White Bluffs spokesman. [volume] (White Bluffs, Wash.) 1907-1938, 1937-04-08
Salvini Renews
Court Argument
Able University Advocate of Presi-
dents Proposal Ampli6es His
Reasons Therefor.

Editor II was very pleased to have
my letter exposed to the field of
criticism and admit that the
points against it were we'll taken.
I only wish more would have criti-
cized it, and much more severely.
After all, it is true that, out OF diff
ferences comes real enlightenment.
My purpose here is not solely to
criticize any reply made to me, but,
in greater measure, to clarity and
defend the stand advanced in my
previous letter.
I sincerely agree that it is abso-
lutely essential to the existence of
our constitutional government that
it's three branches remain separate.
But what justifies anyone ito be-
lieve that the Presidents proposal
will destroy this independence?
Certainly it did not have this ef
feet heretofore. Most people do not
know that the number OF Supreme
Court Judges has been changed sew
eral times. THE court was founded
with six, changed to five in 1901,
increased to seven in 1907, increased
to nine in 1897, to ten in 1863, re-
duced to seven In 1866, and increas-
ed to nine in 1869, where it has re-
manned since. So you see that Its
numbers have mot been sacred, AL
though Its decisions have.
There is very little doubt as to
why Roosevelt made this move. Not
wanting to make the issue that the
Court should not Be permitted to In
terfere in any way with legislation,
nevertheless, he wanted his New
!, Deal legislation to stand, and so he
adopts this method Of increasing the
Court In order to place ON the
bench, If he considers 1t necessary,
six more judges-who believe that
the economic world does move and
that new times demand new mea
sureS.
To pack the Court will only
satisfy this particular situation, as
was TRUE In 1869, when Grant ap-
piled the same method It is not
unique.
1t is substantially true that, for
some time prior to the Inaugural
tom of President Roosevelt, "little
was said about the Supreme Court"
We do, however, have the issue
dominating now. This fact should
suffice. That it has existed as a
vital issue is common knowledge.
The only difference was that other
methods were used to overcome this
difficulty effected by this tribunal.
In some instances no methods what
ever were used I refer to none
other than the Child Labor Act.
Heretofore the people of the U
nited States have principally met
the difficult situation created by the
Courts decisions on constitutional
matters by dealing with the par
ticular question upon which the
Court was at variance with the
popular will. When the Court held
that sovereign state could not be
sued by a citizen of another state,
the people were indignant, but they
cured this situation by speedily pass
ing the eleventh amendment. The
people of the United States cured
the situation created by the bred
Scott decision by adoption of the
thirteenth and fourteenth amend
ments. When the Supreme Court
held the Income Tax law invalid,
the people, after thirty years, were
able to cure this situation by the
adoption of the sixteenth amend
ment, which the Court has already
partly nullif1ed by exempting stock
dividends from taxation. Perhaps
Continued ON Page Five)