◆ SpookStack

+ . you. All of us will take a chance with you when you have so declared your will.-But we aren't satisfied to have anyone else speak for you. This is the 22nd day of February. In his Farewell Address Gaearace Wachineton caid to hie neonle vour forebears: GROUT ES Vas DRO sal a as PROP, SUS Ollie: “Tf, in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any par- ticular wing, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there ha phasce by usuenation: fr though thie itn one ~m no Vili Uy MEOMAT PAR INGLS y if, BATU pee bids, Adn Wha instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the cus- tomary weapon by which free governments are destroyed, The precedent must always greatly over-balance in per- manent evil any partial or transient benefit which the use can at any time yield.” Are these words outmoded, silly warnings of horse-and- buggy days? Let me remind you of some similar situations. In each of them the Constitution was amended. An income tax law was held invalid. The Supreme Court was divided five to four. The country was filled with controversy, Only one more vote with the minority of the Supreme Court and it would have been a majority, to sustain the law. Two judges, if the present proposal is sound, could have been immediately pro- vided b oy Songress with instructions fromithe President to put a different interpretation on the Constitution, It was not done that way. The matter was placed directly before the people by a proposed amendment. It passed. The 19th Amendment came about in the same way; it wave to women the ticht toa vote, Let me illustrate. in that ga WO Mgee t yore. et me liustrate, in inat connection, the insincerity of the method now proposed. Let’s see if you would have liked it! Suppose it had been suggested that, instead of an amendment, new judges be appointed by the President to construe the 15th Amendment already in effect, to give women the vote. Do you recall the 1§th Amendment? It provides that: “The right of the citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of ... previous condition of servitude,” Women said, often enough, in those days, that they were enslaved without the ballot. Would it have seemed sincere to you to hear a proposal that new men be appointed to the Supreme Court to construe the servitude phrase as includ- ime women and «en amend the Canctitutinn 2? Tell me tha saag, wR WSLS waky CALE SF LA OLE RELL AGL afi oF ita difference in principle today. bee Onc recalls that the President said to a Congressman: “Don't let any doubt, however reasonable, as to the constitutionality of this law prevent you from voting for it.” eT Will it be said to the new appointees to the Supreme Court: “Don't let any doubt, however reasonable, prevent you from finding this legislation constitutional”? Ff you didn't like the remark to a Congressman, what do you say when you think of its being made or implied to the Supreme Court? Do you recall the charge made against King George. of england, our last autocrat? It was made in the Declaration ° of Independence and sets out one basic reason for the American Revolution. Listen to the charge made: “He has made judges dependent on his will alone for the tenure of their offices !” The Way to Invite Tyranny Perhaps it seems to you that there is no danger in this irreguiar method of changing the Constitution. Let us dis- cuss it a moment. Our government was established on an utterly new theory of government; that all laws should be passed by but one branch of government, only one; that they should be prosecuted by an entirely separate set of men, only one set; and that the validity of laws be determined by 2 third branch wholly independent of the other twa. We have always believed that no man can be wise or fair enough to write the laws, to say what they mean, and to prosecute offenders of those laws. For one man or one group of men to have all those three powers is tyranny. Now please remem- ber: You know that each of these debatable laws was called a “must” law; that is, Congress was directed by the President to pass them. You know that they were prepared by the President’s men under his instructions. Of course, the Execu- tive prosecutes any violator under these laws. And, of course, when the Supreme Court is dominated by men of his own choosing, their views, known in advance, determine whether these laws invade the liberties of the people. Please tell me what more power has ever been lodged in an autocrat. Is that what you want? It may be that you are satished that the present Administration is sincere; but if you are ready to surrender long-cherished rights, you ought, nevertheless. ta consider the precedent established. What is TOR Tees, SF LS sak BRAN LOGS. FP iia oS done today can be done tomorrow. Perhaps, tomorrow, that Executive with whom you are now satisfied will not be in office (unless, perchance, the practice of only two terms is also to be soon changed), and that you may not be then satisfied with the new Executive. But power once obtained is seldom surrendered. If one President can change the Con- stitution, without consulting the people, another can do it. Does any of you believe that a later President will give over any powers which you now permit a President to seize? Shall we change utterly our theory of government? If this legislation becomes valid, we shall have come to the end of the road we have been traveling. We shall have said that democracy has failed; that the division af powers into legis- lative, executive, and judicial departments is no longer desir- able; that government can succeed only if powers are con- centrated in one department or in one man. That may be what you wish, But there are many of us who doubt that you wish it. You will remember that growth of tyrannical power follows no set fashion. In times past it has come through controi of the military, control of the navy, by. foreign inva- sion, by loss of the spirit of liberty, and in other innumerable ways. It has also come by reason of inertia, an inexcusable sin; and if it comes today, it will be by virtue of that sin. If autocracy results, what difference the road travelled ? Concentration ot power has always iméani, in all ages, dis- aster to the common man—to you and to me. Why should we believe the result will be otherwise now? Autocracy today follows the old pattern throughout the world. (The above address was delivered by F. H. Stinchfield as an individual and not in his official capacity.) You can help Keep The Supreme Court independent of Political influence by distributing this folder. One to 100 copies free on request postpaid.—Larger quantities at cost. A I J...--. Af_.. V._L Mm...’ MEaGress IEW 1 OTK UITICEe NATIONAL COMMITTEE TO UPHOLD CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT 205 East 42nd Street, New York City