Evening star., 1937-02-27
By Mary.Carfer Roberts.

PUPPETS? BY David Lawrence.
New York: D. Appleton Gen.
tury Co. :,
NJ THIS temperate, well-reaSoned
book, Mr.. Lawrence has set Gown
his opinions on the presently I'M
portant question OF whether or
not the United States Supreme Court
shall be reorganized in accordance
with President Roosevelt's wishes.
Those familiar with Mr.. Lawrence's
past writings will not need to be in
formed that he opposes that reor-
ganization. His present book, how
ever. may commend itself to any one,
of any view on the question, as ex-
pressing dispassionate and informa-
tive argument.
It is a brief work, being only 60
pages long, but it is a fairly full
statement of the case as the ordinary
citizen is apt to see 1t. without an
accompanying burden of legal prece-
dents and technicalities.
The question, as Mr.. Lawrence sees
1t, is mot the fact that the Con-
stitution should or should not be
changed, but by what method it shall
be changed" That method, he asks
us to remember, has been specified
in the Constitution itself, and has
never been questioned until the Roose-
yelt administration. 1t Is the method
of amendment, already employed now
2l times. Mr.. Roosevelt, by MI.
Lawrence's inference, would override
the amendment provision. and with
the help of a compliant Congress,
substitute his own method.
ITO the extent" he says. that the
President and Congress have partlc1-
pated in a combination OF poltlcal
power to transcend the Constitution,
these two agencies of Government
executive and legislative-are ac-
accused of violating the spirit and
letter of the Constitution"
Without displaying bitterness and
with no gratuitous indulgence In per-
sonalities, Mr.. Lawrence centers MS
book about this aspect of the situation.
He Is keenly conscious of the three
fold character of the American Gov
ernment, in its division into execu-
five. legislative and judicial branches.
The intervening of these branches,
as prescribed by the Constitution. Is
the guarantee of the liberty assured
us by that document. If one or TWO
of the divisions takes power at the
expense of the other two or one, the
whole system of our democracy Is
thrown out of balance and our constl-
t1,tional guarantee of a democratic
r11le is menaced. The President or his
adherents have at times declared that
the Supreme Court was thus attempt
ing to increase its sphere of action al
the expense of the power OF Congress.
The shoe, says Mr.. Lawrence. Is on
the other foot. The court has done
no more than its plainly prescribed
duty and the executive and legislative
branches are-now openly-atteMpt-
ing to curb its constitutionally vested
authority in order TO add to their own
MIR. ROOSEvELT'S hostility to the
1'A present membership OF the
Supreme Court" says Mr.. Lawrence,
became known when, on the day
after the N. R. A. was declared un-
constitutional by a unanimous vote
of all nine justices, liberal and con-
servative alike, he exhibited surpris-
ing pioue. This, it was insisted by
his supporters during the recent cam
paign, was abandoned because public
opinion voiced Nationwide dsap-
proval. Millions Of conservatives IN
the Democratic party voted for Mr..
Roosevelt on that supposition.
Not a word did Mr.. Roosevelt say
during the last campaign about his
plans to change the number OF JUS
tices on the Supreme Court. He re-
fused to answer the challenge of the
opposing candidate who wanted to
know if the court would be packed
But because about 100000 persons
voted for him, Mr.. Roosevelt evidently
concluded that they gave him blan-
ket Endorsement to do what he pleased,
including all those things which he
had not mentioned in his speeches"
Proceeding from this diagnosis OF
the origin of the issue, Mr.. Lawrence
analyses the Presidents message on
the subject to Congress, and finds
1t to contain many inconsistencies.
The message says, for example, that
the work of the court Is congeSted.
Since it is the established practice
for the entire court to participate in
rendering decisions, Mr.. Lawrence
asks how q mere increase IN numbers
Is to accelerate procedure.
He points out also that, under the
Presidents proposed bill, Mr.. Roose-
welt can appoint man 50 years old
and not until that justice serves ten
years and reaches the age of 79, can
another justice be appointed to match
him If he declines to retire"
Furthermore, the Presidents mes
sage complains that very few private
litigants are granted review by the
court under its present form. This,
says Mr.. Lawrence, is not the case.
Sixty-four per cent of the private
petitioners last year were granted re-
views, as were IS per cent Of the
Governments cases.
11C dG GULLY ASAiSeAi w
point out flaws in the presidential
case, implying by so doing that the
real motive back of the proposed
change is not public-spirited wish
to improve the judiciary, but a de-
termination to remove the power or
disposition of the present court to
tnvalidate cherished pieces of legis-
1ation.
AS TO the right of the people to
decree that the court shall be
changed from its present form there
is no question, says Mr.. Lawrence
There is, however, this point to be
considered, in his opinion: That if
the people (even by the duly author
lied process of amendment) should
order that the courts power be curbed
and that it be denied the right to in
validate any law passed by Congress,
then we have no body anywhere
charged with the duty of interpreting
the Constitution, and the acts of our