The Washington times., 1935-06-29
Sappers Make
Dangerous
Proposal
BY JAMES T. WILLIAMS, JR.

10y SEAAAAO - "ANA@AAAANASp SANS
OF all the assaults now made
upon the Government Of the
Constitution by political sapperS
in and out of Congress. the most
dangerous is the proposal to
cut the iugular vein Of the
Supreme Court Of the United
States.
This would be done II
the Constitution should be so
amended as to deprive the great
court of it's power to hold
invalid an act of Congress in
conflict with the Constitution.
There is nothing new or orig.
inal about this miSchievouS
scheme. 1t has been advanced
at several other periods in our
history. And always it has
been supported upon the false
pretenSe that the Constitution
gives the court no authority to
render any decision involving
the VALIDITY of Federal statute.
To deprive the court of this
power would be to set up in
Congress the supreme power
and to subject the Constitution
to the Interpretation at any
time of the will of Republican,
Democratic or Socialist ma jority
that happened to be in control
of Congress, or a President to
whom Congress had abdicated.
NO OPTION
The reason why this form Of
attack is so dangerous is be.
cause the enemies of the Ameri.
can system of government who
resort to it always appeal to
the ignorance and prejudice Of
the people and never to their in
telligence, their love Of liberty.
and their passion for justice.
These sappers at every crisis
in our national life, who seek to
set up in Congress despotism.
think to stampede the people
into undermining the Govern
ment of the Constitution by dis
torting the record of the forma-
tive days of the republic, and
misrepresenting the will of the
trainers of the Constitution be-
fore the people can inform them
selves of the facts.
The record is there to prove
as the historian of the Supreme
Court, Mr.. Charles Warren, says
that there was a general admiS'
sion, by the members of the
Constitutional convention that
the court would have power,
eventually, to pass on the valid
ity of the acts of Congress"
Speaking in the House of Rep
resentatives on February Is, 1902.
Congressman Roger Griswold Of
Connecticut said:
1T is well known that the
right of the court to decide on
the cOnStitutiOnality Of your
laws has been recognized in
your laws themselves, has been
exercised by the courts, your
laws have been pronounced un-
constitutional and void, and that
decision has not only been &C
quiesced in by the legislature.
but the act itself has been re.
moved from your code of stat
utes."
Speaking in the House of Rep
resentatives on January Is. 1926.
Daniel Webster of Massachu-
sets declared:
Judges sworn to administer
the law are bound to consider
the supreme rule as being SUI.
preme. >. They have no option
and must pronounce for the
Constitution and against the
law. :. All this was perfectly
well understood at the adOp-
ton of the Constitution; and
therefore the law of 1889
passed at the very first ses-
sion of Congress provides .
mode by which among other
things judgments of State tri.
bunals declaring acts of Con-
gresS void may be revised in
the Supreme Court"
Nor was there any disagree
ment on this fundamental ques-
ton between him and Web
ster's antagonist, Hayne. Speak
ing in the Senate on January
26, 1897, before Madison, the
Father of the Constitution" had
been dead year, Robert Y.
Hayne, of South Carolina, said:
THE SUPREME LAW
Nov will anyone contend
that it is the true spirit of
this Government that the will
of a majority of Congress
should, in all cases, be the SUI
preme law? If no security was
intended to be provided for
the rights of the States and
the liberty of the citizen, be-
yOnd the mere organization Of
the Federal Government. we
should have had no COnstitu-
ton, but Congress would have
been authorized to legiSlate for
us, in all cases whatsoever. II
the will of a majority of Con-
gress is to be the supreme law
of the land, it is clear the Con.
stitution is dead letter and
has utterly failed Of the very
object for which it was de-
signed"
OF all the enemies within the