University of San Francisco - USF Don Yearbook (San Francisco, CA)

Page 22 text:

20 THE IGXATLW Such Federalization may be accomplished directly—or it may be accomplished indirectly. I do not assert that the Smith-Towner Bill in its present form is a positive usurpation of control bv the Federal government or a direct denial of the right of the State control. (Ostensibly the bill is a generous effort on the part of the Federal government to assist and encourage State education and. apparently, makes acceptance of the Federal educational programme optional with the States. But I do assert that the Smith-Towner Bill is an attempt to accomplish, indirectly, that which would be. if accomplished directly, flagrantly violative of the Constitution. The bill makes it possible for the Federal government to arrogate and assume educational control by means of the potent compulsion of Federal finance. It depends for the attainment of its purpose upon a truth constantly demonstrated in recent years—what the Federal government finances, the Federal government will ultimately control. A proper understanding of the spirit of the Constitution compels us to admit that the proponents of such legislation are seeking to undermine what they can not safely overthrow; they are ignoring that ancient maxim of jurisprudence which says: “That which may not be done directly may not be done indirectly.” Advocates of the Smith-Towner Bill flaunt their banners of Americanism through the nation. Vet they are supremely inconsiderate of every American institution and the spirit of the Constitution itself, when it obstructs the scheme by which they hope to Federalize the education, which rightfully belongs to the people and to the States. They are encouraging, instead of discouraging, a modern, un-American tendency toward centralization of power. Do you not recognize in such legislation a typical effort of self-constituted, ambitious infatuated reformers to satiate their wilful passions for state paternalism?

Page 21 text:

THE SMITH-TOWNER BILL 19 a Federal educational program, conceived and formulated, not by an angel, not even by an acknowledged genius, but by a very ordinary, fallible, uninspired, political appointee,— titled Secretary of Education. He shall be the dispenser of wisdom! He shall be the arbiter of our destiny, our life and our thought! I’nder other circumstances it would be prosaic, trite, unnecessary to state that our Federal government is a government of limited and delegated power. But the profound ignorance or the deliberate evasion of this fundamental principle, manifested by proponents of the Smith-Towner Bill, provokes an argument in reply. The Federal government, being a government of delegated powers and holding of its own right no original jurisdiction, may legislate, may operate, may control, only in matters enumerated and granted by the people in the Constitution. But never have the people either by express grant, by implied concession or by judicial interpretation, delegated to the Federal government an authority to control in the matter of popular education. W as it by oversight that the framers of the Constitution refused to confer such power upon the Federal government? Ah. no! There in old Independence Hall matters of education engaged the attention, the talents, the superlative wisdom of those men. What was the decision of Washington, of Madison, of Franklin, yes. even of Alexander Hamilton, the Federalist? Simply this: A matter so intimately affecting the welfare of local communities should be reserved entirely to the States and is not a proper subject for Federal control. Easily seen then is the logical conclusion from these premises. Whatever legislation seeks to vest educational control in the Federal government and to deprive the States of their traditional prerogative is inconsistent with the theory of our policy and subversive of the American Constitution.

Page 23 text:

THE S I ITH-TOI l r E R Ell A, 21 Where, then, are the enemies of America today? They come not in martial array, marching to the drumbeat, with bayonets flashing in the morning sun. Rther they lurk in our midst, imposing artfully upon our credulity, measuring the limits of our tolerance, availing themselves of our sense of national security. W herever reform shall strain the ancient guarantees of liberty, wherever bigotry shall lay its fatal hands upon education, wherever ignorance shall strike at constitutional rights, wherever corruption shall poison the springs of national life, there are to be found the enemies of America. Shall they triumph? The past calls to us to vindicate its wisdom, the present charges us with its treasures, the future demands of us its hopes. Let us. then, meet these enemies: let us condemn their legislation: let us impress upon them that the existing Constitution, until changed by authentic and explicit act of the people, is binding upon all Americans—even upon the proponents of the Smith-Towner Bill. There is one method by which the objects of the bill might be legally attained. We can amend the Constitution once more. We can sink into the bogs of national apostacy. W’e can dole out our liberties to the Federal government until not a drop of freemen’s blood courses through our veins. Yes. we can amend the constitution. At the behest of an artful minority, we could sell our heritage for thirty pieces of silver. But with God’s help, we shall not yield. W’e will not so disfigure and mar the fine fabric of the Constitution that it shall appear before the whole world an ugly patch quilt of gaudy amendments! At a convention in eighteen hundred and forty-seven, Prince Rismark, Prussia’s Iron Chancellor, expressed the theory of German government. “The German Crown,” he said, “derives its authority by grace, not of the people, but of God and it has merely of its free will given to the people a portion of its rights.” In harmony with such a