xt7wwp9t2q46_66 https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7wwp9t2q46/data/mets.xml https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7wwp9t2q46/data/59m61.dao.xml American Liberty League 37 linear feet archival material English University of Kentucky This digital resource may be freely searched and displayed.  Permission must be received for subsequent distribution in print or electronically.  Physical rights are retained by the owning repository.  Copyright is retained in accordance with U. S. copyright laws.  For information about permissions to reproduce or publish, contact the Special Collections Research Center. Jouett Shouse Collection (American Liberty League Pamphlets), No. 69 "The Duty of the Lawyer in the Present Crisis: Some Observations on the Attempt by New Deal Spokesmen to Curtail Freedom of Speech as Exercised by the National Lawyers Committee of the American Liberty League" Speech of James M. Beck, Member of the National Lawyers Committee, October 16, 1935 text No. 69 "The Duty of the Lawyer in the Present Crisis: Some Observations on the Attempt by New Deal Spokesmen to Curtail Freedom of Speech as Exercised by the National Lawyers Committee of the American Liberty League" Speech of James M. Beck, Member of the National Lawyers Committee, October 16, 1935 2013 https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7wwp9t2q46/data/59m61/59m61_69/Am_Lib_Leag_69_001/Am_Lib_Leag_69_001.pdf section false xt7wwp9t2q46_66 xt7wwp9t2q46 I * * I
Pamphlets Available
* _ The Duty A
Copies of the following pamphlets and •
other League literature may be obtained _ ~“7
upon application to the League’s national     La   In
headquarters: • •
Statement of Principles and Purposes      
American Liberty League—Its Platform `
• An Analysis of the President’s Budget Message ·
Economic Security * * *
The Thirty Hour Week
Thc Hdding C°mP““Y Bm Some Observations on the Attempt
Price Control ,
The Labor Relations Bill · by New Deal Spokesmen to Curtail
¥’l;:"?;’_I‘;1 ;i,*]§’0I1;§%ill Freedom of Speech as Exercised by the .
The TVA Amenidmientstj d Th d National Lawyers Committee of the
Th N w Dea , ts nsoun eories an qm • ·
Rifectiancilable Policies—Speech by Ralph M. cmcan Liberty L°”g“°
S aw
How to Meet the Issue—Speech by William E. *
The Supreme Court and the New Deal
An Open Letter to the President——By Dr. Neil _
Carothers d Speech af
Th R ` d AAA A ments
Th; lIji·;IIlent’sBTaxII';`PI:ogri·`am f A JAMES M' BECK
The merican ar-- he rustee o merican ·
Institutions——Speech by Albert C. Ritchie Mcmbiir _Of the National, Lawyers
Two Amazing Years—Speech by Nicholas Roose- C°mm‘tt°° {md °f the N?u°“°l Ad'
velt _ . A visory Council of the American Liberty
Fagian Socizilismd In the New Deal——Speech by League Over the National Bread-
emarest oy ·
Thse People’s Money~—Speech by Dr. Walter E. casung SyStcm° October 16° 1935°
‘ pahr
The Principles of Constitutional Democracy and
the New Deal—Speech by R. E. Desvernine
The Blessings of Stability—Speech by James W.
Recovery by Statute-Speech by Dr. Neil `X\€RIC
Carothers e ` Y.  44,
Expanding Bureaucracy . ~* 
The Imperilment of Democracy—Speech by Fitz- q-  V   u
gerald Hall ` B   b
Lawmaking by Executive Order Q? vo
The Test of Citizenship--Speech by Dean Carl ri' L9
W. Ackerman
Today’s Lessons for Tomorrow——Speech by Cap-
tain William H. Stayton
New Deal Laws in Federal Courts
Potato Control ‘
"Breathing Spells”—Speech by Jouett Shouse
. The Naltional Labor Relations Act—Summary of
C ’ h N ' l L -
y3'§°e“5$$Z.$.{ZZ'” ""’°” °’ ’ “ ‘"“"“‘ “"’ AMERICAN LIBERTY LEAGUE
Consumcrsand the AAA . National Headquarters
Document N0. 69
A October, 1935

 i l The Duty of the Lawyer in the
National Lawyers Committee i Preeent Cmeie
15 Broad Street, New York City _ MY FELLOW CITIZENS:
gn.r.1AMG TBALDEN .....................   .1Chicago,1&g. {
nwm . AETJER ..................... a timore, . * W .
HAROLD Bi=:Aco1vi ........................... Chicago, Ill. HEN 8 1awY€r re called to the Bari h_C lakes
CHARLES A. BEARDSLEY .................. Oakland, Calif. _i in open court e solemn oath that he will sup-
i.‘2”€$'E§ ii;i£E°§“.°.`.‘.‘. ‘.°.‘ I .‘.‘. ° .‘.‘.‘.‘.   °.‘.‘  ’§.1ii.EZ ( pail. inainiain and defend ibn ennaeleeee-
gILLIAi\:/I gmt: ............................ (éhicago,     While Such defense is the duty of every Ameri-
GESSLE i.. §.°3§§i‘::: :.t:::::: .‘.‘.‘.‘ci.m..1$.i.€°s. cj aan. wnainai na ialaaa a innnal aain an nan nn
Louis G. CALDWELL .................. Washington, D. C. as the judieiel interpretation of the Constitution
JA1vtEs C. Co1.L1Ns .................... Providence, R. I. n I . . 1. . d .t . th Ha
FREDER1c R. COUDERT, JR. ................ New York City ~ erm nn Y arise In ltlgate cascsi 1 rs c Pccu r
JOHN W. DAv1s ......................... New'York City 3 duty of the lawyer to advise his elients, and if
§‘J.;`;‘.§f°é: ‘3$§??:::::::::J:::;:::::;:Fi’§;f§;E‘°ii‘.i§; ml na ina eanaial pnnlial aa in Wbeibei anna
MALCOLM DONALD ........................ Boston, Mass. newly eneeted legislation is or is not a viola-
JOSEPH B. ELY ........................... Boston, Mass. { . f h C . .
EARLE W. EVANS ......................... Wichita, Kan. j non 0 t 8 onsntutlom
l(§LENN JPFi;lRBRO0K .................. j..l§eattlt?1W;`ih.   His right to, express an opinion is indeed a
RAN . tmvtmc .................. , . . .
cnini; it. Fow1.ER ................. Mi$SeZi£.ii.,°Min$. n pail ai lbs rrgbr ni iran a1l<=e¤b» guaranteed by
HAROLD J. GALLAGHER ................... New York City l that Constitution, but he has g peculiar responsi-
EEZIIQQZ ii.Gi'ii‘§.‘ii‘iii11::11::;:;i;;;‘.‘?.°?.  t bility, for ina cnlaan cannot eiieeilvelv  
J. HENRY HARRISON ...................... Newark, N. J.   his constitutional rights in 3 eourt of justice un-
Jorm J. HEARD .......................... Pittsburgh, Pa. l 1 h . d . d b 1 th t
ALFRED A. Hsivtrsou .................. Portland, Oregon l eee e re e Vree Y e eemPetem eWYer e
gi/'11.1.1A1vt   HENDREN ............. W¥ton·Sa1em, N. C. l his rights have been violated,
RANK J. 0cAN .................... ashington, D. C. { . . ·
FORNEY Jonnsron ................... Birmingham, Ala. l All rble would eeem me ebvreue re require
11% J. KENEFICK .......................... iilfiuiiallo,       statement were it not for the foot that the
ERRITT ANE........................... BWHI`, . . . .
vnmn Liovr ......................... New onean., 1.... n 1awyh¤¤» Vlsmds
authoritative decisions of the Supreme Court, e11emi€S, assassins, U`sit°1`s¤ 50ml. Neendel"
upon which their conclusion was necessarily thalers, corporals of disaster.” Such were only
based. No other conclusion could be reached a few of General ]ohnson’s widely broadcasted
in view of the very recent and authoritative in- expressions. Nor was he alone in administra-
terpretation of the Supreme Court in the tion circles in such a method of argument.
Schechter Case. Respectful criticisms of New Deal measures
4 5 »

 have been received, even by our smiling and follows, not that which is run after; it is that
kindly President, as the work of “Tories” and popularity which sooner or later never fails to
"reactionaries.” do justice to the pursuit of noble ends by noble
Why all this feeling about questions of con- means.” ·
stitutional power? lf this and other New Deal The lawyer has a peculiar responsibility to
measures are destined, like the Cheshire Cat in the Constitution of his country. It was the
Alice in Wonderland, to fade into the outer °. American lawyer who precipitated the Revolu-
darkness of judicial condemnation, yet, as with { tion and thus created us a nation by his efforts
the Cheshire Cat, let at least the smile remain for unwritten constitutional principles of lib-
visible. Why scowl instead of smile? Those of erty. “No taxation without representation” was
use who have ventured to question the constitu- a lawyer’s phrase. The Federal Constitution it- ·
tionality of New Deal measures are rendering self was largely the work of American lawyers,
a service, not merely to the people, but to the and its development by application to the ever-
administration as well. We should have thanks changing conditions of a progressive people has
and not abuse. Had our warnings as to the un- again been largely the work of American law-
constitutionality of the NRA been heeded, there yers. If, therefore, in this or any administra-
would have been a saving of one hundred mil- tion, a Congress, demoralized by the delirium of
lion dollars. emergency or inspired by class passion, passes
r laws which nullify the Constitution, then it is
THIS refined method of argument by abuse has not only the privilege but the duty of the lawyer
never disturbed any of us who felt constrained to Say SO'
to question the constitutionality of many New
Deal measures, because this has been the fate IN the matter now under consideration, the
of the profession time out of mind. The lawyer chief criticism of our Lawyers Committee has
is, in the nature of his profession, a conserva- been that we are attempting to anticipate the
tive force, and is constantly called upon to de- decision of the courts. Our report has been
fend the individual against the tyranny of the characterized by a leading member of the Presi-
majority. In the teeth of a passing but frenzied dent’s cabinet as an “impertinence.” We have
public opinion, the lawyer is often called upon _ been contemptuously referred to as “fifty-seven
to stand with his client between an arbitrary jg varieties of associate justices.” Would it not
power and its victim. If he respects the noblest v?~ have been better for Secretary Ickes, himself a
ideal of his profession, he will be indifferent   lawyer, to explain in what respect the Commit-
to the passing passion of the hour or the hatred ` tee’s conclusions are incorrect?
of any particular class. His spirit should be It was even suggested that our report was an
that of a great English judge, who, when inter- attempt to influence the courts. What non-
rupted by a wave of applause in the courtroom, sense! To suggest that the opinion of a lawyer
quickly stopped, and sternly said, "The admin. as to the validity of new legislation is an at-
istration of justice is in great danger when the tempt improperly to influence the court is an
applause of a court is agreeable to a judge’s insult both to the court and the bar. When in
ear.” When the lawyer is defending the rights Holy Writ the Centurion ordered the great
of an individual against unlawful government _ Apostle to the Gentiles to be scourged to compel
measures, he can say, as did Lord Mangfigld, “I ' him to testify, St. Paul said, “ls it lawful for you
wish popularity, but it is that popularity which to scourge a man that is a Roman and uncon-
6 7

 deII1I1ed?” The great Apostle would be Sul" THERE is even a broader aspect to this matter
prised to know that this assertion of his right then that which I novo Suggested. Even the
as a Roman citizen was an attempt to influence Supreme Court cannot fully ntoteet the Con_
lno Court- stitution from destruction. Its power to do so
is limited to questions which arise in litigated
IF Congresses and Presidents were the sole judge oaS€$·» but there are many laws which have no
of their powers, our Constitution would be little S8n¢ti0!1 ill the Constitution and which never
more than st soton oi paper. It wisely imposed reach the courts because no one brings a test
upon the judiciary the power and the duty to ooo"}- F o1' this reason the preservation of the
interpret finally and authoritatively the Consti- Constltutiml must largely depend upon the peo-
tution, but this great duty, vital to our form of Plc lnolnS€lV€S· Chief Justice Marshall himself
government, een only be performed in litigated J indicated that there were many controversies in
ooooot In other Words, until there io o ease in which the Court could not act and in which the
court, which requires an interpretation of the Hn?1_ appeal must bs to an onlighterled public
Constitution, the courts can do nothing. Hence, Opimgm d Man? constitutional quastions Can
the duty of the lawyer as a sentinel of the Con- in in Gb ctcrmmcd by a Struggle auulo Polllng
stitution, to speak out when the Constitution is S30 .° etwccn those whqbehfivc m the Con'
_ 1tut1on and those who d1sbel1eve in it. The
V1°1at°u‘ _ ‘ t _ _ old saying is everlastingly true: “Eternal vi i-
We justly pra1se John Marshall for his 1n- lenee io tho nrioo Of1ibcrty·,, g
estimehlo service in interpreting the C·0nStltn' Throughout our history the greatest Struggles
tion, but before the great Chief Justice could to preserve the Constitution have not been in
cxpyggg any gpinign lawyers   Patrick HCHTY, the courts but in ISIIC l1&llS of Congress, and upon `
Madison, Hamilton, Webster, Pinkney, Wirt, the public platform. Indeed one weakness in
Clay and   and Others Of Potent achieve. the present crisis is the exclusive dCp€ndCHCC
ment first advised a client as to his rights and upon tho judiciary to preserve thc Constitution.
then defended those rights as the client’s advo- This is tho bottle of the people, and they re.
Cato. qu1re and are entitled to the best expert judg-
This is all that the Lawyers Committee of the i ilglcltnsaéiito thclirlx moaning of the Cerlstitution.
American Liberty LCEIQUC has done. IICS m€m' warned  d iilldressi Wushlngton solemnly
bers did not seek the responsibility but they did Americans th t tha Csuccficdlng guuomllons of
not avoid it. They have expressed, and will C011- easily ccundoimiiis d9;)I1St;1tut10I:‘ cimld be more
tjnug to express their judgment fI‘0m time to . thr0Wn.” We must defegil thcdueictllet ove;
time as to the validity of legislation, and if and miners of the New Deal, who are iiilsidsiofig
when any American citizen, however humble, _ undermining the very foundations of the Conll
is without means to defend his constitutional stitution.
rights in a court of justice, one or more of these
lawyers will, without any compensation from ALL this should be too obvious for statement
any source, defend {IIC I`lglllLS of l$l`l€ ll`ldlVldu3l; I Speak for my oolloagues of lClliS Committee
end in this way carry out, in the most effective when l WY that We are indifferent cithey to the
way, their oath to support, maintain and defend Conouro o1' the praise of these o{fioe_lioltling
tho Constitution , C1'1t1CS. “With malice toward none, but with
8 9

 Hrmness in the right,” we will continue, as and
when occasion demands, to express our opinion
and if called upon, to defend the constitutional
rights of Americans. They are not subjects, but
citizens. If these New Deal laws cannot stand
the calm and respectful inquiry as to their
validity, then they should never have been
passed at all. It is a new idea in the life of our
nation that any citizen, whether he be a lawyer
or not, is not entitled to express his opinion
upon any public question and especially one _
that concerns the integrity of the Constitution.
10 `