PRESIDENT'S ANNUAL ADDRESS opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be cor rected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The pre cedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit which the use can at any time yield." The Fathers who framed our Constitu tion as well as those of the original thirteen states, had a wholesome fear of arbitrary power. They sought to limit governmental power by law, the source of which should be the people — the states to be supreme as to all matters, and to exercise all powers except those specifically granted to the national government, the constitution of each state to be the supreme law and cap able of amendment only by its people. In this way the three departments of gov ernment were to be held in check and their several powers added to or diminished from time to time as the wisdom of the people should direct. And upon the Judiciary devolved the duty of preventing violations of the supreme law —■ a duty which has been faithfully executed. Guided by the ideas and principles which prevailed in the creation of the state governments, the framers prepared the Constitution under which our national government came into existence. Every power with which it was deemed necessary to endow the national government was given to it, and in the exercise of these it was made supreme. To prevent any possible assertion by the national government of inherent powers, those assigned to it were carefully and ex pressly enumerated. But to avoid even the possibility of a contrary claim, the Constitution was at once amended by. the addition of ten articles — every one of which operated as a re
straint upon the national government. The last one, not only disclosing the intent with which the Constitution was framed, but establishing beyond even the possibility of cavil, that the national government is lim ited to the powers specified in the Constitu tion creating it, reads: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Con stitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively or to the people." Other powers have since been granted and in the future still others may be given, but the Constitution as it now stands forbids the exercise of any powers other than those granted by it. It leaves no room for finding in the language of the Constitution a claim that there are certain unmentioned and inherent powers which the federal government may exercise. That claim has, however, been made in the Supreme Court of the United States on more than one occasion, only to be denied by it. Quite recently, and in that interest ing and most important case, Kansas v. Colorado, the court was compelled by the contention of the government of the United States to pass upon its claim to exercise certain unmentioned powers as inherent and sovereign. While the suit was between Kansas and Colorado, the United States intervened, claiming, as stated, by Mr. Jus tice Brewer, that "the determination of the rights of the two states inter sese in regard to the flow of waters in the Arkansas River, is subordinate to a superior right on the part of the national government to control the whole system of arid lands. That in volves the question whether the reclama tion of arid lands is one of the powers granted to the national government." Con tinuing, the court says: "as heretofore stated, the constant declaration of this court from the beginning is that this gov ernment is one of enumerated powers. The Government, then, of the United States, can claim no powers which are not granted to it by the Constitution, and the powers actually granted, must be such as
