Evening star., 1936-03-03

"Lest the pride Of Office or the
hand of lawless power should FOB the
people of their constitutional security,
a proper balance is provided in the
judicial department"
Hamilton and Madison, collaborat-
ing in the production Of the illumi-
mating and authentic |Federalist Pa
pers to expound the new American
system said:
"An elective despotism was not the
Government We fought for. For
this reason the Constitution required
that the legislative, executive and
judiciary departments should be sepa-
rate and distinct, SO that no person
should exercise the powers of more
than one of them at the same time"
Are we such egotists in this new
day that we think to escape the i'm
plications of this wisdom? Listen:
IAN elective despotism. was not the
Government we fought for!" No; and
it is not the Government which the
people of the United States will en-
brace in 1896 or in any other year.
If they intend to protect themselves
against the tyrannical trends toward
dictatorship which are engulfing the
balance of the world.
The Federalist Papers wisely said:
Limitations only can be preserved
by the courts. whose duty 1t must be
to declare all acts contrary to the
Constitution void Without
this all our rights and privileges
would amount to nothing
take it that no loyal American citi-
zen wants his rights and privileges
ito amount to nothing" Here he Is
put on direct notice that he hazards
their loss when he would poison the
constitutional jurisdiction of the courts
Examples in Point.
As laymen, let's be practical about
this matter. Let's see what could
happen if you eliminate the Supreme
Court and permit Congress to decide
the constitutionality of its own acts.
1t is not enough to say that these
things probably wouldn't happen. That
begs the question-particular at a
time when amazingly unbelievable
things are happening under every flag
on earth. The priceless function of
our own Constitution-and its voice
in the Supreme Courts to see that
no opportunity for such perversions
shall exist.
You cherish your right of free
speech. What guarantees it to you?
The Constitution. Suppose Congress
were to abridge or destroy your right
Of free speech Where could you go
for redress? To the Supreme Court.
But suppose the Supreme Court be
eliminated and Congress be permitted
to decide the constitutionality of its
own acts. Would not a Congress
which was brazen enough to rob you
of free speech be equally brazen in
finding excuses to validate its tyranny?
You believe in freedom of religion.
1t is a cardinal American right. Where
do you get it? From the Constitution.
Suppose it is assailed by law-as is
the case tonight in many other lands.
Where would you 60 for protection?
To the Supreme Court. But suppose
Congress decides for itself what Is or
Is not constitutional. Would not a
Congress which dared curb your re-
ligious freedom dare equally to vail
date its own act? Would not this be
elective despotism"?
You believe in q free press. It is
the well-spring of democracy. What
guarantees its freedom? The Con-
stitution. Who speaks for the Con-
stitution in behalf OF this guaranty?
The Supreme Court. Would you
think it safe or wise to strike down
this vigilant sentry? Time and again
the court has rescued freedom of the
press from It's asssilants. Only last
month, the court rescued it from a
State Legislature which would have
put 1t in chains. No other agency
could rescue 1t. It was the court
or nothing. Translate that same sit
uation into Federal legislation. Would
it be prudent to let Congress decide
for itself whether 1t has raped the
freedom Of the press? Would not any
such assailant inevitably insist that
his tyranny was orthodox and re-
spectacle? Is that not the way with
tyrants?
Keystone Of Liberties.
So 1t Is all down through the bill
OF rights-your right Of petition
your protection against search and
seizure-the sanctity of your home
your right Of trial by jury-your rgiht
to own private property-your protec-
ton against cruel and unusual pun-
ishment-your ballot-your entire
American heritage. Whether vol,
know 1t or not you are relying upon
the Constitution for these privileges.
and you are relying UPON the Supreme
Court to make the Constitution vocal
and effective In your behalf.
Would 1t be prudent to toss this
protection away just because some
times you dislike the courts decisions2
Most Of the time you are 20 completely
In tune with 1t, and you subcon-
sciously rely 80 completely upon its
vigilance. that you scarcely realize
1t is functioning at all. Those who
dislike its conclusion on the A. A. A.
suddenly discover that 1t is q pretty
dependable tribunal when 1t passes
on T. v. A. This phenomenon has
been constant through the years,
Those who are inclined most vehe-
mently to complain at one moment.
usually live to see the day when. at
some other moment. they whole.
applaud. Thus the great
South which. originally. was the chief
critic Of the courts so-called "usurpa-
ton" In decisions simplifying Federal
authority at the expense of State
turned to the same court
IN reconstruction days and gratefully
gained protection from it against an
improper exercise Of this same ampli-
fed authority. Thus. too, when labor
unions were shocked in 1908 when
the court found that . labor boycott
the Sherman act, and pro-
claimed 1t an evidence Of the servility
D