Class of 1895

As it was not feasible to include too many of the replies of the '95 men to the questionnaire concerning the President's proposal to remake the Supreme Court, I include in this issue more of the replies.

The shortest answer which came from a long distance is as follows: "I vote no."

Here are some of the other replies,

"There should be enough judges to keep docket up to date. Some rule requiring 6-3 decisions in certain cases seems desirable. Also compulsory retirement at 75 is reasonable. See no need for increase in Supreme Court. Am not worried as to the effect of new appointees if they are men of brains and good character."

"I do not favor the President's request for power to reform the federal judiciary. Congress in his hands is as Polonius in Hamlet's, and a supreme court fashioned as he would fashion it would be the sameany pet scheme of his would be to either of those branches of our government a camel, a weasel, or a whale in accordance with his suggestion. Do our people desire a dictator? I doubt it. But if they do, give them opportunity so to declare."

"With much of the program I am in sympathy. I would be better pleased to obtain a more liberal construction of the constitution by some method other than enlarging the membership of the Supreme Court."

"Yes. By their own words they were desirous of retiring (those of 70) and made it possible to have the President take this move in their behalf. The fundamentals of the Constitution, also 'precedent,' are firmly entrenched, hence a new board will not go 'far astray.' Travail pains are always fraught with 'fear,' and much anxiety, but there is generally joy and rejoicing after the 'birth pains' have ceased. Let's be calm till the child is born."

"I do favor the administration plan for judiciary reform as quickest and surest method for registering the will of the people in this democracy. Always appointments must have a two-thirds approval in Senate—if I remember 'Dude' Colby right. Those senators are up for election every six years, and people can change if they so desire. Maybe the better procedure is to amend constitution, but we want action now, not a year from now, and any amendment ought to receive a year's consideration. Also bear in mind amendments are ratified by state—not by people—and that is not democracy. I am not a party Democrat: I did not vote for F. D. R. at either election, but a very considerable majority of the people did, and I yield to such a majority. I judge that they so voted because they believe in plans and policies of F. D. R. rather than in those of nine men who were never appointed to decide such matters as the policy of this country regarding child labor."

"Your most recent question about the President's request for power to change the Supreme Court can hardly be answered in a word. I do not like all the elements of his proposal but I do feel that there should be a definite limit to the tenure of all publie offices. That applies to the Supreme Court as well as to the presidency itself. So far as the court is concerned it would seem to me that its position has been magnified until there is a most pronounced idolatry with reference to it. We have three branches of government. One is so sacred that it is treason to utter a word in its disfavor; the other two branches may be made the butt of the brain of the utmost idiot. God knows they are a sorry lot who make up the legislative branch, and will be as long as the voters exercise no more discrimination than they do. I suppose also that we have had at least two honest presidents since the Civil War, Cleveland and Coolidge. Maybe there are others, but their defense needs some argument. I believe they all take the same oath of office, or one that is in all cases relatively similar. Why then should we be so dead sure that it has an effect of producing holiness and impeccability and infallibility in only nine out of the whole bunch. Stevens, it is all wrong."

"Emphatically. It is imperative that some way shall be found to deal with social and economic questions of nation-wide interest. The method suggested by the President will make this possible."

"I thoroughly disapprove the President's plan to pack the Supreme Court in the interest of legislation he desires."

"So far as the proposals relate to the expedition of cases in the lower courts, I think they are sound. But, it is patent to me that the real purpose is to destroy the judicial character of the Supreme Court in the most important class of cases which come before it, in brief to reduce the Court to what the French parliaments became under the Bourbons, i.e., a mere registry of schemes, or to what the Stuart kings tried to do to the English courts. He has destroyed the legislative character of Congress, and the intention now is to destroy the judicial character of the Court."

"The federal postal regulations do not permit the adequacy of 'remarks' that I would wish to express. Approval of the request, &c.—ABSOLUTELY NOT."

"I do not approve of this usurpation of power. The whole idea is dangerous."

"No! Supreme Court. There is a way to do what he is trying to do, if he dare take it to the people. He has said, as I understand it, that in that case, there would be too much opposition. Evidently he 'can't take it.' Smouldering resentment breaking out into the open, camouflaged by adroit appeal to 'reform.' May be some good about lower courts, but haven't studied.' Before this issue goes to the press, news of Austin's broadcast over the NBC-Blue Network from Chicago on April 6 will be received by all members of the class. I shall hope to receive replies from many of the class stating their reaction to the broadcast.

Fred Cleveland attended a Dartmouth dinner at St. Petersburg, Fla., on February 19. He describes it as "a fine Dartmouthdinner." He says: "Have just sent Austina clipping from the local paper (St. Petersburg Times), a write-up on the 'AustitiAntville Fire Department,' one of which ison display here. Ants may not have wings,but they are spreading Austin's fame."

The last word I had from Joel Harley came from Lakeland, Fla. He and Mrs. Harley have been motoring through the South. He says: "Some contrast to our iceand snow up home. Have seen the WestCoast. Now for Miami. Having a good timedriving about."

Secretary, White River Junction, Vt.