Evening star., 1937-04-28


continue until that date.
In Response to Request.
Solicitor General Reeds letter, ad-
dressed TO Chairman Ashurst.. was
written in response to a request for
information made by the chairman.
In reply to your first question"
wrote the solicitor general, Il may
state that my comments on the work
OF the Supreme Court contained in
the annual report of the Attorney
General for the fiscal year 1896, are
entirely consistent with the language
in the Presidents message on judicial
reorganization and the accompanying
letter Of the Attorney General. These
documents contain nothing which
could be construed as an intimation
that the Supreme Court Is not up with
its work. Any charge that the Presi-
dent was misled by erroneous infor-
nation furnished him collapses be-
fore the obvious fact that no such DO
sitlon was taken. AS no such position
was taken, any discussion designed to
refute it is. Of course, wide OF the
mark"
Reed said the Presidents message
pointed out that even now the Su-
preme Court is laboring under heavy
burden" and suggested that this bur-
den will be increased if certain recon-
mendations are followed. and raises the
question whether full justice Is
achieved" when, faced by the sheer
necessity Of keeping up with its busi-
ness, 81 per cent Of the cases in which
certiorari is sought by private litigants
are declined without explanation.
There is nothing in my report"
said Reed, which considers the very
serious and important question thus
raised by the President My report
explicitly stated, of course, that the
work OF the court is current and that
cases are promptly heard. This no one
mas denied or would attempt to deny"
Court Burden Held Increased.
The solicitor general said that, al
though the court has remained abreast
OF It's work, there can be no question
in my Judgment that the burden rest
ing upon the court has increased sub
stantially in recent years-both the
burden OF hearing and deciding cases
and the burden Of determining
whether petitions for review should be
granted. That greatly increased bur-
den is demonstrated and not refuted,
by my report"
In answer to your question as to
whether the Presidents proposal for
relieving congestion and speeding
htlgatlon in the lower Federal courts
viii further increase the burden of
work on the Supreme Court I am
OF the opinion that the adoption of
the proposals would have that result.
In answer to your question con-
cernlng the power of Congress to fix
the number Of justices Of the Supreme
Court, which shall constitute a
quorum, I feel that 1 should refrain
from exercising an opinion. I think
IL proper, however, to recall the
historic fact that the Congress has
assumed to exercise such power ever
since the court was established and
the power has never been 1udiciallv
questioned.
Doubts Efficiency Injury.
In answer to your question whether
an increase in the membership of the
court would impair its efficiency, I can
only express the opinion that, consid-
erlng the special function Of the Su-
preme Court and the volume and ma
ture OF the litigation that comes before
1t, such should not be the result.
Tho Presidents proposals would
enable each member of the court to
devote a larger share Of his time and
energies to the most vital phase of the
courts work. The most exactinQ and
important task of the justices, and the
most significant in contributing to the
development of the law, Is the prepa-
ration of opinions. 1t seems plain that
the performance Of that function
would be measurably aided by an in
crease In the number of justices, which
would occasion the writing Of rela-
lively fewer opinions by each"
The solicior general suggested that
1t would be possible to distribute petit
tions for certiorari among the justices
30 that no more than a quorum need
pass on one opinion. He also sug-
gested that to relieve the court from
excessive conferences an arrangement
might be made under which not more
than q quorum Of the court would sit
upon cases which are not Of the gravest
public Importance.