The Indianapolis times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1922-1965, 1934-09-20
Liberal Viewpoint
by DR.. HARRY ELMER BARNES

CONSTITUTION DAY has enabled reaction
~ airy publicists and spel-binders to pro-
claim once more the peril to the nation residing
in the subversive deeds of the Roosevelt admin
istration and the deeper plots Of the brain
trust. They warn us that American institutions
in general and the Constitution in particular are
in grave danger.
The Constitution is not merely a collection Of
printed prescriptions as to governmental pro-
cedure. There is such a thing as the spirit Of
the Constitution as well as the letter. Those
who clamor most persstently about the obser-
vance of the letter of the Constitution are the
very ones who, consciously or not, violate its
spirit most hagrantly.
In its spirit, the Constitution was nothing
tirnid or conservative. 1t was the bold and dar
ing effort Of a group of men who recently had
carried through one of the major revolutions of
early modern times. One of the most conserva-
tive of them had even declared that the best
test Of the fitness Of a people for self-govern-
ment is their ability to execute a successful
revolution Such was the generation which
made the Constitution. 1t was not a group of
eighteenth century James Montgomery Becks or
Mark Sullivans Harry Atwoods.
The Constitution was an effort to bring order
out Of chaos The condition which confronted
the trainers was not markedly different in prin-
cpe from that which challenged the ingenuity
of Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1888. If the makers
of the Constitution we're alive today we certainly
were warranted in believing that they would
sympathize warmly with the efforts Of our Presi-
dent to adapt our political institutions to the
needs imposed by a crisis.
THEY themselves were not too sensitive on
Il matters of constitutionality, for the con-
stitutional convention exceeded its own constitu-
tional powers. 1t was only authorized to revise
the Articles Of Confederation. 1t ended up by
making a new Constitution.
The fathers approached the Constitution in
a purely experimental way There was nothing
reverentia about their attitude. Even Hamilton
its chief apologist and protagonist, would go no
further than to say that it was the best compro-
mise which could be obtained at the time, and
that it better than what existed before the
| convention. He and the other trainers expected
and wished that it would be overhauled
thoroughly in the light of more governmental ex-
perience and in the face of changed social con-
ditions.
Therefore, the reactionary Constitution
mongers of our day are those who really repudi-
ate the spirit of the Constitution, while Roosevelt
and his Brain Trust respect its spirit and operate
| in accordance with it.
There is, moreover no proof that the New
Deal is contrary even to the letter of the Con-
Stitution. The supreme court in the past has
not heSitated to interpret its literal statements
very broadly and to stretch them to meet their
theories Of government.
MARSHALL went the limit to make the Con-
1Y1 stitution justify nationalism. Tawney
stretched it to vindicate slavery Chase adapted
it to the needs of the Republican reconstruction
policies. Waite brought business corporations
under its protection. Fuller made it the bulWark
Of private property interests. White interpreted
in it such fashion as to make lawful great eco
nomic consultations. Taft harnonized it with
Harding normally"
There is no good reason why Hughes can not
make it adaptable to the requirements of social
justice. Indeed, there is every reason why he
should do so, since only thereby can he save
the economic system to which he is committed
Even if the New Deal were slightly unconsti-
tutional, it need worry nobody. Our mode of
electing Presidents since the days of John Adams
clearly has been in defiance of the prescriptions
of the Constitution. The electoral college has
been no more than an empty sham. Likewise
the failure to penalize the south for dsfran-
chisement of the Negro violates the reconstruc-
ton amendments.
If the Constitution has been modified freely
and adapted in the past to suit the whins of
special economic or political interests, there is
no good reason why it can not be so interpreted
today in the interest of the whole people of the
United States