The Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision did not establish a new principle of law but rather restated a principle that the courts have been crystallizing and expanding to many new fields in recent years. Whether or not the courts have misinterpreted the intent of the Constitution is perhaps irrelevant-but it is certainly an interpretation that the authors of the Constitution, with their firm belief in the maintenance of the sovereignty of State governments, would have regarded with repugnance.

The American Farm Bureau Federation has long supported the principle that the maintenance of State sovereignty, independence, authority, and responsibility is a key factor in the preservation of our basic freedoms. In these days when the international situation and other factors compel expanded Federal action in many fields, we believe it particularly important to shore up State authority with respect to all those matters which may appropriately be left to State authority.

We believe this is in accord with public opinion. We submit that it is consistent with the traditional concepts of both of our great political parties.

H. R. 3 does not involve any interference with the constitutional prerogatives of the Federal Government. No Federal law will be invalidated or modified by its enactment. In the event of any conflict between State law and constitutionally enacted Federal law, Federal law will continue to prevail.

But H. R. 3 would establish the principle that State law in any field will continue to be valid and can be enforced in State courts, except in those instances in which there is a conflict between State and Federal law, in which event the latter will prevail.

If State governments are to be permitted to enact legislation to serve or protect their citizens, if State law is to continue permanently to have significance in our system of government, if State sovereignty is not to be swallowed up by Federal sovereignty-then H. R. 3 should be approved.

The American Farm Bureau Federation respectfully but earnestly urges the approval of H. R. 3.

Historically, we have favored strong, independent State and local government, and have expressed concern with respect to the centralization of power and authority in the Federal Government. Our policy resolution on this issue reads as follows:

In recent years a number of Court decisions have seriously eroded the authority of State governments. The effect of these Court decisions has been to declare that when the Federal Government has extensively legislated in a field, it has preempted this field and deprived the States of jurisdiction.

Should the Federal preemption doctrine prevail, we foresee the eventual destruction of many of the States rights. We will actively support legislation to prevent this Federal preemption.

Mr. FEIGHAN. Thank you, Mr. Triggs and Mr. Lynn.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Triggs, are you an attorney?

Mr. TRIGGS. No sir.

Mr. HYDE. I was going to ask you a question with regard to the statement which was a question I was propounding with Judge Smith. The statement on page 2:

In the event of any conflict between State law and constitutionally enacted Federal law, Federal law will continue to prevail.

It is your understanding that that is true even though the bill does contain a provision as provided for in the first sentence, namely, that the Federal law would still prevail even though Congress said it was not its intent to exclude the State from acting on the subject?

Mr. TRIGGS. Yes. It seems to me that if Congress decides in a particular instance that the Federal law shall be exclusive that then there is only one body of law and there can be no conflict.

If Congress decided in a particular instance that upon enactment of this bill that there can be concurrent jurisdiction then there are two bodies of law and there can be a conflict. But in the event of conflict the Federal act will prevail.

I do not expect anybody to define what a conflict is. I think the bill does it about as well as it can be done when it says―

a direct and positive conflict between an express provision of such Act and such provision of the State law so that the two cannot be reconciled or consistently stand together.

I know the Supreme Court and the Congress will be interpreting that particular provision in specific instances in different ways, but I think this is as well as you can do in expressing the principle.

Mr. HYDE. It may be that I have been reading this sentence a little bit backward this morning for I might say for the record that the first sentence of the bill says:

That no Act of Congress shall be construed as indicating an intent on the part of Congress to occupy the field in which such Act operates, to the exclusion of all State laws on the same subject matter, unless such Act contains an express provision to that effect.

(Mr. Feighan leaves.)

Mr. HYDE. What I am trying to make certain is that we have a bill which is not ambiguous.

Mr. TRIGGS. The problem relates to the phrase, "express provision" and I expect there needs to be an understanding here by one means or another that the words "express provision" mean that the law must say, "Congress intends exclusive jurisdiction" or words to that effect or that whether or not Congress intends jurisdiction will have to be determined from reading the whole law.

Mr. HYDE. Thank you.

Miss THOMPSON. Do you have any other witnesses?

Mr. LYNN. This is all from the Farm Bureau.

Mr. SHATTUCK. Are any of these gentlemen to be heard?

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Woodward is here. Isn't he?

Mr. Guy H. Woodward, vice president of the Mid-Continent Association desires to be heard and if you would be good enough to put his name down

Mr. HYDE. Yes.

Miss THOMPSON. Would you like to make a statement?

Mr. WOODWARD. We had intended to appear but the hearing slipped up on us so that not realizing the time, if there are going to be further hearings we would like to have 10 minutes later. We will appreciate being heard if you have further hearings.

Miss THOMPSON. I presume if further hearings are held we can hear you then. Some members of the committee are not present so I suppose we will have further hearings. Mr. Walter and other members will be returning from Europe.

Mr. WOODWARD. If that is the wish of the committee it will be satisfactory to us, but if not we will file a statement.

Miss THOMPSON. Is there anyone else who desires to be heard in this matter?

Mr. SMITH. May I have some indication when the further hearing will be held? I have correspondence with people all over the United States about this bill who have expressed an interest in it and it would require a little time to get them here. I wonder if I could get some idea when the next hearing would be held.

Miss THOMPSON. I think it would be well to hold it over until Mr. Walter's return.

Mr. HYDE. I think Miss Thompson and I are not in a position to give you an answer on that.

Mr. SMITH. I do not like to appear impatient about it but for over a year I have been trying to get this bill going and it is certainly of enough importance to have continuing consideration.

Mr. HYDE. I agree with you, Judge, and you will have my full cooperation on getting hearings as expeditiously as possible.

Mr. SMITH. I am wondering if when Mr. Walter comes back if you can fix a date so I will have knowledge of it and get some of these people from quite a distance?

Miss THOMPSON. Do you know when the other members of the committee will be back?

Mr. SHATTUCK. I believe they will have returned by the 11th.
Mr. HYDE. Early in May.

Miss THOMPSON. Will that be soon enough?

Mr. SMITH. Any time if you will give me the time.

Miss THOMPSON. I think we should find out the date the committee will be back and then give the Congressman the first opportunity.

Mr. HYDE. We are in the position of having to wait until Mr. Feighan comes back.

Mr. SMITH. Yes. We are just talking now.

Mr. SHATTUCK. I think any final word would have to await the return of the chairman.

Mr. WOODWARD. May I add one more request? My home is in Tulsa, Okla., and whatever day is set, if it is such that I will be notified a couple of days in advance, then my address is 321 Stanolid Building, and I am vice president of the Mid-Continent Oil & Gas Association. My address in Washington where we have a local office is 605 Commonwealth Building and our telephone number is National 8-5079.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Woodward, I was not presumptuous to ask whether you were for or against my bill. If you were for it I would be glad to get in touch with you.

Mr. WOODWARD. The principle is so vital that we are for your bill, and we think we should make every effort to let Congress know what we think about it.

Mr. SMITH. If you will leave your name and address in my office I will see you get here in time.

Mr. WOODWARD. Thank you, sir.

Mr. HYDE. Miss Thompson, does anyone else want to speak?

Miss THOMPSON. Those of you who would like to leave your names we will be glad to take them and give you notice of the time of the next hearing. We want you to come back.

(Whereupon the hearing was adjourned sine die.)

(The following was submitted for the record.)

STATES RIGHTS-EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. HOWARD W. SMITH, OF VIRGINIA, IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, THURSDAY, JANUARY 6, 1955

Mr. SMITH of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I today introduced a very brief and comprehensive bill (H. R. 3) on the subject of States rights, with particular reference to the present rule of the United States Supreme Court that where Congress has enacted legislation on any subject, the States are deprived of all power to enact or enforce similar laws on the same subject even though not in conflict with the Federal act.

What the bill seeks to do is to modify this doctrine so as to permit concurrent jurisdiction in order that the State act, where not in conflict with the Federal act can be also enforced in the State courts for the protection of the State and its citizens.

The bill reads as follows:

"That no act of Congress shall be construed as indicating an intent on the part of Congress to occupy the field in which such act operates, to the exclusion of all State laws on the same subject matter, unless such act contains an express provision to that effect. No act of Congress shall be construed as invalidating a provision of State law which would be valid in the absence of such act, unless there is a direct and positive conflict between an express provision of such act and such provision of the State law so that the two cannot be reconciled or consistently stand together."

For a long time the Supreme Court has held that whenever the Congress enacted legislation on any subject, its jurisdiction becomes exclusive and no State law can be enforced. In late years, as you know, Congress has legislated pretty well all over the waterfront. Congress has stretched the Interstate Commerce laws and the general welfare laws to the point where they cover all the ills of mankind, while the Supreme Court has consistently held to its original decision that when Congress acts all State laws are nullified, whether in conflict with the Federal law or not.

I do not quarrel with the Supreme Court about its consistency in its decisions. As a matter of fact, I devoutly wish that that Court would stand by its own decisions so that we lawyers could know not only what the law is today, but what it will be tomorrow.

Understand, please, that this doctrine that the Federal jurisdiction is exclusive in all cases is not due to any constitutional provision.

On the contrary, the 10th amendment to the Constitution especially reserves to the States all powers not granted, and the Constitution itself only gives to the Federal courts jurisdiction in a very limited number of subjects. You will all recall from your study of history that a great stumbling block in the adoption of the Constitution lay in the stubborn reluctance of all the Colonies to relinquish any of their sovereign powers, and during the debates preceding the adoption of the Constitution in the various States there developed a general understanding that in order to further protect the sovereignty of the States and the rights of individuals there would immediately be proposed the first 10 amendments to the Constitution, known as the Bill of Rights. The 10th, and final, amendment was the one that specifically reserved to the States and to the people all of the powers not granted to the Federal Government. The principle which I am now discussing and seek to modify is a rule of law enacted by the Supreme Court and has come to have as much force and effect as if it had been adopted as a part of the Constitution. The principle was debated and discussed in numerous early decisions of the Supreme Court, but the final decision which so drastically changed the intent of the framers of the Constitution was decided in 1842 in the famous cast of Gibbons against Ogden, and was even then regarded as of such doubtful validity that it was adopted by a divided Court of 5 to 4, and that decision established the flat theory that when Congress passed a law Congress intended that all State laws should be superseded. I seek by this bill to have Congress say it had no such foolish intention in any case unless it said so.

Let me illustrate the iniquitous results of such a doctrine. I will use the decision of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania that caused me to introduce this bill. I am the author of the Smith Act that, among other things, makes it a crime to teach or advocate the overthrow of the Government by force. Fortyseven of the 48 States have some kind of laws against sedition and subversion. Pennsylvania undertook to prosecute a notorious Communist who was a citizen

of that State under the State sedition act. The supreme court of that State, following the decisions above referred to, decided that as Congress had enacted the Smith Act it had withdrawn from all of the States the power to protect themselves from treasonable acts, and nullified all State laws on the subject whether the Congress intended to do so or not.

I was asked to introduce an amendment to the Smith Act to say that Congress in enacting the law intended no such barmful construction of it.

Obviously that case was merely a symptom of a dangerous disease that threatened to destroy completely the sovereignty of the States and was not the disease itself, and I decided to offer a separate bill to seek a cure of the whole malady. The bill I have read is the result. To illustrate further, in a similar case of Cloverleaf Co. against Patterson, the State of Alabama for the protection of the health of its citizens sought to inspect the product of the Cloverleaf Co., which was engaged in the renovation of butter, some of which was shipped in interstate commerce and subject to inspection under the Federal Pure Food and Drug Act. The Supreme Court held that as Congress had enacted the pure food laws it has assumed entire jurisdiction over the subject and the States were powerless to enforce their laws for the protection of the health of their citizens. I mention that case because the best argument I can think of for my bill is contained in the dissenting opinion of Justice Frankfurter who can, by no stretch of the imagination, be called a reactionary. He said:

"The Department of Agriculture not only urged the enactment (of the Federal statute involved in the case), it drafted its provisions. If the Department wanted Congress to withdraw from the States their power to condemn unsanitary packing stock and to confide such power in the Federal Government, it could easily have made appropriate provision in the draft submitted by it to Congress. However, the Department did not do so. It did ask Congress to make some restrictions upon the authority which had been exercised by the States in regulating the manufacture and sale of butter for the protection of their citizens. But the restrictions did not include withdrawal from the States of the power to condemn unhealthful packing stock butter. The sponsors of this legislation, the experts of the Department of Agriculture, could have submitted to Congress appropriate language for the accomplishment of that result. They did not do so. The Court now does it for them even though the Department has no such desire.

"To require the various agencies of the Government who are the effective authors of legislation like that now before us to express clearly and explicitly their purpose in dislodging constitutional powers of States-if such is their purpose makes for care in draftsmanship and for responsibility in legislation. To hold, as do the majority, that paralysis of State power is somehow to be found in the vague implications of the Federal renovated butter enactments is to encourage slipshodness in draftsmanship and irresponsibility in legislation."

It must be obvious to you that with the multitude of subjects which the Congress is now dealing, that it is inevitably merely a question of time before the States will be deprived of practically all power and sovereignty in enactment and enforcement of laws for the protection of the health and welfare of their local citizens. In many Federal laws action to remedy wrongs must be initiated by some Federal bureau. Under present law, if the Federal bureau fails to act or refuses to act, the citizen is without remedy. In many instances adequate remedy requires immediate injunctive relief. Delay incident to bureaucratic red tape or indifference can mean financial ruin. Such instances have occurred and are occurring with more frequency.

Under present conditions, if the Federal authorities fail or refuse to act, the citizen is utterly without remedy.

The overall objective of the bill was well stated by the President when speaking on the subject of States rights. He made the following statement:

"I want to see maintained the constitutional relationships between the Federal and State governments. ***For, if the States lose their meaning our entire system of government loses its meaning. And the next step is the rise of the centralized, national state in which the seeds of autocracy can take root and grow. *** We will see that the legitimate rights of the States and local communities are respected. * * * We will not reach into the States and take from them their powers and responsibilities to serve their citizens."

I hope the measure may have the support and active aid of all those who believe in the sovereignty of their States, who believe that local self-government is the best government, and who believe, as expressed by the President, that the rise of the centralized national state creates the atmosphere in which "the seeds of autocracy can take root and grow," to help me to help the President to put life and meaning into his inspired words.