The Birmingham age-herald., 1924-09-19
 DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION


 undermine that great document. To the voters of Wisconsin Mir. LaFollette, in discussing the purposes of his party, said: "We favor submitting to the peo- pie, for their considerate judgment, a constitutional amendment providing that congress may by enacting statute make it effective over a judicial veto." No act more destructive of the constitution and of our form of government could be devised than this plan to make con- gress supreme over both the executive and the judicial branches of our govern ment. For such a result would be the inevitable outcome of adopting the La Toilette suggestion.
 The supreme court is now the most effective safeguard we have against inn prudent and improper legislation. Only a few times in it's history has it declared acts of congress null and void, and then only because in conflict with the pro- visions of the federal constitution. Throughout it's history it has, with cer- tain exceptions, been both uniform and consistent in its decisions. Occasionally it has even reversed itself, which, in stead of being reason for alarm, should be most reassuring evidence of its sin cerity and it's willingness to correct it's own mistakes. Its decisions have aroused the profound admiration of the most noted jurists of the world. Its members throughout history have, with rare excep- tions, been men worthy of the high office. More than that, they have been of recognized eminence and judicial un- derstanding before their selection for this honor. No appointment within the gift of presidents has ever been ap- preached with more executive concern nor made with greater regard for the personal fitness in every way of the ap- pointees. Every president has held it a matter of sacred responsibility to make the very best appointments within his discretion and capacity to select.
 For the LaFollette plan to succeed would be to throw out of balance that eluality, independence and interdepend- etlce of authority among the three branches of government regarded as fun damental to our institutions. At present, it is folly for the LaFollette adherents to declare that the supreme court is auto cratic and subversive of free government. It is not so, for there is always recourse within the legislative and executive de- partments to correct any such autocratic tendency. There are always full and ex- plicit reasons given by the court for it's decision in any important case. By a careful study of these reasons, national legislators may discover in what respects the acts rejected are in conflict with the constitution and they may draw up new measures to conform to the technicalities and the intent of the constitution. In the case of the child labor law, congress is told that it has no constitutional au- thority to enact such law. But con- gress has a recourse, and congress is turning to that recourse, namely, an amendment to the federal constitution, authorizing such an act. In many cases, the act rejected requires merely to be modified in some particulars.
 It is wholesome thing for congress thus to be brought back continually to it's proper course. The delay attendant upon correcting constitutional or legal defects pointed out by the supreme court has sobering influence. If the act is right and important, congress will find some way of working it over to meet the requirements this people have set for their national guidance. If it is not right and important, then the supreme court has performed national service.
 Mr. LaFollette believes that more than a bare majority of the court should be required to reject law. Would not the national welfare be more secure if the opposite view were taken that acts of congress should receive more than bare majority of supreme court approval be- 4OIC bHCy OCSOHC LdW' All dSL O1 COA~ gress that gan incline only bare ma jority of supreme judges in it's favor looks like a questionable, if not actually an unsafe act. The arguments are all against MT. LaFollette's wild scheme, if we are to have any regard at all for the constitutional foundations on which our government rests.
 This nation has never yet been injured by adherence to the broad principles laid down in our constitution. It is beyond reasonable doubt that our government has on occasions actually been saved from disaster through the influence of the supreme court in calling congress sternly back to constitutional principles. Not only can we not afford to surrender to congress an undue authority, transcend ing that of both judicial and executive, but this insidious boring from within we must resist with all the loyalty and pa