Evening Star Newspaper, March 30, 1937, Page 8

Text of Glass Address Assailing Court Plan HE full text of Senator Glass’ speech last night, opposing the President’s judiciary plan, follows: The speaker this evening is Carter Glass, senior Senator of Virginia in the Congress of the United States. Never in my career unti now have I ventured to debate before the pub- lic a measure pending in the Senate and awalting decision there; but the proponents of the problem to which I shall address myself tonight have seemed fearful of a deliberate con- sideration of the proposal to pack the Supreme Court of the United States; they have defiantly avowed their purpose to take the discussion into every forum, with the uncon- cealed intention of bringing pressure to bear on members of Congress to submit obediently to the frightful suggestion which has come to them from the White House. . The challenge has been accepted by those who op- pose the repugnant scheme to disrupt representative government in the Na- tion; and the battle is on to the end. Confessedly I am speaking tonight from the depths of a soul filled with bi appears to me utterly destitute of moral sensibility and without parallel since the foundation of the Republic. However, I am not speaking my own mind alone; the character and intel- igence of the Nation are aroused and reflecting as best I can the in- erness against a proposition which | | | nt protests of thousands upon | ands of individual citizens whose telegrams and letters to me as a single Senator are on the desk before me as an inspiration against any faltering in this time of extreme peril to that charter of our liberties which Glad- stone pronounced “the most wonder- ful work ever struck off at a given time by the brain and purpose of man." There has been some talk about “or- ganized propaganda” against this un- - abashed proposition to pack the Su- preme Court for a specified purpose! Propaganda was first organized in behalf of the scheme right here in Washington and has proceeded with unabated fury from the White House fireside to nearly every rostrum in the try. Political janizaries, paid by Federal Treasury to perform serv- nsibility for determining ques- affecting the Nation's judiciary, parading the States in a desperate rffort to influence the public against . Supreme Court of the United t One of these visionary in- laries spoke recently in a South- | ern State and exceeded all bounds of rational criticism in his vituperation of the eminent men who have served great distinction on the supreme h. He is said to have been ap- ded by the audience of his parti- which caused me to wonder if could have known the type of person to whose unrestrained abuse of the Supreme Court and the great ts who constitute its membership approvingly listened. Did they know that he recently reproached the Sou for providing separate public schools for the races; that he urged repeal of every statute and crdinance of segregation; that committed the administration at ‘Washington to a new force bill for the South, declaring that not since Lin- coln's day has it better been realized th now the necessity of laws to strictly enforce the three post-Civil ‘War amendments to the Constitution which kept the South in agony for years and retarded its progress for nigh half a century? This in- furiated propagandist for degrading the Supreme Court practically pro- poses another tragic era of reconstruc- tion for the South. Sheuld men of his mind have part in picking the six proposed judicial sycophants very likely they would be glad to see re- versed those decisions of the court that saved the civilization of the South and in spite of the menace of passionate partisans, with their vio- lent threats to “reorganize” the court, prohibited the seizure and confisca- tion, without pay, of the estates of private citizens. It was the Supreme Court of the United States that vali< dated the suffrage laws of the South which saved the section from anarchy and ruin in a period the unspeakable outrages of which nearly all the Na- tion recalls with shame. Secctional Animosity Is Seen Revealed. This, however, is merely an inci- dental aspect of the case, reflecting my intense personal resentment and sharply revealing the sectional ani- mosity of some of the fierce defamers of the Suprem Court. Infinitely graver questions are presented. This entire Nation is aroused over the many definite proposals to reverse the deliberate judgments of an in- dependent court and to substitute for them the previously pledged opinions of judicial subalterns. With men of this undisguised radical type cam- paigning the country and freely ap- plying their wretched opprobriums to the Supreme Court, those who resist | the shocking movement are imperti- nently reproached with ‘“organizing propaganda!” I challenge any pro- ponent of this packing contrivance to examine the thousands upon thou- sands of personal letters and tele- grams sent to me and find in them anything but individual indignation &t the proposal to make an executive puppet of our supreme judicial tri- bunal. For myself, I think we should right now have “organized propa- ganda"—in the sense that the men and women of America who value the liberties they ve enjoyed for 150 years should, with unexampled spon- taneity, exercise their constitutional right of petition and, with all the earnestness of their souls, protest to Congress against this attempt to replace representative government with an autocracy. Aside from these observations, let us consider the glaring proposal of the White House to pack the Supreme Court immediately with the Presi- dent’s own legal adherents for a spe- cific purpose, and to enable him dur- ing his present term, even should there be not another, to entirely re- constitute the court with persons en- tertaining his extraordinary views of government. The Attorney General, in inaugurating ‘“organized propa- ganda” in behalf of the project, un- dertook to identify the names of ‘Washington, Jefferson and other emi- nent Americans with expedients akin to the unprecedented proposal of the President. Already I have publicly pronounced the assertion an inde- fensible libel on the fame of these ereat men, and was glad to note that the Attorney General omitted in his statement before the Senate Judiciary Committee to repeat the aspersion. The White House proposal is without precedent in the history of American Jurisprudence. Its consequences por- tend evils beyond the anxiety of any person concerned for a decent admin- istration of justice in this country. There is a precedent. dating back to the infamous star chamber processes of Great Britain, to which I shall presently refer. n [ he practically | THE EVENING SENATOR CARTER GLASS. George Washington, of course, wns! compelled to nominate a full Supreme Court at the very beginning of our| national life, but no reputable person charged then or has ever believed | since that Washington “packed” the court with men pledged to any cer- | tain line of conduct beyond faithful | compliance with the required oath to| uphold the Constitution in the sight | of God. uninfluenced by the machina= | tions of politicians or the self-inter- | draining the Federal Treasury. men he selected for Chief Justice and | associates were not only persons of eminence in the profession of the law, but in character literally incap- | able of going on the bench to submit | obediently to executive decrees. I here and now challenge the pro- | ponents of this startling scheme to pack the Supreme Court for the | avowed purpose of validating acts of | Congress already decided to be un-| | constitutional to produce one word written or spoken by Thomas Jeffer- son in advocacy of such & thing. If | there ever was a public man, who,| | aside from an unimpeachable char- | acter, could have been suspected of a | | desire to do such a frightful thing, it | | was Thomas Jeflerson. He hated | | John Marshall, Chief Justice of the | court, who was his kinsman, and Mar- shall hated Jefferson. The latter bit- | | terly condemned Marshall's opinions. Recently emerged from under the ty- ranny of a mad King, Jeffersonians of the period dreaded the transformation | of this Republic into a monarchy. They | suspected Marshall of a desire, if not the purpose, to do this “step by step, insidiously,” through judicial interpre- tations. They knew Alexander Ham- ilton, who was Marshall's powerful | political associate, could well wish it to be done. Jefferson was incensed at the obiter dicta in Marshall's famous | opinion in the case of Marbury vs. Madison and other notable cases. Perpetually afterward he bitterly cen- sured this and other opinions of Mar- | shall. However, for six years after | | the delivery of Marshall's celebrated | | federalistic opinion, concurred in by the court, Thomas Jeflerson was| President of the United States, with | full opportunity to propose reorgani- | zation of the Supreme Court to compel | obedience to his views; but, with overwhelmingly supporting Congresses, | he never then or at any time in all his life would have done such an abomi: nable thing. Jefferson “Wouldn't Reorganize Court.” Aside from his clear discernment of | the vital importance of the checks and balances incorporated in the Consti= | tution and his conception of judicial | propreity, Jefferson would never have suggested such a thing for the reason | subsequently stated with characteristic clarity and force by Woodrow Wilson | when he said: “It is within the undoubted consti- | tutional power of Congress to over- lwhclm the opposition of the Supreme Court on any question by increasing the number of justices and refusing to | confirm any appointments to the new | places which do not promise to change | the opinion of the court. But we do | not think such a violation of the spirit of the Constitution is possible, simply because we share and contribute to that public opinion which makes such | outrages upon constitutional morality impossible by standing ready to curse | them.” “Standing ready to curse them!” | That tidily describes the attitude of thinking men and women everywhere | in America today toward this hateful attempt to drive eminent jurists from the bench in order to crowd into the court a lot of judicial marionettes to speak the ventriloquisms of the White House. What Woodrow Wilson pungently described as an expedient to “overwhelm the Supreme Court” by “an outrage upon constitutional mo- rality” is, in my view, the exact thing now proposed; and it requires little astuteness to predict with confidence that the prophecy of Wilson would come true and the curses of the Amer- ican people, in the end, would be visited upon those responsible for this device to deprave the Supreme Court and to make a political plaything of the Constitution of the United States. In like tenor with views entertained and frequently expressed by Woodrow Wilson were the profound convictions of another {llustrious Democrat of the modern era. A practical student of government, a lover of his country, pre-eminent for courage and common sense, Grover Cleveland had & rever- ential regard for the Constitution and the courts. Nothing on the earth could have induced this stern patriot to lay impious hands upon either or | to say or do anything designed to in- flame uninstructed public opinion against them. Just prior to his sec- ond election to the presidency, Cleve- land made a notable address at a cen- tennial celebration of the Supreme Court. Reciting the sacrifices of the American people to be free and ad- monishing his hearers that the writers of the Constitution knew from bitter experience how readily instrumentali- ties of government were prone to tres- pass upon the liberties of the gov- erned, Cleveland pointed out that, nevertheless, the founders of the Re- public “calmly and deliberately estab- lished as a function of their Govern- to) ment a check upon unauthorized free- dom and a restraint upon dangerous liberty. Said he, “The attachment and allegiance of the founders to the sov- ereignty of their States were warm and unfaltering; but that did not prevent them from contributing a fraction of that sovereignty to the creation of a court which should guard and protect their new Nation and save and per- petuate a government which should, in all time to come, bless an inde- ests of any group of men intent on | pendent people. Let us be glad in the | The | possession of this rich heritage of | American citizenship and gratefully appreciate the wisdom and patriotism of those who gave to us the Supreme Court of the United States.” Telegram after telegram, letter after letter, sent me by the thousands, have said “God bless the Supreme Court.” But who wants God to bless a packed Supreme Court? Who wants to invoke Divine blessing on a court not consti= tuted'to put “a check upon unauthor- | ized freedom and restraint upon dan- gerous liberty,” but reorganized to validate acts of Congress in contra=- vention of the Constitution as now in- terpreted and to expound the Con- stitution in subservient obedience to | the whims or obsessions or misgutded Jjudgment of a President of the United States? Woodrow Wilson said such a court and those responsible for it would receive the curses of the Amer- ican people. Grover Cleveland said | the Supreme Court was created for no such sinister purpose. Our God still being in the heavens, it is my belief He would regard as unhallowed any invocation of His blessing on a court like that. We would better abolish the Supreme Court and, by the re- quired process, do away outright with the Constitution if they are to be!tnis valiant propagandist, now con- | tlonal actions of Congress in disre- made the playthings of politicians. Cleveland’s Warning. Against “Invasion.” What did Cleveland mean by checks and balances against ‘‘unauthorized freedom and dangerous liberty?” He was uttering a monition against legis- lative or executive invasion of the rights of the States, reserved to them under the Constitution, and to be “guarded and protected” by the Su- | He meant what a Gov- | preme Court. ernor of & great State, afterward Pre ident of the United States. meant when seven years ago he made a ve- hement plea for respecting State | rights and unsparingly denounced gov- | ernment by “commissions and regula- | | tory bodies and special legislation.” The Governor warned that: “To bring about government by oligarchy—masquerading as de- mocracy—it is fundamentally es- sential that all authority and con- trol be centralized in our National Government. We are safe from the danger of any such departure from the principles on which this country was founded just so long as the individual home rule of the States is scrupulously preserved and fought for whenever they seem in danger.” This was Franklin D. Roosevelt in March, 1930. When before, may I venture to ask, in the history of the country has this Nation more nearly approached the situation thus de- plored? With Federal regulatory bod- ies in every community of the States and Federal bureaus in Washington bursting the bonds of marble palaces and overflowing into business houses and privatc homes, and with the States required supinely to submit their legislative statutes to the approv= al of bureaucratic boards here be- | fore they can get back a pittance of the prodigious sums picked from the pockets of their people in the form of taxes, State rights, as well as the se- | curity and independence of private en- terprise, are fast disappearing. What does this court-packing scheme signify if it does not reflect the fury of its proponents against the Supreme Court of the United States for certain of its recent decisions as- serting the rights of the States and individuals and private business under the law and prohibiting the proposed invasion of these by ill-digested con- gressional legislation, largely devised by inexperienced and incompetent academicians? That is precisely what it is all about. Had the judicial de- cisions sanctioned these rankly un- constitutional measures, who believes there would have been this unre- strained abuse of the court and this unprecedented attempt to flank the Constitution by putting on the bench six judicial wet-nurses to suckle the substance out of the opinions of jurists whose spirit of independence keeps pace with their profound knowledge of the law. That the purpose of the court proj- ect has accurately been stated by me is no longer in serious question. The President in his message to Congress implicitly conceded the proposition when he said if given legislative sanc- tion for this irregular scheme there would be no necessity of appealing to the people to so amend their Consti- tution as to authorize the things for which the Supreme Court had said there is now no authority, as well, per- haps, as unmentioned schemes of “unfettered” delegation of legislative power. That can mean nothing else than that it was then the Executive determination to select six new judges who would validate acts of Congress already pronounced unconstitutional and contemplated acts of a similar \k STAR, WASHINGTON, kind. Every speech made since, whether at the fireside or elsewhere, has confirmed this interpretation of the President's message to Congress. If that, in plain terms, isn't “packing the Supreme Court” for well-defined purposes, I confess my inability to supply a better definition. Moreover, the advocates of the scheme themselves reveal this pur- pose—some of them warily enough to have produced merriment in the com- mittee room, while others have bluntly, and with evident lack of shame, said outright that this is the ghastly object of the proceeding. Still others specify some of the voided acts they propose to revive and render valid by the votes of the six new justices whom the country assured will be selected for their “bias.” One of these acts, which lost American farmers their export markets and ne- cessitated the importation of foreign foodstuffs to feed our own people, was nullified by two-thirds of the Supreme Court, but by adding to the minority the six “biased” votes to be packed onto the court this decision may be overridden. N. R. A. “Reign of Terror” Assailed by Speaker. Another of the acts, voided by a| unanimous vote of the Supreme Court | form our enactments to the require- and proposed to be revived for re- versal, would severely test the persua- sive powers and great legal attain- | ments of the six “biased” justice: since it is difficult for six votes to subvert nine, no matter what the dis- | parity of ages. All nine Supreme | Court justices threw out the so-called N. R. A. as an “unfettered” delega- tion of power, as it Was an amazing thrust of Federal jurisdiction into| every conceivable private business of | the country. Among its other vices | it actually suspended for a period the | laws of the Nation against the depre- dations of monopoly and confided to Executive discretion, under a hateful species of coercion, involving fines and imprisonment, the fate of every busi- ness interest in the United States. Its administration was confided to a man, long a respected friend of mine, of unsurpassed accomplishments, with no selfish interest whatsoever to sub- serve; but in circumstances®he was as ruthless and harsh as human na- | ture ever gets. The act and its ad- ministration created a reign of ter= ror in the country; and everybody ex- |cept the large industries which profited by the enforced failure of | the smaller hailed the decision of the | court with satisfaction. We are told this is to be revived, along with the Guffey coal bill of somewhat a like nature, also declared unconstitutional by the Supreme | Court; and I am wondering if we are to witness the same sort of organized | propaganda in their behalf as dis- | tinguished one oracle of the N. R. A, now prominently mentioned as one of the “biased” wet-nurses of the su- preme bench. In his first speech this man impudently denounced every American citizen as a “slacker” who should not volunteer obedience to the N. R. A. He urged the women of the country to pin white feathers on | every person who would not willingly | | co-operate with enforcement; thus he would have put a badge of disgrace | on all men and women who would not submit to the atrocious exactions of |an act of Congress which all nine judges of the Supreme Court, young jand old alike, pronounced unconsti- | tutional. The effrontery of this at- | tempt to terrorize the people was in |no degree abated by the fact that | spicuously pictured as one of the prob- | able selections for the Supreme Court | {bench, sat in a swivel chair during | the whole period of the World War, | never hearing a percussion cap pop | or sensing the smell of gunpowder or getting near enough to a training camp to learn the difference between | “order arms” and ‘“forward march "' With Jacobins of this type constitut- | ing the wet-nurse section of the Su- preme Court, what an era of peace | and contentment could the American people confidently anticipate with the revival of the N. R. A. and kindred vagaries of the brain-truster variety! What other and how many peculiar schemes of government are to be pre- | sented for submissive legislative action | | in confident expectation that they will | | meet with the favor of the “biased” half dozen who are to adorn the bench, is left to our imagination, be- cause not exactly specified in the proclaimed program. We are simply given to understand that the President has a “mandate from the people” to 50 reconstitute the Supreme Court as to have it sanction whatever the White House proposes to an agreeing Congress, particularly if it involves no ‘“check upon unauthorized free- dom,” to quote Grover Cleveland again, or ‘restraint on dangerous liberty.” But we know there has been no such mandate from the people to rape the Supreme Court or to tamper with the Constitution. The Consti- tution belongs to the people, It was written by great representatives «f the people, chosen for the purpose, and was ratified by the people as the supreme charter of their Government, to be respected and maintained with the help of God. With the consent and by mandate of the people their Constitution provides how it may be amended to meet the requirements of the ages. It has always been so, and no administration in the history of the republic has attempted to flank the Constitution by a legislative short- cut so vividly denounced by Woodrow Wilson as “an outrage vpon consti- tutional morality.” Denies Contribution To Court Efficiency. ~ The people were not asked for any such mandate. They were kept in ignorance of any such purpose. They were told that the liberal aims of the President could very likely be achieved within the limitations of the Consti- tution; and if not, we would suggest to the people amendments that would authorize such certain things to be done. When once it was intimated by political adversaries that the Supreme Court might be tampered with, the insinuation was branded as a sple- netic libel. No word in the platform of the prevailing party could be inter- preted into advocacy of any such abnormity as that now in issue. Quite the contrary, every platform declara- tion on the subject gave promise of the customary constitutional pro- cedure. But somebody badly advising the President was evidently afrald of the people. The Attorney General apparently feared to “ask a mandate from the people” for his wretched scheme, defended so weakly in reason as to invite expressions of contempt. Convicted by his own official reports of inaccurate assertions about con- gestion of the Supreme Court calendar, and now flatly contradicated on this and other points by the Chief Justice and associates, there is nothing left of his bitter assault on the court more notable than the bhrutal contention that six eminent members “get out™ and give place to six others of a com- pliant type, in the selection of whom the Department of Justice would prob- | merely | slons upon the extent of the authority | abide | Jefferson’s Problems ably have & cunning hand. Of course D. C, TUESDAY, the proposal being discussed will not contribute to the efficiency of the court. It will do in this case par- ticularly what Thomas Jefferson pun- gently deplored when he declared “the multiplication of judges only enables the weak to outvote the wise.” The fact is their proposed bill will cure none of the alleged evils which offend their ideas of judicial reform. ‘Why should we not proceed, as in honor we are bound to do, by first con- triving legislation for social and eco- nomic security, painstakingly drafted by competent lawyers with a clear conception of the constitutional pro- hibitions against invading the rights of business and individuals by a spe- cies of confiscation and by utter in- difference for reserved powers of the States? Why should we not quit leg-| islating by pious preambles and con- | ments of the Constitution and thus| put upon notice the cabal of amateur experimenters that we will have no more of their trash. Let us have no more bills for “unfettered” delegation of authority, so obviously unconstitu- tional as to have prompted the Presi- dent to make an unhappy appeal for disregarding all “reasonable doubts.” Let us meet the issue confidently, but with a determination to promote the general welfare of the Nation and not to surrender control of the| Government to special groups, If it then be found that we were| mistaken in the expressed belief that the Constitution is ample to our pur- poses, let us do what we promised to do and appeal to the people to amend their supreme law. Let the impatient proponents of the pending scheme turn to the advice of George Wash- | ington in his famous farewell address| in which he admonished against dis- | regarding ‘“reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power,” saying: | “If, in the opinion of the people, the | distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any par- ticular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way in which| the Constitution designates. But let | there be no change by usurpation; for | though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free| governments are destroyed.” | Let those who would confide to| | the President complete control over the Supreme Court by sanction of an obedient Congress reread the farewell address of Andrew Jackson, in which he cautioned the country against the Jeopardy to their liberties of a con- solidated Government and the evil consequences of “permitting tempo- rary circumstances, or the hope of | better promoting the public welfare, | to influence, in any degree, our deci- of the general Government. Let us the Constitution as it is written,” he urged, “or amend it in the constitutional mode if it be found defective.” On States’ Right. And, in this connection. it might be well for the proponents of this court- packing scheme, who started their campaign by taking the name of ‘Thomas Jefferson in vain, to remem- ber that Jefferson's bitterness against the Supreme Court was provoked by the very thing they now advocate. Jeflerson condemned the court for its failure to void the unbridled actions of Congress in invading the rights of States, where the court packers are incensed against the court for restraining the unconstitu- garding individual and community rights Their position is in sharp antagonism to that of Jefferson, who never dreamed of packing the Su- preme Court to compel obedience to his views. Evidently Jefferson thought, as Woodrow Wilson afterward pro- MARCH 30, claimed, that such a thing involved “constitutional immorality.” I venture to beg the public not to be diverted from the real issue in- | volved in this controversy. Contest | ing the court’s constitutional authority | to void acts of Congress is idle sur- plusage. The court has exercised this implied power for 130 vears. It has been regarded as an indispensable power in government under & written | Constitution. There must be a supreme tribunal to which every citi- zen, high or humble, rich or poor, may appeal for the vindication of his rights and the preservation of life,, liberty and property. Long before the Supreme Court was established this principle was presented by Chancellor Wythe, Jefferson's law teacher, with respect to acts of Parliament and decrees of the Crown. It is a waste of time to discuss now this and other moot questions not touched in the remotest sense by the pending propo- sition. Under the bill sent up to Comngress, prepared by God knows whom, the six substitute justices would exercise the established power to rule finally on the acts of Con- gress, and the dangerous circumstance faces the Nation that we know pretty well in advance what their rulings would be. The question of majority or other numerical decisions is not comprehended in the White House proposal, nor the right of Congress to review and reverse the court’s decisions. The predominant question is whether the practice of a century under an independent judiclary is to be abruptly terminated by authoriz- ing the President to seize the court by the process of packing in order to compel agreement with the Execu- tive views. Should this be done without “a mandate from the people”? Should the people be ignored and, without asking their consent in the usual way, submit helplessly to hav- ing their Constitution tortured into meanings which have been declared in contravention of the fundamental law? If Andrew Jackson was right in asserting that “Eternal vigilance by the people is the price of liberty,” God knows that never before since the establishment of the Republic could the people better be warned to pre- serve their priceless heritage. The talk about “party loyalty” being in- volved in the opposition to this extraordinary scheme is a familiar species of coercion. It is sheer poppy- cock. No political party since the establishment of the Government ever dared make an issue of packing the Supreme Court. But a single one of the Presidents of the United States was ever accused of doing such & thing, and the mere suspicion, how- ever ill-founded in truth, has proved a taint upon his reputation which his memorable military achievements have not been able entirely to wipe away. Moreover, his alleged offense was in- consequential in contrast with that which now threatens the Nation. As Warren says in his history of the Supreme Court: “To the proposal ad- vanced at various times of intense party passion, that the court be in- cregsed in number to overcome a temporary majority for or against some particular piece of legislation, the good sense of the American people has always given a decided disap- proval” And as James Bryce in his “American Commonwealth” says, A\ 1937. whenever such a thing should occur “the security provided for the pro- tection of the Constitution is gone like a morning mist.” Thomas Jefferson in a single sentence comprised the unalterable detestation of honest men for the packing of the court when he said: “It is better to toss up cross and pile in a cause than to refer to a judge | whose mind is warped by any motiveq whatever in that particuls: case.” | Later he wrote: “An officer who selects judges for principles which necessarily lead to condemnation, might as well take his culprits to the scaffold with- out the mockery of trial.” This Jef- ferson sald of packed juries. How infinitely worse would be a packed Supreme Court, albeit in one case the penalty is imprisonment and in the other the universal abhorrence of mankind! “Goes Back to Days Of Star Chamber.” I have said this proposal to pack the Supreme Court is without preced- ence in American jurisprudence and and that we must go back for a corresponding scheme to the infamous processes of the British star chamber. Macauley gives us the incident. When | the King wanted a servile court to sanction his purposes, contrary to decisions rendered, he summoned the | chief justice to the palace and told him peremptorily that he would be dismissed unless he changed his opinions. “Sire,” said the courageous | chief justice, “my position is of little concern to me, since I have not many years to live; but my convictions are of vital importance, and I am humili- ated to find that your majesty could think me capable of altering my mind merely to retain my place!” The chief justice than bravely admonished his kingly master: “Your majesty may find 12 judges of your mind, but hardly 12 honest lawyers.” Needless to say the chief justice was dismissed, just as the offending members of the Supreme Court have been rudely told to “begone” if they do not relish the proposed mortification of being su! plied with six judicial wet-nurse and well might any one or all of these eminent jurists, in imitation of that fearless Englishman, say to the appointing power: “You may find six judges of your mind, but not six constitutional lawyers.” Should the iniquitous scheme go through, the intelligence and character of the | Nation will be interested to know what | lawyer of notable attainments or independent spirit would be willing to go on the Supreme Court bench in such circumstances or could regard such an appointment as an honor. Doubtless there are practitioners eager for such recognition; but are they men whom the Nation would prefer O we mean that we challenge sixes which cost more than the 1937 Studebaker Dic- tator? We certainly do. We fearlessly assert that the Dictator is America’s greatest six re- gardless of any other car’s name, fame or price! We’re picking no easy marks includes every one of America’s nine other sixes —lower priced, equal priced or We'll undertake to convince you that the Dic- tator is a better buy no matter what other six you may have favored or considered up to now. — or who could feel comfortable association with those now constitut- ing the court. I am but an unlearned layman, untrained in the ethics of the legal profession, nevertheless, I can not escape the conclusion that any man of approved sensibility who should accept such a distinction would experience trouble in outliving the mistake. Moreover, I have a distinct premonition that the people of America would not confidently trust to the supreme decision of such a court the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness guaranteed by the Con- stitution. I am far from intimating that the President of the United States is in- capable of selecting suitable men for the Bupreme Court. I am simply ac- cepting his own word and that of nis | spokesmen to the effect that he wants men “biased” in behalf of his legisla- tive and administrative projects, who may be counted on to reverse the Su- | preme Court decisions already ren- dered and give such other decisions of policy as may be desired. This is not my view alone; it is the conclusion of millions of alarmed citizens through- out the Nation. Assails Proponents For Statements. The assumption of the proponents of this scheme to tamper with the court and the Constitution that only they are the President’s real friends, has no justfication in fact. He is not a friend of the President who would subject him to the biting indictment which Rudyard Kipling applied to a famous autocrat who answered a pe- tition from his people with the im- perious assertion that—"This is my country. These are my laws. Those who do not like to obey them can leave my country.” Wrote Kipling “He shall break his judges if they cross his word; “He shall rule above the law, calling on the Lord. “Strangers of his counsel, of his pay, “These shall deal out justice: deny—delay. ‘We shall take our station, dirt be- neath his feet, “While his hired captains jeer us in the street.” Rather is he the real friend of the President who will command to his serfous attention the ringing words of Thomas Jefferson when he proclaimed himself “against writing letters to hirelings sell— | judiciary officers,” because he “thought them independent of the Executive, not subject to its coercion and there- fore not obliged to attend to its admo- nitions.” In conclusion, my friends, let me press upon you the solemn warning of a world-renowned student of rep- in | resentative government, John Stuart Mill, when he said “A people may prefer a free gov- ernment; but if from indolence, or carelessness, or cowardice, or want of * public spirit, they are unequal to the exertions necessary for preserving it; if they will not fight for it when di- rectly attacked; if they can be de- luded by the attifices used to cheat them out of it: if by momentary dis- couragement, or temporary panic or a fit of enthusiasm for an individual, they can be induced to lay their libe erties at the feet of even a great man, | or trust him with powers which enable him to subvert their institutions—in all these cases they are more or less unfit for liberty.” Abraham Lincoln at Gettysburg thought the Civil War was a test of whether a “government of the people, by the people, for the people” should perish from the face of the earth Just as profoundly are some of us convinced that no threat to repre- sentative democracy since the foun- dation of the Republic has exceeded | in its evil portents this attempt to pack the Supreme Court of the United States and thus destroy the purity and independence of this tribunal of last resort. Saddlery and Luggage TRUNK Repairing of Leather Goods G. W. King,Jr.,511 11th St. N.W. g’l’cflo%? 3 This Pleasant Easy Wayl Nasal frritation and eon KEY'S DROPS. NOSE DROPS Handy pocket aise bottle, with concenient dropper. 4 35¢ =y AT ALL GOOD DRUG STORES g See the roomy, comfortable, beautifully ap- pointed Dictator and you'll see the year's best- looking, best built, safest 6-cylinder car . . . the world’s first six offering the dual economy of the Fram oil cleaner and the gas-saving auto- matic overdrive . .. the world’s first six offering automatic hill holder plus hydraulic brakes . . . the world’s only six with non-slam doors that ority : our challenge higher priced. it is making close lightly, tightly and silently on revolution- ary new rattle- proof rotary latches. And those thrilling innovations don’t half be- gin to cover the big powerful Dictator’s superi- it's painstakingly built by the world’s greatest group of veteran motor car craftsmen and it equals and often beats the best econ- omy showing of the lowest priced cars. See and drive a Dictator and you'll see why sales history . . . and why n¢ other six has been able to meet its defi; STUDEBAKER'S C. I. T. BUDGET PLAN OFFERS LOW TIME PAYMENTS HINSON MOTOR CO. Cottage City, Md. BOYD-CARLIN MOTOR CO. Alexandria, Va. JOHN T. PARRAN Indian Head, Md. DELLINGER BROS. Winchester, Va. \ COLLEGE College Park, LYNCHBURG AUTO SERVICE Lynehburs, Vi [1138 conn. Ave. Nw. LEE D. BUTLER, INC. ALBER & McNEIL 1418 P St. N\W. 2018 14th St. PARK AUTO Md. PLACE POTTER MOTOR G Silver Sprins, NORRIS, INC. PARIS AUTO SERVICE, INC. ‘Quantieo, Va. Phone Dlstrict 0110 E. H. CASHELL. INC. Rockville, Md. SHENANDOAH MOTOR SALES CO N.wW. Staunton, ALBEMARLE MOTOR Charlottesville, Va. GORDON'S GARAGE Va. Co. o Timberville,