Evening star., 1941-01-19

Four years ago, at the outset of Presi-
dent Roosevelt's second term, the his
toric struggle over the judiciary bill Of
1887 was just getting under way.
1t is already clear that the legislative
fight over the current "lend-lease" meas
ure will in certain fundamental respects
parallel this earlier controversy. Oppo-
sition to H. r. 1776 is likely to concen-
trate on "the false theory that an
impending crisis justif1es hasty action
in the nature of shortcut to an undis-
closed goal" to quote comment passed
by Senator Burke of Nebraska on what
came to be known as the proposal Ito
pack" the Supreme Court.
This is not to say that the two issues
are identical in any but an underlying
philosophic sense. In behalf of the
court-packing proposal there was no
such urgency as can readily be argued
for the bill to promote national defense
by outright aid to the embattled democ-
racies This distinction explains why
the Presidents bill seems to have much
more popular support, and the opposition
much less, than was the case in the 1887
conflict
Nevertheless the fight will DE bitter,
Tor the present measure, no less than the
Inflated Supreme Court proposal, recalls
Thomas Jefferson's observation that AN
elective despotiSm was not the Govern
ment we fought for And it recalls
also the much more recent observation
of President H. w. Dodds of Princeton
University, that IF democracy fails with
us 1t will be through a war of attrition
involving chain of emergencies which
at the moment could be made to justify
authoritarian measures"
Number Perhaps Unfortunate.
1t was, perhaps, unfortunate that the
lend-lease bill, as introduced in the House
OF Representatives, should have drawn
the mystic number 1776 That number,
as a date, evokes patriotic sentiment
which can be capitalized for the bill.
But it also symbolizes the rise of the
United States as an independent power,
free from British control and from en-
forced participation in what the Monroe
Doctrine called wars of the European
powers in matters relating to them.
selves. Rightly or wrongly, the memory
OF 1776 can be utilized in behalf of isola-
ton as strongly as for intervention.
So far as the emergency permits, how
ever, partisans of both sides should at
tempt to avoid the easy exploitation of
patriotism and concentrate on vital con-
stitutional aspects of the lend-lease bill.
In this field two major issues are al
ready wholly clear. The bill would in
effect transfer the responsibility for ma
tional defense. and for converting de-
fensive steps into measures of war, from
Congress to the President. And it would
further nullify the section of the first
article of the Constitution, which states
that 'all bills for raising revenue shall
originate in the House of Representa-
tives."
War Power Unimportant.
Transfer of the power to commit acts
Of war to the President, as envisaged in
the pending bill, seems relatively unim-
portant.
1t is now the custom to make war with
out declaring it, or even to make war
while declaring that you are not making
it. This alone has rendered anachronistic
the constitutional provision that Con-
gress shall have power to declare war,
aside from the fact that the President
as commander in chief of the Army and
Navy has actually always had this power.
The same cannot be said for legislative
surrender of the power of the purse. For
three centuries subordination of the
executive in this respect has been defined
as a fundamental safeguard of demo-
cratic government. Because he persisted
in fouting Parliament in this matter
King Charles I lost his head. And no
issue was matter of greater concern
during the formulation of our own Con-
stitution. So it is on this basic point
that criticism is likely to center And
this is as it should be-. A curious way
to defend our form of Government would
be hastily to undermine the foundations
at the outset
The widespread anxiety m this regard