Remarks of William L. Ransom, president of the American Bar Association, at the annual luncheon of the Indiana Bar Association, on September 7, 1935

Ransom, William L.

English

Indiana University Bloomington Maurer School of Law

Indiana Law JournalVolume 11 | Issue 1 Article 210-1935"What Constitution Are You Talking About?"William L. RansomAmerican Bar AssociationFollow this and additional works at: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/iljPart of the Constitutional Law CommonsThis Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law SchoolJournals at Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. It has been accepted forinclusion in Indiana Law Journal by an authorized administrator of DigitalRepository @ Maurer Law. For more information, please contactwattn@indiana.edu.Recommended CitationRansom, William L. (1935) ""What Constitution Are You Talking About?"," Indiana Law Journal: Vol. 11: Iss. 1, Article 2.Available at: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ilj/vol11/iss1/2"WHAT CONSTITUTION ARE YOU TALKINGABOUT?"By WILLIAM L. RANSOM*I commend and thank the officers and council of theIndiana Bar Association for having General Hugh Johnsonaddress your annual banquet last night, upon the subjectwhich he selected, for the presentation of his views andexperience as to the need for a National regulation andcontrol of the rates of pay and conditions of labor, throughoutthe United States. It impressed me as an earnest andreasoned statement of a point of view which we ought allto hear and consider on its merits. By the same token thatI disagree personally with many of his assumptions and mostof his conclusions, I vindicate his right to state them toAmerican lawyers and our duty to hear them and think aboutthem.Less than at any time in the history of our institutionsand our laws, the Bar could afford now to be intolerant orhostile to the statement of reasoned views. One of GeorgeBernard Shaw's most brilliant sentences is that which heascribes to Jesus the Christ, in his apocryphal account ofthe trial before Pontius Pilate: "Beware how you kill anidea that is new to you." We should put an end to theintolerant notions that it is treasonable or un-American topropose and discuss orderly changes in the powers of govern-ment, by constitutional amendment if need be, or that it issinister and selfish to oppose amendments in general orparticular, or to advocate retention of the essentials of thepresent balance of governmental powers. At almost anyhazards, we must keep open the avenues of fair and open-*Remarks of William L. Ransom, president of the American Bar Associ-ation, at the annual luncheon of the Indiana Bar Association, on September 7,1935.INDIANA LAW JOURNALminded consideration of the reasons for and against pro-posals of constitutional change.The General's selection of subject was "What ConstitutionAre We Talking About?" That question might have beenasked at the close of his address, rather than as its title.The General did not answer his question. I claim theprivilege of an American lawyer here to answer it, speakingfor myself and for no one else.We are talking of-The Constitution that was written under the wise guidanceof George Washington;The Constitution that was expounded in great opinionsby John Marshall and his illustrious successors;The Constitution concerning which Thomas Jefferson wrotestate papers and letters that were instinct with human libertyand that resounded with resistance to Federal bureaucracyand centralization of power, and insisted upon local self-government as best suiting the needs and conditions of thepeople;The Constitution which brave men brought through theCumberland Pass, up and down the rivers, and out wherethere were few trails;The Constitution that was in the hearts and minds ofrugged men and quiet, anxious women beneath covered wagonsthat streaked across prairies, and down the Santa Fe trail,past the ruins of collectivist civilizations, to face Spanishdreamers of arbitrary power;The Constitution that Lewis and Parkman carried toOregon and Washington, and that followed the flag raisedon the missions of California;The Constitution for which Jackson fought; Websterthundered his eloquence; and Lincoln paid with his life "thelast full measure of devotion";The Constitution which safeguards in our country, asthey are safeguarded in no other, the most sacred and price-less of human rights and liberties-the right of each individualto freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom froman established church, freedom to worship God in his ownWHAT CONSTITUTION ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?way and according to his own conscience, immunity fromunreasonable searches and seizures of persons and theirhomes, immunity from being placed twice on trial for thesame offense, protection against being compelled to testifyagainst oneself, right to a public trial by an impartial jury,right to be informed of the nature and cause of any accu-sation and to be confronted with the witnesses supportingthe charge, right to equal protection of the laws, freedomfrom discrimination before the law on account of race, color,or creed, protection against the taking of life, liberty orproperty without due process of law and without due hearingupon notice, with opportunity for the accused to be heardin his own defense-rights wrested from benevolent autocratsat Runnymede and on blood-drenched fields and in darkrooms of old castles-rights which all should cherish asthey do their lives, because such rights are denied or unpro-tected in other lands-priceless guarantees which were partof the soul of America before horses knew buggies=-rightswhich newcomers to our shores should do all in their powerto preserve unimpaired, because they have seen the oppressionfrom denial of these rights across the seas;The Constitution which was written, not for a day ora decade, or even for an age or an era, but for the life of aNation; which has proved adequate to great strains andadaptable to great conflicts and dire emergencies; whichhas been chart and guide and compass, beacon and bulwark,in the darkest of hours and the gayest of National moods;which has met the needs of "the infinite variety of thechanged and changing conditions of our National life"; whichhas seen and aided the long struggles of a free people tosurmount pioneer and primitive conditions and build a better,happier land in which to live-the Constitution which hasnever let its people down or proved a poor or feeble instru-ment in an hour of need;The Constitution which has been amended from time totime as specific need arose, always under full safeguardsand usually upon adequate and reasoned consideration; andchiefly to define and protect the rights of the people andINDIANA LAW JOURNALthe powers of the States ;-the first ten amendments wereadopted virtually as a part of the understanding under whichthe Constitution was ratified-each of the first ten amend-ments was written to make clear and preserve the rightsof the people and the powers and rights of the State-the Eleventh Amendment, in 1798, was likewise to safeguardthe powers of the States; the Twelfth Amendment, in 1804,introduced the present method of electing the President andVice-President by Electors; the Thirteenth Amendment, in1865, prohibited human slavery and involuntary servitude;the Fourteenth, in 1868, defined, among other things, therights and privileges of all citizens, against denial of dueprocess of law and the equal protection of the laws; theFifteenth, in 1870, established the right of citizens to voteand forbade its denial on account of race, color, or previouscondition of servitude; the Sixteenth Amendment, in 1913,gave to the Congress the power to lay and collect taxesupon incomes; the Seventeenth, in 1913, provided for theelection of United States Senators by direct vote of thepeople; the Eighteenth, in 1920, as to intoxicating- liquors,was adopted under the pressure of a minority agitation andwithout full consideration by the people, and led to laterregret and repeal; the Nineteenth, in 1920, gave to womencitizens the right to vote; the Twentieth repealed the errormade in 1920, in attempting to regulate by amendment thelives and habits of the people;The Constitution which expressly provides that "the powersnot delegated to the United States by the Constitution, norprohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the Statesrespectively, or to the people";The Constitution whose demise has sometimes been an-nounced by its friends, and has doubtless been desired byits foes, but has always reappeared in full virility and ade-quacy for the public needs, and has remained secure in thedeepest affections of the people, irrespective of party, pro-fession, or social station;The Constitution of which the mighty Gladstone said,in 1878, that it "is, so far as I can see, the most wonderfulWHAT CONSTITUTION ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?'work ever struck off at a given time by the brain and purposeof man."That, sirs, is the Constitution we are talking aboutlHere in Indiana, I know that you are thinking and talkingabout the Constitution which was revered by Voorhees andGresham and Hendrick; which was expounded and respectedby Benjamin Harrison; first President of your State Associ-ation and one of the founders of the American Bar Associ-ation; the Constitution of John W. Kern and of ThomasMarshall, with his quiet, American philosophy of life andlaw.There can be no reason why a suggestion of specific amend-ment to the Constitution should not be considered .fairlyand open-mindedly on its merits, by lawyers as by anyoneelse, provided the suggestion is specific and is made on itsmerits. The Constitution has been amended, usually in thesafeguards of human rights, ordered freedom, and the sub-stance of impartial justice under law; doubtless it will beamended again and again, let us hope for like purposes.What are the aspects of the matter that give properconcern to men of all parties and social faiths, who trulyrevere and respect the Constitution and desire only orderlyprocesses of change?First, there is a proper desire that suggestions of consti-tutional change shall be made specific, so that their text andeffects can be carefully studied; and there is impatience andanxiety when sweeping change is agitated without definitionor text. In the nature of things, any proposal for constitu-tional change has to be very definitely and specifically formu-lated before it can be considered or put in the processesof submission to the States. So there is little reason forconcern on that score.Secondly, there is a concern that drastic change shall notbe considered and acted upon except upon mature consid-eration and under full safeguards. It could not be otherwise,as to the time element; the methods of amendment, providedfor in the Constitution itself, assures a period for full andmost deliberate consideration by the States.INDIANA LAW JOURNALThirdly, there is a concern that any proposals for sweepingchanges shall not be acted upon except under conditionswhich permit and assure a reasoned and deliberate judgmentof the people, uninfluenced by any considerations foreign tothe best interests of the people as a whole. On the partof many citizens, there is an aversion to the submission ofa constitutional amendment as a party measure, under thepressures of political exigency and patronage and the questfor partisan advantage. There have been instances, in thepast, where ill-considered amendments were due to theseinfluences, which appear to be inherent in the party systemof government. It should be possible to offer and considerconstitutional amendments on their merits, under no whipof parties or minorities, and with neither advocacy nor oppo-sition made a partisan measure or maneuver. To offer anamendment as a party measure leads to the equally undesirablestep of opposition as a party measure.A still more serious hindrance to the free and reasonedconsideration of Constitutional amendments on their meritsarises, at the present time, from the incomplete state ofindustrial and agricultural recovery from the recent depres-sion. If, as General Johnson says to you, there are now10,000,000 people on the relief rolls and one-fourth to one-third of the population dependent on the Federal Governmentfor the necessities of food, shelter, and clothing, it may wellbe doubted whether such conditions are conducive to a delib-erate and untrammelled expression of the will of the people,as to changing their Constitution in a manner proposed bythose upon whom so many voters and their families aredirectly dependent.Finally, we come to the merits, the real issue for thegreat debate, the question whether, by constitutional amend-ment or by representation of the matter to the Supreme Court,the Congress should be given the power to regulate wages,hours, and conditions of labor, in all employment and in allbusiness, in each of the forty-eight States. Here is an issueof basic change in our structure of government, and it meritsthe fullest and fairest consideration on its merits. Such aWHAT CONSTITUTION ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?proposal runs contrary to the fundamental theory of ourFederal system and our laws. Probably for the first timein our history, a proposal is made for change in the Consti-tution, without anything being said in support of the Consti-tution and the part it has played in our National life; andthe proposal is not along lines in harmony with the Consti-tution and the system of State and Federal Governmentunder it, but in derogation and destruction of the reservedpowers of the States and rights of the people. If the FederalGovernment regulates and prescribes the wages, hours, andconditions of labor in all our communities, the Federal Gov-ernment will thereby dictate and control the lives of ourpeople, their standards of living, the extent of opportunityfor individual enterprise and self-reliance to build characterand citizenship. The America of the Constitution is not acharitable or correctional institution; its people should notbe made dependents or treated as wards or defectives. Self-support and individual ambition are not yet in disrepute.The text and scope and far-reaching effects of any suchproposed change deserve the most careful and patriotic con-sideration. The change should not be permitted to go farbeyond the requirements of any situation for which remedyis needed. The lawyers, in particular, owe a high duty topreserve and urge a reasoned and balanced view of the wholematter. As George Washington said, in the Conventionwhich drafted the Constitution:"Let us raise a standard to which the wise and honest may repair;the rest is in the hands of God."

What Constitution Are You Talking About?

https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4668&amp;context=ilj

What Constitution Are You Talking About?

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Indiana University Bloomington Maurer School of Law