Address to the 1957 Governors' Conference, Williamsburg, Virginia.

Governor Stanley, Members of the Governors' Conference, My fellow Citizens

First--my sincere thanks to each member of this distinguished body for your cordial invitation to join you in this spot significant to every American. I hope you will permit me to say that there is more than mere words in the statement I have just made. I feel highly honored to join the Executives of our several States-and their wives--in such a meeting as this in such a spot. I think it's a thrill that can come to an individual only a few times in a lifetime.

No person devoted to our country--who treasures human liberty-who values industry and courage and indomitable will-can but welcome a pilgrimage to this region, the birthplace of our nation.

Here, in Williamsburg, three centuries ago--in nearby Jamestown, a half century earlier--lived men and women who cradled this mighty Republic. Devout in faith, their spirit strong, their deeds heroic, they permanently shaped our destiny. As long as this Republic endures, their wisdom and example will inspire our people.

So in this historic place, as you and I contemplate our respective responsibilities of leadership, it is but fitting that we should soberly re-examine the changing governmental structure of this nation, here definitely conceived and partially designed so long ago.

Such an examination is timely--even urgent. For I have felt-as surely you hare--that too often we have seen tendencies develop that transgress our most cherished principles of government, and tend to undermine the structure so painstakingly built by those who preceded us.

Of those principles I refer especially to one drawn from the colonists' bitter struggle against tyranny and from man's experiences throughout the ages.

That principle is this: those who would be and would stay free must stand eternal watch against excessive concentration of power in government.

In faithful application of that principle, governmental power in our newborn nation was diffused--counterbalanced--checked, hedged about and restrained--to preclude even the possibility of its abuse. Ever since, that principle and those precautions have been, in our system, the anchor of freedom.

Now over the years, due in part to our decentralized system, we have come to recognize that most problems can be approached in many reasonable ways. Our Constitutional checks and balances, our State and Territorial governments, our multiplicity of county and municipal governing bodies, our emphasis upon individual initiative and community responsibility, encourage unlimited experimentation in the solving of America's problems. Through this diversified approach, the effect of errors is restrained, calamitous mistakes are avoided, the general good is more surely determined, and the self-governing genius of our people is perpetually renewed.

Being long accustomed to decentralized authority, we are all too inclined to accept it as a convenient, even ordinary, fact of life, to expect it as our right, and to presume that it will always endure. But in other lands over the centuries millions, helpless before concentrated power, have been born, have lived and have died all in slavery, or they have lost their lives and their liberty to despots.

Today, against the dark background of Eastern Europe, we see spotlighted once again the results of extreme and dictatorial concentration of power.

There man's rightful aspirations are cruelly repressed by a despotism more far-reaching than the world has ever before known. There power is free, the people in chains. By no means do I imply that the tragic plight of those once free people bears even faint relationship to the future of this nation. But by viewing that uneasy scene even briefly, we are forcibly reminded of two great truths. The first of these truths is that a nation cannot be enslaved by diffused power but only by strong centralized government. The second truth is that in spite of repression and ceaseless indoctrination, the determination of once free men and women to resist tyrannical control will not die; they will never accept supinely the lot of the enslaved.

In the Soviet Union, political power is exercised through unbridled force. All peoples of all areas where the Kremlin holds sway must instantly obey a Moscow decree, no matter how it violates their traditions, no matter how inapplicable it may be to local concerns.

Yet the Kremlin itself, coming to recognize some of the deficiencies of extreme centralization, has just embarked upon a drastic reorganization of its massive bureaucracy. Soviet rulers have felt compelled to allow some small part of government to gravitate closer to the people.

On the Soviet periphery as well, centralization has revealed its inherent weaknesses. There even the Soviets are learning the age-old truth that those who have known freedom will never willingly live merely as a creature of the sun.

The assertion and maintenance of its independence by Yugoslavia, the unceasing unrest in East Germany, the upsurge of freedom in ruthlessly repressed Hungary, the increasing liberation of controls in Poland, all bear witness to man's eternal refusal to be dominated by his fellow creatures or to exist as a pawn of government.

I am profoundly convinced that one day--inevitably--those nations and those peoples will again be free. Evolutionary change, generated by pressures from within and from without, hopes and yearnings of the oppressed, kept alive by the friendships of the free peoples of the earth, will eventually destroy despotic power. I have complete faith that those downtrodden populations will again walk upright upon the earth. But in the meantime, the cost will be great and sad--measured in privation, in degradation, in human suffering and despair.

Thinking on these things, we, in America, gain renewed determination to hew to the principle of diffusion of power, knowing that only thus will we ourselves forever avoid drifting irretrievably into the grasp of some form of centralized government.

Our governmental system, so carefully checked, so delicately balanced, with power fettered and the people free, has survived longer than any other attempt to conduct group affairs by the authority of the group itself. Yet a distinguished American scholar has only recently counseled us that in the measurable future, if present trends continue, the States are sure to degenerate into powerless satellites of the national government in Washington.

That this forecast does not suffer from lack of supporting evidence all of us know full well. The irony of the whole thing is accentuated as we recall that the national government was itself not the parent, but the creature, of the States acting together. Yet today it is often made to appear that the creature, Frankenstein-like, is determined to destroy the creators.

Deliberately I have said "made to appear." The tendency of bureaucracy to grow in size and power does not bear the whole of the blame for the march of political power toward Washington. Never, under our Constitutional system, could the national government have syphoned away State authority without the neglect, acquiescence, or unthinking cooperation of the States themselves.

The Founding Fathers foresaw and attempted to forestall such a contingency. They reserved to the people, and they reserved to the States, all power not specifically bestowed upon the national government.

But, like nature, people and their governments are intolerant of vacuums. Every State failure to meet a pressing public need has created the opportunity, developed the excuse and fed the temptation for the national government to poach on the States' preserves. Year by year, responding to transient popular demands, the Congress has increased Federal functions. So, slowly at first, but in recent times more and more rapidly, the pendulum of power has swung from our States towards the central government.

Four years ago at your Seattle conference I expressed the conviction that unless we preserve the traditional power and responsibilities of State government, with revenues necessary to exercise that power and discharge those responsibilities, then we will not preserve the kind of America we have known; eventually, we will have, instead, another form of government and, therefore, quite another kind of America.

That conviction I hold just as strongly today.

Now, because of that long-held belief--and because many of you, also, believed that the historic Federal-State relationship and its modern deviations needed careful re-examination--in that same year I obtained Congressional authority to establish a Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. With the cooperation of State Governors, Members of Congress and other leading citizens, the Commission completed the first official survey of our federal system since the adoption of our Constitution 170 years ago. This study brought long-needed perspective and pointed the way to improvements in areas of mutual concern to the States and the Federal Government. But theory and action are not always the same.

Opposed though I am to needless Federal expansion, since 1953 I have found it necessary to urge Federal action in some areas traditionally reserved to the States. In each instance State inaction, or inadequate action, coupled with undeniable national need, has forced emergency Federal intervention.

The education of our youth is a prime example.

Classroom shortages, in some places no less than critical, are largely the product of depression and wars. These, of course, were national and international, not state or local, both in their origins and in their effects. These classroom shortages have become potentially so dangerous to the entire nation and have yielded so slowly to local effort as to compel emergency action. Thus was forced a Federal plan of temporary assistance adjusted to the specific needs of States and communities and designed not to supplant but to supplement their own efforts.

Now, some have feared the sincerity of that word "temporary." I at once concede that, in government as with individuals, there is an instinctive inclination to persist in any activity once begun. But if it be the people's will, and I believe it is, I have no doubt at all that we can defeat that inclination in respect to Federal help in school construction, once the emergency need has been satisfied.

Three other basic problems provide simple examples of how "filling the vacuum" tends to constrict State and local responsibility.

These are such problems as slum clearance and urban renewal--problems caused by natural disasters--problems of traffic safety.

As for the first, the lack in the past of energetic State attention to urban needs has spawned a host of Federal activities that are more than difficult to curtail. Today, for help in urban problems, committees of Mayors are far more likely to journey to Washington than to their own State Capitals.

It always seemed to me that, in such meetings, Federal and municipal authorities have united in a two-pronged assault upon the State echelon of government, attacking simultaneously both from above and from below.

Yet the needs of our cities are glaringly evident. Unless action is prompt and effective, urban problems will soon almost defy solution. Metropolitan areas have ranged far beyond city boundaries, but in every instance the centers and the peripheries are interdependent for survival and growth. As citizens in outer areas clamor for adequate services, too often the cities and the counties avoid responsibilities or are powerless to act as a result of State-imposed restrictions. Those needs must be--and they will be--met. The question I raise before you is this: which level of government will meet those needs--the city, the county, the State, or the Federal Government? Or, if all must merge their efforts for reasons of mutual interest, how shall we confine each-and especially the powerful Federal Government--to its proper role?

Because I am so earnestly hopeful that this task will be assumed by government nearest the people and not by the far-off, reputedly "rich uncle" in Washington, D.C., I enthusiastically commend your Council's initiative in facing up to the needs of metropolitan areas.

Next, consider for a moment floods, droughts, hurricanes and tornadoes. Year by year, more and more Federal funds are being requested to meet such disasters which heretofore States, communities and philanthropic agencies have met themselves.

One of my greatest friends is now head of the American Red Cross. He came to that post when the Red Cross reserve funds have been practically exhausted. The drive for Red Cross funds this year did not realize its full objective. He tells me, from constant travel around this country, the excuse he so often meets is: "Why should we donate to the Red Cross? Our taxes through the Federal government are now taking care of these disasters."

In vain does he explain that the government steps in only to restore public facilities--roads, bridges, other public facilities, utilities, and so on. The Red Cross meets each person's problem as an individual and as a family.

The simple answer is: "We pay taxes now for disasters and therefore we don't have to donate to the Red Cross." I regard this as one of the great real disasters that threatens to engulf us when we are unready as a nation, as a people, to meet personal disaster by our own cheerful giving. And I think--at least he believes, and he seems to have the evidence to prove it--that part of the reason is this misunderstanding that government is taking the place even of rescuing the person, the individual and the family from his natural disasters.

Now, in recent years I have gained some little appreciation of legislative bodies, so I can understand why a Governor is tempted to wire Washington for help instead of asking the legislature to act. Now it's easy to send such a wire. But does it not tend to encourage the still greater growth of the distant and impersonal centralized bureaucracy that Jefferson held in such dread and warned us about in such great and intense detail?

In varying degrees, in varying circumstances, Federal Government cooperation with States and communities has been, is now, and will continue to be indispensable. But I would urge that the States insistently contend for the fullest possible responsibility for essentially State problems, well knowing that with responsibility there goes, in the long run, authority.

As for traffic safety, this, happily, is still a State and local responsibility. But day by day the American people are paying an increasingly fearful price for the failure of the States to agree on such safety essentials as standards for licensing of drivers and vehicles and basic rules of the road.

The need could scarcely be more acute. Last year's toll of traffic dead soared beyond 40 thousand persons. One and a half million citizens were injured. Many were disabled for life. The estimated cost to the country was 4 billion 750 million dollars.

We simply cannot let this go on. The cost of inaction is prohibitive. Who is going to fill the vacuum? Someone must, and someone will. Are we willing that, once again, it be Washington, D.C.?

I believe deeply in States' rights. I believe that the preservation of our States as vigorous, powerful governmental units is essential to permanent individual freedom and the growth of our national strength. But it is idle to champion States' rights without upholding States' responsibilities as well.

I believe that an objective reappraisal and reallocation of those responsibilities can lighten the hand of central authority, reinforce our State and local governments, and in the process strengthen all America. I believe we owe it to America to undertake that effort.

The alternatives are simple and clear:

Either--by removing barriers to effective and responsive government, by overhauling taxing and fiscal systems, by better cooperation between all echelons of government, the States can regain and preserve their traditional responsibilities and rights;

Or--by inadequate action, or by failure to act, the States can create new vacuums into which the Federal Government will plunge ever more deeply, impelled by popular pressures and transient political expediencies.

I propose that we choose the first alternative, and I propose that here in this historic spot we dedicate ourselves to making it work!

Not in a speech--nor by a collective resolution, no matter how powerfully worded--can we turn back long-established trends. But we can start searching examinations and together lay out, promptly and clearly, a common course toward the ends we seek. I suggest, therefore, that this conference join with the Federal Administration in creating a task force for action--a joint committee charged with three responsibilities:

One--to designate functions which the States are ready and willing to assume and finance that are now performed or financed wholly or in part by the Federal Government;

Two--to recommend the Federal and State revenue adjustments required to enable the States to assume such functions; and

Three--to identify functions and responsibilities likely to require State or Federal attention in the future and to recommend the level of State effort, or Federal effort, or both, that will be needed to assure effective action.

In designating the functions to be reassumed by the States, the Committee should also specify when those functions should be assumed--the amounts by which Federal taxes should be reduced-and increases in State revenues needed to support the transferred functions. As the first step, the Committee might well concentrate on a single function or program and pair it with a specific Federal tax or tax amount. This effort presupposes that Federal taxes would be cut more than State taxes would be raised to support the transferred functions. The elimination of Federal overhead--stopping, in other words, the "freight charges" on money being hauled from the States to Washington and back (a bill, I remind you, that is always collected in full) --would save the American taxpayer a tidy sum.

Obviously, such an effort requires your own thoughtful study as well as Federal analysis. It means re-examining every one of your local and State fiscal policies, including taxation, bonded indebtedness, operating costs, and cash reserves to meet natural disasters and other emergencies. It means realistically relating tax rates and assessed valuations to expanded incomes and real property values.

Once the Committee acts, I have it in mind that all of us would cooperate in securing the necessary action by the Congress and the various State legislative bodies.

I assure you, my friends, that I wouldn't mind being called a lobbyist in working for such a worthy cause.

Regaining lost ground, whether in war or in public affairs, is the most challenging task of all. And because I have seen it done, I know it can be done by men and women of dedication. This place where we are met abounds with historic examples of the same kind of dedication.

Not one of us questions the governmental concepts so wisely applied by the framers of our Constitution. I have not the slightest doubt that, by mobilizing our collective leadership, we can revitalize the principle of sharing of responsibility, of separation of authority, of diffusion of power, in our free government.

Now I should like to make one point very clear, and that is not only my sincerity, my readiness to cooperate in the kind of effort of which I have been speaking. I realize that you have heard exhortations of this kind time and again. A body such as this I know has talked these things over among its own members. Words are easily said and they can be often repeated. But there is no proof of their validity until action follows. Action is the test and action is what we must take.

In the Executive Department in Washington, I have begun a searching examination of these things on sort of a unilateral basis. I have a competent man and his assistants trying to identify those things where we believe the Federal government has improperly invaded the rights and responsibilities of States, where we believe that some adjustments in revenues and functions could be made.

Now I mention this only to show how sincere and serious we in the Executive Department are about this matter, and to assure you that if you see fit as a body to undertake explorations of the kind I have suggested, in cooperation with the Federal government, you will find a great deal of work done which should be helpful to the study.

Our broad objectives through this effort should be two:

First, we must see that government remains responsive to the pressing needs of the American people.

Second, we must see that, in meeting those needs, each level of government performs its proper function--no more, no less.

Thus we will pass on to those who come after us an America free, strong and durable.

And so, America will continue to be a symbol of courage and of hope for the oppressed millions over the world who, victimized by powerful centralized government, aspire to join us in freedom.

And human freedom, universally recognized and practiced will mean world peace, a just peace, an enduring peace.

Thank you very much.