Evening star., 1937-03-04
Constitutional Authority
And Majority Rule Plea
To the Editor of The Star:

To the Editor Of The Star:
Such carefully expressed opinions in
support of the proposals to enlarge the
Supreme Court as those of Messrs. Scott
and Pollitt in your columns for February
20 require most careful analysis to ferret
out the mistakes which it seems to me
they contain.
Both of these gentlemen appear to
misconstrue the theory Of our Govern
ment completely, for even though it be
admitted that a majority have ordered
the New Deal established Gin an election
in which the very Democratic platform
itself rejected any such procedure as is
now propoSedD still our Government
certainly has never been based upon the
direct rule of the majority as its ideal.
The wisdom of experience has come
to be expressed in monumental docu-
ments in which principles of individual
and social behavior are recorded for the
benefit of succeeding generations. Ma
jority or no majority, we ignore these
principles at our peril, for mere majority
rules cannot make wrong ideas of
methods workable. If the majority were
to vote for an anarchist for President,
would Messrs. Scott and Pollitt think
that governmental suicide was in order?
Does it not occur to the assailants Of
our courts that if the Constitution does
not state the power Of the Supreme
Court to declare laws unconstitutional,
neither does it anywhere state the prin-
ciple of majority rule?
The real issue in the current dispute
is not the revision of the courts at all.
for small court can function, as any
one must admit, more expeditiously than
a large one Back of the sophistical at
tempt to sway the courts Interpretation
of the Constitution lies the doctrine of
justifying the means by the end. Even
though the Constitution does, indeed,
prohibit this IDEAL" in Government, it
is felt that we need new deal now and
that the warning sign of the Constitu-
ton that what we are really getting Is
an old deal IN tyranny, is out OF date,
and, now that the industrial right OF
way has been double-tracked, should be
disregarded in favor of plunging ahead.
But hadn't we better get out and look
at that sign again? Are we rushing into
reforms or into disaster? Is the New
Deal really new? Are its protestationS
of faith in the rule of the majority-its
clinging to the forms and trappings of
democracy in elections, anything more
than lip service? Are we, indeed, going
to erect memorial to Thomas Jefferson
in an administration which has taken
over, lock, stock and BARREL every precept
of Alexander Hamilton in its financial
and fiscal policy and practice? Let's
quote a few lines of what Jefferson had
to say of such procedure:
1791-"We are ruined If we do not
overrule the principles that the more
we owe the more prosperous we shall
be- that a public debt furnishes the
means of enterprise.
1851 wish it were possible to obtain
a single amendment to our Constitution
I would be willing to depend on that
alone for the reduction of the admins
tration of our Government to the gen.
uine principles of its Constitution; I
mean an added article, taking from the
Federal Government the power of bor-
rowing"
1S13-"It is from Great Britain we
copy the idea of giving paper in ex-
change for discounted bills The
unlimited emission of bank paper - is
now, by depreciation acknowledged by
her own statesmen. carrying her rapidly
to bankruptcy, as it did France, as it did
us, and will do us again. and every
other country permitting paper to be cir
culated, other than by public authority,
vigorously limited to the just measure for
circulation"
1867 place economy. among the
first and most important Of republican
virtues. and public debt as the greatest
of dangers to be feared"
1821-"There does not exist an engine
so corruptive of government and so de-
moralizing of the nation as a public
debt"
Were the mine old men" who sup
ported Jefferson's ideas in the legal
tender decisions following the Civil War
property minded? And if the Consti-
tuition and court were right then, and
jefferson is still worthy of his memorial,
isn't it just possible that they still are
right and that Mr.. Scott and his resist
less majority" are among those who have
been fooled some of the time"-long
enough, at least, to Jump out of the
frying pan into the fire? Isn't it just
possible, after alI that American ideals
are a better guaranty of social security
than European doles?
ALDEN A. POTTER.