Evening Star Newspaper, March 14, 1937, Page 8

THE SUNDAY STAR, WASHINGTON ARCH 14 1937—PART ONE READERS DEBATE COURT PLAN IN LETTERS TO THE STAR: 'WOULD FUTURE JUDGES “AGREE” IN ADVANCE? Senator Asks How Decisions Could Be Escaped Under Roosevelt To 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 Among other things 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 #t so fundamental that the ap- pointing 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 the opposition to the plan proposed by the President. What he says about the power of the Presi- dent is correct, and no one would ruggest taking that power out of the hands of the President. That power properly belongs to the President, and the Constitution and the Amer- lean people have a right to assume the President will do his duty in tulfilling th: obligation. But sup- pose the President in filling a vacancy on the Supreme Court should accom- pany his nomination with a message to the Senate ru something like in the articles is day nominated Mr nber of the Supreme think the members of te should know that before him I had a distinct th him that as a Supreme Court he times vote to sustain &s were passed iations. With his vote I am hopifie and expecting the member would at a such acts of Congres Bupreme Court will sustain my con- | meaning of the Con- id Mr. Collier and the rican people think of such a message? Would they not condemn It as a corrupt agreement, and would ted States Senate out of be compelled to reject nomination? Yet that is #elf-respect such a exactly what Mr. Roosevelt here pro- | poses, bill such po surance corrupt He passed legi insists he must have this order that he may get approved as he pro- he have such as- it having some such agreement with the men he BPPO If men are willing to make &ny such agreement thev are unfit for any public office, the fact that they make it N refuse to abide by wise makes m unfit s 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 New Deal legislation was constitu- tional, there would be no such outery 8gainst the President. The complaint Erows out of the effort to do a thing which the Constitution permits, but Which, in view of the President’s must be considered zens as dishonorable, DANIEL O. HASTINGS. wit i | U. S. Senator from Delaware, | | Sees Plan as Necessary. when Pranklin inaugurated, our 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 &nd‘ children in every community were suf- | fering from want of food, clothing | end shelter. Preachers gave up their | churches because of lack of funds to | keep going. The plight of thousands | of farmers and ranchers seemed hope- " was country was on 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. () through the H. O. L. C. stopped the | wholesale foreclosure on American homes and (3) through the A. A. A. Rave the country its first workable tarm relief program In my opinion our country is not | yet on & 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, T am unable to find any- where in that great document sny euthority for the Supreme Court to declare an act of Congress unconsti- tutional. Supreme Court decisions in- validating certaln 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- ttitution 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 uncertain proposal. | that the | uch Assurances on Proposals. | icies, and will, T 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 Constitution itself, | not of the Supreme Court judges In this connection, the one-time comment of President Roosevelt rele- Rating 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 ‘tn 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 | | 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 & 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 mhwr-} Wwise. An economic amendment giv- | ing specific authority to deal effece tively with our present economic chaos seems clearly in demand rather than relying upon inferences. obviously de- 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. If 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 Al 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.” This 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 is 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 s Serms, indorsed the President’s pol- exactly what they are there for, to | years Congress has ay projects President Roosevelt The present Supreme Court in a recent photo. at the microphone. Senator Burton K. Wheeler, Joe of the President’s pian —A. P. Photos. keep and hold all congressional acts | within the boundary of the Consti- | tution | Under that same Constitution—and | & Supreme Court that is a part of the Constitution—this great counry has | grown and prospered up to the year 1932. T same Constitution has length and breadth sufficient for all development whenever the Supreme Court says they are constitutional President Roosevelt 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 dec it unconstitutional. For opriated money | for rivers and harbors with no ques- ion as to its legality because those were a general good to the 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 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 would 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 footsieps 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. mentions Ohio | 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 caim, 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. 3. That the present membership of the Supreme Court be increased to 13 members. 8. That the 12-year terms of the Supreme Court justices be put on a staggered scale, whereby the President ocould appoint four justices every four years. 4. That only two-thirds of all the Bupreme Court justices be allowed to declare a congressional measure un- conatitutional. 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 Age. To the Bditor of The Star: This is an age sunk deep in the | country. | let him ask of God.” for * highly specialized and intellectual | able certainty that what we do will forms of materiality, an age that wor- | not be nullified as unconstitutional.” 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 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 accord- ance with human opinion offends the willful powers of the world If every individual could have prin- ciple and law altered to desires it might be conven but it wduld certainly be conduc universal chaos. Fortunately, princi- ple 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 orderl 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 to the nine superior char- acters constituting our Supreme Court bu! 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, he 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: “I 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 expreasive 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 covenants of liberty, individual rights and pro- tection under law may ever be in- violable. VERA E. ADAMS, Available Court Remedies. To the Editor of The 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., the 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 eontrol flood and drought and gen- erate cheap power, with any resson- | ous mobes, but through and by the or- | derly instrumentalities of the States | 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 tion of this country than has loyally invalidated his devices that outlawed them 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- 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- | lcan 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 politictans seek | to set up conatitutionally immoral | rulership over all the people. Misused enthusiasm and incitation may devastatingly lead shallow pol- iticlans to forget the proper bounds. Buch stampeding inventors of panies 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. JOSFPH 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 less than one-tenth of 1 per cent of its farmers belong to the Farm Bureau Federation, and only one-fifteenth 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-fifth 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 five 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 (\hlt the Crange is squarely against the President’s Supreme Court measure. | It is quite certain that the farmers | belonging to the Grange and to both | parties mn 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. the Editor of The Star From all that has transpired in and Aro our legisla: V. ingt since January apparent to the average onlooker 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 | To last, i Nation should thank God that we | atill 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 | C€ntly, when they have come to be- | 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), 1s 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 | & 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 apparentyi 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 write 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 owmership 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 cgin his now famous ratio phrase of 46 o 2. T. CANFIELD JENKINS, Indian Head, Md. Threat to Democracy. To the Editor of The 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 Oo! . The President hoped that his liatlnen' Y | the Constitution, | but .i’REVERENCE FOR COURT A PREDOMINANT THEME {But Some Writers for Economic R Put Faith in Need ’ eform Through the Judiciary. would read and reread the Constitu- | tion. I echo that hope. The reader of the Constitution will find this lan- | guage appearing in article IIT, 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 & party * * o Further on, in article VI, section 2, | this is sald: | . “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 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 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. If this is to become a fact, of what h will be the constitutional guar- es of certain rights to the people contained the bill of A supine Congress, under a dominant Executive, may pass laws that unquestionably would violate some provision of the Constitution, there would be no relief. One may have the idea that a change in the congressic 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 “Unorganized Middie Class.” ‘ To the Editor of The Star 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 with the sit respect neither property rights of their fellow workers, It is not vet fully aroused, but should be. When it speaks, the Presi- dent and Congress will listen In the last election the great mid- dle class followed the President be- cause of his brilliant handling of the benking 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 protec property and liberty. It has st 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 mnot struck down anything as unconstitutional d citizens generally want. It 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- 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? 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 & command— & 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 is 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 | takes an act of Congress, under the Constitution. I further would like to point out that a President of the United States 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 numkers of capable lawyers in our | | | ru which | of this fact, every citizen of this | either the great middle class "fh‘fl‘; ¥ : has held | that the Constitution does not give | Congress it seems to me that the last Congress must have been in a sta dotard wk passed cannot stand tutior Here, my dear readers, comes the In the t 15 years we troducing bill after bill in Cor ive to child labor and our gress tells us we must have referendum and ratification three-fo: the States to amend the Cons 1 which I say is correct. But how can this same Congress pass laws such as R. A. A. A A, Guffey coal bill™ and what not and expect the gentl the Supreme Court to lav aside their wisdom, their knowledge of law and last, but not least, g New Dealers the Constitu with ke us dance 52 €'s to the Supreme Court judges health to venerable gentlemen nine, Who protect the interest.of yours and mine Spare them. God And extend President of Her I pray unto yo your blessings to too JOHN J. GUINN. 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 pack the Supreme Court or to place sufficient men upon the court of his own choosing so his New Deal meas= issue Wit are million publicans who Roosevelt's re-elect no such mandate form of the Democratic p: dent in any of speeches ever solicited a on the above basis was absolutely silent issue he is now adv Dej in Congress w issue with the form plan are Democratic plaf another single vote | crat President cratic par election issues spect, for the dignity of the Supreme Court and for fundamental law, He and a few of his socialistic advisers are doin more than the worst anarchists ever did in America to foment the spirit of fear and of revolution by their insistence to overa throw the decisions of the Suprema Court, and that if the radical social- istic policies are not carried ort 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 & una mous vote declared unconstitutional Does Mr. Neff want a clean slate for the Supreme Court? Is the Executive to all three es of the Government for the Ty there loval Democrats that ber stamp out of that Honoranle a the President would keep his promise made in one of his pre-elec- tion speeches and give business and industry a chance to make recover effective on its own initiative, would not now have to raise scare of another crisis in the ness world. Who disrespecting the people’s rights? Not the Supreiie Court. 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 by party politics and policies which have betraved 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 ju | odious names and are u: abide by its decisions? Such a course | engenders lawlessness and t 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- lmited powers. GEORGE JEFFERSON, Jr. ~ Also Answers Dr. Neff. To the Editor of The Star That flery article in Thursday's Star by J. P. Neff in which he advocated the spanking of five of the nine juse tices of the Supreme Court becausa they dared to vote their interpretation of the Constitution on legislative acts 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. Nefl is Rev. J. P. Neff, an ordained minister of the Columbia Union Conference of Seventh-Day Ad- ventists, a secretary of the cducational 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. i Surely the war-like spirit exempli- fled 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 preachars 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 It | will of the people, and urges that | 1 this will is not compliea with, a3 demonstrated in the election of lasi November then there should be & change in the attitude of the Su= preme Court no less than what would (See LETTERS, Page A-18) £ i