country, the conditions produced by industrial changes, and the necessity for governmental action, said:

"In some cases this governmental action must be exercised by the several States individually. In yet others it has become increasingly evident that no efficient State action is possible, and that we need, through executive action, through legislation and through judicial interpretation and construction of law, to increase the power of the federal government."

On the 12th of December last, in New York, Mr. Secretary Root, after referring to the changed conditions in the sentiments and business and social habits of the country, the tendency to do through national action things formerly done through the action of the several States, the obligation of the States to correlate their action to the welfare of the country at large, the stimulation by a failure to perform such duty to an "appeal to the general government to exercise control over matters that have been considered the exclusive right of the States," said:

"It is useless for the advocates of State's rights to inveigh against the supremacy of the constitutional laws of the United States or against the extension of national authority in the fields of necessary control, where the States themselves fail in the performance of their duty. The instinct for self-government among the people of the United States is too strong. to permit them long to respect any one's right to exercise a power which he fails to exercise. The governmental control which they deem just and necessary they will have. It may be that such control would better be exercised in particular instances

by the government of the States, but the people will have the control they need either from the States or from the national government, and if the States fail to furnish it in due measure, sooner or later constructions of the Constitution will be found to vest the power where it will be exercised in the national government."

These statements announced the doctrine of centralization by construction and interpretation of the Constitution. In asking your attention to some observations upon them and the principles which they involve, I am moved by no spirit of party, but only by the conviction that such declarations bearing the imprimatur of such great names should challenge the consideration and respectful judgment of all thoughtful Americans, and especially of the American lawyers.

They were made with deliberation, upon important. public occasions, with full knowledge that they would ring round the world, by earnest men, of deep convictions, who do not trifle in phrase-making, and whose whole minds and hearts are consecrated to the welfare of the American people. With the directness and courage of Luther when he nailed his theses on the door of the church at Wittenberg, they have challenged all comers to high debate. I am not presumptuous enough to enter the lists as a champion, but only make bold to perform the humble office of a herald, to proclaim upon what issues the gage has been thrown down, believing that it will be lifted by worthy representatives of the great American bar, which in its defense of the integrity of the Constitution has always been

"Constant as the Northern Star

Of whose true fixed and resting quality
There is no fellow in the firmament."

These utterances cannot in the least be minimized by opposing to them the personnel of their authors, for the one has achieved the highest success at a bar where competition is the greatest, and has with phenomenal rapidity won an internationa! reputation as a diplomat which lifts him to the exalted plane of his great predecessor; and the other, for character and ability, is held in higher esteem, both in America and abroad, than any other living man. Those who oppose their doctrines cannot answer them by arrogating to themselves a higher patriotism, for the one has, that he might serve his country, abandoned professional emoluments that few men in any age have had to sacrifice and what yet fewer would have the courage and self-denial to sacrifice. The other, inspired with the deepest moral sincerity, and a passion for righteousness, is as it were, constantly burning with a rage almost divine to advance his country's standard to the highest excellence.

Let us understand the full meaning of what they have said. Both are so direct and clear that no interpretation or construction is required. A man who runs may read. The President says that, in respect of some evils, it is evident "that no efficient State action is possible." A failure of governmental duty is declared and in analogy to the maxim Ubi jus, ibi remedium, a panacea is offered,— the substitution of a more efficient government. Therefore there is a need "through judicial interpretation and construction of law to increase the power of the federal government."

Mr. Root says that so long as the States fail in the discharge of their functions to measure up to the standard that public opinion demands, such dereliction "will increase the disposition of the people to appeal to the general government to exercise control over matters that