Evening star., 1937-03-10
Text of Roosevelt's '@Fireside Chat
Action Urged Prevent Repetition Collapse That Marked 1929

over 1t. In our courts we want a
government OF laws and not Of
men.
wsnt-as all americans want
an independent judiciary as pro-
posed by the trainers OF the Con-
stitution. That means q Supreme
Court that will enforce the Consti-
tuition as written-that will refuse
to amend the Constitution by the
arbitrary exercise of judicial power
amendment by judicial say-so. It
does not mean a judiciary so inde-
pendent that 1t can deny the ex-
istence Of facts universally recog-
niZed.
How, then, could we proceed to
perform the mandate given us? It
was said In last years Democratic
platform, IF these problems cam
not be effectively solved within the
Constitution, we shall seek such
clarifying amendment as will as
sure the power to enact those laws,
adequately to regulate commerce,
protect public health and safety.
and safeguard economic security"
In other words, we said we would
seek an amendment only If every
other possible means by legislation
were to fail.
Judges Needed Who See
Present Sense Of Constitution.
When commenced to review the
situation with the problem squarely
before me came by q process of
elimination to the conclusion that
short of amendments the only
method which was clearly consti-
tutional, and would at the same
time carry out other much needed
reforms, was to ipfuse new blood
into all our courts. We must have
men worthy and equipped to carry
out impartial justice. But, at the
same time, we must have judges
who will bring to the courts a
present-day sense Of the Constitu-
tion-judges who will retain in
the courts the judicial functions of
I" Sodil, uAio lSJCSI bllC SlSldtltC
powers which the courts have today
assumed.
In As out of the 48 States of the
Union. judges are chosen not for
lie but for period OF years. In
many States judges must retire at
the age Of 10. Congress has pro-
vided financial security by offering
life pensions at full pay for Federal
judges on all courts who are willing
to retire at $4,000 year. But all
Federal judges, once appointed,
can, if they choose. hold Office for
life, no matter how old they may
get to be.
What is my proposal? It is
simply this: Whenever a Judge or
justice of any Federal court has
reached the age of 10 and does not
avail himself of the opportunity to
retire on pension, a new member
shall be appointed by the President
then in office, with the approval, as
required by the Constitution, of the
Senate of the United States.
Saves Constitution From
Hardening Of Judicial Arteries.
The plan has two chief purposes.
BY bringing into the judicial system
a steady and continuing stream OF
new and younger blood I hope.
first, to make the administration of
all Federal justices speedier and,
therefore, less costly; secondly, to
bring to the decision of social and
economic problems younger men
who have had personal experience
and contact with modern facts and
circumstances under which aver
age men have to live and work.
This plan will save our national
Constitution from hardening Of the
judicial arteries.
The number Of judges to be ap-
pointed would depend wholly on the
decision Of present judges now over
10, or those who would subse-
quently reach the age Of 7G.
II, for instance, any OF the six
justices OF the Supreme Court now
over the age Of 10 should retire as
provided under the plan, no addi-
tional place would be created. Con-
sequently, although there never
can be more than IS, there may be
only IA, or 13, or II. And there
may be only 9.
There is nothing novel or radical
about this idea. 1t seeks to main
tain the Federal bench in full vigor.
1t has been discussed and approved
by many persons of high authority
ever since similar proposal passed
the House of Representatives in
1869.
Why was the age fixed at 10? Be-
cause the laws of many States, the
practice of the civil service, the
regulations of the Army and Navy,
and the rules of many of our uni
versities and Of almost every great
private business enterprise, COM
monty fix the retirement age at 70
years or less.
The statute would apply to all
the courts in the Federal system.
There is general approval so far
as the lower Federal courts are
concerned. The plan has met oppo-
sition only so far as the Supreme
Court of the United States itself
Is concerned. If such a plan is
good for the lower courts 1t Ger
tainly ought to be equally good
for the highest court from which
there Is no appeal.
Those opposing this plan have
sought to arouse prejudice and
fear by crying that I am seeking to
pack the Supreme Court and
that baneful practice will be
established.
Let me answer this question with
bluntneSs that will end all hon.