Evening star., 1937-03-23
Mo|ey's Views on Court

tions an indication that a generation
of education had finally resulted in a
popular mandate to bring to realiza-
ton the aspirations of more than rs
years.
The danger in taking a shortcut
now. when the consummation OF this
progressive evolution Is at hand, Is
that its entire consistency will be dis
torted or destroyed. And yet without
reference to the institutional tradi-
tions under which 1t was possible for
liberalism to make the immense
progress 1t has made during the past
generation, and without the common
counsel Of members of this Congress
who have given so much OF their lives
to the progressive movement, a pro-
posal has been made which imposes
upon one man-the present Chief
Executive-the almost sole respon-
sibility of determing the final objectives
Of liberalism, and which divides not
only party, but movement. It
seizes the great enthusiasm and unity
of a popular mandate and squanders
it for the mirage of q solution, not a
solution.
1t seems to ME that this proposal
will not do the job for a number of
reasons.
First, 1t is based upon emergency
or if you will, psychology. 1t is
submitted as make-shift unsatis-
factory panacea accompanied by
apologies that a better solution is not
possible. But must we always have
legislation for reform based upon the
existence OF crisis? Must we always
have emergency measures?
Second, this proposal does not offer
a permanent solution. 1t does not
prevent the recurrence of exactly the
same evil it is designed to remedy.
l believe in the purposes of this New
, Deal. But I am not for this New
Deal alone I am for future New
Deals as well, unhampered by the
dead hand of the past, even if that
past be our resplendent present. l
am not just against the dead hand
represented by the ma jority Of this
court. am against all dead hands
through which the past seeks to con-
troll the future. Our New Deal will
be an Old Deal sometime. Even the
six justices that the President now
wants to appoint will become old, and,
as the President says, will wear glasses
| fitted to the needs Of another genera
ton. do not want Presidents then
to feel free to remake that court
again and again and again-as Presi-
dents will, If we set this bad example.
Leaves Congress Without
Needed Powers.
Third, I believe that this proposal
is inadequate because 1t will still
leave the Congress without the specific
powers it needs to regulate industry
and agriculture in the public interest
1t seems to me that sound states
manship would dictate that the kind
OF reform that the new court is ex-
| pected enthusiastically to approve
should be determined in advance.
| Finally, l have grave doubts as to
whether the present proposal will COM
pletely fulfill the requirement OF haste
which seems to be one of the ajor
arguments of its proponents This
proposal cannot conceivably be ap-
proved for some months. There must
then be reckoned the time required for
the selection Of the judges and the
approval Of the Senate. Perhaps am
carrying Goals to Newcastle when I
remind Senate committee that this
is not always expeditiously performed.
| That will take us, it seems to me, to
the end Of this session of the Seventy
fifth Congress. The second session of
this Congress will undoubtedly devote
itself to consideration of those eco
nomic measures that the new court
is expected to approve and, in view of
the wide difference Of opinion that ]
| have already mentioned as to the gen.
eral nature of economic reform, it may
be assumed that considerable part
OF that session will be required. Then
there will come the process Of litiga
ton. 1t therefore seems to me that
it is fair inference that the present
so-called crisis cannot possibly be met
and definitely liquidated until the be-
ginning of 1899.
Assume for the moment that the
proposal will relieve a temporary sit
uation. What will be the cost of this
| temporary relief? think it is
within the realm of reason to assume
that we may buy such temporary
relief at too high a price
Difficulty With Court
Held in Human Beings.
Our difficulty with the court to-
day." said the President, rises not
from the court as an institution, but
from the human beings within it."
Let us suppose that it is entirely accu-
rate to say that our trouble rises from
the human beings within the court.
How would the President remedy the
! defect? BY the selection of other
human beings to sit on the court,
reading their personal economic
predictions into the law.
We who honestly believe" in the
purposes of the President, but oppose
MS reorganization of the court, can
not help but see in his course the
perpetuation of basic wrong. Does
the President mean that we shall have
no more amendments to the Constitu-
ton? Does he mean that in the
future there will be change to meet
the changing times only through in
depreciation? Does he mean that the