Evening star., 1935-09-19
ROPER TALK HELD
ROOSEVELT REPLY
Considered First Answer to
implications of Schech-
ter Ruling.
BY DAVID LAWRENCE.

edrIQarkS OF COudUUIdIlUIl ny tIIC HiOoe
skillful administration advisers the
speech of Secretary Roper on Con-
stitution day is by far the most i'm
poFtsnt document that has come out
of the New Deal since the May n
decision by a unanimous Supreme
Court.
1t is, indeed the first answer made
In direct quotations by the admins
tration to the implications of the
Schechter case decision. 1t will be
recalled that Mr.. Roosevelt did not
permit the press to quote him directly
in his comments to them on the Su-
preme Court decision. and chose in
stead to allow them. by indirect dis
course, to reflect his criticism OF
the N R. A defeat.
When a member of the cabinet,
therefore, arises to clarity the ad-
nltnistrations position and to indi-
cate Just how it looks upon the So
called constitutional issue it is i'm
portant that the address be analyzed
effectively and its implications made
clear.
Living Mechanism"
Secretary Roper began by assert
Ing that the Constitution is "a liv-
ing mechanism" and not a dead
tool" He insisted that the right
of amendment is the heartbeat of our
constitutional system" and that ''it
Is the one means by which the people
have the right and duty to change"
Nobody can Justly dissent from that
view, because the Constitution in itself
does not exclude the possibility of
change. 1t, to be sure, provides for
change Just as Mr.. Roper says, ito
eermit and assure national progress"
But the cabinet spokesman for the
President goes on to specify what
kind of an amendment is desired, and
here his exact language becomes
important:
THE ravages of long and destruc-
i've economic and social depression
necessitated unprecedented and un-
Yaralleled action on the part OF the
Federal Government. Obviously
The duty and responsibility imposed
upon the Federal Government has
that such neCeSSltOuS Federal action
transcribed the sphere of constitu-
tional action allowable within con-
stitutional limits.
One Question Dominant.
THE unusual aspects and demands
Of the emergency situation have
brought to the forefront one dominant
question which sooner or later must
lie answered by the American people:
IF there is not sufficient constitu-
tonal authority for the Federal Gov
ernment to deal properly with a
devastating Nationwide economic and
social emergency, is it the will OF the
American people to amend their Con-
Stitutlon so that the Federal Gov
eminent, in times of acute distress
nationally, may by bold direct action
avert utter chaos?"
Most thoughtful students of Amer
lean constitutional progress would
ensWer that question in the afdrma-
tive, but, at the same time, they would
Esk if that is the real question at
Issue today. Is it not rather an at
tempt to impose, after the emergency
has occurred, system which seeks
rot at all to conform to past deci-
SONS of the Supreme Court, but to
change the Constitution through the
simple process of usurpation of power?
The consolidation of the executive
and legislative departments OF the
Government through the skillful use
Of patronage and public funds has
nothing to do with the power of a
government to preserve itself in times
Of acute distress nationally" It is
MS usurpation to which defenders
of the Constitution most strenuouSly
OBJECT.
Attempt to Achieve Socialism.
Most of the legislation about which
there is complaint as to unconstitu-
uonality has very little to do with
economic distress; in fact, there is
proof that economic distress will in
crease through its def1ationary effects.
Much of the unconstitutional legisla-
tlon has to do with the attmept to
1oist a socialistic system of govern
ment for all times; something that
does not involve a mere amendment
in order to get power to deal with
an economic crisis, but power to null
lify State rights and the other parts
of the Constitution itself Indeed,
these purposes can hardly be attained
by one amendment, but by rewriting
the whole charter to conform to the
social and economic philosophers of
the New Deal
No better evidence of the permanent
nature of the New Deal program could
have been given than the statement
made by President Roosevelt himself
in an address to a joint session of
the House of Representatives and the
United States Senate on January 3,
1884, in which he said:
Now that we are definitely in the
process of recovery, lines have been
rightly drawn between those to whom
this recovery means a return to the
old methods-and the number Of these
people is small-and those for whom
recovery means reform of many old
methods, a permanent readjustment
of many Of our ways of thinking and,
therefore, of many of our social and
economic arrangements.
- Branches Being Linked.
.-"Out Of these friendly contacts we
ere, fortunately, building strong and
permanent tie between the legislative
snd executive branches of the Gov
eminent. The letter of the Constftu-
ton wisely declared separation, but
the impulse of common purpose de-
clares a union"
The real question which the Amer
iean people are going to ask and which
they probably will answer for them
selves in the next two or three years
is whether the economic and social
depression and its aftermath could
haye been handled within the Con-
stitution, or whether American intelli-
gence and resourcefulness within the
Constitution is totally lacking.
The Supreme Court of the United
States in Civil War days had this