Evening star., 1937-08-01
COURT BILL FACE SAVING
FOILED CLEAR DECISION
Observer, While Envisioning Whole.
some Side of Fig hit to Finish, Recog-
nizes Gains for Freedom

the PRESIDENTS court measure and
opponents Of it-as respects that
there was compromise. Indeed, just
that compromise is what was most
in Mr.. Garner's mind. Mr.. Garner
was opposed to the Presidents court
measure, yes-but he was also opposed
to a split in the Democratic party.
1t was to prevent that, primarily,
that Mr.. Garner acted. He knew
the court measure would be beaten.
and probably he felt he did not need
to take any public part in beating
it. Mr.. Garner's concern was to have
the beating come about in such
way as to bring the two Democratic
factions in the Senate together.
In this purpose the arrangement
Mr.. Garner brought about was that
a motion should be made to recommit
the court measure to the Senate Ju-
dietary Committee, and that this mo-
ton should not be opposed by the
Presidents friends. The Presidents
friends could not have opposed it
successfully, anyhow In effect. the
friends OF the President were given
privllege-the privilege, priceless in
politics, of saving their faces.
AS result, the list OF 10 Senators
who voted to recommit the court
measure 'and thereby kill it, is
strange aggregation. The list contains
all the opponents of the court meas
ure, OF CourSe-but it also contains
many friends of the court measure.
Votes Confusing Outwardly.
AS a consequence of this face saving
device there may be confusion in the
pubic mind. Here. for example, is
Senator Ashurst of Arizona voting to
recommlt the court measure, although
he had publicly Endorsed it, and, like
wise, Senator Barkley of Kentucky
and Senator Logan of kentuckv-both
leading friends of the Presidents court
measure, but now voting to recommit
II. And likewise, Senator McAdoo of
California and Senator Minton of In
dlana-friends of the court measure
but here recorded as voting to recon-
NIT it.
Observe how confusinglv this will
work out IN future primaries and
elections. AS hypothetical example
consider the case of Senator McAdoo
OF California, who comes up for re-
election next year. Or Senator Ashurst
or Senator Mnton. who come up two
years later. In any of these cases
Will campaign workers for the respec-
i've senators say. in effect, Sure.
senator Mlnton was in favor of Presi-
cent RooSeNelt'S court meaSure-read
the speech he made in favor of it -
And will the campaign workers say to
another group, Sure, Senator Minton
voted to recommlt the court measure
and thereby kill it-read the roll call 4"
do not say this will happen: I merely
picture 1t as an illustration of the
confusion essential in the uav in
which the Presidents court measure
came to its end
Retaliation May Be Dropped.
As to the other Senators. the ONES
who are really against the court
measure. who waged the battle
against lt-these, I suppose. Will be all
right when they come up for re-
nomination and reelection. I assume
1t is part Of the terms of President
Roosevelts surrender. tacit or ex-
pressed, that no attempt will be made
to punish these Senators.
l assume the President and National
CHAIRMAN Farley will now abandon
any intention they may have had of
preventing, for example, Senator Van
Nuys OF Indiana from being renomi-
nated IN the Democratic primaries next
year, or Senator Clark of Missouri or
Senator George of Georgia, or Senator
| McCarran Of Nevada. or Senator Tyd-
lngs Of Maryland II mention merely
me Democrats opposed to the court
measure who come up for renomina-
ton next YEAR,
Ihat these Democratic Senators,
and all the other Senators who waged
the fight against the Presidents court
measure, should be returned. is COM
pletely deslrable-rarely has there been
group OF Senators who had so much
courage or who deserved so well of
their country.
Yet 1t might have been more whole
some had the court fight gone on to
clear-cut finish, and had the fight
oeen carried into next years primaries
and elections.
tCopyrisht, 1879