Southwest Washington labor press. [volume] (Hoquiam, Wash.) 19??-19??, 1923-08-31


The Supreme Court has not been
infallible. Its action in the Dart
mouth College case has been practi-
cally overruled by provisions insert
ed in the several State Constitutions,
and the method IN which that deci-
sion was brought about conferred no
credit upon the court of that day.
The court in many cases has held
that its own action was unc0nstitu-
tional by overriding its former deci-
sions. AS to the decision in the Le-
gal Tender case every one knows
how a reversal was brought about by
reducing and increasing the number
of judges. IN the McCradIe case
Congress asserted It's prerogative By
prescribing "such exceptions and reg
ulations" as prevented the court from
attempting TO set aside the act Of
Congress in question, though the low
er court had already passed upon it.
In the Income Tax case the court
first affirmed its unbroken prece-
dents Of hundred years and then by
a change in the vote Of one Judge re-
versed it, thereby declaring its pre-
vious action unconstitutional and
necessarily holding that it was not in
fallible.
The Lochner case, which held that
the lawmaking authority could not
restrict the hours Of labor to ten
hours q day, has since been overruled
by the decision Of the Adamson law
holding valid legislation limiting
the hours Of labor TO eight hours.
The judicial somersault as to the in
come tax required twenty years to
remedy by a constitutional amend
ment, and in the interim transferred
$S3, OO0, 900, 900 from the over-rich
upon whom the lawmaking body had
placed q fair share Of the burdens Of
the government, and by judicial en-
actment transferred Il 70 the laborers
and farmers of the country. Shall
, this always be necessary
Veto Power Protests interests.
II the judges were infallible. there
might be more excuse for this as
sumption Of power. But the effect
Of the income tax decision and mnay
others show why this claim Of abso-
lutte, irreviewable and ultimate SOW
ereignty in q majority of the court is
maintained. II Is simply because the
decision in those cases has Injured to
the protection Of the possessors of
aggregated wealth or self-stvled
vested interests" The lawyers rep
resenting those interests are jealous
to assail those who deny that this
power is conferred by the Constitu-
ton. Without any reflection upon
the incumbents Of that bench in any
period Of its history, it has been but
natural that men who have achieved
prominence as the representatives
and counsel of great corporations
have been those most generally Sc
leeted by the influences which control
appointments to the bench. If the
power resides in such infalIible ma
jOrity, whether of the Federal or the
State Supreme Courts, to negative
the action of the bodies elected by the
people to make their laws, with the
approval Of the executive chosen by
the people, then the control of our
government is in whatever influence
can secure the appointment or selec-
ton Of a majority of the court. Of
course the great Interests" and "Big
Business" are alarmed at the denial
of such power in the courts and
plausible arguments can always be
made by their lawyers.
Not the Constitution.
The question, however, narrows
down to this: "What clause in the
Federal Constitution confers upon
the court the irreviewable veto upon
an act of Congress passed by the two
Houses of Congress and approved by
the president ?" If there is such let
it be pointed out and end the contro-
versy. All the argument in the world
cannot put it there.
If the clause is there, any one who
can read can see it as well as a robed
judge. The convention knew how to
give the president the veto power and
refused to make 1t absolute. Had 1t
chosen to give the judges that pow
er, it could have used the same Ian
guage. Would it have done so with
out making their action also subject
to review, like the presidents veto 7
It is a singular argument when the
ruling Of the court is comforting this
power upon itself is questioned to
cite subsequent rulings by the courts
to the same effect. II the first ruI-
ing was an ILLEGAL assunnntion and
erroneous, all the subsequent deci-
siOns are the same. One hundred
times zero Is zero still. The repeti-
ton Of an error does not make it true.
The only question Is: els there such
provision in the Constitution" That
is the sole test. If there is no argu-
ment is needed. Simply let it be
pointed out.