Evening star., 1937-04-25
No Surrender of Principle.


on the Presidents court-packing plan
have been changed one way or another
by the Senate Judiciary Committees
lengthy hearings, just closed. Many sup
port the plan because it is the Presi-
dents, and nothing would change their
minds until he changes his. Those who
have opposed the plan from the very be-
ginning because independence of the jul
dietary is involved have found their posi-
ton strengthened by the arguments de-
Hvered before the committee.
The hearings have established the fact
beyond question that there is no definite
relationship between the ages of jurists
and the nature of their Interpretation
OF the Constitution. Although the theory
that there is such relationship was
put forward originally by the supporters
of the Presidents plan, even they have
abandoned it, although 1t remains the
formal keystone of the Presidents argu-
ment.
The hearings have shown very clearly
that instead of increasing the efficiency
of the Supreme Courts functioning, the
increase in the number of judges would
tend toward the decrease of efficiency,
while the proposal to divide the court,
in effect setting up branches of the Su-
preme Court, has been questioned as to
Its constitutionality by the Chief Justice.
The hearings have shown that there
Is no precedent for the Presidents plan,
though there has been talk of such
precedent based on previous changes in
the size of the court There is no case
on record where a vacancy was created
on the court for the specific purpose Of
permitting the President to fill it.
The hearings have served to reduce
to an absurdity the claim that five
to-four decision strengthens the argu-
ment for packing the court. A packed
court of as many as fifteen members
could disagree, eight-to-seven, as log
ically as court of nine members di-
vides five -four.
The hearings have established the fact
that the whole court-packing plan Is
futile, unless its purpose is to assure the
appointment of new judges who can be
counted upon by the administration to
take sympathetic view toward the leg
islation which it sponsors. And to recog-
nize or to admit that purpose is to favor
the impairment and possibly the destruc-
ton Of the independence of the judiciary.
But perhaps the most important fact
established by the hearings is that his
tory, ancient and modern, has taught
that the trend toward dictatorship and
the loss of democratic institutions in
government is most clearly established in
the beginning by the destruction of an
independent judiciary. There are those
who argue sincerely that there is nothing
further from the Presidents mind than
to establish a dictatorship. That argu-
ment is beside the point. Once the forces
which tend toward dictatorship-even
most benevolent dictatorship-are set in
motion men lack the power to stop
them. That has happened elsewhere
and 1t can happen here.
The success of the Presidents plan, as
far as legislative enactment is concerned,
depends largely on the ability of its
proponents to destroy public confidence
In the Judiciary AS long as that conf
dence remains, the American people will
refuse to sanction the change. In the
course of the present campaign for the
plan, many and harmful attacks have
been made on the judiciary. More are
In sight, as the pressure increases and
the heat Is turned on. If the plan
succeeds, it will represent victory won
at great cost-the loss Of principle in
democratic government far more i'm
portant to the people of this country than
the immediate ends which the President
has chosen as his objective.
For that reason it is impossible to be-
lieve that those who oppose the plan
will ever agree to compromise with the
principle at stake. 1t is a principle
which may be destroyed here, as it has
been destroyed in other less fortunate
lands, but it is not principle on which
there can be surrender through COM