Evening star., 1937-02-02
Continued From Page BID
relief" What had the court decided
~.z.~ @Lof %I1A yHIoi

relief" What had the court decided
Nothing more than that the plain
provisions of the Constitution were
binding upon the Congress. upon the
Executive, and upon the courts. These
were the grounds upon which party
leaders thought proper to advise dis
regard Of the Constitution and def
ance Of the court.
Experience teaches that it is diff
cult to set constitutional bounds to
the action of political party enjoy
ing great political power or to a polit-
ical party not enjoying power and
striving in desperation to secure it.
It seems unnecessary to recall more
Of these historic incidents relating to
attacks upon the court because of
decisions which afterWard come to be
looked upon and regarded as sound in
principle and some Of them as bull
warks Of human liberty. There are
other and numerous instances Of this
nature which I doubt not will come
readily to the minds Of my audience.
make this comment, however:
That it is demonstrable truth, sup
ported by a wealth of facts, that the
Supreme Court, in instances too
numerous to be recorded tonight, has
thrown the shield of the Constitution
about the rights Of the citizen when
all other appeals for relief have
failed him. When war, passion. or
mob passion or political zeal or selfish
schemes have carried men beyond
reason or Justice, the court, when
called upon. has interposed to avert
great wrongs. This is we'll illustrated
by two recent cases: One where three
ignorant, iliiterate, impecunious Ne
groes, victims of mob passion and Off
cial cowardice, at last found safety
and life in the order of the Supreme
Court. The other, where a babblng
fool, preaching destruction of the Con-
stltution and the court as the tools of
capitalism. found liberty under the
terms and by the authority OF the
very things he would destroy.
Court Again Under Fire.
BY reason Of certain decisions, the
Supreme Court Is again under severe
criticism. Again, the political side OF
the Government feels that the court
Is In great error. A study Of the de-
cisions to which opposition has been
raised will disclose that, while num-
Der OF important matters have been
passed upon, the dominant, overshad-
owing constitutional question, one
which will return again and again
involves the distribution Of power be-
tween the State and the Federal Gov
ernment. 1t was this question, as you
know. which came near dissolving in
failure the convention which framed
the Constitution. 1t was this ques-
ton which, in the early part of our
history, divided our people in a long
and bitter controversy. And it was
this question which entered so largely
into that controversy which finally
drenched the Nation in fraternal
blood
1t Is back with us again, augmented
and complicated by reason of the
problems growing out Of our social and
industrial development during the last
30 years. To use somewhat worn
and too familiar sentence. we are
again at the crossroads as to this
problem which. conjure 1t as we will,
like Banquo's ghost, returns again and
again to its place at the feast.
The great problem now is: Do mod
ern conditions make it imperative that
the Federal Government have greater,
II not complete, control over most Of
the internal affairs Of the States?
That we have, in our legislation, not
only since this depression, but for the
last 10 years, been crowding more and
more upon the undoubted internal
affairs Of the State, can hardly be
doubted. And 1t has seemed that the
court has gone to the utmost limit in
sustaining some Of these measures.
That it has felt, however, compelled
to hold that Congress has at times
transgressed the plain terms Of the
Constitution has been no surprise to
those who still believe In our dual sys-
TEN Of government.
N. r. A. Reached Too Far.
In the case involving the validity
Of the national recovery act, this ques-
tion was one Of the determining fac
tors. The court was unanimous-con-
servatives and liberals, Republicans
and Democrat-in holding that Con-
gress had gone an arrows flight be-
yond the terms Of the Constitution.
This unanimous opinion Is difficult to
explain away. He would be bold
liberal who would declare that Justice
tartan, and profoundly learned in con-
stitutional law. He has said on one
occasion: "All rights are derived from
the purposes Of the societies in which
they exist, above all rights rises duty
to the community" Justice Cardozo,
whose liberal views and monumental
knowledge of law would hardly justify
his being placed among those who are
not abreast Of the times, indicated in
his concurring opinion that the act
under consideration was something in
the nature of legal riot. I take the
liberty OF mentioning these justices
personally because Of the general
charge that the Court, while honest
and capable, is suffering from a case
Of arrested development and plagued
with the views Of ancient days.
But is this not a wholly different
matter than the failure of the court to
do its duty? Have We not in good
conscience arrived at the hour when
We should consult a higher authority
than courts or Congress or executives
the people. the final authority upon
this question of the distribution OF
power? 1t seems to me that a ques-
tion has arisen which only the people
have the authority or the right to
settle. Should there be redistribu-
tion Of power between the State and
the Federal Government? A question
Of this nature under present conditions