Milford chronicle., 1923-04-27
A RECENT PROGRESSIVE PROPOSAL
From the Wilmington Morning Newsl


1t is the fashion nowadays call every man or woman
in the country reactionary who is not prepared to line
up over night in behalf of all sorts of wild schemes and
questionable experiments both and political
We and always have been in favor progress but
must be progress which subordnated to reasonable
good sense and prudence If economic it be
based Investigation careful calculation and above ALL
upon accurate computation of the probable cost pot-
cal must be subordinated to the integrity the Cons-
tuition of the United States possible be based upon
the principle of the greatest good to the greatest number
We have large and perhaps increasing class of
people known "Progressves" who matter of fact
are Socialists of more or less pronounced type Many
them able to do much harm their official po-
sitiOns in the councils of the nation members
faculties of prominent universities and colleges All
these pull together in insidous efforts undermine and
destroy the Constitution of the United States with it's
checks and balances under which have lived peace
and prosperity for generations This done there will
nothing to op the march of the nation towards extreme
socialism, communism and sovietism
These observations inspired by the following letter
which take from the Washington Post of March 4h It
discusses utterance of Senator Borah Idaho
who ought BETTER and it's clear and convincing
logic absolutely demonstrates the folly than
y, of his proposal to amend the Constitution.
The letter;
the Editor of the Post: Senator Borah in a recent
speech proposes that Congress pass law to the effect that
order to make binding any decision of the Supreme
Court declaring act of Congress unconstitutional the
court must stand to in its favor.
Would such itself be constitutional? The court
created by the Constitution giving it the
pendent control of its rules and procedure
granted to Congress- and it adopted and has followed from
the beginning the rule necessarily prevailing all courts
where there many three judges, that majority
is to settle what the decision is to be- and any number
than half of total is of and has always been
recognized to be majority.
In legislation, in elections we'll in judicial pro-
ceedings a majority of has always been final and
controlling as though it were a thousand.
Under any other rule there would be fnaty and no
controversies Would the court itself hold that Con-
has any right to prescribe by what majority its de-
,sions must be made?
If Congress has the right to say what the courts
orty must be as matter of it has the right
hange and different Congresses and varying party
ro could change the majority requirement from time to
me destroying all sense of fnaity in decisions In any
ase where the court voted to Congress would shift the
aiority rule and by securing rehearng change the
sion Were political issues involved such action would
OF be unlikely.
Mr. Borahs proposal is based on the ground that i'm
Dran controversies ought not to be decided by major
of one Equally important questions before Con-
-ess-even more important-and by parity of reasoning
the existing rule to be set aside majority should be
uured in Congress the proportion to its numbers
the proposed change would make in the Supreme Court
lch rule would cause endless trouble each Congress
uld fix a majority to suit its political exigencies
The same reasoning be applied to elections. Mas
chusetts elected governor by vote, and i'm
,rtant elections have been very close. An arbitrary
angeable majority rule would bring endless disputes
The fatal objection to Mr.. Borah's plan is that
ority were ruled out as insufficient the minority opinion
ould prevail.
ARCHIBALD HOPKINS.