The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
Ch a r l e s
h a m l in
papers
Box j f i
Folder H
Miscellany
•S
(F^vg,
(2 .
no*j
a <F
♦I /
HOH. CHARLES S. HAIfLIN (Boston, Ma«»).
MU. CHAIRMAN AND LADIES AND GENTLEMENS I cannot adequately
express the pleasure with which I have listened to the eloquent
and able addresses that
;e have heard here.
I can truthfully say
that I would travel half around the world to hear the address
Riven us yesterday hy Dr. Abbott (Applause) and I can as truth
fully add that, having reached that distant point, I would gladly
complete the circuit without rest or sleep to he hack in time for
the learned and eloquent address we have just heard from His
Eminence, Cardinal Gibbons.
who
(Applause.)
I was not among those
ere invited to be present here to deliver any address; I as
sumed that the task, the golden task of silence, was to have been
imposed on me, and I came
a listener and not a speaker, for
I think in every well ordered co vent ion or convocation it is
necessary to have a number of good, faithful listeners, and such I
supposed was the task to be assigned to me.
But having been call
ed upon at a half hour's notice to say something, I feel that to
decline would not only be a discourtesy to our host to whom we
owe so much, but would.as well, seem an ungracious refusal to join
in this important discussion, and therefore I gladly contribute my
mite, and I assure you it will be as small as the widow's mite of
old.
It demands preparation, my friends,-whatever may be the need
of preparation for war, it certainly demands preparation to be able
to speak on the great subject of peace.
I feel that the good work
that this conference has done could not adequately be expressed,
*
-H
-
2-
if a man were to "be given hour® to devote to this subject alone.
You have done much through the inspiration and leadership of our
host of today, you have done much to mould public opinion, and I
certainly hope that he, at least, will live to see the full fruit
ion of the regard of his and your labors.
I
(/Vpplause),
am vlad to record myself as among those,-and I believe
they constitute a majority of the people of our country,-who be
lieve that the principles of publio and private morality are one
and the same.
(Applause).
We believe that what is right and just
for an individual should be right and just for a nation; and con
versely, a course of action which is wrong, unjust and immoral for
the individual is wrong, unjust and immoral for a nation.
(Applause).
In harmony with this view, my friends, we see today,
as compared with the past, a great difference in the relation of
nations one to the other, just as we see a precisely similar dif
ference in the relations of individuals one to the other.
If we
go back to the early English philosophers, 7re find prominent the
writings of the philosopher Hobhes, who thought men were almost
wild beasts, that life was a struggle of one man against the other;
that society was simply armed neutrality and that the exact measure
of the gain of one man was the exact measure of the loss of the
other.
But, my friends, there has been since those days a great
development in philosophic thought.
First came the Earl of
Shaftesbury, who called attention to sympathy as a bond between
men,-a recognition of the kindly association rather than of com
petition between men, and of their fellow feeling rather than of
their envie#, hatred* and jealousies.
Next came the philosophy of
Bentham recognizing a conception of an enlarged self; he spoke of
the greatest good of the greatest number,-a distinct recognition
of the common dependence of one man upon another.
That conception
was carried further by John Stuart Mill; and finally in the great
German philosopher, Kant, we see the recognition of a broader self,
a universal self, the brotherhood of mankind.
nations.
So it has been with
It is not so long back in history to a time when nation*
looked upon one another as eternal foes; the national maxim seemed
to be the survival of the fittest and the measure of the gain of
one nation was considered to be but the exact measure of the loss
of the other.
Today, however,-largely through the influence of
societies and convocations such as this,-we see an active concept
ion of the broader national self, precisely 2.3 we recognize the
conception of a broader individual self,-a unity of national, as
well as of individual fellowship.
Now, my friends, we hear a great deal said about the ne
cessity for preparation for war.
to me.
I confess that does not appeal
Of course, there must be some preparation for defuncs a
gainst unjust aggression, but 'hen I hear this war cry continually
dinned in my ears in and out of Congress, I cannot help feeling it
is better for a nation not to be absolutely prepared for war, not
to have its gun* shotted and even aimed at some other great nation.
I belie/s there is nothing that so tends to calm, sober judgment
and thought before action as the feeling that, after all, we are
t
-
4-
not absolutely prepared for war, with shotted guns, awaiting the
hysterical command of some excited chief.
I
(Applause).
hope this meeting will send, with one united voice, a
request to the President of the United States, to use every en
deavor to have the Hague Tribunal take up the question of limita
tion of armaments.
(Applause).
There may be subjects here upon
which wo differ, but I want to speak and aek for action alogg the
great lines on which we all agree, because where we speak with
united voice, we speak with force and strength and we send a mes
sage not only over this country, but over the civilized world.
Vre
should record here our agreements and leave our disagreements to
$ 0 discussed and thrashed out and merged into agreements perhaps
at some time in the future.
I
(Applause),
very well remember, and you all remember the Columbia
Exposition at Chicago in 1893; the Court of Honor surrounded by
those beautiful buildings and the Peristyle, and back of it the
beautiful water of the lake.
On that Peristyle were written in
letters of gold, the sacred words,-"And ye shall know the truth
and the truth shall make you free."
Let us seek that truth; let
us know that truth and let us crystallize it by strengthening the
Hague Tribunal, by establishing a Congress of nations; and that
tiuth,cr,vs ,aiiizsd into the laws of international p)eace,will free
us from barbaric conceptions of national power and will conduce to
tne greatest benefit of the individual, the state, the nation, and
of all mankind.
(Applause).
Address of Charles S. Hamlin
at the DINNER of the
Albany Chamber of
Commerce
AT ALBANY
Wednesday Evening, January 9th, 1907
Address of Charles S. Hamlin
at the DINNER of the
Albany Chamber of
Commerce
AT ALBANY
4
Wednesday Evening, January 9th, 1907
Address of Charles S. Hamlin
llie invitation with which you have honored me was received
anu accepted witJi deep pleasure, i t lor no other than per
sonal reasons it would always be gratifying to meet the citizens
of Albany — a city constantly calling to my mind the most
tender and sacred associations — a city also which represents
the very best citizenship of this great Empire State of New
York. '
I t is also most gratifying to have this opportunity of meet
ing the Chief Executive of the State, Governor Hughes. The
people of the Old Bay State have acquired the habit of looking
through political designations to the man beneath; we see there
a strong, vigorous and forceful character, one who looks upon
the holding of public office as an obligation imposed for the pub
lic good and not for individual or partisan benefit. We believe
that his rule of action will be the greatest good of the greatest
number; that his maxim will be, in the words of the Latin Poet
■
— Tros TyriiLsque rmhi nullo discrimin agetur” Which,
being freely — very freely — translated, means — “ Trojan and
Albanian will be treated alike by me without discrimination.”
“ The Public Duties of the Citizen ” is the subject assigned
to me for this evening, and I shall speak as briefly as I can on
the relation of the citizen to the State and to the Nation.
The citizen has various duties, just as he has various rights
and privileges, but the burden of my theme,— the principal
thought running through what I have to say to-night is that
wherever there exists a civic right or privilege, there also is a
corresponding duty or obligation; that the former is but the
complement or the supplement of the latter; that the two to
gether make a united whole.
The citizen owe3 allegiance to no personal sovereign or ruler:
3
Jie owes the highest allegiance to the government, State and
.National, which his fathers created for him. There is no conllict in this two-fold allegiance; it is recognized and aHinned in
the United States Constitution. 1 lie citizen should render unto
Caesar the things which are Caesar’s.
At different times of our national life, popular attention has
been concentrated, even for long periods of time, upon one of
these dual systems of government to the partial or to the almost
total eclipse, in the popular interest, at least, of the other. At
the foundation of the government under the Constitution, the
National idea, of necessity, came to the front, for a National
Government had been created. The people of the Sovereign
States surrendered with much reluctance a part of their sover
eign power, lh e great builders of the Constitution created
a new Nation and under the interpretation of the great jurists,
\\ ilson, Marshall, Webster and others, its growth has been
steady and sure.
\\ liile at times the national idea, so-called, has been obscured
it as a whole has steadily broadened and developed. It finally
came into conflict with the extreme States Rights Doctrine, and
out of that collision came the Civil War, from which the national
idea emerged triumphant. The so-called States Rights Doctrine
no longer as' once, marks the line of division between the two
great political parties, in fact, to-day it serves, if the prevail
ing popular expression can be trusted, but as a kind of pound
to hold in restraint or to furnish shelter to a few knights errant
who have strayed from the ranks of the hosts of triumphant
nationalism.
A striking example of this growth of the national idea is
afforded by the use of the term “ The United States.” In the
earlj years of the N ation these words were always used in
the plural, in modern times, however, the words almost
invariably take the singular. Tor example, article nine, of the
Treaty df Teace with Great Dritain,concluded in 1814, provided
that The United States of America engaged to put an end
" " /- to hostilities
* * with all the Indians with
whom they may be at war.
4“
On the other hand, article five of the Treaty of Peace be
tween the United States and Spain, concluded in December,
1898, provided th at: “ The United States will * * * send
back to Spain at its own cost, the Spanish soldiers.”
This notable change in the usage of the words serves to illus
trate well the change in the spirit of the people.
At this period of the year, following so closely the inaugura
tion of the governors of many of the States, it would seem to be
appropriate to pay some attention to the rights and duties of
the states and of the citizens to their respective states.
We hea r much at the present time as to the need of increased
federal power, such increase to be accompanied necessarily with
a corresponding decrease in power existing, or supposed to exist,
in the individual states. Some earnest, public-spirited citizens
believe that Federal power under the Constitution has been ex
hausted with the enactment of present laws, and that a more
comprehensive grant of power is needed. Others believe that
the power already possessed by the National Government is
ample for present and future problems and that further exercise
of this power is simply a question of national expediency.
Others seem to wish State powers to be curtailed in spite of
constitutional limitations, if any there be.
It is not my purpose to-night, to discuss the scope of the com
merce clause of the Constitution, nor the laws passed to carry
out the purposes of that clause, as interpreted by the courts.
Let it suffice to say that wherever there exists in fact interstate
commerce, that commerce is subject to the constitutional control
of the Federal Government. Furthermore, the principle of
regulation of monopolies, so often advanced as the justification
for Federal control over railroads in interstate commerce should
be applied equally to all monopolies granted by the National
Government. To this end, in my judgment, the time ought
soon to come when monopolies in the form of patents granted by
the National Government shall contain conditions prescribing
reasonable prices for their sale or use.
Nor is it my purpose to discuss here to-night the legal proposi
tion whether or not Congress has the present power to develop
along the lines of increasing centralization, apparently so dear
to the hearts of many people. The theme 1 wish to discuss is
the advisability of extending national control to subjects over
which it has no present power. Such centralization, in my
opinion, even if made lawful, as to concrete instances, would
not, if applied generally, enure to the welfare of the people,
but would inevitably result in radical, revolutionary changes
in our government.
rl here are many to-day who demand Federal control over
insurance; others' plead for a national divorce law; others clamor
to have the Xational Government take over the control of all
forms of corporate activity, ultimately resulting in interstate
commerce, even to the point of controlling production within the
States, thus interfering with the most important domestic rela
tions between the States and the individual citizens.
In short, to many estimable citizens there seems to be an
eternal, hopeless conflict between the ^National and the State
Governments, which can be abated only by reducing the States
to a condition of subordination scarcely consistent with any
sovereign rights. Is such radical centralization necessary for
the welfare of the people ? Is it necessary to our salvation that
power should be given to or exercised by the Federal Govern
ment to lay down uniform rules as to individual conduct, con
trolling even the minutest details of the life of the individual
citizen ?
At the outset, we must recognize that laws which might be
highly advisable for old, settled communities, might prove al
most disastrous to young, growing States. Even in the individual
States it is difficult enough to fix any standard which may not
bear severely upon one section at the expense of the other. On
almost all questions affecting the people as a whole there is the
widest diversity of opinion and of individual need among the
several States.
Yet the fact must be recognized that apparently many would
welcome almost an obliteration of State lines creating one State
instead of forty-five. Such a change might indeed be convenient,
6
along the lines of uniformity, but it would absolutely overthrow
the existing form of government.
Let us briefly consider where the application of this' specious
rule of uniformity would carry us.
\\ e should have to take away from the States the right to fix
the qualifications of those who vote for national representatives
and for presidential electors. The Constitution gives to the peo
ple in the States the right to prescribe those qualifications and
they have exercised it in such manner that the basis of suffrage
differs radically. In some States aliens who have declared their
intention to become citizens can vote for national representatives
and for presidential electors; in most of the States they are ex
cluded from the suffrage. In some States women can' and do
vote in elections for Congress and for presidential electors; in
most States this obligation has not yet been imposed upon them.
Ye should also have to enact national laws covering; all re
lations of contract between citizens of different States, wiping
out all conflicts of law which now give the courts so much
difficulty.
.
Y e should have to provide for the service of legal process of
any court throughout the United States.
Y e should have to frame a national code of criminal law to
supersede the laws of the individual States.
We should have to take under national control all production,
whether corporate or private, in any way contemplating inter
slate commerce, and to do this effectively, every kind of produc
tion would have to be taken over, regulated and supervised by
the Federal Government.
AVe should have to regulate the private lives of the people of
the United States by enacting national marriage and divorce
laws.
Y e should have to enact a national law as to the descent
of property, as to which there is a great lack of uniformity
among the several States.
Finally, we should have to enact laws reserving to the Na-
7
tioual Government the right of imposing all taxation, direct and
indirect, in order to do away with the painful lack of uniform
ity now existing, giving back to the States such portions of the
taxes collected as, in the wisdom of our national legislators, is
deemed necessary for their purely local needs and purposes.
If this uniformity could be secured by constitutional changes
we would secure what, apparently, many would like — a single
government, in effect, over the whole extent of the United
States.
Would such a government be for the best interests of our
people? I believe not. On the contrary, to quote the words of
that eminent expounder of the Constitution, James Wilson,
whose words have lately been quoted by the highest authority,—
“ To support with vigor a single government over the whole
extent of the United States, would demand a system of the most
unqualified and the most unremitted despotism.”
Every citizen should consider carefully whether modem ten
dencies are not drifting along this path declared to be so danger
ous to the future of our government by this great expounder
of the Constitution.
If, however, such an extraordinary increase of power should
be granted by the people to the Federal Government by Consti
tutional changes, where could such power safely be reposed ?
While Congress could enact the necessary laws, these laws must
be left to the executive departments for administration and
execution. Can it be that these departments are so idle at the
present moment that such extraordinary, new duties could prop
erly be imposed upon them ? Just the contrary is the truth.
The War Department, engrossed with the management of the
army, with river and harbor improvements and with other pub
lic works, is fairly staggering under the additional burdens of
the Philippines, the Canal Zone, and Cuba, not to mention
Santo Domingo.
'
The Interior Department has all it can do to manage the
public matters now assigned to it, among which are pensions,
8
Indian affairs, patents, Alaska, and the other Territories, not
to mention the public land system, with the vast fraud and cor
ruption recently unearthed.
The Department of Commerce and Labor is well occupied
with the census, bureau of navigation, lighthouse service, coast
survey, fisheries, immigration, Chinese exclusion, the bureau
of labor, the investigation of corporations, and other important
branches.
I he Ireasury Department, almost broken down with work,
has only recently had to be relieved by giving many of its duties
to the new department of Commerce and Labor.
I lie State Department seems fairly well occupied in manag
ing the foreign affairs of the country.
It may be replied that new departments could be created. A
little reflection, however, must surely satisfy one that such new
departments, necessitating the employment of perhaps thou
sands of national officers and inspectors, would not be, in the
long run, for the best interests of our people.
It should not be forgotten that there may be almost as much
danger to the Eepublic from national centralization carried to
tlie extreme limits as from the extreme expression of the States
Eights doctrine which so nearly overthrew the Eepublic.
F o r should we forget that if these subjects should be given
over to the national government every State law governing these
matters would be null and void. National laws, as is well
known, are often the product of compromise. Out of the con
flict between rival claimants for the dredging of local rivulets1,
ior example, there might be evolved a Federal insurance law
which, in efficiency, might fall far below the present high stand
ards of the laws of Massachusetts, New York, or of many other
sovereign States.
Wliat guarantee, however, is there that such a vast increase
in Federal power would result in more efficacious control than
is to-day afforded or could be afforded by the individual States ?
In my judgment, in the long run, national control is bound to
be less effective than State control. Influences are more easily
9-
“ In addition to the establishm ent of th is power of unlim ited and cause
less rem oval, another doctrine has been p u t fo rth , m ore vague i t is tru e ,
but altogether u n co n stitu tio n al, an d tending to like dangerous resu lts. In
some loose, indefinite and unknown sense the P resid en t has been called the
representative of th e whole A m erican people. H e has called him self so
repeatedly and been so denom inated by his friends a thousand tim es. Acts
for which no specific a u th o rity has been found e ith e r in th e C onstitution
or law s, have been justified on th e ground th a t th e P resid en t is the rep re
sentative of the whole A m erican people. C ertainly th is is not co n stitu
tional language. C ertainly th e C onstitution nowhere calls th e P resid en t
the universal rep resentative of the people. The co n stitu tio n al represen
tativ es of th e people are in th e House of R epresentatives, exercising powers
of legislation. The P resid en t is an executive officer, appointed in a p a r
tic u la r m anner and clothed w ith prescribed lim ited powers. I t m ay be
th o u g h t to be of no g re a t consequence th a t the P resid en t calls him self, or
th a t others should call him , th e sole representative of th e people, although
he lias no such appellatio n or character in th e C onstitution. B u t, in these
m a tters, words are things. If he is the people’s representative, and as
such m ay exercise power, w ith o u t any other ground, w h at is th e lim it to
th a t power? And w h at m ay not an u n lim ited representative of th e people
do? W hen the C onstitution expressly created representatives, as members
of Congress, it regulates, defines and lim its th e ir a u th o rity . B u t if th e
Executive Chief M ag istrate, m erely because he is th e Executive Chief
M agistrate, m ay assum e to him self ano th er ch aracter, and call him self
th e representative of th e whole people, w h at is to lim it or re stra in th is
representative power in his hands ? ”
Nor can I believe that there exists any necessity for further
centralization of power. 1 believe that the people of New York
or Massachusetts or the other sovereign States, if aroused to the
necessity of such action, are competent to stamp out filth in the
establishments in those States, or to purify the food supplies
used in those States, or to put the citizens of all States on a
parity with their own citizens as to regulations for the public
health or for matters of business concerning which legislation
is enacted to control its own citizens.
Each State, however, should carry out faithfully its duties
and its responsibilities under the National and the State
Constitutions. If a State deliberately refuses to exercise its
power and permits the stream of interstate commerce to be
fouled by its inaction, in my judgment it would be better for
the National Government to exclude its products from inter
state commerce, if it has that power, until the State performs
its duty, than to enter the State and perform this duty by
National inspectors.
Tt may be well for a time to cease talking of States’ rights
and to talk of States’ duties; to cease discussing individual rights
and to take up the subject of individual obligations. Let each
State enact constitutional laws for the greatest good of the
Greatest number of its people ; if those laws are found to con
flict with the laws of other States, it will be for the most part,
because different conditions prevail which no uniformity im
posed, from without could effectually control.
What then is the duty of the citizen in the present state of
affairs ?
He should strengthen in every way the government of his
State to restore to it the balance of power which, under the
constitution, belongs to it.
He should respect and render obedience to the laws of the
land.
He should have sympathy for public officers and respect for
authority.
TTe should attend the primaries with the same interest with
which he attends to his private business.
10
11
evoked to delay action at the capital of the Nation, perhaps
thousands of miles from the locality affected, than in the home
State. The gain from uniformity would be, to my judgment,
swallowed up in the loss of local State control, always more
effective when called into action in response to public sentiment.
There is another problem for thoughtful citizens to consider
— is it prudent or safe to increase in this extraordinary manner
the powers of the Chief Executive of the Nation?
The statement is often made that the President of the United
States is the representative, the only representative of the whole
American people, and that accordingly it is fitting to place in his
hands the almost illimitable powers which increased centraliza
tion would entail. The claim that President Jackson was the
representative of the whole American people was thus answered
by Daniel Webster in a speech delivered in New York city —
He should see that his vote is recorded at elections as an
almost sacred duty.
He should faithfully discharge the obligation imposed upon
him of jury service.
He should never forget that the so-called right of suffrage
n not a political right at a ll; it is a duty imposed for the public
good rather than for his private benefit.
Yet we see many men at the present time who deliberately
elect to keep aloof from all participation in civic affairs; many
there are who never attend a primary, and with whom failure
to vote at. elections is the rule rather than the exception.
Ho citizen has a right to refuse to perform his civic duties.
Such refusal should be visited with indignation and con
tempt; he should he lashed to the polls with the indignant voice
of public opinion.
Tf a State should refuse to participate in constitutional gov
ernment it would amount to secession; the duty imposed upon
the State is of no greater obligation than that imposed upon
the individual citizen.
The citizen, also, at this time of increasing national cen
tralization, should insist that all representatives of the people
should be elected directly bv the people, and to this end wo
should insist that United States Senators be elected directly by
popular vote, the necessary constitutional changes being made
for this purpose. This method of election was advocated bv
•Tames Wilson, and thoughtful people will be forced to the con
viction that such a change at the present time would be bene
ficial.
There are many signs today that there has heen an awakening;
popular interest, in civic duties was never keener. The citizen
realizes more and more keenly the necessity for personal par
ticipation in civic matters and out of this aroused public senti
ment will surely follow increased civic prosperity, both to the
individual States and to our great national Republic.
12
\. /
AUDKSS3 OP CHARLBo
6.
HAMLIH AT TKB DINTOR
OP TBS ALEASY CHAMBER OP C O D E C S AT ALBA1TY,
WKDHiSSaCf STHHXHG, JA1.UARY 9, 1907.
’
Hr* Hamlin a^id in puri:Txxt; ia« i wMwiOu
you have honored me was received
and accepted with deep pleasure# If for no other than personal
reasons it weald always b© graiif.yxng to meet uhe citizens of
Albany,-a cloy constantly caxlAng to my mind the moat tender ana
sacred associations,-a ex»,/ also which represents the very host
citizenship of this great empire Stats of hew York.
It is also most gratifying to have this opportunity of
meeting the Chief Lmccutive of the State, Gov. Hughes,
The people
of the Old lay State have nsifruiefej&sifx acquired the habit of look"
ing through political designations to the man beneath; we see
there a strong, vigorous and forceful character, one who looks up
on the holding of public office as an obligation imposed for the
public good and not for individual or partisan benefit.
Y/e be
lieve that his rule of action will be the greatest good of the
greatest number; that his maxim will oe, in the words of the Latin
Poet,f /-i C
"Troa Tyriusaps m ihi n u lls dxbcrnnin} a g e t u r # "
A
which, being fresly,-/ery freely .-translated, means,- "Trojan and
Albanian will be treated alike ay me wi'chouc discrimination.n
-2
"The Public duties of the Citizeh” is the subject assigned to
me for this evening and I shall speak as briefly as I can on the
relation of the citizen to the State and to the Nation.
The citizen has various duties, just as he has various
rights and privileges, but the burden of my theme,-the principal
thought running through what X have to say tonight is that wherever
there exists a civic right or privilege, there also is a correspond-^
ing duty or obligation* that the former is hut the complement or the
supplement of the dattejr that the t ■■to together make a united whole*
The citizen owes acoc allegiance to no
personal sovereign
or ruleri he owe3 the highest allegiance to the Government, State
anl National, v/hich his fathers created for him*
There is no con
flict in this two-fold allegiance; it is recognized ana affirmed
in the United States Constitution.
The citizen.
unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's.
i— • ■1
.
At different tiraea of our National
3houId render
j w m m w
, popular
attention has been concentrated, even for long periodsof time,
upon one of these dual systems of Coverurgent to T,he partial or
the almost total eclipse, in the popular interest,at least,of the
other.
At tne foundation of the Government under the Constitution,
the National idea, of necessity, came to the front, for a National
Government had been created.
The people of the .Sovereign States
surrendered with much reluctance a part of their sovereign power.
The great builders of the Constitution created a new Nation and
under thu interpretation of the great Jurists, toiison, Marshall,
Webster and others, its growth has been steady and surf?,
While at times the National idea, so-called, has been obscured
as^a whole,
'
blitv. it^has steadily broadened and developed.
f i n a l l y came
I t M a ass^in to c o n f l i c t w ith th e extrem e S ta te s r i g h t s i d e a ,
,
and out o f that collision came the Civil War from which the Nation
ant
al idea emerged triumph^
The so-called Stater; rights doctrine no
longer.* as once^marks the line of division between the two great
the
political parties. In fact, today it serves, ifjpanerailing popular
expression can he trusted, hut as a hind of pound tc held in re
straint or tc furnish shelter to a few knights errant
who have
s t a y e d from the ranks of the hosts of triumphant nationalism.
A striking example of this growth of the National idea
is afforded by the
usg
of the tens "the United States".
In the
early yearn of the Nation these words wera always followed by the
plural verb; in modern times, however, the words are almost in
evitably followed by the singular verb.
?or example, Article Nine
of the Treaty of Peace with Great Sritain, concluded in 1814,
provided that "The United States of America engaged to put an end
•♦"to hostilities#**with all the Indians with whom they m ay be at
war*
On the other hand, Article five o f the Treaty of Peace be
tween the United States and Spain, concluded in December, 1898,
provided that:- "The United States will***send back to Spain at
its own cost, the Spanish soldiers".
This notable change in the usage of the words serves to
illustrate well the change in the spirit of the people.
\
to be appropriate to pay some attention t
\
e rights and duties
of the States and of the citizens to their respective States.
4ub hear muon at the present time aa to the need of in
creased Federal power, such increase to be accompanied necessarily
^ith a corresponding decrease in po?;er existing, or supposed to
exist, in the individual States,
Some earnest, public spirited
citizens believe that Federal power under the Conctitut.ien lias been
exhausted with the enactment of present laws and that a more com
prehensive grant of power is needed.
Others believe that the power
already possessed by the Rational Government is ample for present
and future problems and that further exercise of this power is
simply a question of national expediency.
Others seem to wish
State powers co be curtailed in spite of Constitutional limita
tions, if any there be.
It is ncl my purpose tonight co discuss the scope of the
commerce clause of -he Constitution, nor the laws passed to carry
out the purposes of that clause, as interpreted by the courts.
Let it suffice to say that wherever there exists in fact inter
state ocuBLicrcc*, that commerce is subject tc the constitutional con
trol of the Federal Government.
Furthermore, the principle of
regulation of Monopolies, oo often advanced as the justification
for Federal control over railroads in interstate commerce should
he applied equally co all monopolies granted by the National Go
vernment,
xo chib enu, in my judgment, the time ought scon to come
when, monopolies -n the form of patents granted by the National
Government shall contain conditions prescribing reasonable price#
for their
or use.
Nor ia it qy purpose to discuss here tonight the legal
proposition whether or not Congress has the present power to de
velop along the lines of increasing centralization, apparently so
dear to the hearts of many people,
The theme I wish to discuss is
the advisability ox extending national control to subjects over
which i t has no present power,
Such centralisation, in my opinion,
even if ruao lawful, as ou concrete instances, would not, if ap
plied generally, enure
lo
^eliarc of the people, hut would in
evitably result in x radical, revolutionary changes in our Govern
ment ,
There are many coday who demand Government control ov^r
Insurance; others plead, fox* a national divorce law; others clancr
to have the National Government taxe over the control of all f o m s
of corporate activity ultimately resulting in interstate commerce,
even to tne point of controlling produc .ion wii.hin the States,
thus interfering with the moat important domestic relations between
the States aid tho individual citizens.
In short, to many Gstimacls citizens there seems to ha an
sternal, hopeless conflict between the National and the State Go
vernments which can be abatea only by reducing the States to a
condition of subordination scarcely consistent with any sovereign
rights.
Is such radical centralization necessary for the welfare
of the people?
Is it necessary to our sal7ation that power should
he given to or exercised by the S^aeral Go t ernme rt to lay down
uniform rules as to national conduct, controlling even the minutest
details of the life of the individual citizen?
At the outset, we must recognise that laws which might be
highly* advisable for old, settled communities, might prove almost
disastrous to young, growing States,
liven in the individual
states it ie difficult enough to fix any standard v/hich may not
"bear severely upon one section at the expense of the other.
almost
Onfall
questions affecting the people as a whole there is the widest
diversity of opinion and of individual need among the several
States.
Yot the fact must be recognized that apparently many would
welcome almost an obliteration of State lines creating one State
instead of forty-flye.
Such a change might indeed he convenient,
along the linos of uniformity, hut it would absolutely overthrow
the existing form of Government.
Let us briefly consider where the application of this
specious ruin of uniformity would carry us.
We should have to take away from the States the right to
fix
the qualifications of those who vote for National Repre
sentatives and for Presidential electors.
The Constitution gives
to the people in the States the right to prescribe those qualifi
cations and they have exercised it in such manner that the basis
of suffrage
differs radically.
In some States aliens who have
declared their intention to become citizens can vote for National
Pepresentativea and for Presidential electors; in most of the
the
States they are excluded froin^suffrage , In some States women
can and do vote i, elections for Congress and for Presidential
electors; in most States thin obligation has not yet been imposed
upon then.
We should also have to enact National laws covering all
relations of contract between citizens of different States, wiping
out all conflicts of law which now give
culty.
the courts so muck diffi
7
We should have to provide for the service of legal pro
cess of any court throughout the United Statpw.
We should have tr* frame a rational code of criminal law
to supersede the laws
the individual State.
Wa should have to tako under National control all pro
way
duction, whether corporate or private, in any^contexpiating inter
state commerce, and to do this affectively, every hind of pro
duction would have to he t&ksni ove?r regulated and supervised hy
the federal Government.
We should have to regulate the private lives of the people
of the United States by enacting National roarriage and divorce laws.
We should have to enact a National law regulating the de
scent of property, as to which there is a great lack of uniformity
among the several States.
finally, ue should have to enact lavs reserving to the
National Government the right of imposing all taxation, direct and
indirect, in order to do away with the painful lack of uniformity
now existing, giving hack to the States such portions of the taxes
collected as in the 7/isdom. of our National legislators is deemed
necessary for their purely local needs and purposes.
If xkiMxxxx* this uniformity should he secured hy Con
stitutional changes ve would secura v/hat,apparently ,raany would
like,-a single Government, in effect,over the whole extent of the
United States.
Would such a Government be for the beet interests of our
people?
I helieva not.
On the contrary, to quote the words of
that eminent expounder of the Constitution, Tames
Wilson, whose
-ewords have lately teen quoted Try the highest authority,"To support with vigor a single Government over the whole
extent of the United States, w'oald demand a system of the moat
unqualified and the most unremitted despot.isit"•
consider
jEvery citizen should Vbdaxk carefully whether modern tendrv
encyes are not along this path declared to he sc3 dangerous to tho
future of our Government by this great expounds** of the Constitu
tion ,
If, however, such an extraordinary increase of powsr should
"be granted "by the people to the Federal Government by Constitution
al changes, where could such povrer safely be reposed?
While Con
gress could enact the necessary laws, there laws must 'be left to
for administration and execution,
the Executive Departments^ Can it be that those Departments are
so idle at the present moment that such extraordinary now duties
could properly be imposed upon them?
Just the contrary is the
truth.
engrossed
The TVar Department, UMtkh auxixptxxa with tho management of
with
with
the Anay,ARivsr and Harbor improvements and other public ./oris,
is fairly staggering under tho additional burdens of the Fhilipand
pines, the Canal Zone ^ Cuba, -no t to mention dan to Doniingo.
file Interior ‘Department has all it can do to manage the
now
public matters^asaigxied to it, among which are tensions, I idian
Affairs, Patents, Alasha and the other Territories, not to mention
vast
tiie public land system,with theAfraua and corruption, recently
unearthed.
The Department of Commerce & Labor is well occupied with
the Census, Bureau of Navigation, Lighthouse, Coast Survey,
Fisheries, Immigration, Chinese exclusion, the Bureau of Labor,
the investigation of corporations and other important tranches#
Tho Treasury Department, aluout broken down with work, lias
only recentl3r had to be relieved by giving many of its duties to
the new "Popart"!"Tit
f r .
r c ... L^cor.
The Str.te lopartncnt
fairly wall occupied in manag
ing the foreign affairs of the country.
It may he replied that now Departments could be created,
A little reflection,
iov/ever, must surely satisfy one that such
perhaps
new Departments,neceasitat ing tl10 employment o^thousands ajwcn
thxxxxxix of National officers and inspectors, would not be, in
the long run, for the best interests of our people.
It should not be forgotten that thare way be almost as
much danger to the Republic from National centralization carried
to the extreme limits as f r023- the extreme expression of the States
Rights doctrine which so nearly overthrew the Republic,
i^7
TZhat guarantee, ^Mi’.Ter, is there that such a vast in
crease in federal power ould result in more efficacious control
or could be afforded
than is today affordod^by tho individual States? In rsy judgment,
in the long run, National control is bound to be les3 effective
than State control.
Influences are more easily evoked to delay
action a:, the Capital cf the Nation, perhaps thousands of miles
from the locality affected,
hi\n in the heme State,
The gain from
uniformity would be, to my judgment, swallowed up in the lose of
local 3tate control, always more effective when call d into action
in response to public sentiment.
There is another problem for thoughtful citizens to corto increase
aider,-is it prudent or safe in this extraordinary manner the
N
powers of the Chief E x e c u t i v e of the Nation?
v
-1 0
The abatement is often made that the President of the
United states is the representative, the only representative of
the whole Arc rican people and. that accordingly it is fitting to
place in his h .n ls the
almost illimitable powers which increased
centralization would entail.
The claim that President <Tachoon
was the representative of the '/hole American people
mb. s
an
swered by m n i e l W o s t e r in a speech delivered in New York City:win add it.ior. to the establishment of this power of un
tu t ion or laws, have been j u s t i f i e d on the ground that the P r esi
dent is the representative of the- whole American people.
Certain*
l y th is is not constitutional language,
Certainly t
h
e
,
on
----.1---- - calls- ^v.a
n^^^-ersar representative of the
nowhere
epresontatives
of' the
People
a r S-i'<«*,
n _ Jt
Act)it * h ilt- ' j
a
M
M
i
>.-■-■*<£■■ 'i:.'y.w.iiiw.’
ae.House of He ureasitatives, exercising powers of legislation. TgJk
President IT^fT^'i^uTIve oTricar, aupointecTih a partxculs.r manp o w e r a T T t may Tie thought
l y w - B r T u r v F S s r T r a n i j 5p^
iB*® E 2 E S O H r ? T O S T d e r.t-ssrrrr^gCTTfHtijpN
j-v. w j - —
-
,
— r
•.
_ - .— -.^^T |r|| „ -,- ■■-
- ,— - 1
hTF ^ T e " 7 f c ^ F ^ f F h T a F i T ^ f ^
w&fowwiiii.
V
■■ J * \ - L
thr bOt^fTt--Trcr. ’Rut/"in these matters, words are things. Tf
He' Is’the people1a representaRve7
sxeTcige power,
without any ether ground, what is the limit
mcmx. to that
power? And what may not an unlimited representative of the people
do? When the Constitution expressly created representatives, as
Members of Congress,it regulates, defines and limits their author
ity. But if the Pxeentire Chief 'Magistrate, merely because he is
the Executive Chief Magistrate, nay assume to himself another
character, and cull Lime >If the representative of the fchole
people, what is tc limit cr restrain this representative power in
his hands?”
Nor can I “believe that there exists ary necessity for
further centralization of power,
I believe that the people of New
York oreMassachusetts or the pther sovereign States if aroused to
\
V
11
necessity of such action ars competent to stamp put tiluh in the
establishments in those States, or to purify the feed supplies
used in those States, or to put the citizens of all states on a
parity with their own citizens as to regulations for the public
health or for matters of business concerning which legislation is
enacted to control its omi citizens.
y.ach 3tate, however, should carry out fc ithfvlly its
duties and its responsibilities under the .national and the State
£onct itutions •
It may be well for a time to ocas* talking of States*
rights and to tails of States* duties; to cease disc -tsin^
dividual rights and to take up the subject 01 ir.dividual oblige.**
tiona.
Let each State enact Constitutional Ipwh for the greatest
good of the greatest number oi its people; if those laws are found
to conflict with the laws of other States, it will be, for the
most part, because different conditions pratfall which no uniformity
imposed from vithout could effectually control.
What then i.3 the duty of the citizen in the present state
of affairs?
Ho ehouiu strengthen xn every way the Government of his
fitato to restore to it the balance of power which under the con
stitution belongs to it.
He should respect ana render obedience to the luv s oi the
land,
H© should have sympathy for public officers and respect
for authority.
He should attend the primaries with the sera© interest with
which he attends to hie private business.
-1 2 He should
that his vote is recorded at elections as
an almost sacred duty.
.He should faithfully discharge the obligation imposed upon
him of jury service.
He should never forget that the so-called right o f suffrage
is not a political right at all; it is a duty imposed for the
public good rather than for his private benefit•
Yet we see many men at the present time who deliberately
elect to keep aloof from all participation in civic affaire; many
there arc who nevrr attend a primary and vith whom failure to vote
at elections is the rule rather than the exception.
Ho citizen has a right to refuse? to perform his civicduties •
Such refusal should be visited vita indignation and con
tempt; he should be lashed t o t h e 7?o 1I b with -he indignant voice
of public opinion.
If a State should refuse to pur tic ip at 6 in Coa« tiiu'.ioual
SJLLLAAMht*
Government It would amount to.aa*iNM; fc .- laity i&posed upon the
A
State is of no greater obligation thu a that imp03 ad upon He ind i^ adue.1 cit i r.en ,
The citizen also, at this
.ine of increasing rational
centralization, should insist that all fh-presen Native a of the
people should be elected directly by fiu people, and to tils end
we should insist that United 8 hates rh.u.U ie be elect co. aircctly
by popular vote, the 11 ;ccssary coi sti ,uiiv. al charges icing made
for this purpose.
This method of election v*s advocated by James
Wilson and thoughtful people will be forced to the conviction that
such a change at the present time would be beneficial*
13
Thera are many signs today that there has boon an awaken
ing; popular interest in civic duties was never keener*
The
citizen realizes more and more keenly the necessity f o r personal
participation in *ivic matters and out uf this aroused public
sentiment will surely follow increased civic prosperity both to
the individual State3 uni to our groat national Republic*
JGXm DISCUSSIOH AT ECONOMIC CLUB, SPRINGFIELD,
Monday evening, February u, 190?.
. ADDRESS OP CHARLES S. HAMLIN.
IS
THE PRESENT TENDENCY TOWARDS NATIONAL CENTRALIZATION
FOR THE BEST INTERESTS OP THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES.
The s u b je c t o f the d is c u s s io n t h i s evening i s whether or
not the tendency toward* n a tio n a l c e n t r a li s a t i o n # -s o much in e v i donee o f l a t e , - i s f o r the heat in t e r e s t s t>f the people o f the
U nited S t a t c » .
The Economic Club has shown wisdom in in v it in g
d is c u s s io n o f t h i s q u e s tio n , e s p e c ia lly a t the p rese n t tim e, and
I s h a l l endeavor very b r i e f l y to p resent c e r ta in view s oh t h i s
question in a calm, temperate warmer, entirely devoid of partisan^
also j
s h ip ,
and, I t r u s t
aux wxoaxkyxd«*w^ at* ^oocxidte o f p e r s o n a lit ie s *
In c o n sid e rin g a s u b je c t o f such g rea t im portance, calm ness
o f d is c u s s io n i s an a l l e s s e n t i a l r e q u i s i t e .
the custom, o f l a t e ,
I t has been to o nuch
to "brand everyone who r a is e s h i s v o ic e in
p r o t e s t a g a in st c e n t r a li s a t io n as owe im p elled by some s e l f i s h
m o tiv e ,
as alm ost in f a c t ,
a t r a i t o r to h is co u n try .
Such a sp er
s io n s , however, cannot be counted as argument and have no p la ce in
th e d e lib e r a t io n o f ?*ny q u e stio n worthy o f c o n s id e r a tio n .
X remember so w e l l , on ly a few y e a rs ag o, when th o se who
opposed the talcing ami r e te n t io n o f the P h ilip p in e I s la n d s were
denounced w ith f e r v id r h e t o r ic as t r a i t o r s .
Who can fo r g e t the
o r a to r y poured f o r t h as to the advantages o f the P h ilip p in e I s
la n d s as a naval b ass and as fu r n is h in g the key to our fu tu re
p ro g re ss in the P a c if ic ?
Who can ever fo r g o t th e w ith e rin g swtsasm
and d en u n ciatio n v i s i t e d upon th o se who fa v o red the s o - c a l l e d
•ap o lic y o f * # c tt t tle » in the P h i l i p p i n e *
Y e t , only the oth er day
preoo on tta ^ h ig h
it
was announced in the p u b lic
a u th o r ity ," th a t th e g e n e ra l s t a f f a t Washington
had prepared i t a piano f o r th e d efen ce o f our in t e r e s t s on and
o r e r the P a c i f i c Ocean in the u n lik e ly event o f war w ith ,f&pa«,
n e v e r, X t r u s t ,
s e r io u s ly con sid ered f o r a moment as imminent*
And what were th ese plana o f defen ce?
The paper
I rimd announced
them &# fo llo w s : w
•In b r i e f ,
it
1# th a t at the f i r i n g o f th e f i r s t
f l e e t sh ip s a t M anila w i l l l i f t
pun our
anchor and plow eastward under f u l l
steam , le a v in g the P h ilip p in e # , f o r th e time b e in g , a t the mercy
o f the invad er#11•
Those estim a b le c i t i z e n s who a&voctitod and s t i l l advocate
a p e a c e fu l withdrawal from the P h ilip p in e Isla n d # w ith honor, were,
in the excitem ent o f the moment, c a ll e d tr a ito r # * a n d when theee
m isguided people p oin ted out th a t the P h ilip p in e Is la n d # would be
r a th e r a burden than a b e n e f it to u# in time o f war, t h e i r word#
were r e je c t e d w ith contempt and th e y were h e ld tip to p u b lic scorn
and r i d i c u l e .
I f the above p ress rep o rt la tru**wfe*t a sad ending o f a l l
t h i s P h ilip p in e b u s in e s s ; t h e i r valu e a s a naval base and a# a key
tc the P a c i f i c i s so g r e a t that a t the f i r s t gun we are to " s c u t t l e *
and le a v e t h e ir people to t h e ir f a t e r e g a r d le s s o f t h i s grea t
m oral duty o f which *f« heard so much in the p a s t .
If,
with l a such a sh o rt apace o f tim e what was once tensed,
tre a so n ha# now been merged in l o f t y p a t r io tis m ,
s u r e ly th ere i s
hope even f o r th o se who q u estion th e wisdom as v e i l as the l e g a l i t y
M ^ N
o f p resen t and proponed n a tio n a l c e n t r a li s a t i o n , -a t In ant we can
a l l a f fo r d to d iso u sa the m atter calm ly and With an open mind,
of
We should f i r s t ^a i l re»«m b«r th a t we are not now d is c u s s *
in s
the c r e a tio n o f a new n a tio n a l governments
xm
are,
on the non -
t r a r y , c o n sid e rin g the government a» i t vr&w e s t a b lis h e d by our
fa t h e r s and as we hope i t w i l l continu e f o r a l l tim e,
To co n sid e r t h i s q u e stio n p r o p e r ly , ws m ist boar in mind
the
^origin
;>f the
n a tio n a l govorntaent
and
i t s com plete se p a ra tio n
from the governments o f the in d iv id u a l S ta te s *
A fte r th e D ecla ratio n o f Independence the C o lo n ic s became
independent o f Great B r itia n and v e rs,a e w ell,In d ep en d en t o f one
a n o th er,
th ey wore so v ereig n com m unities.
Then came the A r t i c l e s
o f C on fed eration by vrhioh a kind o f n a tio n a l government was c r e a t
ed#
tie
Thin government had no s x e c u tlv o Head,
so v ere ig n power.
I t hud a ls o very l i t -
I t had not even the power o f m a in ta in in g i t *
s e l f by means o f t a x a t io n .
The p eop le re ta in e d f o r them selves
through t h e ir S ta te governments alm ost a l l arm re ig n power.
Jfext cams the C o n s titu tio n a l Convention and th* ad op tion
o f thft C o n s t it u t io n , when, f o r the f i r s t tim e , an independent power
f u l n a tio n a l govw rm ent was er«a t(3 d ,»a government which h^d the
means and the power to m aintain i t s e l f and was independent o f the
S ta te governments as to i i «
n a tio n a l l i f e ,
T his n a tio n a l govern
ment, however, was not supreme ovor the s t a t e s , excep t as to the
power
granted i t under the C o n s t it u tio n ,
Over evory su b je c t g r a n i
te it
ed i t hud th e f u l l e s t a u t h o r it y , whether th a t a u th o r ity was ex
p re sse d in so many words in the C o n s t it u t io n , o r was neceeaatljry
im p lie d as groining out o f some expressed g r a n t.
Withim the l i m i t * o f the po war granted under the n a tio n a l
C o n stitu tio n *
the Federal government i s a b s o lu t e ly supremo.
can execu te i t s c o n s t it u t io n a l laws in <*vary part
o f the land*
So fa r no n a tio n a l powers go, the t e r r i t o r y embraced
S ta te s is *
It
by the United
in e f f e c t , but. a o in g le State absolutely s u b je c t to the
w i l l o f C ongress,
The powers, however, o f th e n a tio n a l government are s t r i c t
l y lim ite d * a l l powers not granted by th e c o n s t i t u t io n remain in
th e S ta te s or in
the
p eople
thereof
an i s
expressly
provided in
th e C o n s t it u tio n ,
I t io a f « a i l i a r p r in c ip le
of
law th at the l e g i s l a t u r e
of
a S ta te government has presumably a l l the power o f so v e r e ig n ty
i t s p eople p o s s e s s except where such poster In o:<proeely H a l t e d
by th e S ta te C o n stitu tio n *
whereas i t i s c le a r th a t the n a tio n a l
government i s one o f enumerated powers s t r i c t l y
lim ite d by
ih<s
g r a n ts contain ed in the C o n s t it u tio n .
It
le g is la tio n
i s always p e r t in e n t , t h e r e f o r e ,
in d is c u s s in g n a tio n a l
to in lu ire whether th e re i s a u th o r ity f o r such l e g i s
lation in the C o n s t it u tio n , and i f the t in e should over come when
it
i s co n sid ered u n p a tr io t ic to in q u ir e in to th e iiueotion o f the
n a tio n a l a u th o r ity on any s u b je c t ,
i t w i l l in d ic a te th a t the people
have become b lin d ed to th e b e n e f it s o f fr e e c o n s t i t u t io n a l govern
ment and have \n e,n i8cicu sly
la p sed in to a c o n d itio n dangerous to
the fu tu re w e lfa r e o f cur government.
toe xtooexto Die in d iv id u a l c i t i a e n
x * oomoe in to co n ta ct
w ith h i s S ta te government much more c i o c o ly and in tim a te ly than
w ith the n a tio n a l government.
He lo o k s to h ie S ta te government
f o r p r o t e c tio n o f h i s p ro p e r ty , f o r enforcement o f a l l r i g h t s o f
co n tra st,
f o r tho ed u cation o f h io c h ild r e n , f o r the re ru l& tio ii o f
th e descent o f p ro p e r ty , f o r the d e ta ilie h m e n t o f laws governing
m arriage, d iv o r c e , and many othwr s u b je c t s o f v i t a l importance to
him as an individual*
excepting for the postal service,
. ot
:
would
' m l| fo r the M s d p art*
the c i t i s e n h a rd ly
r e a l i s t s from p erso n a l experien ce that th e re i s a n a tio n a l govern**
« c n t at a l l .
W hile he knew* that the n a tio n a l government l e v i e s it
ta x e s from him f o r i t *
p a rt,
su p p o rt,
thtJBO ta x e s b e i n g ,f o r the most
i n d i r e c t vhe docs not pay them to the T
1 government, and
some even deny that they arc p aid a t a l l .
The o i t l a s s o f the United S t a t e s owes a lle g ia n c e to no
p erson al so v ere ig n or r u le r * he owes the h ig h e s t a l le g i a n c e , ho*-*
e v e r , to th e government* R a tio n a l and S t a t e , which h i s fa t h e r s
cre a te d fo r h is b e n e f i t .
There i s thus a t w o -fo ld a lle g ia n c e which
is
reco g n ised and a ffir m e d in the U nited S ta te s C o n s titu tio n *
It
is
t h i s r e la t io n of the n a tio n a l government to the S ta te govern
ment which c a l l s f o r t h the d is c u s s io n o f t h i s ev en in g.
At d if f e r e n t tim es o f our N a tion al l i f e ,
pop u lar a t t e n t io n
h&« been co n cen tra ted , even fo r lo n g p e rio d s o f t i n e , upon one o f
th e se dual system s o f Government to the p a r t i a l or the alm ost t o t a l
e c lip s e ,
in the popular i n t e r e s t ,
a t le a n t , o f the o th e r .
At the
fo u n d a tio n o f the Government under the C o n s t it u tio n , the N a tio n a l
id e a , o f n e c e s s it y ,
had been c r e a t e d .
come to the f r o n t ,
fo r
a
N a tio n a l Government
The peop le o f the S overeign S t a t e s surrendered
w ith much re lu c ta n c e a p a rt o f t h e ir sov ereign power.
The g r e a t
b u ild e r s o f the C o n s titu tio n cre a te d a new N ation and under the
in t e r p r e t a t io n o f the grout J u r i s t s , W ilso n , M a r s h a ll, W ebster and
6
o t h e r s , i t * growth has been stead y and su re .
V?hiie at tim e* the n a tio n a l idea* * o - o a l l e d f has "been ob~
•cured,
an a whole i t ha* s t e a d i ly broadened and d evelop ed .
fin a lly
&me
It
in to c o n f l i c t w ith th e extreme f’ t a te a r i g h t s id e a ,
and out o f th a t c o l l i s i o n oam© the U i v i l War from whioh the N ation
a l idea emerged trium phant,
The s o - c a l l e d S ta te s r ig h t s d o c tr in e
no lo n g e r , as once, marks the l i n e o f d iv is io n between th e two grea *
p o lit ic a l p a r tie s .
In f a c t , today i t
servos,
i f the p r e v a ilin g
popular ex p ressio n can be t r u s t e d , but a s a kind o f pound to h old
in r e s t r a in t or to fu r n is h s h e lt e r to a few k n ig h ts erra n t who have
stra y e d from the ranks o f th e h o s ts o f triumphant n a tio n a lis m .
A s t r ik in g example o f t h i s growth o f the n a tio n a l id ea i s
a ffo r d e d by the uae o f the terra rtthe U nited S t a t e * 11•
In the e a r ly
year* o f the H vUon th e se word* war© always fo llo w e d by the p l u r a l ;
MOflxx in modern t i u e s , however, the word* are alm ost in e v it a b ly
fo llo w e d by the e i ^ g u l a r .xsofe.
For exam ple, A r t i c le Kir.* o f the
T reaty o f Pe%ee w ith Oraat B r i t a in ,
Xkatai th a t
concluded in 1 8 1 4 , provided
**Fhe U nited S t a t e * o f America engage
to put an end***
to h o st i li t ; i« a * * * w it h the Indian * w ith whom they may be a t t a r .
On the e th er hand, A r t i c le f i v e o f the T reaty o f Pc^cc be
tween the United S t a t e * and S p ain , concluded in December, 1 6 9 8 ,
p rovia^d V a t .:- *The United S ta te * w ill* * * o e n d back to Spain at
i t * Qv.n c o s t ,
‘.he
Sptznt&h
s o l d i e r * 11•
T lu * rutftblo change in the visage o f the v/ord* serv e s to
i l l u s t r a t e w e ll the change in the s p i r i t o f the p e o p le ,
Wa hear much at the p resen t tita* *■.* t o the need o f in
crea sed F ed eral power, such in crea se to be accompanied n e c e s s a r ily
w ith a correspondin g d ecrease in power • x i 0 t in fft qr supposed to
e x is t,
in th e in d iv id u a l S t a t e s .
Some e a r n e s t , p u b lic s p i r i t e d
c i t i z e n s b e lic v ® th a t F ed eral power under th e C o n s titu tio n has been
exhausted w ith th e enactment o f p rese n t laws and th a t a mors cow*
p r e h e n s ile grant o f power i s needed.
O thers b e li e v e th a t th e power
a lr e a d y p o ssesse d by th e n a tio n a l Government i s ample f o r p resen t
and fu tu r e problem s and th a t fu r th e r e x o r c is e o f t h i s power i s
sim ply a q u estion o f n a tio n a l exp ed ien cy.
O thers seem to wish
S ta te powers to be c u r t a ile d in s p it e o f C o n s t it u tio n a l l i m i t a*
t i o n s , i f any th e re b e .
I t i s not my purpose to n ig h t to d is c u s s th e scope e f the
commerce c la u se o f th e C io n ctitu tio n , nor the laws passed to ca rry
out the purposes o f th a t c la u s e ,
I*et i t
as in te r p r e te d by the co u rts*
s u f f i c e to say th a t wherever th e re e x i s t s in f a c t in t e r s t a t e
commerce, th a t commerce i s s u b je c t to th e c o n s t i t u t io n a l c o n tr o l
o f the F ederal Government.
t i o n o f M onopolies,
m
Furtherm ore, the p r in c ip le o f re g u la
o ft e n advanced as th e j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r
F ed era l c o n tr o l over r a ilr o a d s in i n t e r s t a t e commerce should be
a p p lie d e q u a lly t o a l l m onopolies gran ted by the N a tio n a l Govern
ment*
to
t h i s end, in
my
judgm ent, the time ought soon to come
when m onopolies in the form o f p a te n ts gran ted by th e N a tion al
Government s h a l l co n ta in c o n d itio n s p r e s c r ib in g reason ab le p r ic e s
f o r t h e i r s a le o r u s e .
8or i s i t my purpose to d is c u s s here to n ig h t th e le g a l
p r o p o s it io n whether
» r not Congress has the p rese n t power to de
v e lo p alon g the l i n o s o f in c r e a s in g c e n t r a li s a t i o n , ap p aren tly so
dear to the h e a r ts o f m a y p e o p le .
The theme I wish to d is c u s s i s
th e a d v i s a b i l i t y o f oxtending N a tion al c o n tr o l to s u b je c t * over
which i t has no p resen t
yov/er*
Such c e n t r a li s a t i o n ,
in my o p in io n ,
even i f node la w f u l, as to co n crete in s ta n c e s , vvoulu n o t,
i f ap
p l i e d g e n e r a lly , enure to the w elfare o f the p e o p le , hut would in
e v it a b ly r e s u lt in r a d i c a l,
re v o lu tio n a ry changes in our Govern
ment*
There are many today who demand Government c o n tr o l over
In su ran ce; o th er p lead f o r a N a tio n a l d ivorce law ; o th ers clam or
t o have the N a tio n a l O ovem aent take over the c o n tr o l o f a l l forms
o f co rp ora te a c t i v i t y u lt im a t e ly r e s u lt in g in i n t e r s t a t e coursercef
•veil to the p o in t o f c o n t r o llin g p rod u ction w ith in the S t a t e s , thus
in t e r f e r i n g w ith the moot im portant dom estic r e la t io n s between
tho S ta te s and the in d iv id u a l citi& e n tu
In s h o r t , to many estim a b le c i t i z e n s th e re seems to be
vox
e t e r n a l, h o p e le ss c o n f l i c t between tho N a tio n a l and the S ta te Go
vernments which
cm
be abated
only
by reducing th e S ta te s to a
c o n d itio n o f su b o rd in atio n s c a r c e ly c o n s is te n t w ith
r ig h ts *
my
so v e re ig n
I s such r a d ic a l c e n t r o lia a t io n n ecessa ry f o r th e w e lfa re
o f the p c o p le f
I s i t n ecessary to our s a lv a tio n th a t power should
be given to or e x e r c is e d by the F ed eral Government to la y down
uniform r a le s as to N a tio n a l condu ct, c o n t r o llin g even the m inutest
d e t a i l s o f the l i f e
o f the in d iv id u a l c l t i s e n ?
At the o u t s e t , we must
recognize
that. laws which might be
h ig h ly a d v isa b le f o r o l d , s e t t l e d com m unities, might prove alm ost
d is a s tr o u s to young, growing nt&tea*
it
Kven in th e in d iv id u a l S ta te s
la d i f f i c u l t enough to f i x any standard which may not be ar
s e v e r e ly upon one s e c tio n a t the expense o f the o t h e r .
On alm ost
«»Qh
a l l quotation® a f f e c t i n g the p eople as a whole th ere ia the w idest
d i v e r s i t y o f op inion and o f in d iv id u a l need among th e s e v e r a l
S tates.
Tot the f a c t must ho recogn ised th a t a p p a re n tly many would
welcome alm ost an o b li t e r a t i o n o f S t .to iin e s ^ c r e a t in g one S ta te
in s te a d o f f o r t y - f i v e #
Such a change might indeed he co n v en ien t!
alon g the li n e s o f u n ifo r m ity ! hut i t would a b s o lu t e ly overthrow
the e x i s t i n g form o f Oovermwnt*
Lot ua b r i e f l y c o n sid er where the mpp H e a t ion o f t h i »
sp e c io u s ru le o f u n ifo rm ity would c a rry ua*
We should have to tak e away from the S ta te s th e r ig h t to
f i x th e q u a li f i c a t i o n s o f th o se who v o te fo r N a tio n a l R epresenta
t i v e s and f o r P r e s id e n t ia l e le c t o r s *
The C o n s titu tio n g iv e s to
the p eop le in the S t a t e s tho r ig h t to p r e s c r ib e theno q u a l i f i c a
t io n s and they have e x e r c is e d i t
s u ffr a g e d i f f e r s r a d ic a lly *
in such manner th at th e b a s is o f
In some S ta te s a lie n s who have de
c la r e d t h e i r in te n tio n to become c i t i z e n s can v o te f o r N a tio n a l
R e p re se n ta tiv e s and f o r P r e s id e n t ia l e l e c t o r s ;
th e y are excluded from the s u ffr a g e *
in most o f the S t a t e s
In some S t a t e s women can and
do vo td in e l e c t i o n s f o r Congress and f o r P r e s id e n t ia l e l e c t o r s ;
in most S ta te s t h i s o b lig a t io n has not y e t been imposed upon them*
We should a ls o have to enact N a tio n a l laws co v erin g a l l
r e la t i o n s o f co n tra ct between c i t i z e n s o f d i f f e r e n t S ta te n , w iping
out a l l c o n f l i c t s o f law which now g iv e the c o u r ts so much d i f f i
c u lty #
'?« should have to p rovid e f o r the s e r v ic e o f le g a l p ro
c e s s o f any cou rt throughout the U nited S t a t e s .
-I0<
We should have to frame a National cod© o f criminal law
to supercede the law© of the individual State.
We should have 3sJtK to take under national control all pro**
duction, whether corporate or private, in any way contemplating in
terstate commerce, and to do this effectively, every 3*ind of pro
duction would have to he taken over regulated and supervised by
the federal Government,
Wet should have to regulate the private lives of the people
of the United States by enacting national marriage and divorce lawa
We should have to enact a Tf&ti rml law regulating the de
scent of property, as to which there is a great lack of uniformity
among the several States.
finally, we should have to enact laws reserving to the
National Government the right of imposing all taxation, direct and
indirect, in order to do away with the painful lack of uniformity
now existing, giving hack to tho States such portions o f the taxes
collected as in the wisdom of our National legislators is deemed
necessary for their purely local needs and purposes*
If this uniformity should b© secured by Constitutional
changes we would secure \hat, apparently, many would like,-a
single Government, in effect, over the whole extent of the United
States.
Would such <i Government be for the best interests of our
people?
I believe not.
On the contrary, to quote the words of
that eminent expounder of the Constitution, James Wilson, Whose
words have lately been quoted by the highest authority,**
XX
"To support with vigor a single Government over the whole
extent of the United State*, would demand & eyetew of the moot
unqualified and the most unrenitted despotism*1.
Ivery citizen should consider carefully whether Modern
tcndwnojres are not along thin path declared to he so dangerous to
the future of our (Joverment by this great expounder of the Con
stitution#
I f , however, such an extraordinary in c r e a s e of power should
he granted bv the people to the federal Gavernnent by Constitution
al change#* where could such power safely he reposed?
While Con
gress could enact the necessary laws, thews laws mist he left to
the Executive Departments for administration and execution*
Can
it be that these Departments are so idle at the prenent moment that
such extraordinary,new duties could properly he imposed upon them?
Juwt the contrary is the truth.
The War Department, engrossed with the management of the
A m y , with Hlver and Harbor improvements and with other public
works, is fairly staggering under the additional burdens of the
Philippines, the Canal Zone and Cuba,-not to mention Santo Domingo*
The Interior Department huo all it can do to manage the
public matters now assigned to it, among which are Pensions, Indian
Affairs, Patents, Alaska and the other Territories, not to mention
the public land system, with the vast fraud and corruption recent
ly unearthed.
The Department of Commerce Sc Labor Is well occupied with
the Census, Bureau of Navigation, Lighthouse, Coast Survey, fish
eries, Immigration, Chinese exclusion, the Bureau of Labor, th® In
vestigation of corporations and other important branches.
-1 2
The Treasury Department , almost broken down with work, ha*
only roocmtly had to he relieved by giving many of it* duties to
the new Department of Commerce & Labor*
The Stat* Department seen© fairly well occupied in raon&f;inr the foreign affair* of the country.
It may be replied that new Depart?‘'ents could be created*
A little reflection, however, must surely satisfy one that &ucii
new Department*, necessitating the employment of perhaps thousand*
of Ifation&l Officer* and inspector*, would not be, in the long
run, for the best interests of our people*
It should not be forgotten that there may be almost as
much danger to the Republic from national centralisation carried
to the extr a s limit* a* from the oxtreme expression of the State*
Right* doctrine which so nearly overthrew the Republic,
Tfh&X guarantee, moreover, is there that such a vast in
crease in federal Rower would result in more efficacious control
than is today afforded or could be afforded by the individual
To ny mind, in the long run, National cont rol is bound
States?
to be lean effective than State control*
Influence* are more
easily evoked to delay a c t i o n at the Capital of the Nation, per
haps thousands of miles from the locality affected, than in the
homo State.
be, to my
The gain from the point of view of u n if o r m ity would
iind, more than overcone
by the loss o f local re
sponsibility and State control, always more speedy and effective
when called into action in reoponao to public sentiment,
I have abaoute faith in the ability and patriotism of the
m
people of the United States, whether they are conoicU.'red xx xkfciottaxx
&» eltlssns of the United States or of the respective States in
which they lire.
I cannot see what is to be gained in the long
run by transferring power and responsibility from the people of
Massachusetts to the Congress in Washington*
lature of m a s s e
I believe the Legis
hotter be depended upon to u a d t needed
legislation than to transfer this rasps risibility to Washington
vh«re v s can be represented by, at the most, t> few Kepreesntatlveg
and by only two Senators, and where the local needs of our ft-ate
may be sacrificed to political expediency or to that spirit of com
promise which enters so largely into ail legislation of Congress.
Bor should we forgot that if by changes in the Constitu
tion or by new constructtone of the Constitution the National go
vernment is given power to legislate concerning matters new within
the jurisdiction of the individual rotates, all such Katie ui laws
will be supremo and all State legislation will become void.
Can it be imagined for a moment that tht Congress of the
United States could be expected to enact life 1 r.surancs laws which
for efficiency and high standard could compare with the laws of
our own State?
On the contrary, would it not be likely to happen
that out of some spirit of compromise a law much lose stringent
than that of our own fftats would be adopted as the law of the land.
The same reasoning could be applied to many other proposed laws.
If we analyse these suggestions for increased National
power, I think they will be found to rest upon a distrust of the
people of the United states and upon the doubt of their ability to
maintain the government,
ror if a people are not fit. to govern
themselves in a State, it would certainly seen to follow that they
14
are not fit to govern themselves &o a National government.
Moreover, whenever responsibility is taken front the people
at home and transfer red to the National Capital another danger will
arise, r;.tnely*- the people will lose all snnso of responsibility
wnd
ill lie passive trust in® to trie government at Washington to do
for t.-ien what they ou^it to do for thorn*«*Xv«».
At uhe present time public critic xaia xe not confined to the
failure of the people to act through the State government*.
The
action and inaction of Congress is subjected to .'slnost &s fierce
criticism.
It ;ould teea almost curtain that when we take power
from the people in the states and transfer it to Washington, it
will really b# transferred net ao auch to Congress &a to the Kxecut ive T)* part went* under the President,
should thoughtfully
consider whether it i* prudent or wise to increase In this extra
ordinary manner the power of the Chief Executive of the nation.
In this disc use ion I trust it *?ill he understood that I
leaking no personal reference whatever*
When we discuss the povert
present, or prospective, of the President of the United iltatcs, w©
are referring to tho office as it h&a existed since the found at ion
of the '{0y u rament and uu v/e trust it will exist for ail time,
-c-
gardleos of the citizen honored at any particular lists by election
to this great office.
The statement 1& often made that the President of the
United States is ths representative, the only representative of
ih ^ whole American people ana that accordingly it is fitting to
place in his hands the almost illimitable powers which increased
centralisvtIon would entail*
The claim that President Jackson was
“ IS
the repreaentativ* of the whole American people wan thus answered
by Daniel Webster in a speech delivered in Hew York CityJ***
«Xn addition to the e»t*hliohwent of this power of u*limit
ed a»d oaUfielceo removal, appA.nur doc •rxtnvJ m n h
* l&QXV
Yafuo it is truet
,uH*Qkir; j.*;jr^i-toJL>
»•«.,£.,*t f.■■■*& —■
like h^.'iro»in rc-gtB,
-}»„**9vW..J .otu*ff.jjaa& ^ i U V c ,.
th e ^ r i i 1
h ity
VsertQ'Afl W tC P le * »' u
c a U e r f> *•• r? * jrA xsrr*r, a >u -ye . r l ...l l l £ y'hftl s ----------<'■■*■! .Vu..a ■ h xde;v?If »» t!tf tiftttfrtittlY ,A n .U,M.USit.'h jalfi»
dctr;niv:,tod h- h .i?"reside <•-. ■■auuHfUC.AALill&j Acts for 'nioh no
apse.if lc authority haa be era found either i» the Constitution or
iaufi, have been 4**et ifled on the ground that the iYnai^at is the
repre seutskt ivc o.C the ehulc .vsioricfiii p<sopl.t#• Certui" ly Au*o is
net constitutional ianga ■■■>go•
^,jy ,.^au ,.l u nr t,i.u11 l.
ii*S—n Qi.>;v.ro*.
— ..
c u lls h .■
': Preai&S.iAt t-;e .
The oo a,tAt * i Q - - > a i I-JaL l;..'■■•W
t — ih... rn.
oi h
,^.o,
- t G r e r s . - ^ ^ f i - l lgfcfc*g
dent is an e?:acin:ivo officer,
CUrtlfiiU r »n,riHiT .Aa»
clothed wxdi areaftri^ed U m i sm, .HasatEfri
'
great co.-senueocQ* that ..h* Pyp^y^pt nhouxd^cai.L^hiiLM if ^.-.ftr.
tH -
o ■ ..-ig.-r;i
bin* .- S I M m l ft m m » * O f c « « ■ ■ > ? ■ » *
„
aliv.yj.?h ho h-'q no quc,h aw el.latioit .og-Cffi--r-H’•.9f ita.'iiif' nn»--'t.i u m >*
* v t.
i n " th ffa c M a f U r f l . , • iT f r a ’ T i . l ifcU g f t* .
It
h 0 1 * th<; T e o j 'l e 0
reureesentatlve, cad ae such m y exercise pov.or, it)*out any a Anar
ground, -i at le the limit to that power? tart what way net an u r «
limited representative of the people do? hhon the Constitution exprtssiy created representatives-, ua sinber& of Centre*,®a, it re**
gulatee, defines and limits their authority* But if the Executive
Chief Mugiotr a t e , merely because he i s the Executive Chief^Magi#t rate | nay assume* to himedl* another character, tutd call hi wo elf
the reprcs»o:-*?-ative of the whole people, what is to U n i t or ra~
strain this representative power in his hand®?1*
X cannot believe that there e x i s t s any present necessity
for further centr&lixation of power*
exists,
I f , however, ouch necessity
i t should be met by Constitutional methods and the Con
s t i t u t i o n should be changed in the manner provided in that instru
ment »
Bo far I have considered centralisatloa resulting from Con
stitutional change* to be effected in a legal mtu\nor*
There is,
however, another tendency towards cent roll station man *foisted in at
tempted or proponed extension* of existing national pov*ers, es
pecially the power to regulate interetate commerce.
X have little sympathy for the opinion expressed that Con**
gross has power to prohibit nil l»t»;ratate commerce; that, out of
this prohibition any law m y bo justified which m y seem expedient
to the rulers at Washington.
When power wr..« given in the Count it ut ion to the* yet Ar eal
£ cy ?rm**ent to regulate interstate rind foreign commerce, that power
at. \he tine w&a in fact U n i t e d * o regulation of commerce in ves
sels, A'agon roade, canals and ferries.
‘?hile with the growth of
the country the commerce clause h&a necessarily expanded ir. 'n~
tcr^retatio#, until today the entire subject is within the supreme
po>/er of Congress, yet I c&nno* believe that Congress can do more
than regulate that commerce.
If Congress has the power,
e he.S
b&en intimated by one mother of tha Oupreiae Court, absolutely to
prohibit int*?rat£te commerce, it could i n effect surround * ch
r,t *te with a Chinese wall, preventing even inierocurse of persons
as well s*c traffic between the States*
I do not believe that it
will «v*r be held that any such power is vented in the ^atiouel
government.
I consequently can h&ve no sympathy with Nationel
3^gislntioat which, under the threat to suspend ceratere 1*1 rela
tions between the Status, Justifies the action o f Federal officers
in exercising control over aoaimree and even over mmafoeture end
reduction which hae not yet, in fact, bocoiie interstate commerce.
The meet that Congress should do, is ny Judgment, should be, ev«n
if it has such absolute power as is? contended for, to place the
responsibility for action upon the States under penrlty of ex
clusion from interstate comr-jerce, and not invade the domain of 8tat*
jurisdiction.
17
Thile ve all abhor filth in »uch business enterprise*,
t.« earning, neat packing, «tc,, arid while vio admit the propriety
of the end in view,-purification and ol*iMftliiiou*,**yet X haliev*
that the people of Wawoaohuaette and of
he other sovereign States
of this Union when aroused to the necessity ‘"or such action, are
competent and able to ataiqp out such filth and to purify their
food s u p p lie r .
If I did not b a lie v e t h i s , X should d, ubt the
a b i l i t y o f th e people o f the? United B ta ta s to r a ln ia iit our go v ern n e a t , S ta te or n a tio n a l*
S im ila r ly , each S t a t e ,
I b e l i e v e , when
aroused to a c tio n i s competent to imke l&vrs p u trin g the c i t i z e n s
o f a l l oth er .ft a t on on a p a r ity v it h i t is own ;ws la p o lic e
re g u la
tion ® f o r the y u h lie h e a lth and o th e r b u sin e ss m attere cone :ruing
which the --t .te iCgial '-.tee a;» to ita o n cltisomt*
To cut* up, when our National government faces a foreign
>tov unspent it has all *h© attributes of ooviireirnty usually pur
trifling to a eovorcigw rro?"T:vuent*
'r
ovaver, it f;<ces a "tats
it* power* are strictly enumerated and defined by the Constitu
t i o n and it. cnimct l e g a l l y exceed those powers.
_
...
We should not, forgot, however, Imt each State should carry
out faithfully it* duties *uid responsibilities under pur dual fora
o f g o v u ra re s t,
It m y be well for n time to coanc talking o f ntatr-s1
right* and to’talk of Statue* duties; to a<ms* diac inning individual
righto i*nd to take up the subject of individual obligation &» let
ffuch 5 tats enaot Ouesiti^u^iouai laws for the greatest good cri the
greatest number of ir o people; if nbooe laws are found to conflict
with the laws of other fttutos, it will be, f o r the most part, borom
OCii
cause different condition* prevail which no uniformity
without could effectually control*
"hat then is tho duty of the citizen in the present state
o f affair*?
He should stren g th en in every a y the Gcv* rm ;ent o f his
8 t a t * to r e s to r e to iz the balance of p *wor whloh uadi?r the con
s t i t u t i o n belongs to i t .
He should respect and render obodienoe to the laws of the
land*
He should have sympathy for public officer* and respect
for authority*
•*18'
He {should attend the primaries with the sane Inter eat with
which he attends to his private business.
He should see that hir? vote is recorded at elections us
an almost oaered duty.
Ke should faithfully diecharge the obligation imposed upon
him of jury service,
He should never forget that the tso-*oalled right of suffrage
la not a political right at all; it is a duty imposed for the pub*
lie good rather th^n for M s private benefit.
Tot %
m see m n v men at the present time who deliberately
excel to 3ceep aloof from all participation In civic affaire; many
there are who n^ver attend a primary
rtd with whom failure to vote
at Mentions is the rule rather v-un the exception*
no citizen has a right tt refuse to p o r f o r u his civic
duties.
Such refusal should he visited with indignation and con*
tempt; he should be lashed, to the Polls wit) the indignant voice
of public opinion.
If t* State should refuse to participate in Constitutional
Government It would amount to secession;
ho duty imposed upon the
State is of no greater obligation than "hat imposed upon the in
dividual citizen.
The citizen also* at this time of increasing national
centralisation, should insist that all Bopreoentatives of the
people should be elected directly by the people% and to this end
we should insist that United States Senators b« elected directly
by popular vote, the necessary constitutional changes being made
for this purpose.
This method of election *ma advocated by JT .ittea
Wilson and thoughtful people will ho forced to the conviction that
such
change at the present time would he beneficial.
There are army sign® today t at there haw been an awakeiilnr
popular Interest in civic duties wue never keener*
The oitlaen
realise® mom and nore keenly the n^ceeeity for personal partici
pation in civic matter® and out of this aroused public oentiraont
will on roly fellow inc -eased civic prosperity hath to the individ
ual States and to our great national Republic.
@FedFRASER