xt7wwp9t2q46_112 https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7wwp9t2q46/data/mets.xml https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7wwp9t2q46/data/59m61.dao.xml American Liberty League 37 linear feet archival material English University of Kentucky This digital resource may be freely searched and displayed.  Permission must be received for subsequent distribution in print or electronically.  Physical rights are retained by the owning repository.  Copyright is retained in accordance with U. S. copyright laws.  For information about permissions to reproduce or publish, contact the Special Collections Research Center. Jouett Shouse Collection (American Liberty League Pamphlets), No. 115 "It Can Be Done" Speech by Hon. Merrill E. Otis, United States District Judge Before the Law School of the University of Missouri, January 31, 1936 text No. 115 "It Can Be Done" Speech by Hon. Merrill E. Otis, United States District Judge Before the Law School of the University of Missouri, January 31, 1936 2013 https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7wwp9t2q46/data/59m61/59m61_115/Am_Lib_Leag_115_001/Am_Lib_Leag_115_001.pdf section false xt7wwp9t2q46_112 xt7wwp9t2q46 5
J 0 I N ;
>
THE AMERICAN LIBERTY LEAGUE g * _ *
>
*  
  IT CAN »
The American Liberty League is organized to defend 5
and uphold the Constitution of the United States and to S
gather and disseminate information that (1) will teach E    
the necessity of respect for the rights of persons and E
property as fundamental to every successful form of gov- g
ernment and (2) will teach the duty of government to g W
encourage and protect individual and group initiative g n
and enterprise, to foster the right to work, earn, save, §
and acquire property, and to preserve the ownership and § V * * *
lawful use of property when acquired. § `
The League believes in the doctrine expressed by g
George Washington in his Farewell Address that while E
the people may amend the Constitution to meet condi- 3
tions- arising in a changing world, there must "be no E S h b
_ change by usurpation; for this * * * is the customary g pccc y
weapon by which free governments are destroyed." g HON. MERRILL E, OTIS
Since the League is wholly dependent upon the con- § United Swiss District Judge
tributions of its members for financial support it hopes 5
that you will become a contributing member. However, i · Before the Law School of the University
if you cannot contribute it will welcome your support as g of Missouri
I a non-contributing member. g ‘ l
g January 31, 1936
1;;;NNNTNNNNNNNNNNNTTNNNI >
>
>
Enrollment Blank § s
)
>
2
Date .................. 5
l g `be f C4
I desire to be enrolled as a member of the E Y-   4»
_ American Liberty League. § c S   u
. Q g ssé vg A
V Signature .......................................... E rY be
. _ l , E
` 1%
[ Name ............. . ....   ......................... Q
5
gd ••••••.••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.••••••• g
  Street i Q
N 3 · `
él Town ............................................ g AMERICAN LIBERTY LEA(}[]'Eo
g National Headquarters
County .......................... State ...........   NATIONAL PRESS BUILDING
:·
3 WASHINGTON, D. C.
U .
Enclosed {ind my contribution of $ .......... g · *
. . . ir
to help support the activities of the League.
(115) § Z Document No. 115

 It Call Be DOHC power to prevent any court, save the Supreme
* Court of the United States, from ruling that a
N statute enacted by the Congress which the
OT LONG AGO I had the privilege of listen- President has approved, because it contravenes
ing to an address on the state of the Union, by the Constitution, is not the law governing the
the President of the United States. There were decision of a case before the court.
two sentences in that address which startled me _
. . .   t
and which must have startled every listening l_lEl1N Flllslllh I llillallilt these Scllstcuiis ti
lawyer in the land. The sentences were these: Slicllle th lglc l etal: B S gcsman HW 3 u Iam _
t em must e mist en. pon re ec ion am
“Th·t thttvhts out ht tht htwh ht tht hthd as hh- t certain that it he meant exactly what I have
acted by the Congress requires protection until final [ Suggested he did mean he is mistaken.
adjudication by the highest tribunal of the land. | I _ bl h h P .d t
The Congress has the right and can {ind the means   ll IS llcllsollll ll lo Sllllposllll at l_ C llasl an
[0 prgtgct its own p|_•3]_·()g3|;ivg5_” ` P31`lZ1.C`I1l31`1y had III ID.1I1d lZh€ ]13t1OI].3]. CO`I.11°tS.
The state courts too have and have exercised
It tt shhtthhr h·=3htV¤§t· I ththh» that what tht the power tt. declare acts of csagtaaa aataata
Pthttdhht thhhht th tht¤= ‘ Chhsthth hah the of the caaatttattsa. The ataat court here in
lThese sentences in the President’s address were not Boone County Where this University is located ‘
spoken with that exactness in the use of words and has that power in any case in which an act of
phrases characteristic of most of his predecessors in their _
addresses, messages and state papers. (As, for examples, Congress may be mvolved. Congress has no
Lincoln and Woodrow Wilson.) It is somewhat difficult control whatever Oval. that counts P0wC1.S_ Even
to make out exactly what he did mean. Two things, it _ , ,
appears, require protection: (1) “the carrying out of the legislature of Missouri cannot by statute,
lll° laws of tht lllllllil ““‘l (2) lllc “Pt‘°t°gttttY*·>t” ht C°“' even the sovereign people of Missouri cannot
gress. These are different things. "Carry1ng out the _ , _ , , ,
laws of the land" is a fgnctiion of the fresidentlwho is by their Constitution, deprive the circuit court
charged with the uty 0 ta ing care that the aws be { B C unt of the Ow-B1- to ass on the
faithfully executed.” Article II, Section 3. An uncon- 0 _ 90m; 0 Y , P , P,
stitutional gttitute is notda “1l?w of theSland.” It is as it validity under the national Constitution of acts
it never ha een enacte . orton v. helhy County 118 { C { ct { the lc ‘S]atu1.€ 2
U. S. 442. Certainly the courts have not interfered in, any 0 Ongrllss or 0 a S 0 gl
way with the carrying out of the "laws of the 1and." a { b b h · 1
Ahhh- tht "hw¤ ht tht hhtt? htm att “¤¤rt¤· Chtht and thhtthtttttth sth the caaatttattaa aaa the "laws ofthe uattas stats. which
8(l]l1(l1C8t6(l. A l"|1lll'lg lll 3 QIVBII CRSG 0l.‘ CODIYOVBYSY shall be made in pursuance thercofvs at it at scanything
llllll ll Fllllllle ls llllcmlslllllllollal lll ll° Sllllsc ls an “all` in the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary
llllllcallolll, lll lllc Slam' ll ls only .ll llllllllg llllll lllc notwithstanding? Article VI, Sec. 2. They are expressly
Slllllllc docs lllll gllvcllll lllc lllllglllclll lll tht cllsll °ll °°ll' required to take an oath to support the Constitution.
troversy. Again, in no true sense of the word does Con- • Certainly Congress has no power to regulate the judgcs
gt·=¤¤.h¤V·2 "¤t·tt<2s=tt·V·tt·?’ Httththhhv tht whht "vt·=· of the state ahaha. Whatever paws- tt has stat the
logllllvllil ll llssoclalcll wllll lllc llxcllcllll °l ll pllwcll l°l` national courts is limited by the Constitution to those
Wlllcll thttt ls ll° l`°“p°llSlllllllY °l` "‘°°°“l‘l“l’llllY· Cc" A courts Even the sovereign people of a state cannot by
l“llllY• ll“ll°°‘Z°l`· C°llgl`°“S ll“l.ll°.“Pl°l`°g“llv°’, l° °“*l"l · constitutional amendment so legislate as to take away
statutes v1olat1ve of the Const1tut1on. It is empowered I from the State courts their duty to Support and apply the
ollly th llllacl Slatlllcl lll lllc lllscllllllgll lll its Spcclally U Constitution of the United States. People v. Telegraph
d,jl°§h'*td P°“'°”·f N; °°“” °"°’ tlilttjhthttttttttd with Co (sap ct of Colo) 79 com 90,198 P 146 it is th.
a t is unction or or t at matter wi e enactment y ` · ` ` ° `   ` · ·
Congress ofunizonstittttional statutes. _If courts have iialglsggg, xlcngieihgmlilhlscliittiltiilitctldtliiitlgdiilgtitlig S32?
pllllvclllcg tht tippllcqllon Oldllllcolzlsilllulllillilal slilllilllcs lll sibly as a result of the Presidentls address, provides that
caseis an cton loversiest pen _u;g { c orc cr;. atfprc- ·=N0 court * * of any state * * shall have jurisdiction in
Zell lollccllll lllll Y lg ll° an in cli lllglllclii wllt' anyl lll;1°` determining any case or controversy to hear or decide
llllll P Dllgllcsii llllgllcsl . ht ll,¥.hlltllll °ll 1° llpply lhc any question as to the constitutionality of any statute
{tw Qt °t‘t§Sdj“ °°Q ’°"°”*°t· tt tt °X° htm Y t tt of the Uattsa States * *.” H. 12. 10128, thttsattaaa by
· llllc l°ll 0 ° cllllll S' Mr. Martin of Colorado, January 13, 1936.
2
{ 3

 The President had in mind the national courts, tion.3 It includes the power to decide the case
those existing and those which hereafter may or controversy according to the C;0I1St1tUt10H¤
bc estah]ished_ He had in mind these eourts the conflicting statute notwithstanding. When
and the Power of Congress to proteet from them Chief Justice Marshall demonstrated that con-
the “p1•g1·gg3[jvg” of Cgngrggg to enact uncorp 011181011 111 Mafbufy VCISHS MGJLSOH llC W&S
stitutiona] Statut€S• speaking of the judicial power of all the courts,
The principal national court having original not of the judicial power of the. Supreme Court
jurisdiction is the United States District Court. 8lo¤o• Nothlng that he Bent In than epochs}
Our discussion will be simplified if we oonfine opinion logically can be restricted 1n 1ts appli-
it to that court.   cation to the power of the highest court}
` We may stop then for a moment in the course
y of our discussion to set up this indisputahle
ASSUMING NOW it ease or eontroVerSY of 2 declaration upon our way: If Congress should
whleh the district eourt has heen given .lurlS" l enact a statute providing that the district
di<=ti¤¤» lt must be at onee ePPerent that Coll" courts of the United States, in cases and con-
gress has no euthorltY to take trom that oourt troversies of which they are given jurisdiction,
the Power to Peee on the VelltlltY of o¤Y Btotuto shall have no power to rule that a statute en-
which may be involved in that case or contro- aeted by the Congress does not govern the
VerSY· The reason for that lneohtl'oVot'tll’lo decision of a case or controversy, that statute
conclusion is that, while the jurisdiction of the wguld bg absolutely void.5
case or controversy has been conferred by Con- Let us go on,
th`d"l td‘dthl ————
grass, C Ju mm power 0 cm C C case or ““It is emphatically the province and duty of the
eentreverey has been eenferred upon the court, judicial department to say what the law is. Those who
not by Congress, but by the Constitution. applvdthedfuli t0 P?1‘&i¢¤:lx1°¤S*i? $:5;;:;; ggggzilsywgti
. . . . in e re a e.
In Section 1 of Aruele III er the Ceneurutlen iiagellil otlhrer, theriiourts must decide on the operation of
it is Written tl1at— each. So, if a law be in opposition to the constitution;
if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular
“The judicial power of the United States shall bg case, so that the court must either decide that case, con-
d · S C d . h . { . formable to the law, disregardmg the constitution; or
Vesta m one upmmc Omit an_ m Su? m miler conformable to the constitution, disregarding the law;
courts as the Congress may from tlmo to limo vrdam the court must determine which of these conflicting rules
and establish.” governs the case; this is of the very essence of judicial
duty.” Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury v. M3d1SOH,
‘ ‘ ‘ · _ _ 1C.137173.
The·jud1c1al·power then IB I10t vested by Con time Qhoie basis of the conclusion reached by Chief
gross lu tho tllotrlot court and Congress cannot Justice Marshall that the courts have the_pov}:er to pass
' ' ° ‘ » upon the constitutionality of statutes is m t e require-
takc It O? any Barry ef It from thc dlstmct court ment of the Constitution that the judges shall take an
What le the Jutllelal power? oath to support the Constitution as Jhe suprszmew lang
‘ * · Th ef rence is to all judges. "Why oes a ju ge sai
It IS not now necessary to define lt; It IS thee Chief Justice, “swear to discharge his duties lagree-
enough to Sa}, that Whatever else lt maY luelutlo ` ably to the Constitution of the United States if thlztt Con-
‘ ‘ ‘ · · · t‘t t' forms no rule for his government. it is
tmlnly 1* *¤·=*¤·*€¤ the funmn 0* ·*·=<=1·*mg 21;;t..a°‘;p.,.. him ....1   1.. s.p.....d by him? If
ln auY ease or eontroVerSY before the court what such be the real state of things, this is worse than sol-
is the law governing the ease 01. C0nt1.0VB1.Sy_ emn ln1oelk¢;y£ncTp prescribe or to take this oath becomes
. . . . . e ua ·
And It 18 ust as oortam that tho fi1!10t1011 of q° tlleast one of the bills introduced in Congress fcl-
J A _ ’
deciding what is the applicable law includes the lcwjés   $§;‘le‘f:i_cgg;1;‘;S§0{l]i)I;vg?’ 10128) amimpts
. . . exa . -
tuuotlou of tloolumg Whothor 3 Btatuto P1‘€· “Beyit enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
sented as the law connicts   the Constitu. tives of Illé Uhltéil States IH COHQTESS 8BS€l'DbJ.Cd, That
· 5
4 ,

 ' 66
ls THERE NO WAY in which Congress can Th? Safm lcfciy f°" lhs P"°t°°h°“ °f P‘;°'
protect its “prerogative” of enacting unconsti- rolfauvcs mlg t h use Over and Over aghm
tutional statutes? W gnevlir necessgryl h is _1” _ d
I can think of two ways in which that high ` ngt at mm? Y or tlc law hmm? ah h
Purpose can bc accomplished. oemelly Clio; qulilte so ra icadas t at just now
I suppose that Congress has the power to cscn C ’ as CBD Suggcstc °
repeal any statute which it had the power CONGRESS has the Owcr to Sa in what
mllglllally to enact Therefore ll has the Power classes of cases the digrict courts lshall have
to repeal the several statutes creating the dis- jurisdiction It has been Su Cstcd that the
llllcl courts' And lt has the power to repeal ` cases of which the district courtignow have `uris
the several statutes vesting jurisdiction of enu-   diction Shall be divided between two cigsscy
merated classes of cases and controversies in the hi . . . . `
district courts l* (1) those 1n which the validity of statutes en-
‘ ' . tdb Cn s' lld' uest°n d2
The enactment of such repealing statutes cer- ac 6 Y 0 gms ls ca C m q. .10 an ( )
. . . all other cases; and that the district courts be
tainly would accomplish the desired result. It do lived of .u1_iSdicti0u of cases in the out of
would result in chaos also, but the power of tinge two claims 6
Congress under the Constitution is great enough °
Let us suppose that Congress has enacted a
to produce a State of cha0S° as well as a State t tut eilectuatin this su estion Is it a valid
. . . s a .
of national bankruptcy, 1f Congress WIHS to do t t tz? g gg
. . s a u .
Clthcr of those thmgsi Wh ` the Constitution is the ower con
ere 1n -
Moreover, the chaos need be only temporary. P o
. . ferred on Congress to enact such a statute.
Contemporaneously with the repealing statutes . . .
. . The only possible answer to that question 1s:
other statutes might be enacted recreating the , , , , , , ,
. . . . The power, 1f It exists, 1S 1mpl1ed 1n the power
district courts, vesting the new courts with the _ ,
.... . to create 1nfer1or courts. Art. I, Sec. 8(9) ; Art.
same jurisdiction as was vested 1n the old. Per- IH S 1
haps, although I doubt that, perhaps lawyers 1; ch` ° _d il t, ( il, il , ,t
could be found to accept judgeships in the d buttgig asl]: llc Tiles lon W tlc lihgul B
newly created courts who would agree to take _ C _a(l;l   lv el cr c PGY? _ 0, wli_ draw
the oath to support the Constitution with their Jums muon mm courts Crea C TS lmh lc m
lingers crossed. the power to create courts, putting aside the
further question (still more debatable) whether
no court of the United States (except the Supreme Court the Suggested classification of cases is a POWBT
in the exercise of its original jurisdiction), * * shall have ____ at al] implied in the Power to C1-Bam cou]-ts one
jurisdiction in determining any case or controversy to l
hear or decide any question as to the constitutionality of   cTliis suggestion io large port is embodied iii e bill
any Statute of the Uhhed States (h) which iS’ Or pm" T introduced January 16 1936 in the House of Representa-
ports to b°’ an cxm-msc hl any °f the phwcrs °f C°h'   tives by Congressman Sissoii H R 10315 which reads in
giress under clause 1, 3 or 5 of Section 8 * * or under Ar- Q pest es follows: ’ ° ` ’
ucla XVI °f the hmhhdm°htS thhrhm * * °" (h) which ‘°Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
ahehth or purphrts th hhcch rights uhh"` Article V °" tives of the United States of America in Congress assem-
Section 1 °f Article XIV.°f thc hmhhdmhhts * *‘” bled That the judicial code * * is hereby amended by
Still more destructive in its purpose is H. R. 9478, in- ioseiitiog ·•· * the following new Sectiona
troduced January 3, 1936, which provides: “That in all See 256A No court oi the United Sloles (except the
cases filed in an inferior federal court, the court shall Supieme Court in the exercise of its original ioi.isdic_
pass upon both qucsuohs of law and fach with the °x°°p' tion) * * shall have jurisdiction original or appellate of
tion that no inferior _court shall consider any plea which any cose oi, proceeding in wliioli any ports, seeks bs/liis
` attacks lihfi cohiitiiuiilohhgty gfbhhhhct °f Chhgiihshihhd pleadings, assignments of error, or otherwise, to have
xy suc gfa S a ° °r mh Y t ° chu": stm: °h mm the court hear or decide any question as to the consti-
C rccm ' tutionality of any statute of the United States * *."
( 6 7

 thing is certain (it is not debatable); Congress American lawyer, himself also once the choice
cannot exercise any of its delegated powers so of millions of his countrymen for the Chief
as to destroy express limitations on its powers Magistracy of the nation, would know the bill
and express guaranties of individual liberty. of attainder is void utterly, an act of inde-
For illustration, Congress has the power to en- fensible usurpation and of indescribable tyr-
act~ laws on the subject of bankruptcies; an anny. What could he do about it`? He could
l111al1im0l18 Supreme Court but 1'€C€HtiY h&8 said not set up its invalidity at the trial of his client
that it can not So €X€1‘Ci8€ that POW€I` 88 to d6- for there would be no trial; a bill of attainder
prive persons of their property ill violation of is an act of legislative condemnation without
the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. · trial.
Louisville Joint Stock Lund Bank V. Radford, I I suppose he would petition some United
295 U. S. 555. ii States District Judge for a writ of habeas corpus,
unless Congress, in violation of the first of the
SUPPOSE NOW that Congress nas enacted a existing limitations on its power, had suspended
statute dePrtVtn§ the dtstrtet ¤¤¤rt¤ and att In' the privilege of that ancient writ. If the pris-
ferior courts of the United States of jurisdiction ener were Predueed (aud hc might net bc pro.
of cases where the validity of a statute 1S called duced) 9 the district judge would bc reminded
m question- suppose further that harms en' that he ooould not question the validity of the
acted that statute Congress proceeds to test its agt ef (]engi·eSe_ Perhaps thc judge, bending
· · · to . . .
“Preregat1Ves”» new seenredt tts “Prere€attVes his knee 1n obeisance and fear,1° would remand
te exeeed tts eenstttttttenat Powers- the prisoner to the custody of his jailer. The
One of the very first of the limitations m the prisoner would appeal to the Supreme Court (ij
· · tv .... .
“N0 tntt et attatnder snatl he Passed· 7 of appellate jurisdiction 1n habeas corpus pro-
SnPP0se new that Cengressv ttbetated ttetn ceedings).11 What would the Supreme Court
the restraints of the Censtttuttent dost Pass a say about this bill of attainder and about this
bin et attatndertg ter eXarnPte¤ a nd] eendernn‘ statute depriving the district court of jurisdic-
ins tv nfedeng extte en a tenetY tste vt the tion to question the validity of any statute?
• ' 66 ' 97 ' ;.m......
tiaclfic a Certaln Happr Warrlot _nOw resldfmt °Merryman was not produced although the Chief
111 New Y01‘k, Wi10 0CCas10I1aHY Visits the €aP1t0i Justice of the United States issued the writ and ordered
but docs not can at the White H0uS6_ It might hieoproduction. Ex Parte Merryman, Fed. Cas. No. 9487.
_ _ One of the measures introduced (by Representative
CVGII be p0881bi€ to b01°1'0W f01‘ 3 Wll1i€.ti16 1186 Monaghan of Montana) to protect the “prerogative” of
· · _ ; Congress forbids a judge to declare any act of Congress
tif St°_I-Ielcna from ths newly proclalmcd But unconstitutional and provides that if he does he shall be
1Sh Klllg. guilty bof violating the constitutional requirement of
· · tt · to A "good ehavio1·" and be removed from office. See United
We at imagine thc Happy Wsttwt would sm,. uw., t.......y 27,1%,..,. 3. In ........u...
retain John W. Davis as his counsel. That great ‘ with this proposal it is interesting to note the ooutoutiou
  of Senator McAdoo that Congress has authority to create
"'It is interesting to note that the very first limita- a tribunal empowered to try judges for misbehavior and
tion, restraining Congress from prohibiting, before 1808, to remove them from oiHce. See Report of Special (Sen-
the migration or importation of certain persons (Art. I, ate) Committee to Investigate Administration of Justice,
Sec. 9(1)) was a limitation in the interest of human slav- page 1649 ff.
ery. Every other limitation on the power of Congress “Exactly that once was done by Congress. Act of
‘ is a limitation in the interest of human liberty. March 27, 1868, 15 Stat. 44. The validity of the act was
8It is not unthinkable that a bill of attainder might sustained. Ex Parte McCarde, 7 Wall. 506. It will be
be passed in the United_States. The framers of the Con- strange if someone in Congress does not conclude from
stitution thought it was necessary to guard against it. that decision that the Supreme Court also may be pre-
i A bill of attainder was attempted by Missouri in 1865. vented from passing on the constitutionality of statutes
As such it was pronounced invalid by the Supreme Court by the simple process of withdrawing from it all appel-
of the United States. Cummings v. Missouri, 4 Wall. 277. late jurisdiction.
8 9

 ¥ - =,,
I VENTURE to express the belief that the than that the Powere of Congreee should be
Supreme Court would Say by tho unanimous limited for the sake of the preservation of those
. .... . ¢¢· · · · · -
voices of its nine justices (perhaps there will be mehehehte tighten of men W1tl1 Whlcht Bald
eleven then, perhaps one hundred and eleven Thomas ·lettereon» theY “are enileweil by their
thou) ,12 by tho unanimous Voloos of all its jus, Creator.” Again he said, “Governments are in-
has the power to create inferior federal courts,   These unmortal utteraneea of Jefferson Were
but it cannot so exercise that power and the 1 made the law, tor rulers and the ruled. in the
incidents thereof as to destroy the limitations i Cohetttuttoth
and guaranties of the Constitution.” And I   Ohe other eohoelot is quite as fundamental-
doubt not that tho Sunromo Court Would pro. The 11m1tat1ons on the powers of Congress were
nounce the same solemn and unanimous judg-   thtehded te be real, to be capable of enforce-
ment even if some subterfuge had been resorted i ment through the exerelee ot the judicial POWe1’t
to in the hope of circumventing such a judgment, emoe othetwtee they are but enaPtY words-
some such subterfuge as a provision for a newly These two greet oohoepte are joined t0gethe1‘·
created court, a single court, sitting in Wash- The tlret 0aI1n0t l1Ve unless the second lives, [f
ington (oi. Koi, Wost ot. Honolulu) to Whloh the second IS destroyed the first must perish
alone the citizen might go, if he could get there, Wtth tt-
with the Constitution of his country in his Who eheot ahd who approve a Statute which
liantlu $ makes these fundamental concepts meaningless
You it can lic tlono_ The ¤¤nt.ot.ogutlVoS¤¤ oon abstractions drive a knife into the very heart of
be protected from the courts, in at least the two 1 the great Charter-
radical and revolutionary ways I have suggested. t lt ooh be done but. thank God, it will not be
But even so it could not constitutionally be done. , dohe· lf there can be fellnd Scme senator or
The courts could not prevent it, but it could not Some rePreSentat1Ve who will dare to introduce
ooiiotittttionolly lio tlono_ a bill to deprive c1t1zens of the Republic of ·
thezr prerogatwes, of the protection of constitu-
_ tional limitat° d ' '
THE chief executive, senators and representa- . mm an guammlch by <>l¤S1¤g
_ _ _ _ _ against them the doors of the court houses of
tives must violate their oaths to do this thing. h 1 _ _ _
They will not do that t e and, the overwhelming majority of his
° brethre `ll d '
The oath “to preserve, protect and defend the j n W1 Cnmlnce and defeat hm shameful
_ _ o tt · , _ treachery. They will need no aid.
Constitution, the oath to support the Consti- 4 . _
_ 9, _ t y But 1f they should need a1d, Webster the
tuuon, these oaths were not prescr1bed for the l ,3 ., . . ,, . _ ’
_ , 1 ( God-l1ke Daniel, will come again to the sen-`
preservation of the mere letter of the organic l   ate house to Cham ion th h t f rb
.1aw. They were prescribed to the end that the l 5 P C C ar er 0 1 CNY
_ _ _ _ 4 or that so ably, so nobly, he defended in tragic
great underlying concepts 1n the Constitution — ji days gong by ,,01 Ct M Ei to _ii
should endure fully and forever. 1 2 . ° an Oqucn W1 °°m°
_ r a am to th h f ‘
None of those concepts 1S more fundamental 5 g 6 0uS6,0 rcpmscmauvcs Once more
_.....   L to battle for the rights of man. They and all
”At least two bills have been introduced in Con- * th • # · · . . .
gress to increase the number cf Supreme Court justices l 2 C naucin S ltctmc flcad will °°me egem to Jom
to tho end that that ooutt may howto =•t,achod” as that { l the patriot living 1n defense of the citadel of
even in that court the ‘prerogatives of Congress may be j ]°]o t ·
protected.” H. R. 10102, introduced by Mr. Quinn Jann- - 1 cr Y agalnst the bold aggrcssoh
ary 10, 1936, proposes an increase from nine to eleven. j
H. R. 10362, introduced by Mr. Lundeen January 17, 1936, Q
proposes an increase from nine to fifteen. :
to 2 11
`fn