THE COMING STRUGGLE IN THE UNITED STATES.
TT seems to us, as impartial and sympathetic observers, 1 that a very serious crisis may be ahead of the United States. Another stage has been reached in the slow but inevitable progress towards national unification, and the present question may quite conceivably prove the most important that has been raised since the Civil War. It was foreshadowed in 1891, after the lynching of certain Italians in New Orleans, when the Federal Government were unable to guarantee to Italy that the Government of Louisiana would take steps to prevent the recurrence of such outrages, It is the old conflict between the central and the local authorities, between the nation and the States, and it reaches an acute form when for some reason or other State action affects foreign relations, for which the Federal Government alone is responsible. In 1891 the question was put by, but. it is raised now under conditions which make some. sort of settlement inevitable. For the foreign Power concerned is Japan, the United States's near and most formidable neighbour, and at the head of the nation stands a President who is not accustomed to shirk difficulties or tolerate anachronisms. The agitation. against the Japanese in San Francisco seems to have been begun by the Labour Unions, who control the municipal elections. Jealousy of all immigrant labour, white or coloured, which is preventing the rebuilding of that beautiful city, suggested to the Union leaders that it might be worth while to start a race agitation. The enterprise prospered, and presently the State Board of Education followed suit by prohibiting the attendance of Oriental children, including Japanese, at white schools. There was nothing against the Japanese children, who, the President declares, are remarkable for their brightness and cleanliness, and the motive of the exclusion was political, not educational. Since the action of California was a. breach of Japan's Treaty rights, Japan protested, and the President in his Message to Congress announced in unmistakable terms that such a policy could not be tolerated on the part of any State. Meantime Mr. Metcalf, the Secretary of Commerce, was appointed to report on the matter, and in his Report, presented to Congress on Tuesday, he more than justifies the President's opinion. If a State refuses to do its duty in protecting the property and privileges of residents enjoying Treaty rights, then it is the business of the Federal Government to use all its forces, civil and military, for the purpose. Now, as we understand the law of the United States, a Treaty duly ratified by the Senate becomes part of the law of the land, and is binding on all States. California, then, would' seem to be acting ultra vires in the present case. But Senator Rayner, of Maryland, a distinguished Constitutional lawyer, has an ingenious answer. A foreign Government, he says, in dealing with the United States, must be assumed to understand the American Constitution, and therefore it is right to read into any Treaty the proviso that the Federal Government cannot surrender any privilege which clearly belongs to the States. Now education is a matter which is within State jurisdic- tion, and therefore an exclusion of educational questions is implied in all treaties. We do not attempt to pronounce on the law of the matter, to settle which a test action is being brought. But the difficulty will not be solved if the Presi- dent is victorious in the Courts. The means by which a refractory and possibly law-breaking State is to be coerced, into obedience is the real root of the trouble, and we do not wonder that the President has appealed to San Francisco to settle matters on the basis of comity rather than of legal rights.
The incident is the beginning of the struggle of a nation, entering into self-conscious life, to free itself from the fetters of particularism which a Constitution more than a century old has riveted upon it. Splendid instru- ment of government as is the United States Con- stitution from many points of view, it has certain very serious demerits. It was framed to provide safeguards against dangers which have long since disappeared, and to encourage certain forces which to-day are more in need. of control. The States are given a wide autonomy : the nation is checked on every band by tabu viree provisions. This was well enough so long as the States were little couutries by themselves, cut off by wide economic and social gulfs from each other. But now that there are common problems and common perils throughout the whole Union, to arm localities with obstructive powers is to play into the hands of reaction and dishonesty, and to make any continuous national policy impossible. Unlike the custom in most federations, all powers not specifically delegated to the central Government are assumed to remain with the States, which are thus treated as the more important unit. Hence when a new question arises for which no delegated powers have been provided, the central Government is helpless, however desirable it may be that the matter be treated as national rather than local. A good instance was the Indome-tax, which the Supreme Court in 1895 pronounced illegal. On the merits there was everything' to be said for a national Income-tax, but the Constitution was adamant. The same difficulty will arise if any attempt is made to tax overgrown fortunes, or to subject the Trusts to, a rigorous supervision. Legislation on labour and com- mercial questions, on criminal and divorce law, and on a dozen other matters which are of national interest is impossible for the national Government. The pettiest of Western States might pass laws which would be a disgrace to civilisation, but which the national Government and the other State Legislatures would be bound to recognise.. The first clause, therefore, in any reforming policy must be Con- stitutional reform on the lines of recognising the superior importance of the Federal Government, and giving it wider terms of reference and a more stringent control. Of what value is an Executive, in dealing with foreign nations, when its decisions may be set at naught by some minor State acting strictly within its legal rights ?
More power for the nation,—this is President Roose- velt's appeal. No sane observer can deny its urgency and its reason ; but whether it is likely to be successful is a more doubtful matter. The Senate have already shown themselves suspicious of what they term " Executive usurpation." People in America have scarcely as yet grasped the whole meaning of nationality. The spirit wakes in them with magnificent fire and energy at a crisis, but they go back to their daily work and forget about it. The Democratic Party, who have long con- stituted themselves the guardians of State rights, will seize upon this excellent fighting issue. In the words of Senator Rayner, they " will oppose every move- ment in favour of centralisation which will result in the surrender of any rights of the States not delegated to the Federal Government by the Constitution." And probably not a few Republicans will take the conservative view and oppose any tampering with what they regard as the sacro- sanct charter of their country. But Mr. Roosevelt is :very much in earnest, and the impasse is very serious. Is there any way out ? The difficulty of carrying a specific reform of the Constitution is so immense as to place the attempt outside practical politics. An amendment must first be carried through Congress ; next it must be ratified in three-fourths of the States by a uniform machinery, which may be either the Legislatures or ad hoc Conventions. With such an intricate pilgrimage before them, it is small wonder that amendments to the Constitution have only been carried twice,—once in 1804, and once in very special circum- stances after the Civil War. We cannot believe that President Roosevelt, for all his power, could succeed in passing any centralising amendment. But would it not be possible to pass one amendment,—to make amendments more easy ? After all, the cumbrousness of the machine affects Democrat and Republican alike, and while there may be something to be said against the policy of centralisation, there is no argument against giving the American people power to make their Constitution adequate to their political development. It is significant that the Eastern States in general support the President in this crisis. We sincerely hope that the political instinct of the great Republic will prevent a new cleavage between nationalism and parochialism, where the territorial division will be, not North and South, but East and West.
Previous page
