Evening star., 1937-06-15
Al Other States and Cana d..
Member Of the Associated Press.
The Adverse Report.


It's report to the Senate urging rejection
Of President Roosevelt's bill to increase
the membership of the Supreme Court
turned the measure inside out-and
the motives back Of it-for public in
spection. The report may be referred
to as the opinion" in the case of
Roosevelt versus the Supreme Court
handed down by remarkably inde-
predetermined committee of the SEN
ate.
The main question at issue is not
whether the New Daal legislation Is
good or not good. reading Of the report
will convince any reasonable person.
The main issue is whether the consti-
tutional system OF the United States
is to be undermined through an attack
upon the independence Of the judiciary.
Painstakingly. the Senate committee
has stripped all camoufage from the bill
No longer is it possible, in the light
OF the report, to believe that the major
intent OF the bill is to speed up justice
in the United States, or to add more
members to the bench or to provide for
q constant infusion Of new blood" into
the courts. The major purpose OF the
bill stands out like sore thumb. It
Is to obtain a Supreme Court, and pos
sibly inferior courts, which will decide
cases in accordance with the desires
Of the Chief Executive.
The committee report is scathing
Arraignment OF this purpose. 1t mar
shals its facts and arguments in mastery
fashion, showing that never before in
the history Of this country has there
been such an attempt to make the
courts subservient to the legislative and
executive branches OF the Government.
1t is, as the committee says, "a measure
without precedent" And once and for
all the committee recommends, the bill
should be buried deep. 50 that no similar
attempt will be made in the future.
Granted, for the sake OF argument,
that the New Deal laws are what the
people desire and that they may be good
for the country. 1t still remains that
for . temporary benefit 1t is proposed
10 scrap the system Of checks and bal
ances set up by the trainers OF the Con-
stitution and. in the process, to do away
with the very essence Of democracy and
freedom-independen courts. And when
the independence OF the judiciary has
been scrapped, the human rights the
guarantees Of liberty written into the
Constitution in the bill OF rights, will
be Immediately in danger. What are
these human rights? They are the right
to religious freedom, to freedom Of press
snd OF free assemblage, to be protected
in the home. Who shall say, once the
independence OF the judiciary has been
destroyed, what the measure Of control
shall be?
The Supreme Court has stuck sturdily
by these human rights and has de-
tended the people against attempted
infractions countless times. The COM
mittee, In its report, quotes John Mar
shall as he addressed the Virginia Con-
vention in his 18th year. And this is
what he had to say-which is as true to-
day as 1t was in 1880: Advert, sir, to
the duties of a Judge. He has to pass
between the government and the man
whom the government is prosecuting;
between the most powerful individual in
the community and the poorest and
most unpopular. 1t is of the last impor-
tance that in the exercise of these duties
he should observe the utmost fairness,
Need I express the necessity of this?
Does not every man feel that his own
personal security and the security of his
property depends on that fairness? The
judicial department comes home in its
effect to every mans fireside; 1t passes
on his property, his reputation, his life,
his all. Is it not to the last degree,
important that he should be rendered
perfectly and completely independent,
with nothing to influence or control him
but God and his conscience?"
The Senate, 1t is asserted, will back
It's Judiciary Committee against this
measure which would tamper with the
Independence OF the judiciary. But
even while this Is asserted, rumor has
It that through a compromise, through
. back-door approach, the President is
to have some kind OF bill put through
which would add one or two, or some
greater number, OF members to the
Supreme Court.
There is no room for compromise. The
report Of the Senate committee has
made this 50 plain that he who runs
may read. You cannot compromise with
principle, nor with the independence Of
the courts.