The Borah Amend
ment
Senator Borah is proposing a change in our
Federal law so as to require seven judges to
concur in order to nullify any federal statute
or any state statute or Constitution on the
ground that it is unconstitutional. At present
five judges can set aside an act of Congress or
ol a state. In an article recently publ shed,
Senator Borah presents arguments against
the existing law and contends that the change
can be made by statute. If, so, the evil can be
corrected more quickly and more easily than by
constitutional amendment.
It is very doubtful, however, whether the
court will permit this change to be made by
statute. Our governmental units are reluctant to
surrender any power they are exercising and, for
that reason, it is probable that an amendment
will be necessary to secure a change.
Senator Borah is right, however, in first mak
ing an attempt by statute. If the court holds
that the statute is ynconstitutional, an attempt
can then be made to secure the change by chang
ing the Constitution. There are some who pro
test against any amendment to the Constitution
(unless it is one which they personally desire)
on the ground that the Constitution is a sacred
instrument and scarcely subject to change. It is
no reflection upon the wisdom of those who wrote
the Constitution to say v.liat our organic instru
ment needs amendment from time to time. No
one can see far ahead and, therefore, no one,
however wise, can write a constitution for sub
sequent generations. Jefferson, who understood
popular government better than any one else of
his day—or of any day before or since, for that
matter—thought that each generation should
make the Constitution suit its own needs. The
wisest provision in the Constitution is the pro
vision that provides a way in which it can be
amended. The way provided is more difficult
than it is in provisions for amendment in more
recent constitutions. It is entirely probable that
before another generation has passed we will
make our constitution more easily amendable so
that a minority cannot impede progress as it can
under present constitutional provisions. When
provision is made for sufficient deliberation the
rights of the people are secure.
Any provision which permits a minority to
permanently obstruct the will of the majority is
out of harmony with our institutions. The same
may be said of the provision against which Sena
tor Borah protests. At present the one judge
wTlio casts a deciding vote exercises a power that
is indefensible; when four of the judges support
the constitutionality of a law, five judges should
not be allowed to overturn it. To permit this
gives to the one judge, whose vote decides the
question, the powrer to override a majority of
Congress, a majority of the Senate, and the
Pres'dent w^ho concurred in the law.
W. J. BRYAN.
SENATOR ROBINSON DEFENDS SENATOR
HEFLIN
In a statement given to the press of the coun
try Senator Robinson said:
“In sustaining the decision of the vice presi
dent that Senator Heflin was out of order when,
in discussing the British debt settlement, he de
clared: ‘I am here to represent the people, to rep
resent, in part, my state. I am not here to rep
resent the bond sharks, the big financiers of Wall
Street,’ the Senate violated its own precedents
and trespassed upon the freedom of debate.
“The Chair admitted, in his ruling, that the
words used did not impute unworthy motives or
conduct to other senators and justified his de
cision solely on the ground that the attitude and
expression of the senator implied that other sen
gators did represent bond sharks and gamblers of
wall Street and big financiers.
“This decision can be sustained by no other
► legislative precedent of the Senate.
“If this precedent should be applied impar
tially to all senators, it would end freedom of
speech and debate in the Senate.
“No senator has earnestly defended this de
cision and, in my judgment, it will be regarded
as a parliamentary mo-nstrosity.”
In speaking on the subject in the Senate, Sena
tor Robinson said:
“If a senator cannot say ‘I am here to repre
sent the people,’ if he cannot say ‘I am not here
to represent bond sharks or gamblers,’ then I ask
senators what is the privilege of a senator of the
United States?
“Of course, some one was sensitive about the
matter because of something that he thought
must have been in the mind of the senator from
Alabama; but I respectfully suggest that the
question of orderly debate is confined to the lan
guage employed by the senator. If senators will
read the whole paragraph in which the words
'objected to’ are found, they will find that there
is not the slightest implication or imputation by
the senator from Alabama. Let me read it:
“ ‘Mr. Heflin. I merely wanted to go on record
as saying a word in behalf of some of the state
ments of my friend, the senator from Tennessee
(Mr. McKellar)—I did not hear all of his speech
—and to speak for the American people some
what about a debt that is due to them. Does
Wall Street want to collect her money from Great
Britain and have this whole debt held up until she
can collect it? She did have it held up, it seems,
until she collected $1,700,000,000 from France
and Great Britain. Doe* she want to have this
debt held up for 62 years so she can go on undis
turbed and collect the other money due her from
the various countries? I am here to represent the
people, to represent in part my state; I am not
here to represent the bond sharks, the big finan
ciers of Wall Street. I want the American peo
ple to have a fair deal.’
“When the connection in which the language
objected to which was used by the senator from
Alabama iff considered one cannot arrive at the
conclusion that it constituted a charge that other
senators represented Wall Street or did not rep
resent the people. It was a declaration that Wall
Street'had a motive to protect its interests; it
was a declaration that the senator from Alabama
was here to represent other interests than Wail
Street. However much they may dislike the argu
ments made by a senator or the position taken
by a senator on any subject, if senators write
into the precedents of the Senate a decision that
the representative of a sovereign state can not
stand on this floor and declare that he repre
sents or seeks to represent in part his state and
does not represent interests which he thinks are
obnoxious to the people of his state, then we shall
have gone a long way toward suppressing free
speech in the Senate of the United States.”
WINE AND BEER UNPOPULAR
^The returns of the city primary held in Chicago
the twenty-sixth of February.will be very inter
esting reading to the wets. About three hundred
thousand votes were cast in the Republican pri
mary for four candidates. Lueder, who was
nominated, had over 129,000; Litsinger, who
came second, had 75,105; Millard, who came
third, had 51,155; while Barasa who ran on a
WINE and BEER platform, had only 47,513.
The Associated Press dispatch sent out from
Chicago said, “Judge Bernard P. Barasa, who
ran on a platform of light wines and beer, fin
ished fourth on the Republican mayoralty
ticket.” One vote out of six does not furnish a
very strong argument for a wine and beer plat
form. g- ‘
What explanation will the wets give? It does
not seem that the other candidates had any
liquor planks in their platforms. It will now be
in order for the friends of Mr. Bafasa to explain.
Can it be possible that the other candidates ra
vored whisky as well as wine and beer? Can it
be that Barasa was beaten because he wanted
ONLY light wine and beer without the admix
ture of whisky, while the others wanted the old
fashioned saloon with all its accessories? If the
three leading candidates favored law enforce
ment and only Barasa stood for wine and beer,
the wets ought to cease their vociferous asser
tions that the people want wine and beer.
W. J. BRYAN.
Replying to a questionnaire, students . of
Northwestern university recently said, by a ma
jority vote, that the things they read in the
newspapers are editorials, news, humor, r.port
and cartoons. Only a minority expressed a pre
ference for crime news. It is too bad that the
results of this survey cannot be conveyed in
some emphatic way to the city editors of our
metropolitan newspapers.
STONY BROOK SCHOOL
Stony Brook School at Stony Brook, N. Y.
(53 miles from New York City) is a prepara
tory school for boys in which the Bible has a
prominent place. This item is given not as an
advertisement but in response to inquiries that
come from parents who have boys to educate
and are anxious that they shall have a religious
environment.
A Justifier of Crime
The Chicago Tribune of February tenth pub
lished the following dispatch:
“Jail sentences for bootlegging were imposed
today on four La Montagne brothers, distillers,
all of them socially prominent and one interna
tionally known as a polo player. Bail of $15,
000 each was continued until Thursday that they
might wind up their business affairs before en
tering the r’ssex county, N. J. penitentiary. The
quartet recently were indicted by a federal grand
jury which investigated a dinner at the fashion
able Racquet and Tennis club on Park Ave., at
which liquor was alleged to have flowed freely.
“Then the pleas for the defense began: Joseph
Auerbach asked the court to consider the recent
pronouncement of Dr. Nicholas Murray Butler of
Columbia University that the prohibition laws
did not represent the common will and that,
therefore violation of them was not a crime
against society. • *
“Col. Hayward, U. S. Attorney is reported to
have said: ‘Col. Hayward said it was not his
duty to debate prohibition in or out of court with
Dr. Butler, whom he described as a ‘justifier of
crime.’ He urged jail sentences on the ground
that the people must be taught that the majesty
of the law7 must not be defied.’ ”
Wonder if Dr. Nicholas Murray Butler is
proud of the position that he now occupies as a
“justifier of crime.” Does it please him to have
an attorney for criminals quote him against en
forcement of the law; and does he feel flattered
when the prosecuting attorney answers by call
ing him a “justifier of crime?” Can Dr.-* Butler
find a precedent for his position Did any other
president of a great university ever get down so
low or adopt so unpatriotic a course?
Is he a teetotaler? Does he by his own life
set an example to the students who attend ihe
university over which he presides? Or does he
want them to understand that he by his example
advises the use of intoxicating liquors?
He talks about wine and beer; will he take the
public into his confidence and state whether he
confines his drinking to wine and beer? Or does
he favor the old fashioned saloon that sells
everything and, in addition to the sale of all
kinds of liquors, had a gambling house and a
disorderly house as accessories? What did he
ever do to abolish the old saloon?
If Dr. Butler is going to take the leadership
of the soaking wets he ought to resign from the
presidency of the university so that he can give
his whole time to opposing the enforcement of
prohibition. He knows that the amendment can
not be taken out of the Constitution and he
knows that while the amendment remains in the
Constitution, Congress is powerless to legalize
the sale of any intoxicating liquor, whether it
be wine, beer, or whisky. His speeches, there
fore, can have only one purpose now—the en
couraging of lawlessness. Is he willihg to have
conferred upon him as a title, Knight of the
Bottle? W. J. BRYAN.
THOMAS E. BARKWORTH
The death of Thomas E. Barkworth, report of
which will be found on another page, marks the
end of a very useful career. Mr. Barkworth rep
resented a type of man to be found in every land
and more abundantly in this country than else
where. He had a civic conscience and felt that
participation in public affairs was a duty he
owed to his country in return for the opportun
ities it gave him. Sometimes this sense of obli
gation is developed to a greater extent in some
of the foreign born than in some born under the
American flag—probably because the former are
able to contrast our government with others. At
any rate, Mr. Barkworth was always mindful of
his responsibilities as a citizen and, with that
moral courage which distinguishes the truly
great, fought for his principles without asking
whether the party would win or lose.
The fearlessness that characterized him in his
dealings with governmental problems distin
guished him along all lines of thought and no
work of importance failed to appeal to him. His
convictions in religion controlled him as com
pletely as did his convictions in polit cs. He
recognized man’s relation to God as the most
important into which the human being can enter
and exemplified in his life the doctrines that he
proclaimed by tongue and pen.
Such a man is an asset to any country—such
men are indispensable to the communities in
which they live. I counted it an honor to be a co
laborer w'ith him and share the sorrow that his
death has brought to his family and friends.
W J. BRYAN.
