Evening star., 1929-12-20
HASTINGS SCORES
OUST|NG OF WARE
Constitution Violated by
Senate, Member Says
in Radio Forum.

Describing the Senate's action in the
Ware case as a fragrant violation OF
the Constitution" Senator Daniel O..
Hastings, Republican, of Delaware, last
evening in a radio address voiced de-
tense of the right of the States TO
choose their representatives in the
Senate.
Senator Hastings said that in barring
William S. Ware from seat as Re-
publican Senator from Pennsylvania,
the Senate had fixed a precedent that
gave the majority the right to say
what manner of man State might ex-
pect the Senate to accept. He spoke in
the National Radio Forum, sponsored
by The Star and broadcast over the
Columbia Broadcasting System chain,
of which Station WMAL is the local
representative.
"It is a dangerous thing" he as
serted, "for any great body like the
United States Senate to establish
precedent which will enable a bare
majority to say that a man Who pre-
sents his credentials has not been duly
elected.
State Right Question.
A still more dangerous question, he
said. was whether "a State shall be
permitted to make its own choice of its
representation in the Senate or whether
It shall be compelled to adopt the ideas
and the standards fixed by the Senate
itself"
Nothing illustrates "the futility'' of
the Senate's action, in Senator Has
tings' opinion, so much as the admis-
sion of Joseph R. Grundy OF Penn
aylvania,
1T was interesting to observe the
- Ans,, NlNoY-e
of the Senate, who unquestionably
voted with clear conscience against the
seating of Mr.. Ware, Quivering and
shaking with alarm when they realized
they would be left high and dry for
reasons to exclude the appointee of the
Governor Of the State of Pennsylvania" ?"
Senator Hastings said it was well
known that the governor and the man
he appointed were in contest in that
primary with Mr.. Ware and spent more
than twice as much money for their
ticket as was expended for the Ware
ticket, and certain Senators inquired
with alarm. Cannot We declare that
because of the expenditure of money,
the Governor of Pennsylvania was not
properly elected?' Cannot we follow
that reason far enough to declare that
We may ignore any appointment that
he may make to this great body?'"
Authorities Are Cited.
The address of Senator Hastings fol-
lows in full:
1t may be that the public is not in
clined to give much concern as to the
relation of the United States Senate
to the Federal Constitution. I think
1t is true that the people generally
believe that there is no danger of a
great body like the United States SEN
ate. directly or indirectly, violating the
plain provisions of the Constitution
From the very beginning Of our Gov
ernment to the present time there has
always been in the United States Sen
ate great constitutional lawyers. The
people have learned to have confidence
in its decisions and as general thing
have accepted them without much con-
Germ The Senate as it increases in
membership should increase in strength,
so that at the present time, with its
96 members and with its splendid his
tory. 1t should be more powerful and
more influential than it was when COM
posed Of only half that number.
The Constitution Of the United States
is now recognized as the greatest docu-
ment that was ever written for the
guidance of a republic. It has unques-
tionably far exceeded the hopes or ex-
pectations of those who prepared and
adopted 1t as the fundamental law OF
the new land. There Is no part of the
American history more interesting than
that which relates to the development
Of the Constitution. 1t clearly divides
the Government into three branches-
the executive, the legislative and the
judiciary. AL Of this was simple enough
and clear enough, but there was one
great question which for time threat
ened to destroy it entirely. Limitations
had been placed in the Constitution
upon the Executive; limitations had
been placed upon Congress, and who
was to decide whether the Executive
or the Congress had exceeded the au-
thority given them by such Constitu-
ton? Should the Executive reach MS
own conclusion and should that be
final? Should Congress make its own
interpretations and should that be final,
or should the Interpretation OF the Con-
stitution be left to that other branch
of the Government; !. e., the judiciary?
For more than a century and quar-
ter now this right to interpret the
Constitution has been declared by the
judiciary as a part of it's power and
duty. The great men like Marshall,
who were members of the Supreme
Court, were so clear in their opinions
that the public generally began TO
realize that unless it could be LETT TO
the judiciary there was no hope Tor
the life of the Constitution lCselI. In
deed this was then. and is now, the
only branch Of the Government that is
wholly independent. The Executive is
elected every four years and the per-
sonnel of the Congress is changing
every two years. The Federal judiciary,
on the other hand, is appointed for life,
It is not subject to the waves OF public
opinion, sometimes hastily formed and
not always matured. A young judge In
the District of Columbia, William
Cranch, in 1907 made an interesting
statement about the Judiciary IN the
following language:
WatchfuIneSs of Court.
"In times like these when the public
mind is agitated, when wars and runors
of wars, plots, conspiracies and trea-
sons excite alarm, it is the duty OF
court to be particularly watchful lest
the public feeling should reach the seat
Of Justice. Dangerous precedents occur
in dangerous times. 1t then becomes
the duty of the judiciary calmly to poise
the scales of justice, unmoved by the
armed power, undisturbed by the clamor
Of the multitude.
A Virginia newspaper about this time,
commenting on Marshall's judicial con-
duct when Burr was arrested, charged