Class of 1895

In the March issue of the ALUMNI MAGAZINE appears an excellent account of Austin's accomplishment not only as a specialist in entomology, but as the originator of a new and unique business.

"Willie" Wight recently motored to Hanover with a friend and visited the Austin Workshop.

"Bug" is senior warden of St. Mark's Episcopal church, Glendale, California. I judge from his letters that, although he is' an enthusiastic Californian, he is still a cheerful, happy-go-lucky, Vermont Bugbee; and that he is fully as well versed in the federal constitution as he was when he was a senior at Dartmouth.

Rev. Homer A. Flint, that small freshman we knew in 1891-92, is apparently one of the big bosses (perhaps the big one) of the Episcopal diocese of Pittsburgh, Pa.

The most interesting response to any questionnaire I have sent out to the class has come to me recently. I inquired by postal card, "Do you approve of thePresident's request for power to reform theFederal judiciary?" Of fifty-three members of the class, known to be living, forty have thus far responded. Probably a few more will- Of the forty who have responded, three frankly favor the President's proposal to pack the Supreme Court. I quote some of the answers:—"No. The old system,has been satisfactory in the past—whychange?"

'No! No! No! Nevair."

"As a good Democrat I am opposed to the proposed change. Not until now have I subscribed to the idea that F. D. R. is indined toward a dictatorship. The S. C. has served us well for 150 years, Stet. Of course the make-up of the present court is still living in the past. Such men as Butler, Van Devanter, Sutherland, and McReynolds, whose lives and training have been connected with the vested interests, and who are loath to learn and accept the social and economic changes that are taking place in this day and generation, would not vote for anything Rooseveltian, if they knew it was right. Hughes is on the fence, but. is a pretty good old scout at that. Packing the S. C. is not best in my way of thinking."

"Entirely opposed to the President's plan of reorganization of the Supreme Court."

"I am absolutely opposed to the plan. A dictatorship, no matter how limited or benevolent, makes no appeal to me."

"I think the Court needs to be improved. The method best to use I am not sure about."

"Sure. We need a government not of lawyers but of men." Note: There are ten lawyers in the class now living. The other forty-three are men.

"A thousand times No."

"No. Nor him nor any of his works."

"Heavens, no! Have you forgotten that course in constitutional law under 'Dude Colby? He taught us to revere the Constitution and to hold it inviolate. There I stand."

"No; I am still an American."

"No—it would destroy the constitutional balance."

The thought that comes to my mind in reply to your question, 'Do you approve of the President's request for power to reform the federal judiciary?', is to quote from Walter Lippman's article in yesterday's Herald Tribune, as follows:

" 'Of all the astounding revelations of the last fortnight, the President's confes- of the extreme casualness with which he adopted his plan on the basis of a memorandum from the Attorney General written while he was in South America is second only to his effort to avoid debate by diverting attention from constitutional revision to a fabricated issue about the age, the infirmity, and the excessive burdens of the justices. Thus he sought to alter the fundamental structure of government, suddenly, by indirection, and without consulting the people.' "

Secretary, White River Junction, Vt.