The Birmingham age-herald. [volume] (Birmingham, Ala.) 1902-1950, 1924-10-03

A DESTRUCTIVE DOCTRINE.

S~Ne~N ~~~~
constitution is called the bulwark of our
liberties. Without its steadying influ-
eace any vagary of the moment might pre-
vail to our detriment for years to come.
It is the standard by which our public
policies are judged and the criterion by
which it is decided whether they are sound
or not sound. For the constitution is the
embodiment,o the principles by which we
have long consented that we shall be
guided. Whenever there is doubt as to
the wisdom or propriety of any legisla-
tive act, it is measured by the stand
ards set up in our constitution. If it
does not accord with those standards it
is rejected. If, in spite of constitutional
limitations, more mature reflection has
convinced US that an act or policy should
nevertheless be made a part of our law,
then there are ways and means provided
for expanding the constitution to incor-
porate it. III
Contrary to the impression sought to
be given out by those who improperly re-
gard themselves as custodians of the ark
of the covenant of progressivism, the
supreme court is not an authority that
nullifies legislation and impedes the leg
islative and executive policies. The su-
preme court is an umpire. It is the last
resort of arbitration between the law
making department on the one hand and
the rules of our government on the other.
The supreme court applies the rules in
each instance and gives it's careful judg-
ment whether an act does or does not
conform to the rules we have nationally
agreed upon. If there is still sincere be-
lief that the proposed act should be adopt
ed, then the rules themselves provide
manner in, which the rules may be
amended.
Mr.. LaFollette proposes that congress
shall be given the right of veto over the
supreme court in order, as he puts it, to
curb the arbitrary powers of the judici-
cry. But by its very nature the judiciary,
which is referee,;is arbitrary. Were it
not so, it would be without value. There
must be some ultimate resort, some curb,
some limitation, some interpretative au-
thority, which shall have the final judg-
ment as to the rightness OF wrongness OF
any proposed law or policy. In 81
sence, the LaFollette proposal is to re-
move the Interpretation of the cons,
ON, from the province of ran Two
I'D grounded in the law, to the provinc
of politicians, many of whom are in
spired, not by sentiments of concern for
the public welfare, but by the desire to
exploit some personal theory or improp-
erly to advance the interests of some IA
vored individual or group or section. No
procedure more likely to destroy our gov
eminent and our welfare before we know
it could be devised than to place our con-
stitutional interpretations at the mercy
of congress.
Surely this nation would rather have
its ultimate legal decisions made even
by the single majority of one eminent
judge, than by the majority of one vote
or fifty votes in either branch of con-
gress. Mr.. LaFollette says that there is
hands down an adverse opinion. 1t is not
believed that child could pass through
our public or private schools without dis
covering how inexact that statement is.
Every grammar grade pupil should know
that our constitution can be amended, if
the general judgment favors such amend
ment, in order to make valid any course
of action. Practically everyone knows
that usually the defects in most laws de-
clared invalid by the supreme court may
be made valid by the removal or correc-
ton of certain details discussed and
analysed in the written opinion of the
court.
The adherents of Mr.. LaFollette deny
that he is trying to tear down the foun-
dations of our government. 1t is grant
ed that such may not be his desire. But
the American people cannot concern
themselves with intentions alone. They
must also consider probable, or, as in
this case, inevitable, results. The inevita-
BILE result of the destruction of the
finality of supreme court decision as re-
CARDS the constitutionality of legislative
acts would be chaos and confusion in our
government. We should have no stand
ards, not even those of precedent, for if
there is disregard of established proceed
ure there would also be disregard of
precedent, or else the partisan citation of
conflicting precedents.
If for no other reason except his po-
sition on the constitution and the su-
preme court, the claims of Senator La
Toilette to public approval should be en-
phatically and overwhelmingly denied.
If he means what he says, his statements
are dangerous. If he does not mean what
he says, how could anybody sincerely
support him1
CREATE EMERGENCY FUND.