Evening star., 1937-02-26
Judiciary
Continued From First Page.)

supreme Court retire? Would ne have
them retire when another President
Is in office whose appointees to the
court the Senator from California
thinks he would approve?"
Senator johnson said he favored the
pending bill and then continued:
THE Senator from Arkansas asked
me when I would be willing to have
justices Of the Supreme Court retire
under its provisions. I would have
them retire when no bait was held out
to them, when they could discern no
suggestion that they were being driven
from the court by other legislation"
McCarran as Peacemaker.
Senator McCarran of Nevada. in
charge of the voluntary retirement bill,
thought to throw oil on the troubled
waters
Il fear" he said, "the Senator
from California is putting into this
retirement bill something that is not
contained in it. AS a matter of fact,
if this bill had been law 10 years ago
I do not believe the atmosphere OF
which the Senator speaks would have
existed today. 1t is only question
of justice and fair play to the justices
of the Supreme Court to pass this
legislation. I do not know If any of
the justices at this time will take ad-
vantage of the privilege Of retirement.
But it is privilege that should be
accorded"
Senator Burke, an opponent Of the
Presidents plan. obtaining the floor,
said he would like to answer the ques-
tons which Senator Robinson had
propounded to Senator Johnson
Il would say that at any time after
the bill now pending to change the
court was withdrawn by its sponsor
or defeated, justice of the Supreme
Court could avail himself Of this re-
tirement plan and retain my respect,
but not sooner he said.
Senator McCarran, when Burke con-
c!uded his statement said that he
hoped that there would be nc attempt
to join the Presidents court bill with
the pending bill; that they had moth
ing to do with one another.
1T may be-" said McCarran. "that
the passage Of this retirement bill will
relieve the tension that now exists. but
whether 1t does no not, 1t should be
passed"
Senator Austin of Vermont. oppo-
nent of the Presidents court bill, said
that he favored the retirement bill.
He insisted there was no conflict be-
tween his position on these two meas
ures. and agreed with Senator Nc
Carran that the retirement bill should
be promptly passed.
Senator Borah of Idaho restated his
belief that the retirement age fol
justices of the Supreme Court should
be made IS years instead Of 10 and
also his opposition to having Supreme
Court justices subject to call for duty
in the lower courts after their re-
tirement. He said he would not offer
amendments to the pending bill. how
ever, since both the subcommittee
and the full Committee on Judiciary
wished the bill passed in the form in
which it came from the House.
Senator King of Utah said that he
| thought the retirement bill unfair ir
some respects and that he doubted
the validity of certain provisions.
Il have great doubts on the con.
stitutionality Of the bill in its present
| FORM" said King. Il think it comes
at an inopportune time as indicated
by the Senator from California"
Lower Court Law Cited.
At the outset of the debate on thu
retirement bill Senator McCarrar
called attention to the fact that Con
gress by law has provided for the
retirement of judges Of the lowe
courts. That law specifically excludes
the justices of the Supreme Cour
from its operation. He said also tina
in 1884 a bill for permitting tn,
retirement of Supreme Court justice.
had been defeated in the House.
Again we said inferentially to tn,
members of the Supreme Court tina
they should not retire." said McCar.
ran.
Senator Robinson asked why tn,
privilege of retirement has been denied
| to Supreme Court justices. Senato
McCarran suggested that a question O.
constitutionality may have been raised
This was denied, however, by Senato
Borah and Senator johnson, who in
sisted that there was no constitutions
question involved, but that the de
cision not to include the Suprem
Court justices in the retirement bill
had been only matter Of policy. tn
law permitting the retirement of lowe
court judges at 10 years Of age on ful
pay was passed many years ago.
Backed by Robinson.
Senator McCarran argued that j
was only fair to the justices OF th'
Supreme Court to accord them th'
retirement privilege. In this he wa
backed up by Senator Robinson. Nc
Carran called attention to the fact tina
the pay Of the late Associate Justice
Oliver Wendell Holmes Of the Suprem,
Court had been cut so Per cent, or from
$4,000 to $4,000 year, after Justic'
Holmes had reyigned, and that 1t wa
further cut by the operation of the so
called economy act.
He explained that justices of tn
Supreme Court have the right to re
sign and presumably at full pay, a
the law now stands. but that after I
Justice has resigned 1t is possible, o
IA the case Of Justice Holmes, TO