Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1937-03-11

certain difficulties in the way Of
drafting an amendment.
The outstanding development in
recent constitutional history" said
Jackson, was the growing frequency
with which the Supreme Court refuses
to enforce acts of Congress beyond the
constitutional powers of Congress"
In the l0-year period from 1890 TO
1900, he said, there had been no de-
clslon by the Supreme Court holding
laws of Congress unconstitutional. In
the l0-year period from 1920 to 1880
there were 10 such decisions In the
last three years the court has refused
to recognize the power of Congress in
IL cases. Five of these II decisions,
he said, have occurred during a single
year.
Jackson referred also to the manner
in which the laws of Congress are
being held up by the inferior courts.
No more striking development in
law enforcement has occurred than
the sight of the Government defied by
the whole utilities holding company
industry, obliged to abdicate enforce
ment until Supreme Court decision
could be had he said.
i am confident that the Supreme
Court has no wish to take unto itself
veto power" continued jackson.
But powerful interests, by carrying
all causes lost in Congress to the Su-
preme Court, and by resisting lawful
authority, meanwhile, are forcing that
consequence upon the court with its
effective, if unconscious, consent"
Controversy in Court.
The present controversy over the
court, Jackson insisted, affects a
controversy within the court" He
said majority of the justices had
made it appear the great detectives Of
this administration, of this Congress
offend their deep convictions.
This frank hostility of these JUS
tees has been openly counted on by
interested groups to defeat much i'm
portant legislation, said jackson. On
the other hand, he said, a minority
of the justices had protested promptly
against the overriding decisions of the
majority.
Included among those who have
seen fit to protect their place in jul
dicial history by recorded protests are
Chief Justice Hughes, Justices Holmes,
Brandeis, Stone and Cardozo," the
witness declared.
jackson said that because of the
close division in the court itself,
with one justice absent on account
of illness, the court had split, A,
in the New York unemployment COM
penSation act case
When the decision of crucial con-
stitutional issues may turn on the
death or illness of a single justice, "
said Jackson, lit would seem that our
constitutional purpose is governed by
a blind fate instead of by human
reason"
The conflict between Congress and
the courts, the witness contended, Is
in large part due to the refusal of the
court TO permit Congress to have any
share in defining the present-day ap-
plication of such indefinite terms in
the Constitution as general welfare
due process" commerce among the
several States" and the things which
directly affect it.
Statement Uninterrupted.
Members of the committee had al
lowed Jackson to read his statement
without interruption. When he was
through they Immediately began
shooting questions at him, with Sena-
tor OMahoney starting by compli-
menting Jackson on his analysis Of
the action of the court in usurping the
legislative functions
Senator McCarran, Democrat, of
Nevada, as yet uncommitted on the
proposal, then took up the questioning.
The confidence of the people as a
whole is the thing that constitutes the
power of the court he began. Don't
you fear that the confidence of the
people in the six new judges proposed
in this bill would be so impaired by
reason of existing conditions that the
mandate of the court would have no
effect?"
jackson replied he had no such fear.
The Assistant Attorney General, fire.
quently mentioned as a possible Su-
preme Court appointee, added:
IF we can't get six men who will
merit the confidence of the people,
then we are pretty near over the dam
already. 1 think that the present sit
uation is more damaging to the pres
tige of the court than the potentiality
you suggest"
Cites 1921 Bar Proposal.
When Jackson cited statement by
former American Bar Association
president in support of his views, Sen
ator McCarran remarked:
Yes, the American Bar Association,
now opposed to the plan, proposed in
1921 that the number of justices be
increased to II. But perhaps at that
time the association had more con-
fidence in an administration which