New Britain herald., 1928-07-03

anu tIitS SolISti'bA'~ tA' A''NNN t''' portant tribunal on earth, Appoint mcnts are for life. retirement at the age of 10 being permissible but not the rule. Although justices, after having eers ed ten years, can retire at .o with pay, virtually all con- tiifue serving after that age if health permits. This being the case il may be that the next president will be called upon to appoint no new Jus tice at all. But the average age of the court now is 6s years; Justice Holmes Is S1: others of the justices are beyond 70. In the face of these figures il is believed that at least one justice will retire during the next four or five years-and only one more liberal-minded justice regard ing prohibition, as previously stated, is needed to avoid the future pos sibiliiy oi five to four dry decisions.
 Two members of the great court are entitled to retire with pay at and Brandeis The former at s is in line health and has said he has no intention Of retiring; Brundeis, who is T, also will not retire.
 Chief Justice Taft. although 70 years of age. will not be able to re- tire legally until October 3l, 1881. 1 Justice Van Devanter will be eligible l for retirement in April, 1929, and l Justice McRaynolds in February, l932
 These five judges, therefore, will | be eligible for retirement during the term of the next president. II will be ] long before any of the remaining 1 four judges are thus eligible. Their ages arc Justice Sutherland, 66; Butler. G; Sanford, G3; Stone, jG.
 As al present constituted the Supreme Court has uniformly up- 1 held cases arising out of the 18th ! amendment and the Nolstead act.
 The question naturally arises, what future court would care to up- 1 set the decisions already made. The ] Supreme Court certainly is not going l to uphold the prohibition law in one 1 year and go counter to it a few i years later The main questions relative 10 prohibition have already been decided and there is no reason to think the court would entertain other cases going over the same ground.
 According to ;t summary Of pro- hibition caees brought before the great tribunal, the total has been o5, most of these of minor nature. In A2 of these the opinion of the court : was unanimous; i'll two there was dissent by three justices; in five there was dissent by two justices; in three there was dissent by one justice. Among the } to { decisions were: The opinion that the dry law limited the quantity of liquor q physician may prescribe for a pa tient to not more than one p.nt within ten days; and sustaining con- viction i'll a prohibition case where evidence Was procured through wire tapping,
 If the assumption Is that the Jus tices of the Supreme Court permit their personal opinions to color their judicial opinions, lhe fear tla, the next president can guide the ill., depreciation of prohibition laws through the character of his ap'
 pointments to the Supreme bencf
 would be logical. But there Is nc
 reason to believe that any mar
 capable of being d Supreme Cour'
 Justice would decide such case:
 otherwise than in conformity witl
 the law as he sees it. It Is the dut! of the bench to decide eases i'll con-
 lormity with the law even when th'
 law goes counter to what the Jus
 tices personally believe 1t ought t'
 be. Fear by the drys, therefore. tha
 the next president will be able t'
 upset the prohibition law througl
 the agency Of Supreme Court ap continents seems to be unfoundet in fact.