Ke Alakai o Hawaii, Volume IX, Number 27, 15 October 1936 — GOVERNOR HORNER, ILLINOIS, BARES SCORNFULLY LANDON'S RECORD ON CONSTITUTIONALITY [ARTICLE]

GOVERNOR HORNER, ILLINOIS, BARES SCORNFULLY LANDON'S RECORD ON CONSTITUTIONALITY

(EDITOR'S NOTE—The speeeh with whieh 6overnor Alf M. £andon of Kansas aceepted the 1936 presidential nomination of the Republiean party eaused sueh wicle-spread eomment tlnoyighout the nation that the Democratic Natic»nai Conilillttee decided that it should be discussed in a history-tnaking radio broadcast in whleh sls Democrātie governors gave their views over a natioriwide hook-up. Ber.ause the views of these governors should be one of interest to every American citizen THE HAWAII DEMOCRAT is printing the series of six gubernatorial addresses in serial fortn. The third of these, printed herewith, was by Goyei*nor Henry Horner of Illinois, wliieh contains Chicago, second largest city in the United States.iThe other three speeches will be pi-intea in succeeding issues.)

It is my privilege, in the few minutes allotted to me, to review one of the issues of the Presidential campaign as it has been raised by Governor Landon in his acceptahce speech. * The Middle West is frankly disappointed in that speech. He has been p4Sfeured to us by his sponsors as a "strong silent man." From such a man we naturally expected frank discussion of the issues. We found that he was, indeed, a "silent" man, silent on the true issues of the campaign and even more silēnt as to the policies he intended to carry out. . It is unfortunate.'that Governor Landon should have been misled into the extravagance of intimating that the present national Administration is inimieal to the Constitution of the United States. It is true he made no direct charge but how ean his statement that he intended to "restore" government on a Constitutional basis" be construed, except as a declaration that the Constitution is now intentionally being violated? The only possible basis for this implied charge is that certain measures approved by the Congress and the President. have been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.of the United States, If the sponsoring of a measure, later declared unconsitutional by the Supreme Court, is to be construed as enmity to the Constitution, neither Governor Landōn nor. the Party that he represents ean be considered as suppdrters of the Constitution. Under the h;adership of Abraham Lineolo* the Repubiiean Party bitterly assailed the Sypreme Court for its deeision in the Dred Scott Case in the sixties, whieh held that a human being could be regarded as a chattel and that no person who had been a slave could elaim the righta of citizenship. We need not, however, go back so far in our history to show the inconsistencies of those who talk ,so glibly of the Constitution with whieh they are apparently so little familiar. Governor Landon himself was an ardent supporter of the AAA program before it was invalidated by the Supreme Court.. If he knew it was unconstitutional whv didn't he oppose it? Almost all measures set aside by the national Suprenie Court were supported by S.enator Arthur Capper of Kansas and by RepubHcan Congressmen from that State. Does Governor Landon charge them ? his political associates, with violating their,. Constitut.ional oaths?

For years the United States Supreme Court and lesser courts have invalidated statutes whieh they construed to be in conflict with the organic law as they interpreted it. But the mere fact that a statute has been declared uneonstitutional is never intended as a declaration by the courts that the sponsors were deliberately seeking to undermme |the Constitution. It is not my purpose to discuss whether jthe Supreme Court is right or wrong in its decisions qn ;questions involving the New Deal. The Court's decisions |are binding on Congress and on all other citizens. What 'I wish to eall to your attention, however, is the fact that 'the difference of opinion between the executive, īegislative, and the judicial branches of our national government is by no means limited to those branG.hes of governraen.t as they are now nationally politically constituted. Not on!y has this difference of,opinion always existed in our nationāl setup, but the same differences have been present in the individua! States.. When certain. laws enacted by" his Administration were invalidated" by the Supreme Court, President Roosevelt merely met the same set backs experienced by other exccutives in their efforts to cure patent, eeonomie abuses. GoVernor Landon haa been no exception 1-o this experience. On the contrary the records show that not less than eight statutes enācted during his administration and signed by him as chief execu--live of his state have been declared unconstitut-ional by the Kansas Supreme Court. I think the Republican Presidential iiominee will concede that the problems thrust upon him as Governor have been simple, indeed, when contrasted with the burdens carried by President Roosevelt. Yet, the experience of Governor Landon has hardly been so fortunate as that of President Roosevelt. As one example, let me read you what the Kansas Supreme Court said regarding one of Governor Landon*s laws in the case of Kansas \ s. Sehool District No. 2, Rice County, I quote: •*crudely or cunningly conceived special laws, masgiuerading as general laws ( artv, continually coniihg before the court. As a pieee of legislation the Act is a travesty and the judgment of the District Court holding the Act unconstitutional is affirniod." Yet, ihe statute was signed bv Governor Landon.

n-ariy m his adm t imstratiGn J Governor Landon had enacted a farm moratorium act, and later, by authoritv of the legislature, he issued a proclamation exteijidīng the act for another six months. I concede that his actions in this

respect were influenced by the same earnest motives that have guided President Rooseveīt. Yet the extension \vās set aside by the District Court in Kansas whieh said: "Regardless of the high motives whieh prompted the proclamation, there is no power granted by the Constitutīon to set aside contractional obligations. ,r As late as May 26th of this year, the Kansas Supreme Court set aside a soil erosion control law, enacted by Gov-' emor administration, on the ground that it was' compulsory" and as such a _violation of the Constitution. You will recall that the soil ,erosion plan program of the' Roosevelt Administ.ration is wholly voluntary. Surely in fairness of argument, it will not be urged by the opposition that since Gōvernor Landon has had two farm acts set aside and President Roosevelt has had only one, that the Govemor is twice as anxious to evade the Constitution as the President? Surely, it would not be fair to.chargc that Goveraor Landon violated his oath as Governor to uphold the Constitution because the courts invalidated those laws? I regi*et to say that in substance, the Republican nomīnee for the Presidency made that charge against President Roosevelt. But when hē did so, he should have realized that he likewise condemns himself. I wonder if that (sovernor of Kansas recalled that the Supreme Court of Kansas said that under Chapter 232 Laws of Kanaas, 1934, he \\ as trying to usurp the function of the legisiature, for that is exactly what the court held in"the case of Oakland State Bank vs. Velma Bolin, 141 Kansas 126. I quote a portion of that decision. "We eannol help holding that what the Gover.nor was delegated to do, and did attempt to do, was as legislative as what the legislature itself did; and therefore we are compelled to hold that the delegation of legislative power was entirely unauthorized, under our separately constituted functions of government and was therefore unconstit f utional, void and ,inoperative I have not sought to be meticulous, but X have sougbt to point out the futility of some of the meticulous arguments employed by the opposition against President Roosevelts purposes. It is my sincere hope that,fr.om iiow on. the debate on the national issues will be conscientiously and in good faith conducted by both sides, and in the spirit of fah- play, an£ thatthe Republican spokesmen will cease the silly business of pretending that the President really Wānts to undermine our ch.erisfted institutions. President Roosevelt has behind h£m an unbroken tradition and heritage. of unswerving loyalty to America and its institutions. To the future generations of our country, he will be known as the President who saved the nation in its hbur of peril, and the man who preserved for us our heritage of Constitutional !iberty intact and jnviolate.