◆ SpookStack

cae ne esta nlp snenmaanmnaiteetiaed Vinal Vectibiatiitd Pad Address Delivered by F. H. Stinchfield, President of the American Bar Asso- ciation, before The Civic and Commerce Association at Minneapolis, Minn., February 22, 1937, and Heard over the Columbia Broadcasting System Ladies and Gentlemen, Wherever you are, as you listen today, you are dis- turbed about the welfare of your country. It is under- standable, But I can offer you no relief from worry. Each one of you, as to your own self, knows what earthly institution you most revere, it may be your church, your family, or our democratic form of govern- ment. For whatever blessing you have this deepest reverence, you would be frantic if you heard it pro- posed, by the highest authority of the land, that such blessing be destroyed. You know, without my saying so, what are the highest ideals of most lawyers, those institutions for which they have a reverence close to worship: the Constitution of the United States and the Supreme Court which interprets that Constitution. Yet lawyers now hear the declaration that the Constitution and the Supreme Court will be fundamentally changed. We have been forced to listen to the demand that all we love and respect, written into the Constitution and sustained by the Supreme Court, be destroyed; that the complete independence of our highest court end. Remem- ber all that, please. If we vigorously oppose, you will know that we speak from a deeper feeling than mere resentment; we see our gods of this earth about to be violated. Had we only the poor feeling of resentment, you could be careless of our words as‘but the product of a weak, human attribute. It isn’t just resentment. As you listen, please remember that when men plead for their ideals, you are forced to the belief that what they say comes from a depth of sincerity. No feelings founded in worship can ever be lightly regarded. If lawyers are sometimes wise, it must be when they defend their most cherished ideals. The proposal made by the President will destroy the Supreme Court. That statement is not made lightly. It will be destroyed. From that destruction, will come fundamental changes in the Constitution. If I am right in that deliberate statement, I shall be able to persuade you of its truth. Other Changes Inconsequential Many continue to remind you that there are other proposed changes than the one of which I speak; to these lesser changes I have not referred in speaking of destruc- tion. They are inconsequential beside the main issue. Whether we agree with these incidental proposals, needn't claim any of our attention. Take them or leave them! Just as you wish. We may not agree with them entirely; but let’s have no debate on-them; they are but the camouflage that conceals the weapon. We can yield on all of them. For instance, we need offer no oppo- sition to the proposal that eases be appealed directly to the Supreme Court; or that the government be notified when a constitutional question is raised, although in Liti- gation between private citizens; or that the Supreme Court have a proctor. Let Congress have a proctor, too; Jet the Executive department have a dozen, Twelve won't be enough! Pardon me if I say about these collateral issues, “Forget it.” It’s the violation of the Supreme Court we speak of, those six new judges who are to ride herd on the present ones who won't be driven into the Executive corral. But the Supreme Court must not be destroyed, and the Constitution must stay—until that time when you, the people, in the manner you have pro- vided in your Constitution, shall say otherwise. When you shall have so decreed by that method, lawyers will protest no longer. Your voice will be our voice. Seldom does a crisis arise when one can, with sincerity, refer to words of Lincoln when he spoke of another great crisis through which he labored. Lincoln’s basic purpose was to save the Union. He didn’t care about details, Today, without the slightest hesitancy, thinking of the Supreme Court and its proposed destruction and then of the lesser changes suggested, offered but to conceal the main attack, I revert to the words of Lincoln: “Tf I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; if I could save it by freeing aN the slaves, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that.” So it is today. As Lincoln would save the Union, lawyers would save the Supreme Court. Incidental changes are of no consequence. Changing the Constitution Let me state to you very briefly the proposal of the President, For every judge over 70 who won't resign, the President will appoint another judge, of his own choosing, an offset, as it were, to the man whose inter- pretation of the Constitution he doesn’t like. If the Presi- dent accomplishes his purpose, we shall have fifteen judges on the Supreme Court. Heretofore three of the present nine have often been sympathetic toward almost every law which Congress has passed. The six added will make nine, a majority of the fifteen. If, perchance, some of the present judges, heart-stricken by the pro- posal, should resign, the proportionate majority for the Administration would be even larger. It is as certain as anything mortal can be certain, that the men selected will be those whose views indicate, with utter directness, - their intention to support the laws which Congress, under the instructions of the Administration, shall pass. The result is necessarily clear. In order to uphold these laws, the Constitution would then be so construed as to sustain all the legislation of the Administration. The Constitu- tion would have been changed just as completely as if by amendment; except, however, that if amendment had been undertaken, you and your state could have a voice and the Supreme Court would ‘not have been violated. The Constitution has been amended 22 times, not, as now proposed, by increasing the Supreme Court by two- thirds of its membership, but in the way expressly pro- vided in the Constitution. Consider this; if, on each of those 22 occasions, the amendment had been through a two-thirds increase in the membership of the Supreme Court, how many Supreme Court Justices should we now have? If you wish to do the example, commence with the figure six. I suspect you'll reach 500,000, Each of the 22 amendments was taken in accordance with the simple machinery of Article V of the Constitution. The average time for the adoption of each of the last three amend- ments has been less than a year! Prohibition, the 21st Amendment, was out of the way in less than ten months. Is it suggested by the President that these important