You have found an item located in the Kentuckiana Digital Library.
No. 82 "The Real Significance of the Constitutional Issue" Speech of Raoul E. Desvernine before the Economic Club, New York City, December 3, 1935. American Liberty League. 400dpi TIFF G4 page images Digital Library Services, University of Kentucky Libraries Lexington, Kentucky Am_Lib_Leag_82 These pages may freely searched and displayed. Permission must be received for subsequent distribution in print or electronically. No. 82 "The Real Significance of the Constitutional Issue" Speech of Raoul E. Desvernine before the Economic Club, New York City, December 3, 1935. American Liberty League. American Liberty League. Washington, D.C. 1935. This electronic text file was created by Optical Character Recognition (OCR). No corrections have been made to the OCR-ed text and no editing has been done to the content of the original document. Encoding has been done through an automated process using the recommendations for Level 1 of the TEI in Libraries Guidelines. Digital page images are linked to the text file. AN INVITATION TO JOIN THE AMERICAN LIBERTY LEAGUE We extend to every American citizen who believes in the fundamental principles which gave birth to the Constitution of the United States an invitation to become a member of the American Liberty League. You may indicate your acceptance of this invitation by filling in the necessary information as to your name and address on the enrollment blank below and mailing it to American Liberty League, National Press Building, Washington, D. C. There are no fees or dues. If you are willing and able to give monetary help for the League's support your contribution will be appreciated, as our activities ore supported entirely by the voluntary gifts of our members. ENROLLMENT BLANK Date_ I favor the principles and purposes of the American Liberty League and request that I be enrolled as a /regular lmember. I contributing f Si gnat u Name (Mr. Mrs. Miss) *As a contributing member I desire to give $__ to help support the activities of the League: Cash herewith_Installments as follows:_ The Real Significance of the Constitutional Issue Speech of RAOUL E. DESVERNINE Member National Advisory Council and Chairman of the National Lawyers Committee of the American Liberty League before the Economic Club, New York City December 3, 1935 AMERICAN LIBERTY LEAGUE National Headquarters NATIONAL PRESS BUILDING WASHINGTON, D. C. Document No. 82 The Real Significance of the Constitutional Issue HEN you have finished with this pamphlet please pass it on to some friend or acquaintance who might be interested, calling his attention to the membership blank on page 24. â˜… THE very fact that the topic "The Real Significance of the Constitutional Issue" is selected as fitting for this public discussion admits that the Constitution has become a national issue. That issue has been raised by challenges against the adequacy of our Constitution to meet new political, social and economic conditions. It is alleged that our present political mechanism is antiquated and defective, and that it must be replaced with something more efficient and up-to-date. These challenges are made directly by some who frankly advocate amendment; and indirectly by others who are attempting to adapt our Constitution to these new conditions by novel interpretations and forced applications of the Constitution. The issue raised by those advocating amendment is clear cut and proper. It is the constitutionally prescribed method of changing our fundamental law. The very presence in the Constitution itself of an expressly defined procedure for its amendment clearly shows that the probable need for amendment as times and conditions changed was clearly foreseen. The prescribed procedure for the adoption of amendments assures the States and the people the fullest opportunity to consider and determine for themselves whether or not they desire a proposed amendment. The people, the ultimate repository of sovereign power, would thus voluntarily and deliberately exercise their sovereign rights and express their deliberate sovereign judgment. It SEEMS to me, however, that many of those in high places who are dissatisfied with our present constitutional system, are, nevertheless, not inclined to present this clear-cut issue to the American people. If they were, they would propose an amendment. Their political sagacity has undoubtedly wisely told them that such a proposal at this time might mean their political defeat and, therefore, they are promoting their objectives in a more subtle and less risky manner. The suggestion that amendment is needed without giving the text of what any such amendment should be, has been made as a political "trial balloon" by several officials of the Administration. Amendments have been offered in Congress but the sponsorship of these amendments cannot be directly connected with the Administration so as to justifiably say that the Administration is espousing them. However, soundings, which are indicative of intention, are being taken, which have thus far indicated to astute political observers that the country was not as yet prepared to throw aside its traditional political philosophy for gilded promises of a millennium. I CHALLENGE the advocates of the "new order" to go to the country on that issue and I would happily accept the verdict of the American people if that verdict represents the reasoned judgment and deliberate determination of the American people expressed in the orderly manner prescribed by the Constitution. That would be the fulfillment of the Constitution, not its nullification or evasion. With equal emphasis, I deny the right of any Administration to attempt to alter or amend our Constitutional system by indirect attack and subversive means. That is democratic suicide as it tends to destroy that confidence in our constitutional processes on which the very life of our democracy depends. Whether or not the organic form and substance of our constitutional system should be changed by constitutional amendment is a question of opinion; but whether or not an actual attempt is being made to change it without amendment through legislative and other indirect means is a question of fact. In THE limited time allowed me I will strive to prove the fact that the real significance and consequences of what is being attempted and advocated is to bring about a fundamental change in the form and substance of our constitutional government without giving the people even the opportunity to expressly pass upon the proposed changes. To reach a sound and reasoned answer to this proposition, we must approach the facts of the situation absolutely impartially and in a scientific spirit, not as militant propagandists or partisan zealots. Personalities and party affiliation are of no consequence. Great issues are at stake. Much of the recent legislation has already been condemned judicially as repugnant to our basic system of government and other legislative measures are, in my opinion, grounded in the same constitutional sophistries. Those sponsoring this legislation have never made it clear, but rather have carefully concealed the fact, that they were advancing measures which, in their subject matter and method of adoption, are revolutionary in our political philosophy. To bring this clearly to your mind, we must first reconsider and briefly remind ourselves of the basic principles and processes of our Constitution, and then compare the recent legislation with those basic principles and processes. Before doing so. however, let me state that we are not debating tonight the economic or social wisdom of this legislation, but only its political significance and consequences. We are also not considering whether some other form of legislation could have been proposed to accomplish the same economic and social objectives. We cannot assume that the legislation that has been enacted is the only means by which the situation could be met. We have a perfect right, and duty, to analyze the methods pursued and attempt to understand and explain their meaning and implication. UUR Constitution is not, as some would have us believe, a fossilized and antiquated exemplar of the political philosophy of a glorious past age which should now be relegated to our historical archives. It is a living organism evolving through time and which has thus far met all conditions and crises. Every living organism, however, has certain basic characteristics and physical attributes and these attributes cannot be altered without destroying the organism or substituting a new organism in its place. The basic characteristic of our government, fundamentally differentiating it from all other governmental systems, is the principle enunciated by the Declaration of Independence that man has by divine endowment certain inalienable rights which are above and beyond the power of government and which are his to enjoy free from all governmental interference. These sacred rights of man were safeguarded and guaranteed to every American citizen by the Constitution and especially by the first ten amendments. These rights are not metaphysical conceptions but specifically defined and enumerated rights real, tangible things. They are so well known to all that I need not recapitulate them but, no matter how antisocial or even sacrilegious it may seem, recent events require me to remind you that "property" is included amongst these inalienable rights. Property has been rightfully termed the keystone of the arch of our civilization. No ONE denies that each citizen has social responsibilities which impose certain restraints upon his exercise of these rights, but the method by which the Government may impose restraints must be consistent with the Constitution. So zealous were our Founding Fathers to safeguard these rights not only from the tyranny of absolutism, either in the form of king, dictator or an all-powerful central government, but equally from the greater danger of the tyranny of a majority, that in addition to the express constitutional reservations, they decentralized and scattered governmental prerogatives by lodging different governmental power? and functions in separate political units, upon each of which they, in addition, imposed a series of limitations, checks and balances. All of this was carefully devised to protect the reserved liberties of the individual against the obvious dangers of concentrated power. Without a plan of government to preserve and protect these rights, their mere pronouncement would be futile. The Federal Government was restricted to the express powers delegated to it and those necessary and proper to carry them into effect. Governmental functions were divided between State governments and the Federal government; and the powers of the Federal government were subdivided into three separate and independent departments each having definitely enumerated functions. A.LL of this segregation of governmental power was not accidentally conceived as a mere mechanism for the single purpose of constructing an efficient system of government. It was deliberately chosen and prescribed to protect the rights reserved to the people from being aggrandized by an irresponsible sovereign. The sacred right to individual freedom is the vital principle, the soul of our constitutional philosophy. The form and structure of our government is the method through which this vital concept is fulfilled. It is a notable fact that, while there are twenty grants of power in the Constitution, there are thirty-one prohibitions and restrictions. The framers of our Constitution had learned in the school of bitter experience that individual liberties could not be entrusted to the beneficence of any unrestrained ruler. They had also suffered from political "absentee landlordism" and well knew that the sovereign and the citizen must live in close proximity to each other. This afforded the sovereign the opportunity to better ascertain the special and local needs of particular citizens and also made his responsibility and accountability more immediate. With these purposes in mind they rejected all the then known European political systems and set up one of their own. Especially were they determined to escape from the English system of an omnipotent Parliament unrestricted by any court. THE totalitarian State in all its current manifestations Sovietism, Nazism, Fascism is the denial of these concepts. No subject of any of these regimes has a contract with his sovereign guaranteeing and reserving certain specific rights. He has no guarantee of the right to life, liberty and property. In fact, he hasn't even the right to the right. By theory he is not a sovereign individual but a creature of the State with only such liberies as the State chooses to give him and which he enjoys at the pleasure of the State. Listen to this striking language, if you suspect that I am over-emphasizing: "It must be conceded that there are such rights in every free government beyond the control of the State. A government which recognized no such rights, which held the lives, the liberty and the property of its citizens subject at all times to the absolute disposition and unlimited control of even the most democratic depository of power, is after all but a despotism. . . . The theory of our governments, state and national, is opposed to the deposit of unlimited power anywhere. The executive, the legislative and the judicial branches of these governments are all of limited and defined powers. There are limitations on such power which grow out of the essential nature of all free governments. Implied reservations of individual rights, without which the social compact could not exist, and which are respected by all governments entitled to the name." This admonition is not the words of some over-ardent publicist but the solemn declaration of the United States Supreme Court, and cer- tainly you cannot impute exaggerated statements to that serious and cautious tribunal. No AMERICAN government has any political or moral right to repudiate or evade this solemn compact with its citizens or to alter or amend it without the citizens' voluntary and express consent. Should the Federal government attempt to appropriate power reserved to the States or to the people; should any hranch of the Federal government attempt to exercise powers not assigned to it at the expense of trespassing upon the jurisdiction of States or of another department; and should any hranch of the government attempt to delegate to another powers specifically entrusted to it; in each of such cases the result is not a mere technical and unsubstantial interference with constitutional procedure but a direct effort to break down the security given by the organic structure of the government, and this structure was erected for the preservation and protection of basic principles and fundamental rights. To attempt to meet new conditions by these methods is not adaptation but nullification; not evolution, but revolution. BlJT you might deny that there is any attempt to revamp the foundation and remodel the structure of our Government. Let us examine the record: Whether or not any act of the Executive or Congress has this result and thereby violates the compact of the Government with the people is not a matter of mere speculation, guess or even opinion. The Supreme Court of the United States is the sole and final judge of this fact. It makes none but an academic and technical difference whether the Supreme Court was expressly given this power, or whether this power was developed by logical deduction from expressed powers, or, as some argue, whether this power was appropriated by the Court by its own declaration. The fact is that unless some- body has the power to adjudicate all controversies arising under the Constitution, then there is absolutely no means of assuring that the Constitution will be respected; and the Constitution instead of being a solemn compact between the people and their government becomes a mere "scrap of paper." Only those who purpose to disregard the Constitution dispute this right of the Supreme Court. Furthermore, if the people choose not to allow the Supreme Court this power, they can at any time so determine through the prescribed constitutional method of amendment. Now for the record: The National Industrial Recovery Act was condemned by the Supreme Court in the Schechter and Panama Refining Company cases because that Act asserted a jurisdiction and attempted to set up a form of control over industry which was beyond the power of the Federal Government. The Supreme Court emphatically said that that Act violated both the principle of dual sovereignty and the principle of separation of powers within the Federal Government. It not only attempted an unconstitutional concentration of power in the Federal Government but it also attempted to lodge that concentrated power in the Executive. The Supreme Court specifically condemned the attempt by Congress to delegate its law-making functions to the President and said that, "The question is not of the intrinsic importance of the particular statute before us, but of the constitutional processes of legislation which are an essential part of our system of government." The N. R. A., as so much of recent legislation, was justified on the ground that it was for the public good and necessary to meet national emergencies, but the Supreme Court met this argument with the statement that, "It is not the province of the Court to consider the economic advantages or disadvantages of such a centralized system. It is sufficient to say that the Federal Constitution does not provide for 10 it." In other words times and conditions may have changed, but we still have the Constitution. Xo GIVE the Executive a free hand in the exercise of such concentrated power, the President asserted, but the Supreme Court emphatically repudiated in the Humphrey case, the claim that Federal officials could be ousted because their views were not sympathetic to the President. Consider the implications of this claim. The Supreme Court also held in the Railroad Retirement case that Congress had exceeded its powers under the Commerce Clause in attempting to legislate in matters of employer-employee relations especially when the private property of the railroads was appropriated in violation of the Fifth Amendment. In the Gold Clause case the Supreme Court, although recognizing that the Government had complete jurisdiction over the monetary system and could, therefore, render ineffective private contracts calling for payment in a type of currency which the Government could order withdrawn from circulation, nevertheless held that the Government could not lawfully repudiate its own obligations. I refer to this decision only to illustrate that it is characteristically different from the others in that the Government here acted pursuant to an express constitutional grant of power the power to coin money and regulate the value thereof but abused its power by attempting an immoral objective the repudiation of its own contract. So FAR the record is not one of mere conjecture or partisan politics or purely lawyers' opinions, but the solemn judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States. Only time prevents me from reciting the dogmatic and emphatic language of the Court in condemning these laws as gross violations of funda-11 mental constitutional principles. If you believe that these cases turned on mere legal technicalities and not fundamental principles, a rereading of these opinions will convince you that even in the eyes of the Supreme Court there is a real significance in the constitutional issue. During the last year, the Supreme Court has declared four Federal statutes and one joint resolution of Congress unconstitutional. This rate of mortality is without parallel in our history. During the first seventy-five years but two national laws were held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, and, by the end of 1934, the number did not exceed sixty. Certainly the country was undergoing many fundamental changes in its economic and social development during the period of our country's greatest expansion. Certainly the country experienced political crises during that period. In SPITE of these obstacles cast in their way by the Supreme Court, they have not retreated from their chosen course but with greater determination continue the attack with the same constitutional armaments. They force the passing of the Guffey Coal Act. This Act attempts to apply the same kind of governmental control over one industry which the Supreme Court condemned in respect to all industry by the attempted use of the same constitutional processes condemned in the Schechter case. To extend Federal jurisdiction over an industry by imposing "voluntary" compliance by coercive penalties under the pretended use of the taxing power clearly shows the extent to which a constitutional pretext will be seized to indirectly attain objectives not having any expressed sanction. The economic soundness of the Act has been questioned by the industry itself, and the constitutionality of the Act has been confessed as being doubtful by the Administration itself, so that perhaps the sponsors of the Act are influenced by some political motives, or perhaps it may serve as 12 another illustration to the people that the Constitution is inadequate because it is not compatible with the "new order." The National Labor Relations Act again tries to utilize the same constitutional processes in the field of industrial relations, to the extent of even interfering with the freedom of contract of employers and employees as to hours of work, wages and conditions of labor. The A. A. A., in its essential features, is a complete counterpart of the N. R. A. The two Acts are complementary expressions of the same theory of the nature, scope and function of the Federal government, as was condemned in the Schechter case. The same total disregard of the rights of citizens and the States, as well as of the divers powers vested in the coordinate branches of the government. Moreover, it is not merely a form of farm relief, but actually the charter and mechanism of a wholly new conception of our agricultural economy. The Cotton Control Act, the Tobacco Control Act, and last but not least the Potato Control Act, all show that once you apply the principle of "planned economy" in one situation you must of necessity extend it to all to fulfill its objects. All production is related and part of a single integrated economy. You cannot apply different economic principles and employ different economic controls in every economic field. The Securities and Exchange Act, not only attempts the Federal control of all securities markets, but by claiming jurisdiction of the stock markets as alleged instrumentalities of interstate commerce, reaches into the field of not only regulating but prescribing corporate and financial practices, and accounting methods, of private enterprises, many of which are wholly intrastate in their activities. It goes even further into an assertion of regulation over eredit and individual's stock holdings. The Public Utility Holding Company Act asserts even greater controls in a different field and not only seeks similar regulation of corpo-13 rate and financial practices but in some respects to even pass upon the "economical and efficient operation" of the business. Practically every activity of a public utility holding company, including service, sales and construction contracts, is under direct control even to the extent of determining whether certain public utilities systems should be permitted to live. not only has the government thus sought to deprive citizens of their constitutional rights but it now attempts to affirmatively prevent them from obtaining judicial protection. After the Gold Clause decision, they promptly passed legislation shutting off suits after January 1, 1936, by holders of Federal securities who claim specific damages by reason of the devaluation of the dollar. Having been found guilty of an immoral act, they rush to make themselves unaccountable for its commission. Somewhat similar action has been taken by the government in the amendment to the A. A. A. which makes it practically impossible to recover processing taxes, even if illegally and unconstitutionally collected. And the citizen cannot protect himself by injunction, as injunction against the collection of the tax is forbidden. In the Frazier-Lemke Act and the Railroad Retirement Act the government only paid lip service to the Supreme Court, as immediately after these Acts were declared unconstitutional, the government reenacted basically similar legislation. I could accumulate illustrations if time permitted. All of these cases and laws strikingly demonstrate that the fundamental principles of our Constitution are at stake not meaningless technicalities. They illustrate a consistent purpose to destroy the essential features of our government such as the separation of powers among the legislative, executive and judicial branches, and the dual sovereignty of the 14 Federal government and the States. We must not be lulled into the acceptance of these modifications under the belief that they are merely jurisdictional adaptations and procedural readjustments to meet new economic and social demands, because in each you find that the fundamental protection to individual freedom is being impaired and new concepts of the relationships between citizens and the Government are being developed. It is no mere coincidence that all these laws have common vices. On the contrary, the fact that they all have similar characteristics reveals a consistent line of thinking, designed to bring about certain fundamental alterations in our political structure which thus far has been the guardian angel of our political and economic philosophy. Perhaps we can here discern what the President meant when he said: "We have undertaken a new order of things * * * a permanent readjustment of many of our ways of thinking and therefore many of our social and economic arrangements." It SEEMS to me, when considered collectively that all these queer-shaped pieces of legislation all fit together as a jigsaw puzzle picture of a government greatly resembling a Federal government so highly centralized as to have the appearance of a totalitarian State of foreign importation and alien to the ideals and purposes of the Founding Fathers as expressed in our Constitution. This design or pattern of government was discarded by our Founding Fathers when they devised our present Constitution, has been consistently challenged by the Supreme Court whenever presented with an effort tending in that direction, and has been without exception repudiated by the American people on every occasion when it has been offered them. The advocates of this "new order" first sought a constitutional refuge in claiming the use of emergency powers to meet emergency condi-15 Hons. This was an emotionally appealing recourse, but the Supreme Court reaffirmed the doctrine that emergencies do not create powers not expressly given, but only furnish the occasion for the use of granted powers. Of course, some sacrifices must be made to meet emergencies, but no emergency can be so great as to justify the permanent abandonment of our entire political philosophy or system of government. And then again, who can prove that the recent emergencies could not be met, as all past ones have, by means within the Constitution. The second attempt was to utilize the Commerce Clause as their vehicle for extending Federal jurisdiction to the practical denial of all State's rights. They sought to extend the heretofore well defined limitations of interstate commerce to include not only instrumentalities of interstate commerce but all activities of production such as manufacturing, mining and crop growing on the theory that such production burdened or affected the free current or flow of interstate commerce and that wage distributions (to use one illustration) "provide the necessary stimulus in starting the cumulative forces making for expanding commercial activity." This second effort also met with condemnation by the Supreme Court in the Schechter case, the Railroad Pension and the Amazon Petroleum cases. They then turn to the taxing power as a third recourse to attain their objectives. They are now attempting to utilize the taxing power to indirectly regulate all production by imposing coercive penalties on those not voluntarily accepting regulation. And as a fourth recourse, they grasp at the power of Congress over the use of the mails. If this power may be employed to deny access to the mails in the absolute discretion of Congress, then this device can be utilized to bring all business under control. Last, but not least, they are attempting to prove that the general welfare clause in the 16 Preamble of the Constitution and in Section 8 of Article I confers unlimited and plenary power on Congress to legislate in the general welfare. This is the counsel of despair. It is well settled that the Preamble does not constitute a grant of any power and that the words "general welfare" in Section 8 of Article I are words of limitation on the taxing power, expressing only the purposes for which taxes can be levied and not granting any additional power. Why these indirect efforts to change the structure of our constitutional system? Clearly, as each law discloses, to concentrate more and more power in the Federal government so that it will be omnipotent and unrestrained by any State action. Is this not the very purpose which the Founding Fathers sought to prevent? Is this not the highly centralized government which they sought to forbid? And when this power is lodged in the Federal government by whom is it exercised? Why, by the Executive, of course. He is vested with practically unlimited discretion, not only in the practical administration of these laws, but in their interpretation and application by executive decrees, orders and regulations. It requires a great horde of Federal boards, officials and employees, most of whom are appointed and removed at the will of the Executive, to perform the multitudinous activities vested in the Executive. Orders, regulations and decrees flow from these boards, commissions and officials to such an extent that it is impossible for the citizen to keep abreast of them, even if he can find out what they are. Fines, penalties, and jeopardy assessments result from infractions of these executive regulations. Behind these attempted structural changes in our government we find the very things that they were set up to prevent. Regimentation of all private business mining, manufacture and agriculture, and all activities of production, dis-17 tribution and transportation, including even the right of employers and employees to bargain for wages, hours of employment and conditions of labor, control of credit, private borrowings and banking and securities transactions in short everything essential to the economic life of the country. The original constituted American State set up as a political instrumentality to guarantee to sovereign citizens the enjoyment of individual liberties in an economy of free enterprise has been transformed into an Economic Dictatorship in a national planned economy where man lives for the State by means prescribed by the State. They seek to destroy the temple of the Constitution, so that the people may be led into economic captivity. They are sacrificing the freedom of the individual to the economic process. Certainly, Americanism is bound to protest against any political system which claims the whole of man and sets itself up as the final end of human action, for Americanism asserts that man's essential nature transcends all political and economic forms. A.ND so, I conclude with the assertion that the record conclusively establishes that the organic structure of our constitutional system has already been and is being attacked by recent legislation for the purpose of bringing about a political transformation in our government without the express and authentic sanction of the American people. I have pointed out that the vital principle of our constitutional government is the fact that our Constitution is a solemn compact or contract between the government and the people, reserving to the people certain sacred inalienable rights and granting the government certain limited powers to provide the means for the full enjoyment of those rights consonant with the general welfare. If this contract should be changed for the good of all, one party the government should not attempt to impose such a change without the agreement of the other party the people or to maneuver the people into a position where they have unknowingly and irrevocably committed themselves to such changes. The fair thing to do is to ask for the changes and let the people decide for themselves if they will accept or reject them. That is the constitutional method of amendment. The conduct of those presently executing this contract on the one part discloses, as I confidently believe and have tried to illustrate, that the one party the government either does not understand the letter and spirit of their contract, or, understanding it, does not intend to respect it, or purposes to modify it without the express consent of the other party the people or in fact without even telling them. That is the real significance of the constitutional issue. The slogan: "You can't eat the Constitution" demands the retort: "No, you cannot live i 1't eat the Constitution, but you also life without it." Fabian Socialism in the New Deal Speech by Demarest Lloyd The People's Money Speech by Dr. W. E. PAMPHLETS AVAILABLE Spahr Copies of the following pamphlets and other League literature may he obtained upon application to the League's national headquarters: Legislation By Coercion or Constitution Speech by Jouett Shouse Recovery by Statute Speech by Dr. Neil Carothers Statement of Principles and Purposes The Imperilment of Democracy Speech by American Liberty League Its Platform Fitzgerald Hall An Analysis of the President's Budget Message The Spirit of Americanism Speech by William H. Ellis Economic Security The Test of Citizenship Speech by Dean Carl The Bonus W. Ackerman Inflation Today's Lessons for Tomorrow Speech by The Thirty Hour Week Captain William H. Stayton The Holding Company Bill "Breathing Spells" Speech by Jouett Shouse Price Control The Duty of the Lawyer in the Present The Labor Relations Bill Crisis Speech by James M. Beck The Farmers' Home Bill The Constitution and the Supreme Court The TVA Amendments Speech by Borden Burr The Revised AAA Amendments The Economic Necessity in the Southern The President's Tax Program States for a Return to the Constitution Expanding Bureaucracy Speech by Forney Johnston Lawmaking by Executive Order The National Lawyers Committee of the New Deal Laws in Federal Courts American Liberty League Speech by Ethan Potato Control A. H. Shepley Consumers and the AAA Our Growing National Debt and Inflation Budget Prospects Speech by Dr. E. W. Kemmerer Dangerous Experimentation Inflation is Bad Business Speech by Dr. Neil Economic Planning Mistaken But Not New Carothers Work Relief The AAA and Our Form of Government Alternatives to the American Form of Govern- ment The National Labor Relations Act Summary of Conclusions from Report of the National Lawyers Committee Straws Which Tell How to Meet the Issue Speech by W. E. Borah The Duty of the Church to the Social Order Speech by S. Wells Vtley The American Bar The Trustee of American Institutions Speech by Albert C. Ritchie 20 21