Evening star., 1936-01-25
CURB ON COURTS
-
is STILL TALKED
Proposal Is. Seen as Flank
=. Attack on Supreme
Tribunal.
BY DAVID LAWRENCE.

- BY DAVID LAWRENCE.
The tide Of criticism Of the Supreme
Court engendered by New Deal dis
appointment over the N. r. A. and
A. A. A. decisions is not going to take
the form Of pressure for . constitu-
tional amendment-at least not at
present.
This inference is drawn from the
attitude adopted by President Roose-
$elt In his conferences with the press.
Instead Of deploring the absence OF
alternatives to A. A. A., as happened
when the N. r. A. was demolished by
court opinion, the administration now
Believes it can work out satisfactory
3Arm policy within the Constitution.
= Mr.. Roosevelt has disclosed that he
knows of at least Is different ways
70 reach his objectives-for instance.
II the matter Of soil conservation-and
all Of them within the Constitution,
TOO.
So This is a matter for general rejoic-
ing because 1t has seemed as n'the
New Deal would not be content with
the Constitution as it is written today,
but would seek to amend the document
tb give the Federal Government greater
powers. The determination to seek
solution Of the farm problem within
the Constitution will be received with
satisfaction by critics who have re-
peatedly said that al ingenuity in the
matter Of writing agricultural legisla-
taon was by no means exhausted when
the agricultural adjustment act was
hastily drawn in the feverishly I'M
petuous Summer days of 1888.
No Move Made to Revise A. A. A.
The surprise is that. when the N. R.
A. decision indicated clearly the trend
Of the courts opinion on usurpation
Of the rights Of the States, no move
was made by Congress to revise the
A. A. A. along constitutional lines. as
is being done at present. The farmers
and the country generally might have
been further ahead now on the re-
covery road had constitutional prece-
dents been respected.
There has been, incidentally, no
diminution Of the talk about legislation
to. restrict the power Of the lower
courts to pass on certain questions OF
.constitutionality. Thus, Attorney Gen.
eral Cummings has indicated that
some restraints might be placed on the
power Of the courts to interfere with
the collection of taxes.
This proposal may yet stir up far
more debate and provoke more con-
troversy of q fundamental character
than would an amendment to give
Congress power to regulate agriculture.
For the suggestion that courts be pre-
vented from restraining the collection
of taxes whether constitutionally or
unconstitutionally imposed is q most
radical one.
-. -. Heretofore, the courts have stepped
In to restrain collection Of tax which
might cause ireparable damage If coll
..lected and later declared unconstitu-
rtional. It is doubtful whether Q
.statute taking away all remedy at law
..4br the citizen against the illegal col
lection Of taxes would be sustained by
the Supreme Court which has powers
Of Judgment II equity matters that are
derived from the wording of the Con-
stitution itself.
y May Be Flank Attack.
The proposal to take away from
The lower Federal courts any rights
to pass on the validity Of acts of Con-
Eress is . different sort of attack on
the Supreme Court, but not so dis
cernible to the naked eye. The obvious
purpose Of the New Dealers is to load
On the Supreme Court 50 much work
through granting original jurisdiction
to the highest court that it might be
necessary to increase the court by
three or even nine more justices to
take care of the work now done by
about 80 different Federal courts.
:, It is being said In many quarters
that the New Deal would welcome
such q contingency because it would
give Mr.. Roosevelt an opportunity to
appoint justices who agreed with his
philosophy Of politics and govern
3nent. Perhaps the flank attack on
the high court by depriving lower
courts Of jurisdiction is the real rea-
eon for the abandonment Of the idea
OF modifying the Constitution. To
reverse the decisions of the court by
epacking" its membership is, Of course.
theoretically an easier thing to &C.
complish than to amend the Constitu-
tion. Usurpation is q quicker method
than revision by amendment. But,
unfortunately, packing" Of the court
has been tried before and it is ques-
ttonable whether public opinion viii
ever sanction such subterfuse.
:. (Copyrighk 1861