Evening star., 1939-05-05

EM - doctrine OF gov
ernmental self
Charles G. Ross. restraint.
There must be self-restraint on
the part of the Executive. lest the
way be opened to dictatorial prac-
tices repugnant to the Constitution.
Mr.. Roosevelt recognized this fact
when he said that new instruments
Of power had been created In Wash.
ington which, in the wrong hands,
might be used to shackle the lib
critics Of the people. He failed to ap.
ply the doctrine when he sought q
shortcut to his ends through his
proposed enlargement of the Su.
preme Court.
There must be legislative self
restraint. Restraint, 1t Is true, Is
imposed on the legislative branch
by the courts and by the veto power
Of the President. In addition to
this, there must be, If we are to
secure the blessings Of liberty to
ourselves and our posterity," will
ingness on the part of Congress to
pass self-denying ordinances. Con-
gress needs to be jealous Of its
rights and prerogatives; equally 1t
needs at times to forego the use of
its power or to delegate power,
under safeguards, in order that the
complex business of the Govern
ment may be carried on. There is
vast distinction between such nee
essary delegation of power as that
over railroad rates to the Interstate
Commerce Commission and the
delegation run riot" that called
down the judicial veto OF the N.
I. r. A.
Judicial Self Restraint.
Finally. there must be judicial
self-restraint. Within the limits of
the Constitution, the fullest possible
freedom must be given the States
and the Nation to pass laws to meet
the changing needs of the times.
All this-the statement Of obvious
truths that tend in the rush of
events to become obscured-is by
way OF preface to the citation of two
significant recent examples Of self
restraint in the use of governmental
power.
The more recent was the passage
by Congress Of the reorganization
bill. Congress deliberately stripped
itself Of power in order that a re-
form urged by Democratic and Re-
publican Presidents alike for years
past might be brought about. Ex-
perience had shown that Congress
itself, in the face of the multiplicity
OF pressures from the affected agen-
cteS OF Government, could not be
expected to vote any substantial
change. Wisely, therefore, Congress
at last turned the job over to the
President. 1t is preposterous to say
that this action in any sense was
undemocratic; on the contrary, it
was an important step toward the
strengthening of our representative
democracy by making it more ef-
| ficient.
OF even greater significance Is the
Supreme Courts broad application
to itself Of the doctrine Of self-re-
straint. The field In which Con-
gress may legislate has been I'M
measurably widened by the decisions
OF the last two years. New legisla-
tive powers of vast scope have been
opened up by the courts new read
ing Of the commerce clause and the
general welfare clause. To under
stand how far Congress may now
go without incurring the judicial dis
favor, one need consider only the
epoch making decision Of the court
IN the social security cases.
Power, Not Wisdom"
Congress may spend money in
aid of the general welfare
There have been great statesmen in
our history who have stood for other
views. We will not resurrect the
contest. 1t is now settled by de-
cision. :. Nor is the concept Of the
general welfare static. Needs that
were narrow or parochial century
ago may be interviewer in our day
with the well-being Of the Nation.
What Is critical or urgent changes
with the times. Whether wisdom
or unwisdom resides in the scheme
Of benefits 1t Is not for us to
say. The answer to such inquiries
must come from Congress, not the
courts. Our concern here as often Is
with power, not with wisdom"
Thus the late Mr.. Justice Cardozo,
speaking for the court.
As the power of Congress has been
enlarged by this and other decisions,
so has the responsibility of Con-
gress been enlarged. The Supreme
Court is not the brake upon legisla-
ton that 1t once was. Congress must
be Its own brake. It's duty to con-
slider the intrinsic merits of pro-
posed laws Is increased MANIFOLD.
There have been times when indi-
viduals in Congress, voting for laws
in which they disbelieved, have
salved their consciences with the
thought that the Supreme Court
would intervene with q veto. There
can be no such excuse today for
lodging an issue. The Supreme
Court, within extremely broad lin
its, has clearly put upon Congress
the undivided responsibility Of de-
Gliding upon the wisdom Of legisla-
ton. "Our concern here as often"
says the court. 'is with power, not
with wisdom"
It will be for Congress to use its
new power with commensurate self
restraint.