,r·\‘· ’€` a io
B Y v%%s44' wJg§%§4¢·
'Z   S' ·;   ,.`';   M
TY L9 fry Lv?
0I' THE
NATIONAL PRESS BUILDING WASHINGTON, D. C.
V -
VOL. 1 R A OCTOBER,1935 N¤_3
 ' " " ' ' " ' ' ' i`  
` I FREE SQQECH ANQ_TH§_NEW QEAL
For those naive enough to bel1eve that the present administration 1s concerned about
the preservation of the oonstftutfenal rights and lfbertles of cftfzens, there fs food for ,
thought ln recent events. L ‘
When the American Liberty League made public the report of its National Lawyers Com-
mittee expressing the opinion that the National Labor Relations Act fs unconstitutional,
Secretary of the Interior Harold L. Ickes felt it incumbent upon himself to denounce the
Lawyers Committee as being guilty of ta gross impert1nence" and as "an evidence per se of
disrespect for the Supreme Court."
The lnescapable implications of Mr. Ickes’ outburst were pointed out inla radio address
(Doc. No. 69) by James M. Beck, former-Sol1c1tor—General of the United States, and a member
of the National Lawyers Committee. Mr. Beck said:
“When a lawyer ls called to the Bar, he takes fn open court a solemn oath that
he will support, maintain and defend the Constitution. While such defense 1s the
duty of every American, whether he takes a formal oath or not, yet as the judicial
- interpretation of the Constitution can only arise ln litigated cases, it is the pec-
uliar duty of the lawyer to advise h1s_clfents, and if need be the general public,
as to whether some newly enacted legislation fs or fs not a violation of the Con-
stftutlon.
G "Hfs right to express an cpfnfon fs indeed a.part of the right of free speech,
guaranteed by that Constitution, but he has a peculiar responsibility, for the
citizen cannot effectively assert his constitutional rights fn a court of justice
unless he is advised by a competent lawyer that his rights have been violated.
"All thls would seem too obvious to require statement were it not for the »
fact that the lawyer's right has recently been challenged by high officials who
pretend to believe that when Congress passes a law wnfcn fs plainly ln excess of
its authority, the lawyer must remain silent, and that if he ventures to suggest
that the law is a nullity, he is guilty of leee meleste. This 1s the rule in
Russia, Germany and Italy, but it fs not, as yet, the rule in free America, where, ·
thank God, the Constltution still guarantees the right of free speech."
I It fs possible that some secret Executfve Order has been issued deslgnatfng Mr. Ickes as
A Federal Administrator of Free Speech, or perhaps he was merely illustrating the New Deal fond-
ness for denunciatfon of anyone who dares to question the”1nsp1red fnfallfbllfty of the present
administration. He was notfcably silent when,a few days laten a fellow member of the Cabinet,
the Honorable Henry A. Wallace, declared to Washington newspaper ment ";_eeeLt_weet_te_ee-
£........<>1‘<>¤ *¤hs>.P...¤ ¤el¤.a.Q2¤...Lrs>.l.A21;_e.¤&....<>2e.<1.-.1•er_f1;e.lasf.Q2as;eee· l_aa-a.<>.1_¤.s.f2_d2.ell.l.¤&.a_¤2 
. avoie enfcreeeg the Poteto geeeeol §ell." This 1s the same Mr. Wallace who, when he assumed