Evening star., 1937-05-19
Principle First.

OSAA''SS
ting principle above partisan demands,
has rightly voted adversely President
Roosevelt's bill to increase the member
ship Of the Supreme Court. Is it too
much to hope that the administration,
reading the handwriting on the wall and
sensing the sentiment of the country
against this attempt on the part of the
Executive to dominate the court, will
withdraw the measure, or at least allow
1t to die?
Here was no partisan or sectional de-
cision. OF the fourteen Democrats who
are members of the judiciary commit
tee, seven voted against the Presidents
bill and seven voted to support it, Not
all the efforts of the political organiza-
ton of the dominant party, headed by
National Chairman James A. Farley,
succeeded in shaking loose single Sem
ator from what he deemed his duty in
this matter. Democratic Senators from
the great States of the Middle West and
the West and from the traditionally
Democratic States Of the South are in
cluded in the list of those who voted
against the measure
The plan to pack the Supreme Court
IN order to obtain decisions desired by
the Executive-the clear purpose of the
bill-has been decisively defeated in the
committee Despite the claims advanced
by the administration leaders, it now
appears probable that defeat awaits the
bill In the Senate itself if it is pressed
to vote. 1t is no secret that MANY
OF the Senators who have been willing
to go along with the President in this
matter will be we'll satisfied if the bill is
not enacted into law.
The administration turned it's back on
any compromise" and now it appears
that the time for compromise has passed.
There should be no compromise with
principle. The opponents of the meas
ure have accepted the challenge hurled
at them when the President and his
leaders declared against any change in
the demand for a maximum court of
fifteen members, which would have
meant an increase of six additional
justices Of the Supreme Court. With a
seeming lack of the elemental proprieties
spokesmen for the administration have
suggested that Senators were to be
whipped into line to support the bill;
that they were to be purchased If neces-
sary, by favors granted. The inde-
pendence Of the Senate, as well as the
independence of the court, has been
threatened.
When the court reorganization bill
was first put forward by the President
last January stress was laid upon the
need OF additional justices of the Su-
nre;.ae Court to conduct the business
OF that tribunal. Very quickly the rec
ords OF the court and the opinions of
the members of the court were produced
to clear away the idea that the Su-
preme Court is not keeping up with it's
docket and its work. Then, more frankly
as time went by, the issue was made
one OF new blood" new justices who
would render decisions in keeping with
the ideas of the President, who had
prevailed upon the Congress to pass
legislation even though 1t had reason
able doubt as to the constitutionality of
the laws demanded
Here was clear effort to rewrite the
Constitution without the submission of
an amendment to the people of the
United States-the only rightful agency
to amend the fundamental law. The
administration was opposed to con-
stitutional amendment on the ground
that it would take too long to bring
about its adoption. Rather it preferred
remaking the court, so that not one
amendment but many might follow with
out the action of the people themselves
upon the amendments.
Men who have followed the lead of the
New Deal President in the past and
supported the legislation he has asked
recoiled from plan to make the judici-
ary merely subordinate to the Executive,
to throw to the discard the independence
OF the judges. It was too great and too
fundamental price to pay for any
temporary gain. The Senate Judiciary
Committee has deserved well OF the
American people.