Evening star. [volume], March 31, 1937, Page A-4, Image 4

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

Image provided by: Library of Congress, Washington, DC

                
$ • ESTABLISHED 1865 • p
f DEPENDABILITY J
| The Keynote to Success |
i This word is oil-powerful in g
p every business existence. It has p
p been the Barker watchword tor p
p 72 yeors. Place your orders, %
?, large or small, with Barker ■■ ■ p
because Barker will never fail M
P you!
I GEO. M. barker!
I • COMPANY •
I i
LUMBER <!«</ MILLWORK
I 649-651 N. Y. Ave. N.W. |f
152B 7th St. N.W.
I NA. 1348, "The Lumber Number" |
FREE LECTURE
—ON—
CHRISTIAN SCIENCE
—BY—
John Ellis Sedman, C. S. B.
of Los Angeles, Calif.
Member of the Board of Lecture
ship of The Mother Church, The
First Church of Christ, Scientist,
in Boston, Massachusetts.
In First Church of Christ
Scientist
Columbia Rd. and Euclid St. N.W.
Friday, April 2
at, 8 P M.
Under the Auspices of
First Church of Christ, Scientist
No Collection All Welcome
WHERE TO DINE.
tBijc Ctiergreen
1106 Maryland Ave. S.W.
Near Department of Agriculture
Drive south on 12th street, turn
left at first intersection after cross
ins railroad bridxc.
noted lor breakfast and lunch for
the vast to years. It now oven for
Dinner Every Day, 4:30 to 7,
Except Saturday and Sunday
Special
Sea Food
Plate_
Plenty ©f Parkinr Space 1*
Thurtday Dinner Special
Cafeteria Onlv ^ af
Tenderloin MCq
Steak_
Fresh Asparagus, flollandatse
bauce. Baked Macaroni
Hot Bolls Beverage
LOTOS LANTERN
733 17th St. N.W. j
MOTE
1734 N ST. Ww
MetmtlUtn 6170
Tea Leaf Reading
IS to 8 P.M.
5D3o7os 75e to *125
The Best Good Foot
Butterscotch .. —
JJoZZ* in Town ** Good Health
SILVER SPRING HOTEL
Ofllelal A. A. A. and Keystone Auto Club
Ga. Ave. and Dist. Line
DRIVE OUT
TODAY
Choice 60c Dinners
Chicken 75c Steaks
• Strictly Fresh Vegetables •
• Homemade bread and
desserts •
AMPLE PARKING
TERRACE
Jr Delicious
f DINNERS
at Popular Prices
Fresh Vegetables and
Homemade Desserts
a Specialty
1634'CONN*At*>
The Silver Bowl
Good Food in Beautiful Surroundlnra
DAILY DINNERS FROM 65c
Seraed B:30 to 8:00
Luncheon from 3Ae—13 to 3
1644 Connecticut Ave.
SPECIAL
TOMORROW
MAID’S NIGHT out
WE FEATURE
Our Regular
$1.50 Dinner for
• Sirloin Steak, Minute Style
• Roast Capon, Giblet Sauce
• Boned Shad and Roe
Restaurant
Madrillon
Waihlnrton Bide.
15tb and N. Y. At*. N.W.
SIBLEY ADVOCATES
BALLOTS ON COURT
Tells Diplomats That People
Should Determine Shift
in Rights.
Emphasizing the right of the
American people In a democracy to
fix their own deetiny, instead of being
dictated to by a “dictator,” Harper
Sibley, president of the Chamber of
Commerce of the United States, last
night predicted that If the proposal
to retire Supreme Court Judges at the
age of "70 or 75” were put to a vote
of the people it would be approved.
Sibley spoke to diplomats and mem
bers of the foreign colony at American
University. He said he had come to
the conclusion on the Supreme Court
issue after extensive traveling through
out the country and sounding out
publie opinion. He did not mention
President Roosevelt, nor touch on the
rest of the Roosevelt court reform
program.
“If we are to give more power to
the Federal Government and take
more away from the States,” he said,
“such proposals should be put to a
vote of the people.”
Would Preserve Initiative,
Discussing the subject of “Govern
ment and Business,” the speaker in
sisted that “American initiative and
enterprise must be preserved, an
American must be free to enter any
line of business he wants to and move
forward in its development.” But, he
indicated, the complexity of modem
life was leading to necessity for more
regulation. Business, he thought!
should have a hand in writing such
regulations. The Government should
be a kind of “umpire,” he thought, in
business and labor controversies of all
kinds, “but we want to make sure that
the umpire doesn’t grab the ball and
play on one side or the other.”
Referring to the spread of the
labor movement throughout the
county, Sibley said that heretofore
the great mass of the workers were
not organized, did not belong to
any kind of labor union. His own
city of Rochester, N. Y., he said, was
not widely organized, the bulk of
labor working for high wages, and
with satisfaction. But he predicted
the labor movement would grow, that
management should recognize the
right of labor to organize. Business
however, he thinks, will Insist on more
“responsibility” on the part of labor.
Business management now, he said, is
subject to suit for breach of contract,
but organized labor, so far, he charged
had not been so “responsible.” Labor
leaders too often, he said, live in
some other State from the place where
labor trouble happens.
Backs Unionisation Right.
Workers should be given the right
to join local unions, he said, and if
they want to “to join a national union
like John L. Lewis'.”
Government should keep out of
business, the president of the National
Chamber insisted. Recognizing that
in some countries represented by diplo
mats in his audience, certain public
utilities were government-owned and
operated, Sibley said the American
Government should not try to own
and operate the railroads, telephone,
telegraph, electric light and power or
any other business. Some regulation
of public utilities was needed, of
course, to guarantee a fair rate to the
public.
Questioned about Government hous
ing such as that at Greenbelt, Md.,
Sibley said that the trouble with most
Government construction was that
taxpayers’ money was wasted. When
told that the Greenbelt project was
supposed to return sufficient in rents
to pay for itself, he admitted that
if this were true, business could not
logically object. But he had discov
ered, he said, that in a personal in
vestigation of 10 or 12 such projects
that “they are wiping off 45 per cent
of the cost before they begin to figure
on the rent giving a fair return. This
is not fair competition with private
contractors who have to furnish all
the costs.”
presidentscored
‘ BY SILAS STRAWN
Court Proposal and “Sit-Down”
Strike Attitude Held Cause
of Disrespect of Law.
By the Associated Press.
CINCINNATI, March 31. —Silas
Strawn of Chicago asserted yesterday
"President Roosevelt’s scathing criti
cism of the Supreme Court and the
attitude of the administration toward
‘sit-down’ strikes have done more to
cause disrespect for courts and a gen
eral lawlessness than anything that
has happened in our time.”
Strawn, former president of the
American Bar Association and the
United States Chamber of Commerce,
spoke at a Chamber of Commerce
forum.
He termed President Roosevelt’s
court reorganization plan "a short cut
to dictatorship.”
"No one who respects the law and
the right to own and possess property
believes that sit-down strikers are
anything but lawless trespassers,” he
said. “Yet, encouraged by the tacit
approval or co-operation of govern
mental authorities, the practice is
epidemic.”
"President Roosevelt wants a Su
preme Court which will be subservient
to his will and which will decide the
cases which come before the court in
accordance with his personal views,”
Strawn said.
VISIT PAID PRESIDENT
Capt. Latham of Trench Training
Ship Courtesy Caller.
Capt. Henri L*tham of the French
training ship Jeanne d'Arc, now at
Baltimore, paid a courtesy call on
President Roosevelt yesterday.
The French naval officer met the
President last December when he left
his ship off Port of Spain, Trinidad,
and boarded the American cruiser
Indianapolis, which was returning the
Chief Executive from South America.
OFF TO CORONATION
Count and Countess Haugwitz
Reventlow Leave Egypt.
ALEXANDRIA, Egypt, March 31 (JP).
—Count Court Haugwitz-Reventlow
and his wife, the former Barbara Hut
ton Mdivanl, ended their four-month
stay in Egypt today and sailed for
Marseille, en route to London for the
coronation.
Two governesses and a nurse were
in attendance on Lance, their baby
son.
t/
Robinson Upholds Court Plan in Address
Assails Glass and McReynolds for Opposition to Proposals.
Following to the digested text
of the speech delivered tost
night by Senator Robinson of
Arkansas.
No other legislation coming before
the Congress during recent years has
caused so much discussion as that pro
posed by the President for the reorgan
ization of the judiciary.
All features of the plan have been
accepted or acquiesced in quite gen
erally save that which relates to In
creasing the number of Justices of the
Supreme Court.
In the hearings before the Judiciary
Committee and in the Senate, the de
bates have related in numerous in
stances to questions which are not
actually Involved and which, therefore,
may be considered In large part as
irrelevant.
Those who maintain that the In
crease in the membership of the court
from 9 to not more'than 15 by
the appointment of additional justices
in every case where one refuses to
avail himself of retirement means the
packing of the court, the Indirect
amendment of the Federal Constitu
tion, and the establishment of dicta
torship are compelled to rely on Imagi
nation rather than facts and reason
able arguments. • • •
Power to Increase Court and
Advisability Are Prime Factors.
The answers to two questions, first,
has the Congress the power to enact
the legislation; and second, If the
power exists should it be exercised,
will tend to simplification of the issue
and to correctness of conclusion.
Has Congress the power to increase
the number of Supreme Court Justices?
Much has been said and written
about amending the Constitution, but
no one has expressly asserted that it
is necessary to do so in order to au
thorize increase in the number of jus
tices composing the Supreme Court.
It is almost universally admitted that
such increase would violate neither the
letter nor the spirit of the funda
mental law. * • *
There has never been a time sinee
the Constitution was established when
it was seriously suggested that the
Congress did not have authority to
prescribe the number of Justices that
shall compose the court. • • * The
number of justices was not fixed by
the framers of the Constitution. They
could have done so, but they deliber
ately decided to leave the number open
to be fixed from time to time by
statute. * * •
Such changes constitute a part of
the check and balance system provided
in the fundamental law, along with
the power of impeachment, the right
to make provision f->r voluntary re
tirement and to legislate regarding
various features of organization and
appeal.
Constitutional Outcry
Standard Method of Opposition.
Why do self-constituted champions
of the court declare hat for Congress
to use a power which it has fre
quently employed, and which it has
possessed since the beginning of the
Government, is to undermine the in
tegrity and independ-nce of the ju
diciary and to destroy that balance of
authority which constitute such an
important feature of our National
Government?
Always, heretofore, when changes in
the number of Judges have been pro
posed, those opposed to the change
have resorted to similar methods of
opposition. They have declared that
to increase or to decrease the number
of justices is in some mysterious way
violative of constitutional stability. In
every case that changes have been
made, good in the long run has re
sulted and no substantial harm has
come to any institution, privilege or
right that rests on constitutional guar
antee. It is illogical to charge that
the Constitution undeniably gives to
Congress the power to determine from
time to time the number of the jus
tices, but that the exercise of the
power attacks the Constitution, which
recognizes such authority in the law
making branch of the Government
Power of Court
Changed In No Way.
If the President’s plan contemplat
ed enlarging or detracting from the
power of the Supreme Court as fixed
in the Constitution, an amendment to
that instrument would be in order.
The proposed legislation doe* not
touch the power of the court. It in
no way, either expressly or implied,
reduces or restricts the authority
granted by the Constitution to our su
preme judicial tribunal.
Therefore, statements, wherever
made, to the effect that a movement
is in progress, led by the Chief Ex
ecutive, to undermine and destroy the
Supreme Court, are made in ignorance
or misrepresentation. If the bill under
consideration should be enacted the
court can do the same things, if the
justices are of the mind, as at pres
ent. No one can deny that the power
of the court remains unaltered by a
change in its personnel.
Inasmuch as the provision relating
to the retirement age is voluntary, no
question arises from that as to the
power of the Congress.
The right of a Federal judge to con
tinue in his office during good be
havior permits no argument. That he
may retire when authorized by law
has never been questioned. Whether
it would be better to fix the age at
70 or 75 merely involves a question
of policy and has not been treated as
of primary importance by those who
are opposing the President’s plan.
Both Senator Borah and Senator
Glass expressed in the Senate in Feb
ruary, 1930, their desire for a personnel
on the Supreme Court that would re
flect their economic views—a personnel
that would not strengthen the view
point of the majority. In other words,
they recognized that the appointment
of justices properly may be with re
gard by the appointing power for
changing the economic policies under
lying the decisions of the court.
Court Dictator Cry
Raised by Senator Borah.
When the nomination of Mr. Chief
Justice Hughes was before the Senate,
it appears from the Congressional
Record of February 11, 1930, • • •
that the Senator from Idaho con
demned the decision of the Supreme
Court in the Baltimore railways case
as confiscatory and declared: “I do
not want to strengthen the viewpoint
of the majority.” He further said:
“Under the fourteenth amendment the
Supreme Court of the United States
as to most questions of a nature simi
lar to the one which the court passed
upon in the railway case becomes real
ly the economic dictator of the United
States.”
While the nomination of John J.
Parker to be Associate Justice of the
Supreme Court was befoer the Senate
the following colloquy was recorded:
“Mr. Waterman—But when the
Supreme Court has entrenched itself
about as it has by its declarations
in connection with contracts and by
the fifth amendment, and has said
that it is beyond the power of legis
lation to change it, jrhat can be done
\
•bout It btit to amend the Constitu
tion?”
“Mr. Borah—Amend the court!”
The Senator then referred to the
attack made by Webster, Clay, Cal
houn and Swing on confirmation of
Chief Justice Taney.
In the Congressional Record of
April 29, 1930:
“Mr. Borah—They (the Supreme
Court) pas upon what we do. There
fore, it Is exceedingly important that
we pass upon them before they decide
upon all of these matters. I say this
In all sincerity. We declare a na
tional policy. They reject it. I feel I
am well justified in Inquiring of men
on their way to the Supreme bench
something of their views on these
questions."
* * * *
Increase Held Equal
To Rejection Rights.
Congress has Just as much right,
for wholesome economic purposes,
to increase the court, as the Senate
has to reject the nomination for mem
bership on the Sureme Court bench
with the same motive. Now, however.
In this contest, the Senator from Idaho
and the Senator from Virginia have
abandoned their proposal in 1930 to
"amend the court,” and propose to
correct erroneous decisions which they
regard as violative of sound prin
ciples by amending the Constitution.
It is a matter of profound regret
that the able Senator from Virginia,
Mr. Glass, has become so alarmed and
emotional over this issue that he can
find in his heart nothing but con
tempt and bitterness far those who
dare questkqj the sanctity and Infal
libility of the Supreme Court. Listen
ing to his radio address last evening,
one could but feel that his argument
was submerged and destroyed in the
unreasonable bitterness of his expres
sions.
The Chief Executive has based the
reorganization program on the premise
that the social and economic needs
of the present can be adequately dealt
with by reasonable interpretation of
the Constitution. His contention finds
support in the action of the court
itself when yesterday an act of Con
gress passed years ago and held un
constitutional in 1922 was revived by
the process of express reversal of the
Adkins case relating to minimum
wages for women and children em
ployed in the District of Columbia.
What purpose was served by the
Senator’s use of such words as
"frightful," “shocking,” "brutal,” ‘In
famous” and "outrageous” in describing
the mild program for reform of the
Federal judiciary? On the very day
that Senator Glass was denouncing
the program in such vitriolic and ex
travagant language, the Supreme
Court itself proved that the President
is right by completely reversing its
stand on the subject of minimum
wage legislation. The Supreme Court
merely changed its interpretation and
in that w ay the long and tortuous task
of amending the Constitution was
avoided. In view of this action by
the court, how can the Senator from
Virginia justify his unrestrained at
tack upon the President's proposal?
Why should he feel so incensed when
the court Itself acknowledges that by
its assumption of the right to de
termine policies, which are exclu
sively within the province of the leg
islative branch, it erroneously struck
down an act intended to safeguard
the health and morals of women and
children workers?
Denies Jefferson Would Hava
Opposed Court Plan.
The Senator from Virginia also was
driven to error by his own wrath when
he dared any one to prove that
Thomas Jefferson would ever have
indorsed such plan as that now pend
ing.
Senator Glass apparently forgot
that during the presidency of Mr. Jef
ferson the number of Supreme Court
justices was increased, an event which
brought down upon his head all the
scorn of a vindictive Federalist press.
At this point it seems appropriate
to remark that while “earnestness Is
the path of immortality,” vindictive
ness and denunciation are indicative
of weakness in argument.
There is further documentary evi
dence showing what Mr. Jefferson
though of the supreme bench. His
torians tell us that time and again
he was outraged at the manner in
which the Judiciary usurped legisla
tive power to thwart the will of the
people. • • •
Most oi us are iamuiar witu me re
peal of the midnight judges act,
which occurred under Jefferson's ad
ministration and at his Insistence.
The repeal went Into effect April 23,
1802, and expressly abolished the June
term of the court, directing that the
court should meet only once a year
thereafter. The effect of that pro
vision was to prevent the court from
functioning entirely for 14 months,
thereby depriving it of the chance to
pass on the validity of acts of Con
gress.
What would Senator Glass say now
if President Roosevelt should propose
to do what Mr. Jefferson did—abolish
the court for over a year?
Says Plan Mildest Possible
Under Conditions.
The truth is that the remedy sug
gested by President Roosevelt whereby
new blood would be infused into the
court, is the mildest plan for dealing
with the present situation that has
been suggested. Regrettably Senator
Glass in his radio address added noth
ing to the argument as to what
the best plan of meeting the patent
needs of the country. He simply de
nounced.
If he can become so enraged In de
nouncing the reorganization plan,
what does he think of the amendment
of the Senator from Montana authoriz
ing Congress to pass finally on consti
tutional questions Involved in legis
lation? What has he to say of the
amendment requiring a 7-to-2 major
ity in the court to invalidate a stat
ute? These and many others of the
more than 30 constitutional amend
ments introduced in the two Houses of
Congress during the present session do
detract materially from the power of
the oourt. Some of them would prac
tically take away the right of judicial
review as to constitutionality of legis
lation.
The brilliant Senator from Virginia,
Mr. Glass, in 1930 took a position on
the subject similar to that occupied
by the Senator from Idaho.
In the Congressional Record of Feb
ruary 13, 1930, (Vol. 72):
“MT. Glass—* * * The Supreme
Court in recent years has gone far
afield from its original function and
has constituted itself a court in eco
nomics and in the determination of
social questions rather than in the in
terpretation of statutes passed with
reference to the Constitution itself."
What the Senator from Virginia, Mr.
Glass, and the Senator from Idaho,
Mrs. Borah, said in 1930 is in sub
stance exactly what President Roose
velt says now.
“Personal Predilections" tn
Making Ar» Assailed.
It is true ^hat the issue does not
arise in exactly the mine form that It
took when their arguments were de
livered. It Is also true that there la
no difference, in so far as the Con
stitution la concerned, in the power of
the Senate to reject a nomination and
the power of the Congress to increase
the membership of the court. Why
should Senators, why should any one,
become long-faced and sorrowful when
it Is proposed to check the Supreme
Court in Its steady and persistent as
sumption of authority to decide ques
tions of policy of hair-splitting dis
tinctions conceived in the minds of
Justices whose training and experience
prompt them to regard as law
conclusions which are actually the
outgrowth of "personal predilec
tions”? • • *
Tne charge is frequently neara that
the Increase In the membership of the
Supreme Court constitutes a “packing
of the court.” What Is meant by this
charge and what are facts fairly ap
plicable to It?
Naturally, one who participates in
the appointing power, whether as
President or as United States Senator,
performs his function with the back
ground and economic views of the
appointee in mind. Always, when
contests- as to the confirmation of
nominees to serve on the court arise
In the Senate, the Issue as to whether
the nominee shall be confirmed re
volves around the views and opinions
of the nominee, although, of course,
his ability and standing In his pro
fession are recognized as factors of
very great importance. • • •
Presidents have never named, and
Senators have always been slow to con
firm Judges whose viewpoints respect
ing constitutional questions are notably
at variance with their own. Indeed,
it would be difficult for any one
charged with responsibility for an ap
pointment to Justify the selection of
one to preside over or serve in a court
whose views as to the fundamental
rights of citizens and the division of
powers are known to be In conflict
with the conscientious and the care
fully formed conclusions and opinions
of the appointing authority.
This principle has been observed
from the beginning. It was In the
mind of President Grant when the
constitutionality of the legal tender
cases was at issue. It controlled the
action of President Lincoln when the
Dred Scott decision, which precipitated
the Civil War, was In mind. It was
responded to by President Wilson when
he sent to the Senate the names of
liberal-minded lawyers to serve on our
highest tribunal. It motivated Presi
dents Taft and Harding when they
carefully selected conservative lawyers,
some of whom had earned distinction
by representing in the courts great cor
porate and financial Interests.
Liberals and Conservatives
Contrasted as Appointees.
If the nomination and confirmation
of justices, generally regarded as lib
erals may be criticised on the one
hand, what shall be said of the policy
pursued by other Presidents and Sen
ators who exercised their powers of
appointment to secure services on the
bench of individuals known and re
garded as conservative and reactionary
when judged by their private and pub
lic records relating to our Constitution
and laws? The late Mr. William
Howard Taft, former President and
later chief justice, threw into the
balances his commanding influence
with the express and deliberate pur
pose of thwarting the appointments of
Progressives and of securing the se
lection of justices notably conservative
and reactionary.
* * * *
In the sense of those who criticise
the President s plan as “packing the
court,’’ Mr. Taft made the accom
plishment of a purpose to pack the
court the primary object in urging the
election of President Harding.
As to whether his motive was con
summated you may Judge for yourselves.
President Harding was elected and
nominated Justices Sutherland and
Butler as associate Justices and Mr.
Taft as chief Justice.
Consider the case of Mr. Justice
Me Reynolds.
He was quoted as saying in a recent
public address that it is not good
sportsmanship for one who hss hsd a
fair trial to criticise a decision of the
Supreme Court. One wonders if the
justice hss forgotten thst in February,
1935, when the Supreme Court de
livered the famous gold clause de
cision he, from the bench, struck in
rage at his fellow members on the
bench, at the President and Congress,
declaring that the decision had de
stroyed the Constitution, that “a de
based currency is nothing new.” He
said: "Nero undertook to exercise that
power. Six centuries ago in Prance
It was regarded as a prerogative of
the sovereign. * * * It seems impossible
to overestimate what has been done
here today. The Constitution is gone.
• • • The people’s fundamental rights
have been preempted by Congress.
Some day the truth will be seen.”
One wonders if the Justice thinks
that good "sportsmanship” consists in
refraining from criticism of opinions
when he is with the majority and in
dulging in abuse toward the ma
jority when he takes the view of the
minority. Just what is good "sports
manship,” Mr. Justice? Nowhere in
the Supreme Court decisions, nowhere
in legal literature does a judge stand
more emphatically condemned by his
own test as a poor "sportsman.”
Cereal Yield Becord.
Yugoslavia cereal yield last season
was the Jargest on record.
IS SEEN BY BAILEY
Carolina Senator Departs
From Court Plan Attack
to Issue Warning.
to tb» Asaoclatsa Pnu.
CHAPEL HILT,, N. C., March 31.—
Departing from his prepared address,
Senator Joslah W. Bailey. Democrat,
of North Carolina, opponent of Presi
dent Roosevelt's Supreme Court reor
ganisation program, said “the greatest
danger in America today Is inflation."
"When any government goes on
spending for six years like yours and
mine has without balancing the bud
get, commodity prices Inevitably must
rise. And you know that inflation can
mean destruction,’’ the Senator said.
He spoke almost an hour from his
prepared address and then talked half
an hour extemporaneously. His pre
pared speech was broadcast. About
2,000 persons heard the address before
the Human Relations Institute at the
University of North Carolina and ap
plauded frequently.
Defending his record, Bailey said:
"I have voted for the administration
more often than our State has. Nine
administration measures have been
passed by Congress this year and I
have voted for all of them.”
Ickes Criticized.
The Senator criticized Secretary
Ickes aa ‘‘the man who reproached the
South for having segregation laws”
and Harry Hopkins "for using his
office to influence legislation, thereby
violating the very soul of the Con
stitution.”
In his prepared address Bailey said
"the quick and sure way” for the
President to bring about his court pro
gram is by amendment.
He said the President would have
to "take chance*” on appointment of
additional Justices to the high tribunal.
"But no such chance* would be taken
if we should proceed by way of amend
ments to the Constitution,” Bailey de
clared.
"We can draw them broad enough.
The only chance to be taken is that
they might not be ratified. But this
is a chance we ought to take. We
have no right to amend the Con
stitution without submission to the
people and the States.
"If they refuse ratification it will
be because they do not desire the
amendments. If they desire the
amendment* they can ratify them in
90 days.
Say* Plan “Not Sure.”
"There is nothing sure or quick in
adding six justices to the (Supreme)
Court unless it be the sure and quick
way of discrediting the judicial de
partment.
“On the President's own argument
his plan will not serve the purpose
he would accomplish ”
Bailey asked: "How would the
President be sure that his appointees
(to the Supreme Court) would hold
proposed legislation constitutional?”
"Since we must have ‘action now,’ ”
Bailey added, "we must be sure.”
Bailey discussed in detail argu
ments advanced by Mr. Roosevelt in
his first message to Congress and in
subsequent Victory dinner and “fire
side chat” addresses.
Diacusse* President’s Argument.
He said the Presidety's argument
that the change was needed to meet
impending crises “goes the way the
first argument went. It will be aban
doned." The first argument sub
mitted, he said, was that members of
the court were behind with their
work.
Bailey concluded his address by ask
ing, “Is it wrong for me to put the
President’s arguments to the test of
reason?”
"I take it when he makes an argu
ment he intended every man to study
it,” Bailey said. “Otherwise for what
purpose does he make it? The ex
clusive responsibility for legislation is
vested in Congress. He advises and
recommends, but Congress legislates.
“He is a great man, he has done
great work, he deserves great credit.
But responsible legislators must ac
cept and discharge their exclusive re
sponsibility.”
MODEL FOR SMITHSONIAN
The original model of the first
practical computing machine was to
be added today to the Smithsonian
Institution'* collection of historic
American Inventions.
The machine, invented 50 years
ago by the late Dorr I. Felt of
Chicago, consisted of a series of
wheels, rubber bands, meat skewers
and staples housed in an old maca
roni box.
Guyer Discovers
Car From Home Is
Own Secretary’s
Bj the Associated Press.
Representative Guyer, Republi
can, of Kansas spotted an auto
mobile from home on a Capital
street. Unable to locate the
driver, he left his card with an
invitation to "come in and see
me."*
Guyer told his secretary, Rus
sell Jones, about it today.
“It’s been a week now,” he
said. "I've seen the car several
times since, too. I wonder why
the owner doesn't come and see
m -
‘‘Congressman,” Jones replied
meekly, “he’s been in every day.
It was my car.”
MATTRESS!
A famous Spanish swashbuckler
made a mattress from the beards cut
from his enemies. Yes, and shaving
is pretty soft, too, when you use
Gem Blades, stropped 4840 times.
For happy shaves!
SHAVING MAGIC!
Stropped 4840 times, 50% thicker Gem
Blades go through whiskers like magic.
Get on to this modern shave which keeps
your face unshadowed
to the end of the ,
longest day!
For Amendment
PROF. ERWIN N. GRISWOLD
Of the Harvard Law School,
who appeared as a witness be
fore the Senate Judiciary
Committee yesterday and sug
gested a constitutional amend
ment fixing the number of
Supreme Court justices at nine
and their terms of office at 18
years. —Harris-Ewing Photo.
$100,000,000 Bill Designed
to Aid Wheat Growers
Sent to House.
A $100,000,000 wheat crop Insurance
bill headed for the House today bear
ing the approval of the Senate.
Approved in the upper branch yes
terday without a record vote, the bill
would establish a Federal corporation
within the Agricultural Deportment to
insure the wheat growers against in
sects, bad weather and other hazards
which might reduce their crop yield.
Participation would be voluntary,
with premiums and losses payable in
cash or wheat. Coverage and pre
miums would vary by localities, de
pending on average production over a
base period.
The measure was supported by both
Democrats and Republicans in the
Senate. Senator Pope, Democrat, of
Idaho, Its sponsor, explained that
the major purpose was to sta
bilize wheat prices, taking grain off
the market in bumper years and re
leasing it in periods of shortage.
Preparing for House consideration
of the bill, Chairman Jones of the
Agriculture Committee conferred yes
terday with President Roosevelt and
officials of the Department of Agricul
ture.
--•
Mines Face Labor Shortage.
Gold mines of the Rand of South
Africa face a labor shortage.
Allen Says Tribunal Must Be
Untrammeled—Thomas
Denies Loss in Plan.
By the Associated Press.
CHICAGO, March 31.—Henry J,
Allen, former Republican Governor of
Kansu, and Senator Elbert D.
Thomas, Democrat, from Utah, car
ried debate on the court issue to a
public mass meeting last night.
"You give the President of the
United States the power to add a
servile court to a servile Congress,” Al
len declared, "and I do not care what
you call the Government of the United
States, its President has become Its
dictator.”
"By increasing the court.” Thomas
asserted, "we cannot possibly destroy
either democracy or the checks and
balances and separation of powers or
Judicial review which mark us as a
government unique.”
Cites Rise of Dictators.
Allen said dictatorships had been
established in Germany and Italy
through constitutional methods and
added:
"Montesquieu, the great French stu
dent, whose words of warning im
pressed the constitutional convention,,
said, ‘There is no liberty if the Ju
dicial powers be not separated from
the legislative and executive.’ This
warning, repeated by Washington and
Jefferson and emphasized by Jack
son. ha* been coming down to us. em
phasizing the need of a judiciary
• * • removed from the dangers of
usurpation. There could be no more
direct threat of usurpation than that
contained in the President's demand
that they pass a law • * • giving
him the power to appoint six new
members to the Supreme Court im
mediately.”
Say* People Spoke Clearly.
"We have a situation where the
majority of our people want a certain
kind of reform and progressive gov
ernment," said Thomas. "They went
through the sad years of 1929, 1930,
1931, 1932 and much of 1933 to get it.
They spoke clearly for it. Constitu
tional lawyers approved it. Then the
Supreme Court took it away. The
most brilliant members of the court
• • • said 'Let them have it.’ The
most numerous members of the court
said ‘It must be taken away.’ If times
are changing, how else are we going
to bring about a proper acceptance of
changing times, unless we, the Con
gress, add some progressive thought
into the ranks of final arbiters. It is
not only our right but our duty."
The debate was sponsored by the
Town Hall Organization at the Lake
Shore Athletic Club.
■---—
Jenkins Lauds Cuban Standards.
MIAMI, Fla., March 31 (^—Rep
resentative Thomas A. Jenkins of
Ohio, member of the House Ways and
Means Committee, returned from Cuba
yesterday with praise for living stand
ards there.
O pportunity
knocks loudly — once,
oftimes twice, for men
whose clothes reflect
success, alertness. They
are given preference
for top jobs and big
orders. You’ll look
your best, wearing
HAND WOVEN
HARRIS
TWEED
S UITS
the genuine—and »o labeled—for only
*35
We admit the offering is a bit unusual.
Seldom have you seen Harris Tweeds
priced so low-and these are the genu
ine hand-woven tweeds, especially
well-tailored. Brown or grey, in two
button, notch-lapel jackets; or Bel
lows-back sport models. In sizes for
men and young men.
GROSNER
of 1325 F Street
ASK ABOUT OUR 10-PAY CHARGE PLAN