32 
PROTECTION OF MATERNITY. 
wrong in principle and should be discouraged aside from such matters as the develop 
ment of public works, such as roads. Not only should the States discourage the 
imposition of increased tax burdens by the Federal Government, but they should 
discourage also the centralization of authority in the Federal Government, with a 
very few exceptions. 
In an editorial item published in the Illinois Medical Journal, Feb 
ruary, 1921, John J. Blaine, newly elected governor of Wisconsin, 
was quoted as follows : 
The Federal Government is undermining the powers of the State by “species of 
bribery." “The species of bribery " to which I refer consists of legislation by the 
Federal Government in making an appropriation for some purpose under conditions 
that the State meet the appropriation with a like amount. Some of the purposes 
are, no doubt, desirable, but to my mind in many cases the State might better afford 
to embark upon the same undertaking independently, and by foregoing the appro 
priation made by the Federal Government actually carry out the same project more 
economically. 
At the hearing before the House Committee on Interstate and 
Foreign Commerce, December 20-29, 1920, page 171, Mrs. George 
M. Kenyon quoted a communication by former Gov. Frank 0. 
Bowden, of Illinois, in which he stated that—- 
If the present tendencies toward centralization at Washington go on, all vitality 
will go from the several communities and States of the country in the management 
of their own affairs. 
He also commended a resolution passed by the Illinois State 
Medical Society. The resolution condemned the principle of Federal 
State aid and called attention to the growing tendency in our National 
Congress to invade the authority of the States by the introduction 
of bills authorizing various departments of the Federal Government 
to exercise public health functions and duties properly belonging to 
the States. 
At the hearing before the House Committee on Education, Janu 
ary 12, 1921, on the so-called Capper-Fess bill, Judge Smith called 
attention to an article in the Harrisburg Patriot of December 3, in 
which Gov. Percival W. Clement, of Vermont, and Gov. Robert D. 
Carey, of Wyoming, were quoted as strongly opposed to the cen 
tralization of powers at Washington. 
In addition to the opposition on the part of various medical 
organizations and governors to legislation of this kind there is a 
very strong opposition on the part of numerous medical freedom 
organizations throughout the country which are constantly increas 
ing both in number and strength. Other speakers will probably 
discuss these organizations more at length. 
The following extracts from an editorial in the Journal of the 
American Medical Association, February 5, 1921, previously referred 
to, sum up the principal objections to the bill now under considera 
tion: 
All will agree that the objects sought, namely, the care of maternity and infancy, 
and instruction in the hygiene of maternity and infancy, are in the highest degree 
commendable. There can not be too much knowledge or too much instruction of the 
right sort on such vital subjects. There are, however, serious objections to the methods 
proposed. 
The bill provides funds through the apparently popular method of Federal-State aid, 
i. e., the appropriation of a large sum of money from the Federal Treasury to be pro 
rated to the various States, provided the State appropriates an equal amount. Fills 
are now before Congress providing similar methods for the development of physical 
training, for improvements in education, for the treatment of venereal diseases, and