Evening star., 1937-03-30

RTER GLASS.
ment check upon unauthorized free
dom and restraint upon dangerous
liberty. Said he, The attachment and
allegiance Of the founders to the SOW
ereignty Of their States were warm and
unfaltering; but that did not prevent
them from contributing fraction OF
that sovereignty to the creation of a
court which should guard and protect
their new Nation and save and per-
petuate a government which should.
in all time to come, bless an inde-
pendent people. Let us be glad in the
possession Of this rich heritage of
American citizenship and gratefully
appreciate the wisdom and patriotism
! OF those who gave to us the Supreme
Court Of the United States"
Telegram after telegram, letter after
letter, sent me by the thousands, have
said God bless the Supreme Court"
But who wants God to bless a packed
Supreme Court? Who wants to invoke
Divine blessing on a court not consti-
tuted' to put "a check upon unauthor-
lied freedom and restraint upon dan
gerous liberty" but reorganized to
validate acts OF Congress in contra
vention OF the Constitution as now in
terpreted and to expound the Con-
stitution in subservient obedience to
the whims or obsessions or misguided
| Judgment Of President Of the United
States? Woodrow Wilson said such
court and those responsible for it
would receive the curses Of the Amer
ican people. Grover Cleveland said
| the Supreme Court was created for no
such sinister purpose. Our God still
being in the heavens, it Is my belief
He would regard as unhallowed any
invocation Of His blessing on a court
like that. We would better abolish
the Supreme Court and, by the re-
quired process, do away outright with
the Constitution If they are to be
made the playthings Of politicians.
! Cleveland's Warning.
Against Invasion"
What did Cleveland mean by checks
and balances against unauthorized
freedom and dangerous liberty?" He
was uttering a monition against legis-
lative or executive invasion of the
rights Of the States, reserved to them
under the Constitution, and to be
guarded and protected" by the Su-
preme Court. He meant what Gov
ernor of great State, afterward Pres
ident OF the United States meant
when seven years ago he made a ve-
hement plea for respecting State
rights and unsparingly denounced gov
ernment by commissions and regula-
tory bodies and special legislation"
The Governor warned that:
ITO bring about government by
oligarchy-masquerading as de-
mocracy-it is fundamentally es-
sential that all authority and con-
troll be centralized in our National
Government. We are safe from
the danger of any such departure
from the principles on which this
country was founded Just so long as
the individual home rule of the
States is scrupulously preserved
and fought for whenever they seem
in danger"
This was Franklin D. Roosevelt in
March, 1890 When before, may
venture to ask, IN the history Of the
country has this Nation more nearly
approached the situation thus de-
| plored? With Federal regulatory bod
les in every community of the States
and Federal bureaus in Washington
bursting the bonds of marble palaces
and overflowing into business houses
and private homes, and with the
States required supinely to submit
their legislative statutes to the approv-
al of bureaucratic boards here be-
fore they can get back pittance OF
the prodigious sums picked from the
pockets of their people in the form OF
taxes, State rights, as well as the Sc
curity and independence of private en-
terprise, are fast disappearing.
What does this court-packlng
scheme signify If it does not reflect
the fury OF its proponents against the
Supreme Court Of the United States
for certain Of it's recent decisions as
serting the rights Of the States and
individuals and private business under
the law and prohibiting the proposed
invasion Of these by ill-digested con-
gressional legislation, largely devised
by inexperienced and incompetent
academicians? That is precisely what
1t is all about. Had the judicial de-
cisions sanctioned these rankly un-
constitutional measures, who believes
there would have been this unre-
strained abuse Of the court and this
unprecedented attempt to flank the
Constitution by putting on the bench
six judicial wet-nurses to suckle the
substance out Of the opinions Of jurists
whose spirit Of independence keeps
pace with their profound knowledge
Of the law.
That the purpose of the court prof.
ect has accurately been stated by me
Is no longer in serious question. The
President in his message to Congress
implicitly conceded the proposition
when he said II given legislative sane
ton for this irregular scheme there
would be 10 necessity of appealing to
the people to 80 amend their Consti-
tuition as to authorize the things for
which the Supreme Court had said
there is now no authority, as we'll per-
haps, as unmentioned schemes of
"unfettered" delegation of legislative
power. That can mean nothing else
than that 1t was then the Executive
determination to select six new judges
who would validate acts Of Congress
already pronounced unconstitutional
and contemplated acts OF q similar