Evening star., 1937-03-31

uVOTcO. ~ u also t{ue tnAt tNcTe ~
NO difference, in 10 far - the Con-
stitution y concerned, in the power Of
the Senate to reject . nomination and
the power Of the Congress to increase
the membership of the court. Why
should Senators, why should any one,
become long faced and sorrowful when
1t II proposed to check the Supreme
Court In it, steady and persistent A.
sumption Of authority to decide ques-
tions Of policy Of hair-spltting dis
tinctions conceived in the minds of
Justices whose training and experience
prompt them to regard Is law
conclusions which are actually the
outgrowth Of personal predilec-
tions"? -
The charge is frequently heard that
the increase in the membership Of the
Supreme Court constitutes . packing
OF the court" What y meant by this
charge and what are facts fairly ap-
plicable to IT.
Naturally, one who participates in
the appointing power, whether r.
President or as United States Senator,
performs his function with the back
| ground and economic views OF the
appointee In mind. Always, when
contests as to the confirmation OF
nominees to serve on the court arise
In the Senate, the issue as to whether
the nominee shall be confirmed re-
wolves around the views and opinions
of tho nominee, although, Of course,
his ability and standing in his pro-
fession are recognized a. factors Of
very great importance.
Presidents have never named, and
Senators have always been slow to con-
firm judges whose viewpoints respect
ing constitutional questions are notably
at variance with their own. Indeed,
1t would be difficult for any one
charged with responsibility for an ap-
pointment to justify the selection OF
one to preside over or serve in court
whose views as to the fundamental
rights Of citizens and the division Of
powers are known to be in conflict
with the conscientious and the care
fully formed conclusions and opinions
Of the appointing authority.
This principle has been observed
from the beginning. 1t was In the
mind OF President Grant when the
consttutionality Of the legal tender
cases was at issue. 1t controlled the
action of President Lincoln when the
Dred Scott decision, which precipitated
the Civil War, was In mind. 1t was
responded to by President Wilson when
he sent to the Senate the names Of
liberal-minded lawyers to serve on our
highest tribunal. It motivated Presi-
dents Taft and Harding when they
carefully selected conservative lawyers,
some Of whom had earned distinction
by representing in the courts great cor
porate and financial interests.
Liberals and Conservatives
Contracted ~ Appointees.
II the nomination and confirmation
Of justices, generally regarded Is lib
erals may be criticised on the one
hand, what shall be said Of the policy
pursued by other Presidents and Sen
ators who exercised their powers OF
appointment to secure services on the
bench Of individuals known and re-
garded as conservative and reactionary
when judged by their private and pub
lie records relating to our Constitution
and laws? The late Mr.. william
Howard Taft. former President and
later chief justice, threw into the
balances his commanding influence
with the express and deliberate pur-
pose Of thwarting the appointments Of
Progressives and Of securing the Sc
lection Of justices notably conservative
and reactionary.
In the sense Of those who criticize
the Presidents plan ax packing the
court" Mr.. Taft made the accom-
plishment of purpose TO pack the
court the primary object in urging the
election Of President Harding.
As to whether his motive was con-
suWated you may Judge for yourselves
President Harding was elected and
nominated Justices Sutherland and
Butler as associate justices and Mr.
Taft as chief justice.
|
Consider the case Of M. Justice
McReynolds.
He was quoted As saying in . recent
public address that it u not good
sportsmanship for one who has had q
fair trial to criticize . decision OF the
Supreme Court. One wonders II the
Justice has forgotten that in February,
1885, when the Supreme Court de-
livered the famous gold clause de-
cision he, from the bench, struck in
rage 1T his fellow members on the
bench, at the President and Oongress,
| declaring that the decision had de-
stroyed the Oonstitution, that - d.
based currency i nothing new" He
said: Nero undertook to exercise that
power. Six centuries ago in France
It was regarded rs = prerogative of
the sovereign. . It seems impossible
to overesttmate what has been done
here today. The Constitution Is gone
-" The peoples fundamental rights
have been preempted by Congress
Some day the truth will be SEEN"
One wonders If the justice thinks
that good "sportsmanship'' consists in
refraining from criticism Of opinions
when he is With the majority and In
dulging in abuse toward the ma
jority when he takes the view of the
minority. Just what u good sports
manahip," Mr.. Justice7 Nowhere In
the Supreme Court decisions, nowhere
In legal literature does . judge stand
more emphatically condemned By his
own test as . poor sportsman"
Cereal Yield Record.
Yugoslavia cereal yield last season
was the largest on record.
|7E1::7