◆ SpookStack

DEFEND THE HERITAGE OF JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE A distinguished British jurist, Herbert Arthur Smith, profes- dispatch cabled under copyright by the United Press under date of Feb, 14, that the President's proposals relating to the Supreme Court threaten “a common heritage of English-speaking neonle since the end of the 17th century.” These proposals, enys Professor Herbert Arthur Smith, “raise fasces which are the common interest of ell civilized countric~ particularly Britain, which eharea a common legal tradition with the United States and certain common conceptions in the nature of judicial independence which has been a common heritage of the English-speaking people since the end of the 17th century. “This tradition bas two aspects. From the judges, it demands complete abstention from all political activities, whatever may have been their private opinions before being raised to the bench. For the rest of their lives, they are indifferent to all and only servante and spokesmen impersonal of the law... #0 long ae the judges refrain from all political activity, it is an obliga- tion of honor that neither their persona nor their office shall ever form a target for political bombardment. “It is not overmuch to say that the whole structure of law and justice according to our ideas depends on the honorable observance by both sides of this unwritten convention. “Should it be broken down, our courts would quickly become ae the courts of Russia and Germany already have become the mere agents of a political party contro!Jing the government. ... If a law te declared by a fudge to be unacceptable to the people, as represented by a government, it ia our business to change the law and feave the judge alone. “By thie, we mean that we consider the principle of judicial independence one of the fundamentals of fzee institution and | | sor of international law at London University, warns in a special Se Se ee ee ee believe the maintenance of this principle is of greater impor- tance than the decision in any particular case, however great its immediate political interest... . “In Canadas and Australia, we bave federal constitutions which ara canch tn eomman with tha Canatiimtion af tha Tiottiad Srates ate MOCa in fomimdn Wis ine Uonsiiiuiion of tne Untled States and it so happens that within recent weeks, Canada furnished an example which may be Interesting to American observers. “During Prime Minister Bennew’s recent administration, the Canadian parliament enacted a number of statutes which may be rouchly described as the Canadian counterpart of the New Deal. They dealt with industrial and social problems and they were challenged in the courts on the ground that they purported to deal with mattera which under Canadian constitution sre reserved to the provinces, Three weeks ago, the judirial com- mittee of the privy council, which is the final court of appeals in such qestions, decided the statutes were invalid. “But that does not mean that those Canadians who were dis- appointed by the decisions will start agitation to get rid of the judges or swamp the Supreme Court with new appointments. The= fully realized that in the Jong ron, they world lose much more than they could gain by any euch tactics, well knowing the principle of judicial independence is of far greater importance than the enactment of eny particular statute. “A Judge's business Sa to declare the law as he finds tt Ynid down for him by the constitution and the legislature. Whether that law fs capitalistic or socialistic, whether the principle Is conservative or radical, lt is equally the judge's duty to apply it asx he finds it. “Jf a change in the Jaw fs desirable, those changes must come from the people, acting through the appropriate legislative agencies.” ONLY THEY DESERVE LIBERTY WHO ARE WILLING TO FIGHT FOR IT TO MEMBERS OF THE SENATE. AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES: the White House. Public respec seriously impaired. We, the undersigned, citizens of the United States, exercising our right of petition, protest against the President’s bill, or any substitutes, permitting the Executive branch of the government to control or subordinate the Judicial or the Legislative powers established under the Constitution. This bill would give to the President the power to remake the Supreme Court and to pack it with men to interpret the Constitution as he wishes. Such concentration of power is dangerous even in the hands of the best-intentioned man. The framers of the Constitution divided the government ,into independent Legislative, Executive and Judicial departments, because history shows that concentration of those powers in one department, or in one man, inevitably leads to dictatorship. oy This bill would establish such concentration of power as no one at any time in any place has been able to use for the public good. The independent branches of the government would become the instruments of t for the courts and the Congress, so essential in a democracy, would be Jf one President is allowed in this fashion to create a Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution go as to validate the laws he desires, neither he nor his successors will have to consult the will of the people concerning future amendments. ‘We therefore protest, and demand that the constitutional safeguards of an independent judiciary be retained. . The power to amend our Constitution is not the Executive's, to exercise by indirection. It is not yours to surrender. It is ours, and we look to you, trustees of the people's liberties, to protect it. How you vote on this issue is all-important, now and in the future. Name Street and Number City State