2. Butler B. Hare (1925). 3. Fred H. Dominick (1917). (1923). 8. R. Walton Moore (1919). 9. George C. Peery (1923). 10. Henry St. George Tucker (1922). 1. B. Carroll Reece (1921). TEXAS WASHINGTON WEST VIRGINIA 1. Carl G. Bachmann (1925). 2. Frank L. Bowman (1925). 3. John M. Wolverton (1925). 4. Harry C. Woodyard (1925). 6. Luther A. Johnson (1923). 5. James French Strother 7. Clay Stone Briggs (1919). (1925). 8. Daniel E. Garrett (1921). 6. J. Alfred Taylor (1923). 9. Joseph J. Mansfield (1917). 11. Tom Connally (1917). VERMONT 4. John J. McSwain (1921).1. Elbert S. Brigham (1925). 5. William F. Stevenson (1917). 6. Allard H. Gasque (1923). 7. Hampton P. Fulmer (1921). SOUTH DAKOTA 1. Charles A. (1919). 2. Royal C. Johnson (1915). 3. William Williamson (1921). 2. Ernest W. Gibson (1923). VIRGINIA 1. Schuyler Otis Bland 2. Joseph T. Deal (1921). 4. Patrick H. Drewry (1920) WISCONSIN 1. Henry Allen Cooper 6. Florian Lampert (1918). 9. George J. Schneider 10. James A. Frear (1913). WYOMING At large-Charles E. Winter (1923). ALASKA Dan A. Sutherland (1921). HAWAII William P. Jarrett (1923). PHILIPPINES PORTO RICO DIVISION V STATE AND COUNTY GOVERNMENT NATIONAL AND INTERSTATE RELATIONS PROFESSOR AT THE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS The year 1925 was one of unusual states was especially manifest at the activity in state governments. This seventeenth annual Conference of was due in part to the fact that the State Governors which met at Poland great majority of the state legisla- Springs, Maine, at the end of June. tures meet in the odd-numbered years. The policy of national aid to the Fundamentally, however, it was due states on the fifty-fifty basis was deto the renewed attention to, and in-nounced in so far as it enabled the terest in, state and local governmen- National Government to exercise intal affairs following the removal of direct control over matters which the strain due to war and the dis- constitutionally belong within the turbed state of our foreign rela- sphere of state power. This policy tions. Child Labor Amendment Controversy. After two unsuccessful attempts to reach the child labor evil through legislation, Congress, in June, 1924, submitted to the states a proposed amendment to the Constitution of the United States, giving Congress power to "limit, regulate and prohibit the labor of persons under eighteen years of age. In an advisory referendum held in Massachusetts the following November the proposal was overwhelmingly defeated. At the legislative sessions held in 1925, a sufficient number of states rejected the proposed amendment seemingly to assure its defeat. It is of course true, however, that a change in public opinion might still save the proposal from final defeat, since a state which has rejected the amendment may later reverse its action. Protest of Governors.-The opposition to the child labor amendment is ostensibly based largely on the ground that it constitutes an unwelcome encroachment upon the traditional sphere of state rights. Opposition to the further extension of national power at the expense of the has developed to such an extent that, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1926, Congress appropriated approximately $130,000,000 for aid to the states in reference to such matters as highways, education and the National Guard. The governors at Poland Springs were aroused especially on account of certain utterances which President Coolidge had recently made on the subject of National and state relations. In his Memorial Day address at Arlington he asserted that if the states fail to discharge obvious duties, the National Government would have to step in. A few weeks later he publicly condemned the laws under which the National Government distributes contributions to the states and urged the people to "realize the necessity of State assumption of State responsibility." Basis of Objection.-While President Coolidge's opposition to so-called National aid to the states was probably due largely to the fact that it interferes with his plans for cutting down National expenditures, the opposition of the Governors to the prac tice was due to the feeling that it constitutes a subtle encroachment on Inheritance Taxes.-In addition to state prerogatives. It was pointed the policy of National aid, another out that National contributions to way in which it is felt that the Nathe states on the fifty-fifty basis did tional Government is encroaching on not really constitute National aid to the proper sphere of the states is the states since the National Contri- through the levying of National inbution was paid for by the citizens heritance taxes. The National Govof the various states in the form of ernment has resorted to this form of National taxes. The opposition of taxation only in war emergencies and Iowa to the system went so far that has usually abandoned it promptly she announced her intention to refuse after the emergency passed. Since to receive further National aid in all rights of succession to property her road-building program. are gained under state laws, it is felt Most states, however, feel that, as that in time of peace the states should long as National funds are being dis- have exclusive control of estate taxes tributed, they might as well come in as a source of revenue. A concerted for their share. Some states even attempt to bring pressure to bear on go so far as to apply to the National Congress to this end was made in Government for more aid than it is October when the representatives of willing to grant. Thus, Illinois made seventeen states, including six govan appeal for further National aid ernors, appeared before the Ways and in her war on cattle tuberculosis, but Means Committee and urged that the without apparent success. Even at National Government should retire the Governors' Conference, some gov- from the inheritance tax field. Their ernors were willing to make excep- position was supported by Secretary tion to their opposition to the general of the Treasury Mellon, who, in a policy of National aid in respect to statement to the Committee, said: certain specific phases; for example, "There is no logical basis for the National appropriations for agricul- Federal Government collecting this ture and good roads. The opposition tax. . . The states need every source to National aid seems to come prin- of revenue available. In the majority cipally from the wealthier Eastern of states, the Federal tax directly states which feel that their contribu- decreases the property which the state tion in National taxes is greater than can tax." the benefit they receive from such aid, The National inheritance tax was while the system works out for the also opposed by the National Comfinancial profit of the less thickly mittee on Inheritance Taxation which populated states of the West and recommended that it should be abolSouth. Governor Ritchie of Mary-ished at the end of six years. Meanland has probably been the most outspoken opponent of National aid. He delivered during the year a number of public addresses on the subject in various parts of the country. while, it recommended that the 25 per cent. credit provision of the present law should be extended so as to allow a credit of all inheritance taxes paid to the several states up to 80 At the Convention of State Con- per cent. of the National tax. It trollers and Auditors held at Miami, was recognized, however, that inFla., in November, Controller Mur-heritance taxes should be substanphy, of New York, urged that a na- tially uniform throughout the United tional State Rights Conference be called to adopt protective measures against further inroads of the National Government on the powers of the states. He deprecated the widespread policy of "letting Washington do it," and pointed out that New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, California, Massachusetts, and a few other of the large states foot most of the bills. States; and as long as this is not the case and some states, such as Florida, even prohibit inheritance taxes in their constitutions, it would hardly be equitable to abandon the National inheritance tax altogether. Regulation of Interstate Commerce.-Another way in which the National Government is gradually extending its control over the sphere heretofore belonging to the states is through its power to regulate inter-regulating interstate motor traffic. state commerce. This power has been The convention declined to go on recheld to be sufficient to enable Con- ord as opposed to the enactment of gress to authorize the Interstate such legislation, although some deleCommerce Commission to set aside gates were of opinion that such legisorders of state commissions which, lation would result in the state comwhile nominally regulating intrastate missions being deprived of any efcommerce only, really discriminate fectual power to regulate intrastate against or place an undue burden motor traffic. upon, interstate commerce. As illusSuperpower Possibilities.-The retrating the extent of National power, cent extension of superpower systems a conflict arose in October between across state boundaries has led to the Interstate Commerce Commission some expression of the need of the and the Illinois Commerce Commis- extension of National control over sion, regarding suburban fares on the public utilities. In October, however, Chicago and Northwestern Railroad. Secretary of Commerce Hoover in an In 1920 the Interstate Commission address before the Thirty-seventh anhad ordered a 20 per cent. increase nual convention of the National Asin Chicago suburban fares on the sociation of Railroad and Utilities Northwestern to points outside of Commissioners at Washington uttered Illinois. In October, 1925, the same a note of warning against such excommission granted the same increase tension, claiming that the need for to points within the state, on the it had been greatly exaggerated. "If," ground that not to do so would be he said, "we are to stretch the interto discriminate against commuters state commerce provision in the Conliving outside of Illinois. The Illi- stitution to regulate all those things nois Commerce Commission thereupon that pass state lines, we shall autoissued an order suspending the in-matically absorb to Federal authority crease on intrastate fares granted by most of the Government that lies the Interstate Commission. The Rail- within state lines, because our ecoroad then applied to the Federal nomic life has become so enmeshed courts to restrain the Illinois Com- that there is no longer that easy conmission from interfering. This ap- ception of our forefathers of what plication was granted and an injunc- constituted interstate commerce. If tion was issued by the Federal court we do not resist this extension, what prohibiting the Illinois Commission becomes of that fundamental freedom from interfering in the collection of and independence that can arise only the increased rates charged passen- from self-government?” gers to points within the state. The injunction was denounced by Attorney-General Carlstrom of Illinois as a far-reaching and arbitrary intervention in state matters, but is nevertheless based on decisions made by the Supreme Court of the United States. The extension of National control over new forms of interstate commerce came up for discussion in October at the thirty-seventh annual convention of the National Association of Railroad and Utilities Commissioners held at Washington, D. C. Recent decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States holding that the states have no authority over interstate bus and truck lines were thought to foreshadow the ultimate passage by Congress of legislation Chicago Lake Water Question.Several of the states bordering on the Great Lakes united with the National Government in opposing the practice of the Chicago Sanitary District in taking 10,000 cubic feet of water per second from Lake Michigan for purposes of drainage and sanitation. The undue lowering of the waters of the Lakes also had the possibility of bringing on international complications. In January the Supreme Court of the United States held that the state of Illinois could not, by withdrawal of water from the Great Lakes, affect their level without the consent of Congress, and issued a decree limiting the amount to be taken to 4,167 cubic feet per second. It further held that the United States, in the exercise of its power to control navigable waters, regulate interstate | operation in accomplishing common commerce and maintain its treaty purposes. obligations, might enjoin the with- Another illustration of the same drawal of water from Lake Michigan sort is found in the controversy bein excess of the amount allowed by the Secretary of War. (Sanitary District of Chicago v. United States, 45 Sup. Ct. Rep., 176.) tween New Jersey and Pennsylvania as to whether the new interstate bridge over the Delaware at Camden should be free or toll. The people Interstate Relations.-Various con- of New Jersey authorized the bridge ferences of state officials for the con- bonds at an election in which the sideration of problems of common in- ballots provided that the net revenues terest have been held during the year. of the bridge should be devoted to These include the annual conferences payment of the bonds. On the other of governors, of state controllers and hand, Pennsylvania insisted that it auditors, and of railroad and public should be a free bridge, and, in Noutilities commissioners. In October, vember, she secured permission from a Midwest governors' conference was the Supreme Court of the United held at Sioux Falls, South Dakota, at States to bring suit against New Jerwhich the governors organized and sey to enforce the interstate agreeadopted resolutions expressing their ment for the construction of the attitude on such questions as agricul-bridge. tural relief, waterways, and reduction More successful, however, were the of state expenditures. In November, efforts of these states, together with a conference of representative men New York, to come to an agreement from the six New England States regarding the joint use of the Delawas held at Worcester, Massachusetts, ware River for water supply and at which the New England Council power. Early in the year a boundary was formed for the purpose of promoting the economic and commercial interests of that section of the country. dispute between Colorado and New Mexico was decided in favor of the former by the Supreme Court of the United States. ar On January 12, 1925, Governor The difficulty sometimes encounHunt of Arizona, in his message to tered in extraditing persons accused the legislature, reiterated his oppo- of crime from one state to another sition to the Colorado River Compact, was illustrated in the controversy sometimes known as the "Seven-State between Wisconsin and Illinois in the Irrigation Treaty" which was nego- Sovetsky case. Sovetsky was tiated in 1922 among the seven states rested in Illinois on the Wisconsin having water rights in the Colorado governor's warrant and accused of River, and which undertook to allo- sending burglars into Wisconsin to cate such rights. Six of the seven procure merchandise for him, which states have ratified the agreement, he sold in Illinois. Since he had which was drawn up under the super- not himself gone into Wisconsin to vision of Secretary of Commerce commit the burglaries, however, the Hoover. The situation illustrates governor of Illinois refused to extrasome of the difficulties of state co-dite him. STATE LEGISLATURES BY J. M. MATHEWS PROFESSOR AT THE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS Legislative Organization. There the substitution of biennial sessions. has been a noticeable tendency Georgia and South Carolina both towards the abandonment of annual adopted Constitutional amendments sessions of the legislature in those providing for the change to biennial states which still retain them and sessions. This change was also ad |