Evening star., 1937-03-23
statement of Raymond Moley
before the Senate Judiciary
Committee today follows, in


before the Senate Judiciary
Committee today follows, tr
| L part:
In presenting the reasons for my op.
position to the proposal Of the Presi.
dent to provide far new appointment.
to the Supreme Court, should liks
to pass over the original arguments ad.
vanced for this plan-the idea that
the court is inefficient, the notion that
age is related to efficiency and even
the contention that age and conserva-
tism inevitably go hand in hand.
Debate is now on quite different
basis. It is frankly admitted that the
real purpose of the plan is to secure
within the letter, though. submit, not
within the spirit, of the Constitution a
court that will lift the cloud of doubt
from a number OF New Deal measures
now in process Of preliminary adjudi-
cation and to provide in advance for
favorable action by the Supreme Court
upon number Of measures not yet
formulated. The main premise of this
argument Is that the court may be ex-
pected to strike down these now in
choate legislative proposals when they
finally come before it, on the basis of
the same economic and political theo-
ries on which the majority has acted
in the immediate past
In stating their case, the proponents
of the Presidents plan have embraced
a series Of economic and political ideals
with which all but the most hardened
reactionary must agree.
l, for one, deny the validity of this
assumption. deny further that fall
ure to agree with this specific plan
necessarily implies a disposition to
defend those judgments of the Su-
preme Court which, we all agree, have
been the proximate cause of the whole
issue. l believe that curative meas
ures have flowed in abundance from
Mr.. Roosevelt's leadership, that more
national laws are needed to supple
ment them, that three successive elec-
tions have shown that Americans
believe in the soundness of his OBJ
JectlVeS, that our Constitution was
not intended to impose rigid limita-
tions upon progressive legislation in
the public interest, that the Supreme
Court should use every effort to make
the Constitution a living charter, that
the present court as whole has held
TOO narrow view of congressional
power, that its Interpretation of the
Constitution has often been deter
mined by its own economic predilec-
tlons and that I'VE must find a way
to take an appeal from the Supreme
Court to the Constitution itself"
Had Been Outspoken
In Criticizing Court.
should like to emphasize the fact
that no one has been more outspoken
than I have been in criticizing the
court for its arbitrary refusal to find a
way to modify the law and to preserve
its continuity and unity so far as
possible in period of striking, al
most unparalleled social and economic
change
wish to refer briefly to the recorc
on this point.
Three weeks before the decision ir
the Schechter case, in commenting or
the 5-to-4 decision declaring the rail-
road retirement act unconstitutional
said: Judicial supremacy which
curbs arbitrary action may be the
bulWark of liberty But judicia
supremacy which arrogates to itself
arbitrary power and usurps the righ,
to determine legislative policy i
tyranny"
Neither the Attorney General mol
the learned law deans who support tht
Presidents proposals have been more
outspoken in their warnings to the
court that if it persisted in this
course it would inevitably provoke
reckless and arbitrary change.
AS early as May 18, 1885, said "Nc
democratic community such as ours
can be expected to consent to the
interposition, by the judiciary, of its
own arbitrary judgments as to the
ultimates Of legislation in place of the
judgments of the community's demo.
cratically elected representatives
Why, then, feeling as did and still
do, with reference to Mr.. RooSevelt's
humane objectiveS and the obstruc.
tionism of the court, do oppose his
plan to "reinvigorate" the court?
I view this proposal not SO much
with alarm as with deep regret that
after period of many years, during
which progressive ideas have been TAX
ing shape and have been moving
toward the achievement of somewhat
fundamental changes in our economic
system, a proposal has been injected
into the situation which is not only
wholly inadequate to meet the present
situation, but is so destructive Of the
institutional consistency of this re-
public that it may obstruct progressive
development in the future as we'll.
Many Years Of Battle
for Stable Civilization.
A good many of us can remember
the many years of battle during which
great men labored heroically for the
achievement Of a more just and a
more stable civilization in this coun-
try. = ="
Progressiveism did not begin in 1882
But progressiveism found in the i'm
mense majority of the past three elec-
visions of the Constitution make it
to argue this question further woulc
obscure it.
THE wise men who framed oul