Evening star., 1937-03-31
Is the digested text
- Of the speech delivered last
night by Senator Robinson OF

night by Senator Robinson OF
u Arkansas.
No other legislation coming before
the Congress during recent years has
caused 30 much discussion as that pro-
posed by the President for the reorgan-
ization Of the judiciary.
All features Of the plan have been
accepted or acquiesced In quite gen
orally save that which relates to IN
creasing the number Of justices OF the
Supreme Court.
In the hearings before the Judiciary
Committee and in the Senate, the de-
bates have related In numerous In
stances to questions which are not
actually involved and which, therefore,
may be considered In large part as
irrelevant.
Those who maintain that the In
crease in the membership Of the court
from 9 to not more than is by
the appointment of additional justices
in every case where one refuses to
avail himself Of retirement means the
packing of the court, the indirect
amendment OF the Federal Constitu-
ton, and the establishment OF dicta-
torship are compelled to rely on imagl-
nation rather than facts and reason
able arguments
Power to Increase Court and
Advisa bility Are Prime Factors.
The answers to two questions, first,
has the Congress the power to enact
the legislation; and second, II the
power exists should 1t be exercised.
will tend to simpliflcation Of the issue
and to correctness Of conclusion.
Has Congress the power to increase
the number Of Supreme Court justices?
Much has been said and written
about amending the Constitution, but
no one has expressly asserted that 1t
is necessary to do SO In order to au-
| thorize increase in the number OF JUS
tices composing the Supreme Court.
| It is almost universally admitted that
such increase would violate neither the
letter nor the spirit Of the funda-
| mental law. $50
There has never been time since
| the Constitution was established when
it was seriously suggested that the
| Congress did not have authority to
| prescribe the number Of justices that
shall compose the court. The
number of justices was not fxed by
the trainers Of the Constitution. They
could have done SO, but they deiber-
ately decided to leave the number open
to be fixed from time to time by
statute. $50
Such changes constitute q part OF
the check and balance system provided
in the fundamental law, along with
the power of impeachment, the right
to make provision for voluntary re-
tirement and to legislate regarding
various features Of organization and
appeal.
Constitutional Outcry
Standard Method Of Opposition.
Why do self-constituted champions
Of the court declare hat for Congress
to use a power which 1t has fire.
quently employed, and which it has
possessed since the beginning OF the
Government, is to undermine the in
tegrity and independence Of the jul
dietary and to destroy that balance OF
authority which constitute. such an
important feature OF our National
Government?
Always, heretofore, when changes in
the number of judges have been pro-
posed, those opposed to the change
have resorted to similar methods OF
Lo, IAr1orAN thof
to increase or to decrease the number
Of justices is in some mysterious way
| violative of constitutional stability. In
| every case that changes have been
made, good in the long run has re-
| suited and no substantial harm has
come to any institution, privilege or
right that rests on constitutional guar
antee. It is illogical to charge that
| the Constitution undeniably gives to
Congress the power to determine from
time to time the number Of the JUS
tices, but that the exercise Of the
power attacks the Constitution, which
recognizes such authority in the law
making branch of the Government.
Power Of Court
Changed In No Way.
II the Presidents plan contemplate
ed enlarging or detracting from the
power of the Supreme Court as fixed
in the Constitution, an amendment to
that instrument would be in order.
The proposed legislation does not
touch the power Of the court. It in
no way, either expressly or implied,
reduces or restricts the authority
granted by the Constitution to our su-
preme judicial tribunal.
Therefore, statements, wherever
made, to the effect that . movement
Is in progress, led by the Chief Ex-
ecutive, to undermine and destroy the
Supreme Court, are made in ignorance
or Misrepresentation. If the bill under
consideration should be enacted the
court can do the same things, II the
justices are of the mind, IS at pres
ent. No one can deny that the power
Of the court remains unaltered by 4
change in its personnel.
Inasmuch as the provision relating
to the retirement age il voluntary, no
question arises from that Is to the
power Of the Congress.
The right Of a Federal judge to con-
tinue in his Office during good be-
havior permits no argument. That he
may retire when authorized by law
has never been questioned. Whether
it would be better to fix the age at
70 or IS merely involves . question
Of policy and has not been treated as
Of primary importance by those who
are opposing the Presidents plan.
Both Senator Borah and Senator
Glass expressed in the Senate in Feb
ruary, 1880, their desire for personnel
on the Supreme Court that would re-
fleet their economic views personnel
that would not strengthen the view
point of the majority. In other words.
they recognized that the appointment
of justices properly may be with re-
gard by the appointing power for
changing the economic policies under
lying the decisions Of the court.
Onur& nicta&n. Crv