Evening star., 1937-03-10

SoV AAAcAAIAcAovoAAuAA!8 u MY puIe
poses.
II by that phrase, packing the
court" 1t Is charged that I wish
to place on the bench spineless pup
. pets who would disregard the law
and would decide specific cases as
wished them to be decided, I
make this answer-that no Presi-
dent fit FOR his 7fice would appoint,
and no Senate OF honorable men fit
for their office would confirm,
that kind Of appointees to the
Supreme Court.
But If by that phrase the charge
Is made that I would appoint and
the Senate would confirm justices
worthy to sit beside present men,
bers OF the court who understand
those modern conditions-that I
will appoint justices who will not
undertake to override the judgment
OF the Congress on legislative pol
icy-that will appoint justices who
will act as justices and not as legis-
lators-if the appointment of such
justices can be called packing the
courts" then say that I, and with
me the vast majority Of the Ameri-
can people, favor doing just that
thing-now.
Is 1t dangerous precedent for
the Congress to change the num-
ber OF the justices? The Congress
has always had. and will have, that
power. The number of justices has
been changed several times before
in the administrations Of John
Adams and Thomas Jefferson
both signers OF the Declaration of
Independence - Andrew Jackson.
Abraham Lincoln and Ulysses 8.
Grant.
Democracy Fails II
Congress Later Abuses Trust.
suggest only the addition of
Justices to the bench in accordance
with a clearly defined principle
relating to clearly defined age
limit. Fundamentally, II in the
future America cannot trust the
Congress 1t elects to refrain from
abuse OF our constitutional usages,
democracy will have failed far be-
yond the Importance to 1t OF any
kind Of precedent concerning the
Judiciary.
We think it so much in the public
interest to maintain a vigorous ju-
dietary that we encourage the re.
tirement of elderly judges by Offer
ing them life pension at full
salary. Why, then, should We leave
the fulfillment Of this public policy
to chance or make it dependent
upon the desire or prejudice OF any
individual justice?
1t Is the clear intention OF our
public policy to provide for q con-
slant flow Of new and younger blood
into the judiciary. Normally, every
President appoints a large number
OF district and circuit judges and
few members of the Supreme
Court. Until my first term prac-
tically every President of the
United States had appointed at
least one member of the Supreme
Court. President Taft appointed
five members and named a Chief
Justice-President Wilson three
President Harding four including a
Chief Justice-President Coolidge
one-President Hoover three in
cluding Chief Justice.
Such succession of appoint
ments should have provided a court
we'll balanced as to age But chance
and the disinclination OF individ.
uals to leave the Supreme bench
have now given us court in which
five justices will be over IS years
OF age before next June and one
over 10. Thus a sound policy has
been defeated.
I now propose that We establish
by Jaw an assurance against any
such Unbalanced court in the
future. I propose that hereafter,
when judge reaches the age Of 10,
new and younger Judge shall be
added to the court automatically.
In this way propose to enforce a
sound policy by law instead of
leaving the composition of our
Federal courts, including the high
est, to be determined by chance or
the personal decision OF individuals,
II such a law as 1 propose Is
regarded as establishing a new
precedent-is it not a most desir.
able precedent?
Duty to U. s. Welfare
Is Above Pain Of Controversy.
Like all lawyers, like all An1eri-
cans, regret the necessity of this
controversy. But the welfare Of the
United States, and indeed of the
Constitution itself, is what we all
must think about first. Our diff
Guilty with the court today rises
not from the court as an institu-
tion but from human beings within
It, But we cannot yield our consti-
tutional destiny to the personal
Judgment of few men who, being
fearful of the future, would deny
us the necessary means of dealing
with the present.
This plan of mine is no attack
on the court; it seeks to restore the
court to It's rightful and historic
place in our system of constitu-
tional government and to have it
resume its high task Of building
anew on the Constitution "a system =
Of living law"
have thus explained to you the
reasons that lie behind our efforts
to secure results by legislation
within the Constitution. I hope
that thereby the difficult process
Of constitutional amendment may
be rendered unnecessary. But let
us examine that process.