiters and speculators. The administration of the laws for the protection of domestic animals and useful plants has been almost wholly satisfactory and been of great finan- cial benefit. Some friction between state and national officials has occurred, but as a rule the state authorities work in harmony with the central bureaus. When, however, we come to laws affect- ing human beings, the harmfulness of state auton- [55 1 omy is seen in every direction. Regulation of prac- tise of medicin, dentistry and pharmacy, restric- tion of hours and control of condition of work by wage-earners, especially women and children, prevention of spread of contagius diseases — all these important problems must be solved, we ar told, under the theory that they ar affairs of the in- dividual state. The absurdity of this view is well shown by the existing conditions in the regulation of the practise of medicin. Over a quarter of a century ago it was recognized that the methods of American medical colleges wer highly objection- able. Students wer admitted without any con- ditions and graduated without sufficient exam- ination. In fact, most American medical scools wer little more than business enterprises; the main object of the professors was to make money. By the efforts of some reformers within the profession, public interest was aroused and systems of official control wer slowly developt until today most states hav a method of ascertaining the qualifications of those who wish to practise medicin within their borders. Similar evolution has occurred with re- gard to dentistry and pharmacy, altho perhaps not yet as extensiv or thoro as in the medical field. The public and professional benefit from these con- trols is much limited by the complicated admin- [561 istration of them. Each state must hav its board of examination and Kcensure, in some cases a separate board for each of the sects of medicin. A person may hav permission to practise in one state and be denied the same in the adjacent states, hence, the absurd condition may arise that a doc- tor may be allowed to visit patients on one side of the street but not on the other, if, as occasionally happens, the town is located on a state boundary. One system of education should be set up for all medical, dental and pharmacy scools in the United States; one standard of examination should be es- tablisht and carried out by national authority, and the certificate issued under this should be valid wherever the flag flies. As often happens when state soverenty interferes seriusly, some abatement of its effect has been secured in these matters thru reciprocity, but many absurd and anomalus con- ditions still exist, and in some cases special regu- lations hav been made which seem to hav at base the desire to force all who wish to practise in the given state to attend educational institutions in that state, i. e., encouraging home talent as far as possible. Edward Gibbon says that our ears ar cold to the recital of distant misery and, similarly, most per- sons ar indifferent to these woes afflicting the [571 learned professions, but along certain lines the evil is widely appreciated. Concerning the necessity for uniformity in laws governing marriage, divorce, the duties of parents and the rights of children, public feeling is gradually arousing, tho its present condition on these topics in this country is a dis- grace to our civilization. Pennsylvania has just adopted a law authorizing the refusal of a marriage license to persons afflicted with certain diseases, but, unfortunately, many other states hav not this law, and, therefore, all that wil be necessary if defectivs wish to marry wil be a short trip into some adjoin- ing state. A national law that would provide that no marriage would be valid in the United States or any place subject to their jurisdiction, when either of the parties is a citizen of the United States at the time of the marriage, unless certain physical and mental conditions wer met, would satisfy the hygienic requirements of the case. The facility of divorce is a great scandal, made more so by the fact that some states hav, merely for the money that accrues to functionaries and law- yers, made divorce very easy. The decrees of some states ar easily disregarded by the simple ex- pedient of remaining in some other state for a sufficient time to acquire a so-called "residence." One of the parties in a divorce suit may be pro- [581 hibited from marrying a co-respondent during the life of the other party, but as such decree is vahd only within the boundary of the state in which it is issued, the inhibited party can easily defy the rule. 59 METHODS OF NATIONAL ADMINISTRA- TION As the spirit of this essay may be regarded by many as essentially destructiv, it is, perhaps, but fair that I should set forth some plan for the administration of the territory of the United States, when the subdivisions now termed "States" ar effaced. Many persons, indeed, who might favor the obliteration of state lines and the abolition of state soverenty, wil hesitate because of the fear that so 7ast a country cannot be satisfactorily governed except by a system of almost indepen- dent units. Yet it must be borne in mind that the Russian Empire is ruled as a whole, and if it be said that Russia is badly ruled, the reply is that such bad government is only the outcome of the ignorance, bigotry, brutality, and extraordinary development of privilege, making Russia a bar- barian power, in spite of the veneer of civil- ization and culture of some of its great cities and in certain circles of its population. Under the form of national government that I [601 advocate it seems to me that several radical changes can be made with advantage. (1) One congressional body. The Senate was merely a concession to the petty ambitions of a few small states. Inasmuch as a constitutional amendment has now made senators directly elected by the people, even the nominal distinction be- tween them and representativs has disappeared, and there is no use for the "Social Club" which is principally concerned in thwarting the wishes of the people as exprest in the other House. Mem- bers of Congress may be elected every two years,v from districts constituted in the main as at pres- ent, the ratio being, of course, increast as the popu- lation increases in order to prevent the house from becoming too unwieldy. Members should be elected in November, and take their seats as soon after January 1st as practicable, the new Congress meeting at that time. Proportional representation might be establisht, however, which would prob- ably giv much better government, but this is a detail that need not be considered here. (2) As at present, the country should be divided into ad- ministrative districts for administration of laws, collection of revenue, control of conservation of natural resources, and other matters which the national government wil be obliged to take over, [611 many of which, indeed, it is now taking over, in spite of state soverenty, such as quarantin, road construction and irrigation. Such administrativ districts would folio natural lines of division, not as at present, accidental or artificial ones. Thus, the district of which New York in the dominating focus would include considerable territory in north- ern New Jersey; that in which Philadelphia is dominant point would also include territory in New Jersey. (3) Over the whole nation would be in operation uniform laws as to hours of labor, labor of women and children, conditions of marriage and divorce, methods of transfer of property, collection of debts and taxation of incomes, inheritances and businesses. A system of incorporation of cities by the national government should be provided, and, of course, the existing incorporations of cities would be maintained. To such incorporated area would be reservd all powers of establishing scools, regulation of liquor traffic, Sunday laws, and other matters that belong to the initiativ of the people rather than to that of the national government. Thus, while the national government might pre- scribe the racial and bodily conditions necessary to a legal marriage (as some states hav done), it should not prescribe the ceremonies, except to authorize certain ofiicials to perform the ceremony [621 as a purely civil contract or to allow, as in Penn- sylvania, a valid marriage by merely public proc- lamation by the parties. (4) The national sys- tem would, of course, — and this wil be one of its great advantages — increase the function of local self-government, relegating to the individual com- munities many powers and duties belonging to state governments and often very badly adminis- terd by these. Witness the difficulty that Phila- delphia has had lately in carrying out its ambitions for better thorofares, better port facilities and management of its det and local taxation. ^ 63