Evening star., 1937-02-15
Special Pleading.

The Attorney General of the United
States is the chief law officer Of the
Government. Upon him rests the re-
sponsibility for the enforcement Of the
Federal laws, the defense Of the funda-
mental law in particular. He represents
the people of the country in their re-
lance upon the Constitution in the
maintenance of the established prin-
ciples of national organization. In his
official role he is obligated to maintain
the orderly processes of procedure,
apart from any personal or partisan
prejudice or belief.
When the Attorney General under
takes to justify an attack upon the
Supreme Court, in terms of approval OF
a plan to invade its precincts of juris-
diction by a needless enlargement OF its
personnel, to secure the valuation of
measures that have been rejected as
contrary to the Constitution as it now
stands, he departs from his official posi-
ton and becomes q political partisan.
eral spoke last night to the country by
radio, denouncing as envious and ma
licious those who now oppose the Pres
ident's plan to enlarge the highest court
In order to obtain from that body de-
cisions favorable to his measures that
have been rejected by the court as un-
constitutional.
Yet in his address the Attorney Cen
eral declared that nothing could be
farther from the truth" than the loose"
charge that "the present proposal is
bold attempt to pack the court" He
seeks to justify the statement by this
remarkable reasoning: Every increase
in the membership Of court is subject
to the same objection. Under the Pres
ident's proposal. if there is any increase
in the number Of judges, it will be due
entirely to the fact that judges now of
retirement age elect to remain on the
bench" And he adds this extraordinary
statement: IF those judges think it
would be harmful to the court to in
crease its membership they can avoid
that result by retiring upon full pay"
References in the course of the Attor-
hey Generals address to "unfriendly
voices that have filled the air with
lamentations and have vexed our ears
with an insensate clamor calculated to
divert attention from the merits" OF
the Presidents proposal do not advance
his status as reasoner or as an Attorney
General, supposedly the guardian Of the
fundamental law Of the land. To refer
to the protests against an enlargement
OF the court for the not even thinly
veiled purpose to find way around the
Constitution as it now is written and
as it has been interpreted by orderly
process as "irrevalences" does not indi-
cate such non-partisan attitude toward
the law as the chief law officer Of the
Government is supposed to assume at all
times and in all circumstances.
Nor is there ground for confidence in
the constitutional judgment of the At
torney General in this statement in ref
erence TO the allegation OF opponents
that the proposed measure is immoral:
''The reason they charge that 1t is i'm
moral is because they are unable to
charge that 1t is unconstitutional
Whether the plan Is immoral or not
must be tested by the results it produces.
If it produces a wholesome result in a
perfectly legal way 1t can scarcely be
called immoral"
AS piece of special pleading. as the
argument of a counsel for the defense,
this address may be accepted. But only
on such q basis. It is such a plea as
the Attorney General himself, if engaged
in court as counsel for the Government,
In case which he Fundamentally and
sincerely endorsed, would protest as un-
worthy and unsound