Evening star., 1937-06-14

make this additional statement to
accompany the majority report
The committee in its report urged
that the court bill be 80 emphatically
rejected that its parallel will never
again be presented to the free rep
resentatives of the free people of
America"
The committee hit hard at the Pres
ident when it said 1T (the bilD was
presented to the Congress in a most
intricate form and for reasons that
obscured its real purpose"
At some length the committee
argued that the bill would not Danish
age from the bench nor abolish divided
decisions" 1t does not, the commit
tee pointed out, and cannot compel the
retirement of any judge, whether on
the Supreme Court or any other court
when he becomes 70 years of age.
1T will be remembered" says the
report, that the attainment of three
score years and ten by a particular
Judge does not, under this bill, require
the appointment of another. The
man on the bench may be 80 years
old, but this bill will not authorize
the President to appoint a new Judge
to sit beside him unless he has served
as a judge for 10 years"
Man 50 Could Stay 10 Years.
The President under the bill could
nominate any man he pleased to the
bench who was SO years old, and he
could sit on the bench for 10 years
before another man was named.
The Supreme Court, under the bill.
may not be expanded beyond Is mem
bers. There is, therefore" the COM
mlttee report says, "a specific limita-
ton OF appointment regardless of age.
mat Is to say this BILL ostensibly
designed to provide for the infusion
Of new blood. sets up insuperable
obstacles to the constant or per
sistent' operation of that principle"
AS offered to the Congress, the bill
was designed to effectuate three OBJ.
1ectVes, the committee points out;
TO increase the personnel of the courts
80 mat cases may be promptly de-
clded in the first instance and on
appeal; to invigorate the courts by per-
manent infusion of new blood, and
to grant the Supreme Court further
power and responsibility in main
tanning the efficiency of the entire
judiciary.
The bill fails totally to achieve
these ends, the committee holds.
The Futility of the Devious"
Under substitle What size the
supreme Court?" the committee re-
port says: The futility and absurdity
OF the devious rather than the direct
method is Illustrated by the effect
upon the problem of the retirement
OF Justice Van Devanter." His re-
tlrement makes the possible maximum
OF the Supreme Court membership
IA, since only five members of retire.
ment age are left. With such a num-
ber, provided none of the five oth.r
justices retired, the whole court would
oe rendered impotent when it divides
to 7. Furthermore, the committee
argued, there was nothing in the bill
Whatever to prevent 8 to 7, 7 to 6 or
10 decisions by the Supreme Court
depending upon the varying size of
tne court under the provisions of the
bill. N ''''
Furthermore, the committee points
OUT, II all the judges of retirement
a8e-7o3a years-retire, there would
oe no increase whatever in the men,
oership of the courts.
1T thus appears" the report con-
thueS' that the bill before us does
not with certainty provide for in
creaslng the personnel Of the Federal
Juolciary, does not remedy the laws
delay does not serve the interest of
the poorer litigant, and does not pro-