Evening star. [volume], March 14, 1937, Page A-8, Image 8

About Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972

Image provided by: Library of Congress, Washington, DC

                
READERS DEBATE COURT PLAN IN LETTERS TO THE STAR
WOULD FUTURE JUDGES
“AGREE” IN ADVANCE?
Senator Asks How Such Assurances on
Decisions Could Be Escaped Under
Roosevelt Proposals.
Tn the Editor of The Star:
I have read with much interest
the articles in The Evening Star by
Mr. Charles S. Collier on the Presi
dent's Supreme Court proposal.
Among other things in the articles
Mr. Collier states:
"These discussions seem to imply
that the President ought to have
no hand whatever in naming
the judges of the Supreme Court
lest the independence of the
judges should be undermined. But
the fact Is that if any of the
present judges should die to
morrow, the right of the Presi
dent to nominate a successor would
be unquestionable. * * * why is
It so fundamental that the ap
point mg power should come into
application only upon the death
. of one of the aged incumbents?
This introduces an accidental
phase into the operation of the
appointing power, a reverence for
which can only be regarded as
superstitious.”
Mr. Collier evidently misses the
whole point of the opposition to the
plan proposed by the President. What
he says about the pow'er of the Presi
dent is correct, and no one would
suggest taking that power out of the
hands of the President. That pow'er
properly belongs to the President,
»nd the Constitution and the Amer
ican people have a right to assume
the President will do his duty in
fulfilling this obligation. But sup
pose the President in filling a vacancy
r»n the Supreme Court should accom
pany his nomination with a message
to the Senate running something like
this:
“I have this day nominated Mr.
A- as a member of the Supreme
Court. I think the members of
' the Senate should know that before
nominating him I had a distinct
understanding with him that as a
member of the Supreme Court he
would at all times vote to sustain
such acts of Congress as were passed
«pon my recommendations. With his
vote I am hopifig and expecting the
Supreme Court will sustain my con
cept of the meaning of the Con
stitution."
What would Mr. Collier and the
American people think of such a
message? Would they not condemn
It as a corrupt agreement, and would
not the United States Senate out of
self-respect be compelled to reject
such a nomination? Yet that is
exactly what Mr. Roosevelt here pro
poses. He insists he must have this
bill passed in order that he may get
such legislation approved as he'pro
poses. How can he have such as
surance without having some such
corrupt agreement with' the men he
appoints? If men are willing to make
»ny such agreement the’- are unfit for
anv public office, the fact that they
make it and then refuse to abide by
It likewise makes them unfit.
It is the boldness of Mr. Roosevelt
In his final frank statement that
frightens the average American citi
zen. If in filling a single vacancy
he selected a capable lawyer who
was suspected of believing that the
New Deal legislation was constitu
tional, there would be no such outcry
against the President, The complaint
grows out of the effort to do a thing
vhich the Constitution permits, but
V'hich, in view of the President’s
own admission, must be considered
by good citizens as dishonorable.
DANIEL O HASTINGS.
U. S. Senator from Delaware.
Sees Plan as Necessary.
To the Editor of The star:
On March 4. 1933. when Franklin
D. Roosevelt was inaugurated, our
country was on the verge of failure
from every angle. Banks were fail
ing by hundreds, most factories were
either running on part time or were
elosed entirely. Millions of men and
women were idle. Men, women and
children in every community were suf
fering from want of food, clothing
and shelter. Preachers gave up their
churches because of lack of funds to
keep going. The plight of thousands
of farmers and ranchers seemed hope
less. The failure of farmers was re
flected in the failures of thousands of
business concerns.
Immediately after President Roose
velt took over the reins of govern
ment he proposed, and Congress en
acted, legislation that stopped bank
failures, <1) through the N, R. A. gave
business a new lease on life. (2)
through the H. O. L. C. stopped the
wholesale foreclosure on American
homes and (3) through the AAA
gave the country its first workable
farm relief program.
In my opinion our country is not
yet on a solid basis and will not be
unless our great President has the
continued co-operation of both houses
of Congress, and unless the Supreme
Court adopts a more liberal view in
passing on the constitutionality of
laws enacted for the purpose of bring
ing about some greatly needed reforms
In our economic system.
with all due respect for the Su
preme Court and reverence for the
Constitution, I am unable to find any
where in that great document any
authority for the Supreme Court to
declare an act of Congress unconsti
tutional. Supreme Court decisions in
validating certain New Deal meas
ures have created a situation that de
mands either constitutional amend
ment or judicial reform. To amend
the Constitution is at best a slow
process, and the condition of the
country calls for prompt and ener
Retic action now, no less than it did
in 1933. In this connection it should
be remembered that Congress has the
power to enact, and public opinion
can force the repeal of an unpopular
or unworkable law with greater speed
than a constitutional change can be
effected.
It should be remembered also that
our country has Increased many times
In size and population since the Con
stitution was adopted. Our language
Itself has grown, and due to modern
Inventions our whole mode of life
has undergone far-reaching changes.
Government has lagged behind while
we have progressed in other fields.
President Roosevelt has advocated and
tried to put into practice certain
measures calculated to bring govern
ment up to date, so that the people
of the United States may through
the Government of their choice more
effectively cope with changed and
changing conditions of life.
The people have, in no unoertain
terms, indorsed the President’s pol
X
J icies. and will, I am confident, con
tinue to support him in his efforts to
make these policies effective.
ELIAS L. GROOMS.
Remedy Lies With the People.
To the Editor of The Star:
Attorney General Cummings holds
our Constitution to be a living thing
designed to meet living conditions as
they are now and new ones as they
arise. It is significant that in this
he speaks of the Coastitution itself,
not of the Supreme Court judges
In this connection, the one-time
comment of President Roosevelt rele
gating a certain unanimous Supreme
Court decision to “the horse and buggy
days" has its suggestiveness. Our
Constitution, be it noted, was created
in the saddle-horse and oxcart days.
It grew, by amendment, into “the
horse and buggy days." It now needs
to grow into the automobile, airplane
and radio days, by further amend
ment, to prove itself still living and
apace with the times.
The recognized pressing issue of our
day is economic. But “economic roy
! alism.” or economic exploitation, did
1 not begin its growth today. Its seeds
were sown in the early days of our
Republic, there being no constitutional
barrier, rather constitutional encour
agement. Without apparent violation
of our Constitution, our economic sit
uation today has grown to a major
issue because of widespread oppressing
and destroying injustices growing out
of perverted economic practices, un
dermining our social living. As a de
mocracy, the power of correction lies
in ourselves, individually and as a peo
ple. to be delegated, as necessary or
advisable, to our agents through con
stitutional authority and not other
wise. An economic amendment giv
ing specific authority to deal effec
i tively with our present economic chaos
seems clearly in demand rather than
relying upon inferences, obviously de
i batable, drawn from a Constitution
as written when present-day condi
tions were not foreseen, hence not
guarded against.
The very democracy we profess, now
' in its threatened breakdown, fairly
demands that “we. the people,” give
our agency, known as our Govern
ment. the clear mandate, through con
stitutional authority, so to reorganize
our economic system that it will ful
fill its proper function in securing "to
ourselves and our posterity” the right
ful attainments in life and living
conditions envisaged in our Constitu
tion’s preamble.
li we are not. ready to take this
step, our support and co-operation In
a movement otherwise undertaken
cannot be assured. Wisdom, there
fore, would require further experience
and education before the venture.
If we are ready for a forward move
ment, we will express ourselves in the
authorized way with promptness. A
good proportion of amendments are
shown to have passed within nine
months to a year, all depending upon
interest and unanimity — essential
qualities In every movement of de
mocracy.
The problems confronting us for
solution are momentous and of fun
damental consideration. Their solu
tion lies in growth from a sound
economic policy. To accomplish this
end our agency needs now, if ever, to
act with wisdom, caution, practical
understanding, personal and political
disinterestedness, and with the genu- !
ine progressive spirit and purpose of
democracy. C. C TUCKER.
Hyattsville, Md.
Backs the President's Plan.
To the Editor of The Star.
I have read President Roosevelt's
victory dinner address. To the aver
age person, one of the masses, it can
not be contradicted in any particular.
To delay urgent, progressive action
will spell disaster. There can be no
doubt that the situation which we
face calls for Immediate solution.
There can be no dodging of the issue.
This quibbling over the constitution
ality of measures to uplift the Nation
and provide for it as a whole Is
puerile—childish. The thing for us
all to do is to co-operate in a sane and
safe policy for the welfare of every
individual under the United States’
flag. We must stand unselfishly for
one another or we will all fall together.
This Nation is able to provide for all
its citizens, and if it fails, great will
be the disaster. It is still true in a
democracy—"United we stand, divided
we fall.” We must pull together for
a well-housed, well-fed. well-clothed,
well-educated, an intelligent and con
tented people. There can be no happi
ness in squalor, in poverty, in ignor
ance. and in the constant fear of want.
“Do you not hear the children crying,
O my brother, ere the sorrow comes
with years, and they are leaning their
young heads against their mothers,
and that cannot stop their tears.”
Something has got to be done to pre
vent this gaunt shadow of want from
stalking through our country before
anxious and smileless faces can radiate
with hope and peace and the prospect
of a better day. Destitute and cheer
less homes must have the specter of
starvation banished before children
under proper environment can have
an optimistic and joyful outlook on
life. Poverty is cruel and embitters,
and extracts the sweets out of life.
I commend President Roosevelt for
dealing with the masses, with the
needs of our people as a whole, rather
than with the classes—and of his logic
“a stitch in time saves nine.” Thu
is not the day and time to deal with
delays and in the end a “do-nothing"
policy, but to rise up, like Samon of
old in our strength, shake off our
sleepiness and lethargy, and boldly
strike down the enemies of our Nation,
home, and of each of us personally—
fear, anxiety as to the future, uncer
tainty, and with a sure tread, unafraid,
and with confidence in our Govern
ment of help now and in the future—
"go forward!”
W. J. HUBBARD.
“Throwing a Scare Into Us,”
To the Editor of The Star:
Reading President Roosevelt’s vic
tory dinner speech, it looks more than
anything else like he U trying to throw
a scare into us and the only preventive
Is to allow him to pack our Supreme
Court with friends of his choice who
will look through the same glass
with him.
He says the Supreme Court has de
liberately annulled his projects and
by those annulments is holding back
the entire country. Well, that U
exactly what they are there for, to
1
The present Supreme Court in a recent photo. _Harris-Ewing Photo.
- I-—-— ■
President Roosevelt at the microphone.
Senator Burton K. Wheeler, Joe oj the President's plan
—A. P. Photos.
keep and hold all congressional acts j
within the boundary of the Consti- '
tution.
Under that same Constitution—and
a Supreme Court that is a part of the
Constitution—this great counry has
grown and prospered up to the year
1932. That same Constitution has
length and breadth sufficient for all |
development whenever the Supreme
Court says they are constitutional.
President Roosevelt mentions Ohio
River floods and the dust of the West
ern dust bowl and doubts he could
get the money to prevent the flood '
and dust—afraid the Supreme Court '
would declare it unconstitutional. For
years Congress has appropriated money |
for rivers and harbors with no ques
tion as to its legality because those
projects were a general good to the 1
general public. Also, see the miles and
miles of levees along the Mississippi
River, built at a huge cost—but it was
built for the benefit of the public.
President Roosevelt accuses the Su
preme Court of running this country
into a "No Man's Land ” Well, it is
plain to be seen what he would run
it into had he a Supreme Court, a
Congress and Senate that would Jump
when he cracked his whip, but it would
not be a democracy—far. far from it.
Should such a calamity come to pass
why have a Supreme Court? Why
have a Congress? Why have a Senate?
They wrould all be useless and need
less—besides, some of them might
later on disagree with the dictator.
No, send them all home, for democracy
Is dead The halls of Congress are
deserted—all the rich furnishings are
gone—echo of footsteps rebounds from
the ceiling—nothing left but memory
of old-time glory.
Why change the number of justices
on our supreme bench? They are wise
old fellows, know what they are doing
and their work is up to date, so why
change? They know our Constitution
and all it implies.
As the Constitution now stands, the
people are its masters—the people can
amend it at will, as has been done.
We are also subject to that same Con
stitution and no citizen, no matter
what his station in life, has any right
to defy or deny our Constitution.
W. J. DERMOTT.
Five Suggested Reforms.
To the Editor of The Star:
The Federal judiciary system no
doubt needs revision. This can be
accomplished with a more lasting effect
by a calm, deliberative study and
action on the matter -concerned by
the congressional members.
Permit me to offer the following
reforms for your consideration:
1. That the tenure of office for a
Supreme Court justice be limited to
12 years, with a right to re-appoint
ment.
2. That the present membership of
the Supreme Court be increased to 12
members.
3. That the 12-year terms of the
Supreme Court justices be put on a
staggered scale, whereby the President
could appoint four Justices every four
years.
4. That only two-thirds of all the
8upreme Court justices be allowed to
declare a congressional measure un
constitutional.
5. That the Attorney General be
empowered to bring about an expedi
tious Judicial review of a case involv
ing some constitutional interpretation
that has been contested in a lower
court.
These, I believe will accomplish the
necessary reforms for which many are
now clamoring.
Yours very truly.
L. J. ESUNAS.
This Callous Ago.
To the Editor ef Ths Star:
This is an age sunk deep In the
highly specialized and intellectual
forms of materiality, an age that wor
ships the Molochs of mechanism, speed
and crushing efficiency; an age in
which the pursuit of creature com
forts subordinates all moral considera
tions to gain its ends. This is the
callous age that has made a vicious
thrust at its nine highest exponents
of law and law enforcement in this
country, ostensibly because these men
are old in point of years, but actually
because their allegiance to principle
and their impartial judgment in ac
cordance with law and not in accord- !
ance with human opinion offends the
willful powers of the world
If every individual could have prin
ciple and law altered to suit his own
desires it might be convenient for him,
but it wiuld certainly be conducive to
universal chaos. Fortunately, princi- 1
pie is as unchanging as God, and
also as mighty. Law is the application
of* principle in human affairs, and
those who try to thwart that orderly
application inevitably suffer ultimate
defeat. "Truth is a rock,” the Scrip
ture says, "but upon whomsoever it
shall fall It shall grind him to powder.”
"Be not deceived; God is not mocked.”
To insinuate incapacity due to
length of years is not only a cruel
injustice t-o the nine superior char
acters constituting our Supreme Court
but is an insult to the Creator. As if
Intelligence were a mess of matter
under a skull bone! Again the Scrip
ture says. "If any of you lack wisdom,
let him ask of God." for "The wisdom
of the world is foolishness with God."
We read how Moses was directed by the
Lord to gather together "seventy men
of the elders of Israel” and received
the promise: T will take of the spirit
which is upon thee and will put it
upon them, and they shall bear the
burden of the people with thee, that
thou bear it not thyself alone.” In
ancient times older persons were se
lected for public office out of regard
for their superiority in knowledge and
experience, and the term "elder” was
expressive of respect and reverence in
general. But times have changed.
If our lawmakers can clear away
the tear gas of propaganda and errone
ous influence, they will be able to see
one fact clearly—a fact distinctly dis
cernible by any clear-thinking per
son—namely, that the effort to de
stroy the Impartial judgment of the
Supreme Court and make it amenable
to personal opinions a mere puppet
of unstable political authority, is
only one phase of the consistent and
persistent attempt, evident through
out the world today, and increasingly
evident in our country, to do away
will all law and order, discredit moral
and spiritual traditions and uphold
and encourage those forces which
stand for lawlessness.
“Take heed now, for the Lord hath
chosen thee to build an house for the
sanctuary; be strong and do It”—a
sanctuary for the people of this coun
try where their God-given covenant*
of liberty, individual rights and pro
tection under law may ever be in
violable. Vera e. adams.
Available Court Remedies.
Ta the Editor of Tha Star:
Combining In one the two chal
lenges recently made in a radio ad
dress, we have the following:
"But I defy any one to read the
opinions concerning A. A. A., th#
railroad retirement act, the national
recovery act, the Guffey coal act, the
New York minimum wage law, the T.
V. A. case, the Duke power case and
the A, A. A. case and tell us exactly
what we can do as a National Gov
ernment during this session of Con
gress for the Industrial worker, or to
control flood and drought and gen
erate ehaap power, with any reason
1
able certainty that what we do will
not be nullified as unconstitutional
The answer is that the speaker
throws up his hands in despair, per
mits fear to conquer his courage and
conefsses his Inability to do "any
thing” to accomplish any of the things
he enumerates. This Is the stage
always reached when incapacity and
panicky fanaticism in a cause blinds
the eyes to right reason and the true
way out.
All this despair and fear is due to
the fact that the Supreme Court of
the United States—our highest court
—knowing more about the Constitu
tion of this country than one man.
has loyally invalidated his legislative
devices that outlawed themselves.
But that should not cause all this
fear, despair and frustration to over
whelm an intelligent or ’'fighting” ;
crusader. The New Deal has not
exhausted legitimate remedies. There
is still a court to which it may go
to submit its program, and it should
go there before doing anything else.
The court In this country higher
than the Supreme Court of the United
States is the “court of last resort"—
its judges the American people Not
as individuals, not as selfish, clamor
ous mobe, but through and by the or
derly instrumentalities of the States
in which they reside, the people of
this Nation can decide what the Con
stitution shall say and can fix the lim
itations beyond which neither pol
iticians nor our highest court can go.
If the purpose is to accomplish
“anything” sure and certain, and non
reversible by our courts when com
petently enacted as law. the fair and
honorable way is to trust the Amer
ican people, in an orderly way. pre
scribed by the Constitution, to decide
what shall be done and how it shall
be done, rather than to resort to de
vious devices by which politicians seek
to set up constitutionally immoral
rulership over all the people.
Misused enthusiasm and incitation
may devastatingly lead shallow pol
iticians to forget the proper bounds.
8uch stampeding Inventors of panits
and crises should not be heeded, for
the people should never trust pol
iticians who will not trust the people
to render their own final decision on
matters that fundamentally affect us
all. JOSEPH W. CHEYNEY.
Farmers, He Says, Against Change.
To the Editor of The Star:
The strongest speech that Secretary
Wallace can make for the defense of
the President’s stand on the Supreme
Court question is to the effect that
the Farm Bureau Federation organiza
tions are behind the President in the
move.
In Texas leas than one-tenth of 1
per cent of its farmers belong to the
Farm Bureau Federation, and only
one-Afteenth of 1 per cent of the culti
vated acres are represented in that
conclave. May it be reminded that
Texas is a close third in Farm Bureau
strength among the States. While
two other States, Arkansas and Ala
bama, lead Texas by a slight margin,
these two States have one-Afth to one
sixth of 1 per cent of their respective
farming population in the Farm Bu
reau organization.
Now the Grange organization in the
State of Texas is Ave times stronger
in membership than that of the Farm
Bureau Federation. The Texas Grange
has 50 times as many cultivated acres
as that represented by the Texas Farm
Bureau Federation. The leadership of
the Grange organization is much more
Christian and fairer in every way in
that they believe in a Government for
the people, by the people, and of the
people. Now, Wallace stated to the
press that the Grange U squarely
against the President's Supreme Court
measure.
It is quite certain that the farmers
belonging to the Grange and to both
parties in politics have thought care
fully on the move made by the Presi
dent. and they are anxious to see the
Constitution of the United States pre
served Therefore, it is very necessary
that they, together with other citizens,
take a stand against the President’s
unprecedented, unhallowed actions. In
the name of God Almighty. Congress,
do something! J. C. NAGET,
Houston. Tex.
Puppets vs. Constitutionalists.
To the Editor ot The Star
From all that has transpired in and
around our legislative halls in Wash
ington since January last, it is very
apparent to the average onlooker that
the present session of Congress has
definitely developed into a conflict be
tween “political puppets" on one
hand and proponents of constitutional
government on the other. In view
of this fact, every citizen of this
Nation should thank God that we
still have In the United States Sen
ate today, a nucleus of Senators who,
irrespective of party politics, power
drunk politicians and "whip-crack
ing,” still have the fear of God in
their hearts and the courage of their
convictions.
This fight Is also to be reckoned
with in our State governments, where
the "political puppet." with the bless
ing of the party in power on his
head (for purely mercenary reasons),
is voted into power by a non-thinking
electorate, and then does not raise
his hand to execute his solemnly sworn
duty when a group of the citizenry
of his State shouts open defiiance to
a United States court order issued for
the protection of the American right
of private property ownership.
What citizen of this country of ours
Just five years ago could even have
visualized a State officer apparenty
powerless to execute an eviction order
issued by a Judge of a United States
court? Yet this "travesty on law
and order” was recently, actually writ
ten indelibly into the pages of this
Nation's history, and it can honestly
be laid at the doorstep of the political
racketeer (no matter how loudly he
may disclaim ownership and titles).
Each of us would do well to ask
ourselves this question: Do we want
our last resort to justice—the Supreme
Court—subservient to the whims and
fancies of any one man, political party
or power? Rather, had we not better
relegate party politics to the back
ground and concern ourselves with
voting to public office men of prin
ciple who cannot be coerced and who
place no price on honesty and respon
sibility.
As individuals we may have rea
sons for criticism of this or that ad
ministration, but taken as a whole, the
electorate of our Nation can blame
only themselves for the rise of the
political puppet because In the final
analysis our Government is a direct
reflection of the amount of thought
(independent thought) we have given
to the exercise of our right of fran
chise, and if, in the immediate fu
ture more thought is not given to the
selection of those who legislate our
laws, a non-thinking electorate may
yet regret the day they made it pos
sible for the Hon. James A. Farley to
coin his now famous ratio phrase of
4d to 2.
T. CANFIELD JENKINS.
Indian Head, Md.
Threat to Democracy.
To the Editor of Tht Star:
In his fireside chat President Roose
velt questioned the right of the Su
preme Court to pass on the constitu
tionality of an act of Gbngress. The
President hoped that his listeners
REVERENCE FOR COURT
A PREDOMINANT THEME
But Some Writers Put Faith in Need
for Economic Reform Through
the Judiciary.
J
would read and reread the Constitu- |
tlon. I echo that hope. The reader
of the Constitution will find this lan
guage appearing in article III. section
2. which article deals with the crea
tion of the Supreme Court:
"The judicial power shall ex
tend • * * to controversies to
which the United States shall be
a party • • V'
Further or>, in article VI, section 2.
this is said:
"This Constitution, and the laws
of the United States which shall
be made in pursuance thereof;
• • • shall be the supreme law
of the land • •
The United States is always a party j
to a proceeding in which the consti- ,
tutionality of a congressional act is .
Involved. It seems clear, therefore,
that under the Constitution the Su
preme Court, in passing upon a ques
tion, is only performing its duty, and
that It is not arrogating to itself un
lawful power, as the President would
have us believe. If the Supreme
Court does not have this right under
the Constitution, then the question
arises who is to say that an act of
Congress is or is not made in accord
ance with the terms of the Constitu
tion, which is the supreme law of
the land and anything in conflict
therewith must yield? Is an act of
Congress to be unrebuttably presumed
to be constitutional merely because it
is an act of the legislative body?
Apparently that is the idea, because
further on in the chat the President
tels us that, given the opportunity,
he will appoint justices who will not
undertake to override the judgment
of the Congress on legislative policy.
II this is to become a fact, of what
worth will be the constitutional guar
antees oi certain rignts to tne people,
such as contained in the bill of
rights? A supine Congress, under a
dominant Executive, may pass laws
that unquestionably would violate
some provision of the Constitution,
but there would be no relief. One
may have the idea that a change in
the congressional membership, or in
the Executive itself, could be effected
by the ballot. But even that right
could be taken away by legislative fiat,
and there would be no redress except
by rebellion. Is that democracy? It
has happened in Europe. It can hap
pen here. Yours very truly.
W. H. SHIELDS.
The ‘T nOrga.iixed Middle Class.”
To ihe IMitor ot The St»r.
The great unorganized middle class
contributed more in votes, more in
money to the re-election of Roose
velt than Lewis' highly organized
group of sit-downers. It has nothing
in common wdth the sit-downers, who
respect neither property nor the
rights of their fellow workers.
It is not yet fully aroused, but
should be. When it speaks, the Presl- i
dent and Congress will listen.
In the last election the great mid
dle class followed ihe President be
cause of his brilliant handling of
the banking situation, his promotion
of peace by trade agreements, his
vast expenditures for relief. It gave
only lip service to the N. R. A and
breathed a sigh of relief when the
Supreme Court buried the N. R. A .
already dead from public disapproval.
It wasn't enthusiastic over the A. A.
A and recognizes the soil conserva
tion program as more in keeping with
sound economics and American life
than crop destruction and regimenta
tion.
The Supreme Court has protected
property and liberty. It has sus
tained the Government's gold relief
measures and the only phase of the
T. V. A. that has come before it. It
has not prevented vast expenditures
for relief, flood control and soil con
servation. It has not struck down
anything as unconstitutional which
either the great middle class or the
citizens generally want. It has held
that the Constitution does not give
the Federal Government control gen
erally over wages and hours. No one
supposed it did.
Not even labor leaders wanted such
broad powers of control exercised by
the Federal Government until re
cently, when they have come to be
lieve that Government control will in
fact be domination by their fact ... of
organized labor. Does the great middle
class want such domination by either
the sit-down faction or the Green
faction? Does either faction want
domination by the other'1 If not. do
not tamper with the Supreme Court
or the Constitution.
HENRY E COLTON.
Nashville, Tenn.
Blames Congress for Invalid Laws.
To the Editor of The Star:
Since there seems to be so much
controversy relative to the Supreme
Court Judiciary and the President, I
cannot but take some exception to
some quotations involved. One in
particular stands out in my mind, the
term mandate. If I understand the
definition and the true meaning of
the word mandate, It is a command—
a requirement issued by a sovereign
who is sole authority. Thank God, we
have no such form of government,
although many people have lately ex
pressed themselves, that since our
President was elected by such a vast
majority, he Ls invested with that
power.
Now I wish to call to the attention
of all who are of that opinion, that
the only time a President of the United
States of America was given that
power was wartime, and for the dura
tion of that period only, and that
takea an act of Congress, under the
Constitution. I further W'ould like to
point out that a President of the
United 8tates can be elected without
the majority of votes cast by the
people. To make it clear, a victorious
presidential candidate may carry sev
eral States by a small majority and
the defeated candidate eould have a
popular vote of several millions more
than the successful candidate, there
fore the implication and term, man
date of the people, does not apply to
any election of the President in the
United States of America. We do have,
however, a branch of Government that
has that power of mandate and
that is our Supreme Court, and even
that body has a limitation, for it stops
with the jurisdiction of the courts of
the country.
In conclusion, I wish to convey the
thought to the minds of Some critics
that the members of the present Su
preme Court are far from being in
their dotage, and as far as having
numbers of capable lawyers in our
A
Congress It seems to me that the last
Congress must have been in a sta'e
dotard w hen they passed laws that,
cannot stand the test of the Consti
tution.
Here, my dear readers, comes the
rub. In the last 15 years w e tried in
troducing bill after bill in Congress
relative to child labor and our Con
gress tells us we must have referendum
and ratification of three-fourths of
the States to amend the Constitution,
which I say is correct. But how can
this same Congress pass laws such ax
N. R A . A A A., Guffey coal bill"
and what not and expect the gentle
men of the Supreme Court to lav
aside their wisdom, their knowledge of
law and last, but not least, give the
New' Dealers the Constitution to plav
with and make us dance to their own
tunes?
Here’s to the Supreme Court judges:
Here's health to venerable gentlemen
nine,
Who pro'ert the interest-of yours and
mine,
Spare them God. I pray unto you.
And extend your blessings to the
President, too
JOHN J. cAtinN.
Disputes the “Mandate.” •
To the Editor of The Star:
In your newspaper recently you
printed a letter written by J. P.
Neff entitled "Court Must Be
Guided by the Will of the People ”
The writer claims that the November
election was a mandate from the peo
ple authorizing the President to park
the Supreme Court or to place
sufficient men upon the court of his
own choosing so his New Deal meas
ures previously declared unconstitu
tional might be sustained.
Mere is one Democrat who takea
issue with another Democrat. Thera
are millions of Democrats and Re
publicans who voted for Presidentr
Roosevelt's re-election who gave him
no such mandate. Neither the plat
form of the Democratic party nor the
the President in any of his pre-election
speeches ever solicited a single vote
on the above basis. The Preside
was absolutely silent upon this court
issue he is now advocating. The
Democrats in Congress who are taking
issue with the President's court re
form plan are not disloyal to the
Democratic platform nor to Demo
cratic party issues and principles. The
President is not true to the Demo
cratic party platform nor to pre
election issues, and the Democrats of
the Jeffersonian type are justified in
taking issue with him on his court
reform scheme. In this he is not
following the will of the people.
The President has done more than
any other living man to destroy re
spect for the dignity of the Supreme
Court and for fundamental law. He
and a few of his socialistic advisers
are doing more than the worst
anarchists ever did in America to
foment the spirit of fear and of
revolution by their insistence to over
throw the decisions of the Supreme
Court, and that if the radical social
istic policies are not carried ov.t the
populace will demand that they be
carried into effect by force.
It is true that the majority of the
people did speak at the recent elec
tion. but they never asked the Presi
dent to restore the iniquitous N. R. A.,
which the Supreme Court by a unani
mous vote declared unconstitutional.
Does Mr. Neff want a clean slate for
the Supreme Court? Is the Executive
to run all three branches of th#
Government0 It is fortunate for the
country that there are enough real
loyal Democrats In the Senate to pre
vent the Chief Executive from making
a rubber stamp out of that honoraole
body, g
If the President would keep his
promise made in one of his pre-elec
tion speeches and give business and
industry a chance to make recovery
effective on its own Initiative, he
would not now have to raise the
scare of another crisis in the busi
ness world.
Who is disrespecting the people's
rights? Not the Supreme Court. It
has always been the guardian of
the people's rights and the Constitu
tion the refuge of their security. A
Supreme Court that could be manipu
lated bv party politics and policies
which have betrayed its own party
and platform, is no longer the guard-,,
ian of the Constitution nor the im
partial umpire for essential justice.
How can confidence be built up
in the integrity of our highest court
and in the majesty of the Govern
ment itself when the Chief Execu
tive and his associates call the justices
odious names and are unwilling to
abide by its decisions? Such a course
engenders lawlessness and mistrust,
which sap the stability of any govern
ment. To make the justices sub
servient to the Chief Executive or to
any other branch of the Government
would be destructive of every con
stitutional guarantee of human rights
and would give the President un
limited powers
GEORGE JEFFERSON, Jr. -
Also Answers Dr. Neff.
To the Editor of The Star.
That fiery article in Thursday's Star
by J P Neff In which he advocated
the spanking of five of the nine jus
tices of the Supreme Court because
they dared to vote their interpretation
of the Constitution on legislative arts
passed by the present Congress and
signed by the President had all the
earmarks of rebellion against the
present order of things in it.
J. P. Neff is Rev. J. p. Neff, an
ordained minister of the Columbia
Union Conference of Seventh-Day Ad
ventists, a secretary of the educational
department of that unit of the church
throughout the Middle Atlantic States
that has to do with the training and
building of character of the youth
of that denomination.
Surely the war-like spirit exempli
fied so vigorously in Dr. Neff's ad
vocacy of doing something drastic to
the Supreme Court, or at least five
of its members, cannot be the spirit
of the Seventh-Day Adventist denom
ination, which teaches the doctrine
through thousands of its preacher* of
"peace on earth, good will to men,"
as enunciated by Christ himself.
Surely the Adventists don't agree
with Dr. Neff when he speaks of the
will of the people, and urges that
if this will is not complied with, as
demonstrated in the election of las!
November then there should be a
change in the attitude of the Su
preme Court no less than what would
(See LETTERS, Page A-lb.)