Evening star., 1937-02-27
When to Retire.

w AOA4 ~ ASStAA ~
Within q brief period Justices Of the
Supreme Court Of the United States will
have the privilege Of retirement after
the age Of 10 years and ten years service
on the bench. This statement is predi-
Gated on the belief that President Roose-
velt will sign the voluntary retirement
bill which has now passed both the
House and the Senate. There is every
reason to believe that he will approve
the bill, first, because it merely does
justice to the members Of the highest
court, and second, because in his mes
sage to Congress recommending reorgan-
ization of the Federal judiciary, he IA
vored such an amendment to the laws.
The question is, however, whether under
the conditions the President has built
up through his proposals regarding the
Supreme Court any Of the justices will
feel willing to make use of the privilege
of retirement.
1t is one thing to grant privilege
which Is entirely just and fair, and
another thing to hold over the heads
Of the members of the Supreme Court
the threat Of measure to pack" the
court because none of the older men,
bers-six in number-have failed or may
fail to remove themselves from the
bench. No one knows precisely how the
roornherc uyhn houo roorhoI nd
retirement age will feel. The invitation
to retire Is obvious. Such action on the
part of several members of the court
would make it possible for the President
to appoint their successors-to inject
into the court new blood" which he
has demanded; to appoint new members
who would be inclined to support the
kind Of legislation which the New Dealer
par excellence desires.
The country has the highest respect
for the Supreme Court of the United
States. And well it may. It has great
record over its long history. The present
members of the court have shown
themselves to be fully as able as
have the members of the court in
the past. Nothing has more aroused
the country in recent years than
the patent attempt Of the President to
have his own version OF the Constitu-
tion adopted by the proposal to increase
the membership of the court to fifteen
Such proposal is absolutely contrary to
the ideas of the founders of the Govern
ment of the United States, who provided
the method of amending the Constitution
through submission to the people of all
proposed changes.
The Presidents effort to bring about
constitutional amendment through the
appointment of new members of the
court does not fit we'll into the picture.
A distinguished Democrat. former in
huential member of Congress, Swagar
Sherley Of Kentucky, delivered an ad-
dress on the floor of the House almost
thirty years which not only described
the function of the Supreme Court
ouo oloo oAiOWCO 1lOW dUly IlldG luIlCtlOu
had been performed "The thing" he
said, which makes our Constitution
unique from every one in the world is
the fact that the Supreme Court of
the United States is given power to say
whether the other branches of the Gov
ernment have exceeded their power" To
this power and its use by the Supreme
Court the American people owe the
stability and grandeur of the country
more than to any other provision of the
Constitution. This is heresy. Of course,
to the New Dealers.
Mr.. Sherley said that there have been
times when decisions of the Supreme
Court aroused great excitement and in
dignation, as after the Civil War. De-
cisions of the court, he admitted, have
at times seemed temporarily to thwart
the will of the people. But in their
final analysis the decisions of the court
have made for orderly government, for
government of laws and not of men.
Surely Mr.. Sherley was correct. It is a
judgment that will be reaffirmed by the
country, even though today there Is
rancor in some quarters against the
court and its decisions.
--SAeo->-