Vol. I Connecticut Bar Journal JANUARY, 1927 No. 1 REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON BAR JOURNAL. At the annual meeting of the State Bar Association held in Hartford on April 26th, 1926, the following resolution was passed: "VOTED: That the President of the State Bar Association appoint a Special Committee of five members to consider the advisability of publishing and with power to publish if they deem it wise to do so, a quarterly bulletin or journal of the State Bar Association." In June, 1926, President Carmody appointed the undersigned to act as a special committee with the powers conferred in that resolution. These pages are the result of the decision reached by the committee, that there is a place in the activities of the Association for a quarterly publication in which its members, and others interested, may discuss the problems which confront and, in changing form, always will confront the profession. If, as the committee believes, the journal will tend to awaken an interest in those problems, and by concentrating and disseminating the best thought upon them, promote a speedier and more efficient solution, that decision is a sound one. It is perhaps needless to say that the future of the journal rests, not with the committee, but with all the members of the Association, for it is from the members that the material with which it is constructed must come. The present number necessarily consists of articles which were specially requested. It is earnestly hoped that this will not be true of its successors. They should, and must if the journal is to continue, consist preponderantly of voluntary contributions. The committee invites a critical, even a controversial spirit. The daily life of every lawyer is an exemplification of the principle that practical justice is the spark that flies from the clash of opposing minds. And so it is with the larger questions of the law-the questions that do not affect one lawyer or one client but all alike... It is to be hoped that these pages will contain, from time to time, the most widely variant views upon subjects concerning which differing opinions may honestly be held. The suggestion is ventured that there is not a public officer in this State who would not prefer to have his work subjected to honest, Sincere, well-considered comment than to cold indifference or to tilted praise. A word must be added concerning ways and means. There is at present a surplus in the treasury of the Association which is being used for the present number and which is sufficient for the immediate future. But a permanent financial policy should be adopted at the annual meeting in April. It is strongly the opinion of the committee that the journal should be distributed as an incident of membership in the Association and not through independent subscription. Up to the present time only two plans have been proposed: first, substantially increasing the present dues; second, maintaining the dues at the present rate and abandoning the system of making no charge to members for the annual dinner and the summer luncheon. The committee would welcome further suggestions but they should be made as soon as possible in order that definite action may be taken at the April meeting. JOHN M. COMLEY, Chairman. WILLIAM M. MALTBIE ARTHUR F. ELLS WALTER D. MAKEPEACE H. ALLEN BARTON A FOREWORD. TERRENCE F. CARMODY, President of The State Bar Association of Connecticut. The decision of the Committee on Bar Journal of the Connecticut State Bar Association to publish a bar journal quarterly is the most progressive step taken by the Association in many years. The journal will act as a constant reminder of the existence and purposes of the Association, a means of communication between its members and others, will afford an opportunity to many attorneys of literary ability to present their ideas, and I will indicate to other bar associations that our Association is wide awake. I congratulate the members of the committee on their decision, and bespeak for their efforts the co-operation of every member of the Association. *THE STATES' RIGHTS DOCTRINE IN THE UNITED STATES. HON. JOHN H. TRUMBULL, Governor of Connecticut. A study of Articles 1, §§ 8, 9, and 10, of the Constitution of the United States discloses the plan of the founders of our government for meeting the problems of democracy and decentralization. In these brief sections sovereignty previously existing was reserved to the States respectively represented in the Constitutional Convention or which might thereafter join the sisterhood of States. This bold plan of dealing with sovereignty with few words and by wholesale is convincing of the pioneer spirit and inventive genius of the founding fathers. Previously sovereignty had not been dealt with in any such fashion. It had followed in the pathway of conquering legions, had been transferred over vast areas for a purchase price, or had been extended over new domains by right of discovery. The new method of balancing power, shifting sovereignty by more than a half score of separate and independent states, and the assumption of so much sovereignty so surrounded by a new and larger State with power to exercise the sovereignty so assumed over the territory of which the surrendering States were composed, created a complicated structure of government which, throughout the history of our country, has been a source of frequent misunderstanding and trouble. Centralized governments of all forms were well enough understood by the colonial statesmen to convince them of the necessity of attempting a solution of the problem of decentralization. They knew that previously existing so-called federations of States wherein even a scant recognition of the theory of democracy had *This article is substantially the text of an address delivered by Governor Trumbull at the Governors' Conference at Cheyenne, Wyoming, in July, 1926. been attempted had resulted in the downfall of liberty and in the failure of such States. "Under the plan of the Constitution makers", said Lord Bryce, "an American, through a long life may never be reminded of the federal government, except when he votes at presidential elections, buys a package of tobacco bearing a government stamp, lodges a complaint against the post office, and opens his trunk for a customs house officer on a pier when he comes from a European tour. His direct taxes are paid to officials acting under state laws. The state, or local authority constituted by state statute, registers his birth, appoints his guardian, pays for his schooling, gives him a share in his father's estate, licenses him when he marries or enters a trade, divorces him, enters civil action against him, declares him a bankrupt and hangs him for murder. The police that guard his house, the local boards which look after the poor, control the highways, impose water rates, manage schools, -all these derive their powers from state laws. In comparison with such a number of functions, the federal government is but a department of foreign affairs.” The Constitution framers knew that those activities of the government immediately, closely, and constantly affecting the individual in his daily affairs must remain under his immediate observation and be always responsive to his watchful care and influence. The right to exercise such care and influence directly upon the government is the essence of democracy. They knew that with respect to the affairs of government concerning which the citizen is remotely or indirectly affected, democracy cannot exist. The maintenance of decentralization of power, therefore, is in its essence and effect the problem of the maintenance of democracy as spoken of in our country. It is commonly called the problem of States' rights. The subject was discussed and its importance understood long prior to the time when tea floated on Boston Harbor. It was one of the most difficult questions met by the framers of the Constitution. Colonel William Few, a delegate to the Convention from Georgia, in his biography written in 1811 wrote respecting such difficulties the following: "The modification of the States' rights, the different interests |