White Bluffs spokesman. [volume] (White Bluffs, Wash.) 1907-1938, 1937-04-08

we don't understand? That 1.-The
real meaning of the argument lis
this or that? Why can't we under
stand?
Yes, we understand! We under
stand that the President proposes a
puppet Court, docilely obeying the
dictates of the majority. We I'M
derstand that this prolonged fight
is but am excuse to bring the polit-
ical whip into play. And we un-
derstand that, should the opposition
prove tenacious in spite of political
duress that the President Will do
an abrupt retreat. We want
national recovery, badly, but we do
not want it hanlpered by hasty, inn
impetuous nlajorities in mad stam-
pede. Let us retain our cold, i'm
passive, judicial Supreme Court
with the power to judge as to the
Constitutionality Of laws.
Our young friends argument as
to the need of this being am urgent
issue is partly nullified by his own
argument. He. confesses that the
executive and legislative branches
have found ways around THE alpha
betical reflections. He leaves only
the Child Labor Act, nullified in
1876, as pretext. And what pre-
text! Many of the states have very
equitable laws regulating child la
Dor, compulsory school attendance,
etc. In those where more laxity is
allowed, does he actually think that
capital recruits these pitiful kids?
Or is it two by-four sweat shops,
cigar factories, and the like? And
where do these kids get their urge
to work? Enticing advances from
the Machiavellian mouth of CAP
ITAL? Or the toe of Daddys boot,
applied to sluggards in school and
at home? Just what percentage of
adolescent or strictly Juvenile work
ers do you think are actually forced
to support anemic, sad-faced mann
mas and helpless invalid sisters?
The argument is histrionic, but it's
a side-track. They still don't want
you to count those judges nor to
figure the reason for six of them.
It's time someone was debunking
almost all political oratory and lay
ing bare the sordid subterfuges en-
ployed in political argunent-and
we mean this for all four major po-
litical parties, not just the one in
power.
This Supreme Court issue is not
Democratic; it is not Republican.
It is solely and simply question OF
belief in distribution of authority.
We do not feel that we shall have
converted Mr.. Salvini, but we hope
we shall have aroused him to fur
Their research He evidently be-
lieves SO strongly in the individual
that he is willing to support a dam
gerous Capitalization OF authority in
that individual. We are heartily
in favor of many of his economic
remedies, but we also, distrust what
we consider too great a centraliza-
ton of power in hinl-or anyone.
We should welcome a constitu-
tional amendment to clarity the
situation, but we detest the "big
stick and tricky politics. And. in
cidentally, the ordinary voter often
has no chance, to vote for his pref
ereelce on a constitutional amend
ment. Our state legislatures do
the ratifying or rejecting.
In your concluding paragraph,
Mr.. Salvini, you speak of the situ-
alton getting desperate9 Do you
draw that inference from the Child
Labor Act? If not, where is the
element OF desperation introduced?
/ Could you not conceive that your
] opponents, fighting to retain bull