The Indianapolis times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1922-1965, 1930-05-26
A plavthing of che Court

1--WE are under Constitution but the ConStltu-
ton is what the judges say it is charles Evans
Hughes.
Our Constitution worshipers eulogize both the
Constitution and the supreme court in one mouthfui
They venerate a supposedly infexble Constitution
They hold that the supreme court is the faithful
watchdog this Constitution protecting 1t from the
slightest change modification.
yet no other public body so thoroughly manhandles
the Constitution as does the supreme court 1t Is
hardly an exaggeraton to state that the Constitution
is vertically plaything of the court The court de-
cides what the Constitution is and means. With
changes in the complexion of the court come widely
different interpretations of what the Constitution
actually says and commands.
John Marshall did more to establish the nature
of the Constitution than the first five of our Presi-
dents combined. He made it a document supporting
natonasm as ,gainst states rights. In the cases OF
Marbury VS. Madison and Fletcher Peck he as
serted the right of the court to nulfy federal and
state laws In the case of McCulloch vs. Maryland he
laid down the doctrine of the implied powers OF the
federal government.
The next great chief justice was Roger B. fancy
He was an ardent Democrat and states rights man.
In the famous bred Scott decision of 1887 the court
under fancy took decidedly states rights position
and declared the Missouri compromise unconstitu-
tional This tendency was the reverse of Marshalls
work
Sometimes the court does not wait half century
10 reverse itself as to the meaning of the Constu
ton Take The legal tender at the close of the
Civil war In February, 1870 the court declared the
legal tender act unconstitutional by majority OF one
Two new Justices were added to the court by APP
pointment early in 1870. The legal tender act again
was brought up. In December 1870 the court by a
majority of one declared the law constitutional The
Constitution meant one thing Washington's birth
day and another on the birthday of Christ.
An important issue was at stake following the
adoption of the fourteenth amendment. Did the due
process clause apply to corporate persons solely
to human beings? In the Slaughter House cases in
1878 the court decided that the amendment did not
apply to corporations. BY 1886 Roscoe Conklng had
convinced the court that it did so apply-the most
momentous decision in the history of the court.
This decision had revolutionary effect on the in
terpretaon of our system of government and on the
fate of subsequent social and economic legislation And
Conklng. as member of the Joint committee on re-
construction which framed the amendment then had
voted against the validity of applying it to corporate
personsl
on five different occasions the court had declared
an income tax constitutional. Then the matter was
brought UP again in 1895 in the of Pollock VS..
the Farmers Loan and Trust Company. Those who
favored setting aside the income tax law paid Joseph
n Choate 100000 70 argue the case before the SUI
preme court. The act declared unconstitutional
These illustrations establish the contention that the
Constitution is not fixed and unalterable. like the
laws of the Modes and Persans. 1t has to be inter
preted
1t is interpreted by nine lawyers sitting the
preme court bench. They human beings Their
interpretations reflect their economic and social con-
yictions Hence the importance Of getting men on
that bench who viii be able intelIgenty to readapt