Evening star., 1937-03-28
Issues in Controversy
To Mr.. La Guardia Of New York.

To Mr.. La GuardiA Of New York.
To the Editor Of The Star:
Mr.. La GuArdia at the Rialto
Theater, speaking out Of an abysmal
ignorance Of our institutions and OF
their historical background, vented
his spleen upon the Supreme Court,
charging 1t with "hampering and re-
tarding progress"
beg to remind him through The
Star that the Supreme Court is the
keystone of our institutions, and the
guarantee that our Government will
be one Of laws and not OF men.
Furthermore, ours is the Oldest gov
ernment in the world today, all pre-
ceding governments having crumbled
into the dust. do not except even
the British government, as it is not
the government 1t was at the time
our Constitution was adopted
would like to tell Mr.. La Guardia
that our Constitution provides a gov
ernment of balanced powers With an
independent judiciary that stands as
the guardian and protector Of the
uUCl IlCo dllu IAAC pAoHS4Sy AA6ASo VA cAAS
citizen. 1t was designed to hold public
officials and legislators within the
bounds prescribed for them by the
Constitution, which Is declared the
supreme law of the land, to which all
owe loyalty and allegiance. Destroy
this balance OF power and the inde-
pendence Of the courts, and the road
to dictatorship will be wide open and
unobstructed, and the time will soon
come when some ambitious and un-
scrupulous President will arrogate
unto himself arbitrary power. Let
us not forget that q government is
more easily overthroWn from within
than from without, and it is this
danger that confronts us today. Per-
haps this is what Mr.. La Guardia de-
sires. If so, suggest that he return
to Italy, his native land, where he
will find q government already in
operation in harmony with his hearts
| desires.
ALEXANDER SIDNEY LANIER.
Oaths and Duty to the Constitution.
To the Editor OF The Star:
The President expresses regret for
the Supreme Court controversy.
1t is a controversy yes. but 1t cam
not assume the just place OF an argu-
ment. To be just argument it must
have two legally just sides. This is
precluded by the fact that the Con-
stitution is a law, the supreme law
of this land Then the Supreme
Court is the only authorized means OF
ascertaining the legality Of laws, de-
crees, actions and procedures as TO
whether they conflict with the mean
ing Of the supreme law. Each mem
ber Of the Supreme Court entered
upon his duties by taking an oath
to fulfill these duties in a prescribed
way Yet what is an oath? 1t is
this: II q man makes VOW unto
the Lord, or If he swears an oath to
bind his soul with a bond, he shall
not break his word. He shall do ac-
cording to all that procedeth out Of
his mouth Then the justices have
vowed before God to do according to
the best OF their understanding. No
one disputes that up to this point the
whole matter has been kept within
the law, and the Constitution. This
the President states is what he wishes
to do.
From this point the controversy
assumes the personal and not the
legal view Of the Interpretation as
shown by the following: -
A school posted rule that states:
Boys chewing tobacco must be pun
ished. A teacher charged one boy
with chewing tobacco. The boy