◆ SpookStack

Editorials ~~» Senator Hennings, of Missouri, was doubdcss ight in fecling that Congress ought to do a lot of thinking before adopting anything like Sen. William Jenner's bill to restrict the jutisdiction of the Supreme Court over certain selected matters. However, it ought not to require too much study to con- vince Congress that some action is nec- essary if it is to retain its position as a supposedly equal partner in our ui- partite Federal system. The reason why congremional action to curb the court is even mentioned is that the court is sttting itsclf up as a sort of third leguslatrve cham , as such, cht Iree to uihpost its ideas upon the other branches of the Government. “judge Learned Hand, formerty of the United States Court of Appeals, in bis recent lectures at Harvard, declared thar “if we do need a third chamber it should appear for what it is, and not as the interpreter of inscrutable prin- ciples.” He added that for him “it awmaking Isn't the Supreme Court's Job would be mast irksume to be ruled by a bevy of Platonic Guardians, even if | knew how tu select them, which [ as- suredly do not. If they were in charge I should miss the stimulus of living in a society where IP have, at beast theuret- ically, some part in the direction of public affairs.”’ The Platunic Guardians have at- tempted (o tell a committee of Congress how it may not interrogate a wit- ness, a ruling which has scriously ham- pered necessary investigatory proce- dure. They have decreed that a state may not pass a law to deal with subver- sives because the Federal Government is presumed to have a mounupoly in the field. Accurding to them, a state must admit to the practice of law an appli- cant who refuses to tell the bar exam- iners whether or not he is or has been a member of a Communist conspiracy. And they have turned loose convicted Reds on narrow technical grounds. Surely the legislature is bound to consider how to restore balance to the Federalsystemof“checksand balances.” For, as Abraham Lincoln warned in his first inaugural address, “if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court . . . the people will have ceased to be their own rulers.” To Limit the court's jurisdiction may not be the way to restore Congress to its rightful and constitutional authority, hut there can be ne doubs of the right of Cungress to du so if it pleases. The late Justice Owen Roberts many years ava raised the question: “What is there to prevent Congress taking away, bit by bit, all the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the United States? T can see nothing ... in view of the language of the third article of the Constitution.” The third article of the Constitution defines the jurisdiction of the court, both original and appellate, and adds this very important qualification: “with such exceptions and under such regulations as the Congress shali make.” If any branch of the Govern- ment yearns for the role of Platonic Guardian, the Constitution says it should be Congress! This i 4 Constitutional question which should— but probably won’t — be debated without reference to one’s feelings about investigations or ‘civil rights.” Judge Hand hesitates to pre- scnibe a remedy for the trouble. He rightly dreads the confusion that would anise if a final decision on the constitu- tionality of statutes could not be made by anybody. But the learned judge, who might well be on the higher court hiroseif, plainly regards the errora of lawmakers and of the people as less men- acing than the rise of judicial dictator- ship, however benign. So should we all. Our Farm Surpius . Could be an Asset in the Cold War Since 1950 almost $10,000,600,000 * of taxpayers’ moncy has been spent in fruitless efforts to prop up farm : prices and to ehrink the eize of cur increasingly productive agricul- ture—all this at a time when much af the world has been hungry and i-clothed. The ample truth, of course, is that the best answer to the farm problem lies in finding more cus- tomens for the fine products that the American farmer grows with such efficiency. We can’t help wondering what would have happened to the “burdensome surpluses” we hear po much about if the §10,000,000,006 had been applied in a bold way te the building of bigger and better markets around the world. There's more to it than just scll- ing our products at bargain prices. Theac great stocks of wheat, cotton, vegetable oils, dairy products and the like repreacnt useful, much- geeded capital, if putin the right place. They can be used as power- ful weapons in the cold war. They ean be used as investments Lo aumu- late the progress of backward na- tions. We can, if we will, make full use of this obvious truth that one man’s surplus is another man's capital. We can do it by “lending” our sur- pluses to needy countries. And we can, in the long run, expect good returns from such loans. The mechanism for such a pro- gram is in existence. It is the Agri- cultural Trade Development Act of 1954, Public Law 480, under which the United States Department of Agriculture can sell surpluses to foreign nations for their own cur- rency. The receipts of such sales then can be lent back to the coun- tries in question to finance develop- ment projects. The P.L. 480 pro- gram has been 2 highly successful one. To date, it hag lent more than $1 650,000,000 werth of surpluses to thirty-five nations. That is just a drop in the bucket. The program needa to be ecx- panded on a bold front, partcu- larly but not exclusively in areas where Soviet Ruma is offcring to underwnte development work. It might not be a bad idea to divert some of the billions now being spent in negative efforts at productian control into this positive plan for building mort and better customer. Courses for Foreign Leaders Worked Well tor the U.S.A. It is now ten years since the pas- sage of the law which enables the State Deparument to bring to this country for study or research “lead- ers” from various foreign nations. The law, officially entitled The US. Information and Educational Ex- change Act, ismore popularly knowa as the Smith-Mundt Act. This program appears to be one of ow happier ventures in what critics of such efforts call “do-pood- ism.” Grantees have retumed to their homelands after absorbing American instruction in various spheres of governmental techniqucs. The cabinets of several Buropean ations contain a number of these “leader grantees” who had visied the United States as State Depan- ment guests. There is, for instance, Premier Felix Gaillard, of France. Sweden's cabinet includes two former Icader grantees) Ragnar Edenman, Minister of Education and Ecclesiastical Affairs, and (jcgta Netizen, Minister of Agriculture, In West Germnany, six inenibers of Chancellor Adenaucr'’s cabinet a . 7 are alumni of the program: Hein- Fich von Brentano, Minister of For- eign Affairs; Franz Joseph Strauss, Minister of Defenac; Gerhard Schroder, Minister of the Interior; Theador Blank, Minister of Labor; Richard Stuecklen, Minister of Posts and Telecommunications; and Hans- Jeachim von Merkatz, Minister of Bundesrat Affairs. The President of the Bundestag, Eugen Gerstenmaier, and two of the vice presidents of the Bundestag are also former U.S.A. leader grantees. Other alumni, selected at random, include high officials of Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Ceylon, Chile, Cuba, Egypt, Ghana, Greece, Honduras, Iceland, India, Iran, Iraq, Htaly, Japan, Korea, Laos, Lebanon, Libya, Ma- laya, Morocco, New Zealand, Nor- way, Pakistan, Peru, the Philippines, San Marino, Thailand, Turkey, the Union of South Africa, the United Kingdom and Venezuela. There a, of course, no eflurt to sell them anything beyond instrac- tien in the techniques which they came to receive. Perhaps this is the reason why su many of these leader grantces have become friends of America just by residing and work- ing among us. 2 -DVSEES OP