xt7wwp9t2q46_71 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. 74 "The National Lawyers Committee of the American Liberty League: Some Answers to Attempts to Impair the Right of Free Speech and to Impugn the Integrity of the Legal Profession" Address by Ethan A.H. Shepley, Chairman of the Missouri Division of the American Liberty League, November 6, 1935 text No. 74 "The National Lawyers Committee of the American Liberty League: Some Answers to Attempts to Impair the Right of Free Speech and to Impugn the Integrity of the Legal Profession" Address by Ethan A.H. Shepley, Chairman of the Missouri Division of the American Liberty League, November 6, 1935 2013 https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7wwp9t2q46/data/59m61/59m61_74/Am_Lib_Leag_74_001/Am_Lib_Leag_74_001.pdf section false xt7wwp9t2q46_71 xt7wwp9t2q46 Pamphlets Available * *
Copies of the following pamphlets and •
other League literature may be obtained Tha Natlonal Lawyers
upon application to the League’s national Conlnlittce of the
Statement of Principles and Purposes ° °
gmericap LibeE·tyhLe;gue:l—Its Pgtftprm M Amcrlcan  
n Ana ysis o t e resi ent’s u get essage
Economic Security  
¥l;e ghgtgy Hgur Week 
e o mg ompany 1
Price Control * * *
The Labor Relations Bill
The Fa1·mers’ Home Bill
The gI`VA Amgndmentsl N D 1 Some Answers to Attempts to Im-
The upreme ourt an the ew ea · •
The Revised AAA Amendments p pair the Right of Free Speech and
The President’s Tax Program to Impugn the Integrity gf the
Expanding Bureaucracy _ “
Lawmaking by Executive Order Legal P1‘0feSSl0D
New Deal Laws in Federal Courts
Potato Control
Consumers and the AAA *
Budget Prospects
Dangerous Experimentation
An Open Letter to the President—By Dr. Neil Address b
Carlalthers 1 L b R I y
The ationa a or cations Act——Summary
of Conclusions from report of the National ETHAN A' H' SHEPLEY
St1@ y%i]iEl?"&':;1ttee Chairman of the Dgissouri Division
The New Deal, Its Unsound Theories and °f_t °
grreconcilable Policies—Speech by Ralph M. American Liberty L¢¤Su°
How to Meet the Issue-Speech by W. E. Bomb Broadcast over Station KMOX
The American Bar—The Trustee of American St Louis
F %1stit1gions{—SpeechthbyNAlbeg   gtitchie b °
a ian ocia ism in e ew ea — peech y
ppemamst Lgoyd November 6, 1935
The People’s Money—Speech by Dr. W. E. Spahr
Legislation—By Coercion or Constitution-
Speech by Iouett Shouse D
Recovery by Statute—Speech by Dr. Neil R,
C arothers nba  C4
The Imperilment of Democracy———Speech by Y   IL
Fitzgerald Hall  
The Test of Citizenship—Speech by Dean Carl E Er SJ
W. Ackerman {s q,
Today’s Lessons for Tomorrow—Speech by Cap- Try LEP
tain William H. Stayton
"Breathing Spells"—Speech by Jouett Shouse
_ The Duty of the Lawyer in the Present Crisis-
Speech by James M. Beck
The Constitution and the Supreme Court--
The Economic Necessity in the Southern States _
for a Return to the Constitution—Speech by N¤¢wM' Headquarters
Document No. 74

 function was not to pass judgment on the eco-
nomic or social wisdom of proposed legislation
Tllé N8tl0I13l L3WyBl‘S COIIIIHIHBC of but simply to consider and pass upon its con-
the American Liberty League stittttionality. The members are not paid for
thc1r work nor are they asked or expected to
* write a brief either for or against any law.
Some months ago the League requested its
HE Alnerlean Llllerty League eonlen s t at Lawyers Comm1ttee to study and analyze a re-
the Constitution of the United States is some- cent act of Congress known as the National
rnlng more rnan a serap or paper to be rnemor' Labor Relations Act (sometimes referred to as
lzerl ny the sonoolnoy anu forgotten by the the Wagner bill) , and having done so to report e
Polnlelan· It is not merely a oanlpalgn slogan' t its findings and conclusions. That was done,
It nas neen and ls a yllal guaranty far rne pres' and on September 18th the Committee made a
ervation of 1nd1v1dual liberty ng31i1St the whims comprehensive and full Written report and ox.
and fancies of those temporarily 1n power. Its { Pressed the Opinion that thc law in question
solemn mandate is that the people of this coun- ` was unconstitutional
try, and they alone, have the power to change
the Constitution; and that unless and until they
. . ' ' f th L e
see lit to do so that Const1tut1on must be re- t   uék hall Scercglfr dmcd bi Zrgttagkcgagxd
. . v r
spected and adhered to 1n 1tS present form. in urls °rnsn_1tt?1c 0 (lawyers their critics were
The American Liberty League was formed to ltlfr if cngclzc ’ an t irmme d S Okcsmcn of
provide the means by which citizens of this te e onli mnmsen a NBS, an P
· the adm1n1strat1on 1n Wash1ngton.
country may express prompt and effective pro- _ . .
· We were not particularly surprised at this
test aga1nst any and every encroachment by the _ ,
F d . attack. We real1zed that the conclus1on reached
e eral Government upon the personal l1berty _ . .
. . . . 1n our report would not be to the liking of the
wh1ch 1S guaranteed by the Const1tut1on. P _d d h_ f dvisom and that to
The average citizen, conscious of his isolation, rem cm an E; group; fl wishes in an wa
and of the hopelessness of individual effort, re- °PP°S°_°r_cmtSS bam Dash errunwmin essym I;
mains silent, because his attempt to resist would West? Hgvgcd lsu c' (sl nd mmf; arent
be little more than an idle gesture. The League gmtimzc he €cOmct$0m aarticularl pir ri;
plans to relieve that embarrassment, by provid- _ 0 _ Say t are was no me P .y. P.
. . . . 1ng 1n our being attacked by the adm1n1strat1on
1ng the means for collective express1on of publ1c . .
Opinion and by the newspapers and other per1od1cals
that had been supporting its policies. That was
to be expected.
SOME time after the League was rorrnerl lt ne' But it was a surprise to {ind that these attacks
earne apparent that lr would be wlse to nave the were directed not at the. report itself, but at
auylee or persons who by tllelr tralnlng and the men who had prepared it. This fact spoke
experleuee were eempetent to pass upon rne p eloquently for the quality of the report and
eonstlruuoueluy or the Varlous and sundry nllls for the soundness of the conclusions reached-
that were being mtroduced in the Congress which Obviously was gratifying. But at tho
from t1me to t1.me. As a result the NRFIODEI Same time it was disappointing to and tho
Lawyers Commluee or tue Arnerlean Llnerry representatives of our government and some of
League was °rgemzeu"`meue up or lawyers our leading newspapers attempting to conceal
from var1ous parts of the United States and and dodgo tho toa] issno..an iggug gf grave im.
from both of the major p0l1t1cal parues. Its portancc to ovary citizen of this oounti·y..}iy
2 a

 launching a personal and, we believe, unwar- judgment. To suggest that we are under any
ranted attack upon the persons making the other impression is to charge us not only with
report. impertinence but also with ignorance to a de-
gree heretofore unheard of.
OUR critics tell you Erst that we are nothing _
short of impertinent in undertaking to express BUT let us pass on now to consider the fair-
an opinion as to the validity of an act of Con- ness of the more serious criticism. Our critics
gress before it has been submitted to and passed V tell you that the lawyers on this Committee
upon by the Supreme Court. Ever since we represent substantial business interests and that
have had laws and lawyers it has been the by reason of that fact they are not to be trusted.
peculiar province of the lawyer to speak frankly The unsoundness of that reasoning and the un-
and unreservedly on questions of this kind, and to fairness of the charge must be apparent to all
the time when he may do so with propriety is save those whose partisanship is so intense as to
before and not after the Court has rendered its blind them to the truth and deafen them to
decision. If the members of the Bar are to be p t reason. In times of depression, when nerves are
criticized at all, it is that they have failed to frayed and feeling runs high. even the most
speak soon enough and often enough on matters hclicrehle and fair-minded men are apt to be
of this character. To criticize after the Court carried sway hy their prejudices or their
has acted might well be classified as disre. partisanship. We become suspicious of one
spectful and impertinent, but this is a charge another and question the motive of anyone who
that our President must answer, not the Lawyers dares to oppose or criticize us. Differences of
Committee of the American Liberty League. It opinion take on the shape of personal feuds
will be recalled that not many months ago our and even friendships are strained and in some
Supreme Court was very severely criticized by instances destroyed when social, political or
Mr. Roosevelt in connection with its unanimous ec0110mic subjects are discussed. In these times
decision in the Schechter case, better known per- when we are OIIIY too apt to forget that we are
haps as the “N.R,A, case,” all human beings, brothers under the skin, and
It has been intimated by some that we were to think only in terms of class or color or creed
seeking to influence the Supreme Court and in 0i' kind. we sometimes say things on the spur of
that respect were impertinent. Had we any the mement thst wc i'csiiY de h0t believe er
such thing in ‘mind when we prepared and puh. meall aud would never have said under more
lished this report we would not only have bggu normal conditions. I wonder if this particular
impertinent but insane. Whatever else they charge might 110t fall in this category. There is
may be, the members of this Committee are too hct sc much cs ii siiggcstich that chY ef the
experienced to believe that the Supreme Court isWYci`s ih this Si`chP has been dishcilest ill the
I could be influenced in the slightest degree by Ptscticc ef his Pi`ctcssich”‘hc"simPiY that they
the fact that our Committee thinks the law in cannot be trusted because they have substantial
question to be unconstitutional. The Court is   ciichts_ih other words, havc hcch i'css€mshiY A
not even remotely interested in what you may successful. Are we to distrust those clergymen
think, or I may think, gr in what the Congress Q who have made a success of their profession
or any one else may think about the constitu- _“thc shtgcchs shii PhYsicichs Whcsc shiiitY
tionality of this or any other ]aw_ If and when is generally recognized·-—the authors, artists,
this law is brought up for consideration the tccchctsv hahkcts ci` husihcss men who have
Court will decide the matter, ae it has decided attained a standing in their respective lines of
others in the psa, on the basis of as awa sound endeever? is the i¤b¤ri¤s men who has worked
4 5

 his Yay up t° the I?°slll°ll °l lmcmau sr ARE you not yourselves somewhat surprised at
super1ntendent to •be d1strusted• because of that the nature of the attack? You am t 01 d amt that
la°t?A 'léllfh qu°?tl°ll; ?nSY;'€l`S ltS°ll_°l“E°l§lY we are impertinent—then that we are not to be
ll°' ll cle IS ° Vwus Y lm l`°aS°ll W Y B trusted. These statements ou are ex ected to
legs] Pr¤f·=¤¤i¤¤ Shsuld he my di*¥·=$<·=¤* th? ccccpc without c question, gcc, havingpdone cc,
3;; Fjsggg °t1l;:riIF;(;f;SSl:}:Er °;;S;m;;ll;°§;i;y;l;’ you are then to conclude that the reasoning and
‘ ° ’ conclusions embodied in ur r m t
iu a vast msisrity °l lustlnqcs ls l:°°°glllz°'l l?°` unsound. If that were trffe, th?-zllnolfow ldb wl);
cause sf his al°llllY and llls mtCgl`llY’ allll_wllllF account for the fact that the report itself seems
l would not l°l° (mc msmsst Say lllal ll IS llm` to be the one thing that has not been attacked-
versally true, I have no hes1tancy lll explzéssmg and this in spite of the fact that it has been in
the opinion that as a general rule lt 1S diificult G Prim and available for nearly two mouths.
t° Emi a l`°aS°nal’lY Sucficsslul lawY°l` wll° °l°°‘?S After all, the soundness or unsoundness of the
not l`;Pl`FS°m l°uS;;°SS lulclcsta wl}°l`° lllllcliclis conclusions reached in the report is what you
{HY uslmiss m_ 6 mmlulum Y m W lc ° » are interested in. And yet our critics, after
lives. While this propos1t1on.seems really too wading the report, have apparently concluded
clear fm` "mY lcllglllY_ dlscusslfm °l` argllmclll that the safest and easiest course for them is to
am; _th° charge fStl$l“;°l];SlY wl;ll°uldm°l`ll‘>_ 1*8 cast reflections upon the character and integrity
un a1rness can, 1n , e eas1 y an convmc -··-
ingly demonstrated in the following manner: of its authors. The1r reason seems obvious.
lf our critics really believe in the soundness _ _ _
of this reasoning, namely, that these lawyers WHETHER or not the Wagner Bill 1S constitu-
cannot be trusted because they represent busi- uOnal—whCth°r_ or rmt the C°ngl`CS? has umlel"
ness interests, how do they account for the fact taken to cxcmlsc a power that ll °l°6S ll°l
that when the Presidents of the United States P0SSc?B—can only bc (lflcldcd when the law ln
(including Mr. Roosevelt) have had occasion to quesuon reaches aml ls paésell _uP(lll bY the
Select members of the Bar for appointment to Supreme Court. UDt1l•tl}8t t1me 1t•W1ll have to
positions of great trust, they almost invariably rimam a maticr Gf Opmlom But lll allY cvellt
selected men of the very type under discussion. t ,6 Sooner thm matter ls willed the batter ft
A vast majority of the men who have been Wm be for the PBOPIY of thm c0untry’ and lf
appointed to the Supreme Court of the United mult gcport dzfsllngthlng Diller tha? t0 _haSl€n
States had, as lawyers, represented business lil, hay’ we S a ave ma C a °°ml`ll’utl°ll l°l`
interests; and the same may be said of those W lc we need make no ¤P¤1¤gY·
who have served as Attorney General, Solicitor
General, District Attorneys and Judges of the
Federal Courts throughout the country. Are
these facts consistent with the theory upon
which the criticism is based? To charge or Y
infer that lawyers who represent business are 1
unworthy of trust is not only to deal in a  
generalization that is wholly unsupported by R
reason or experience, but also is to cast a very
serious, though totallyl unwarranted, reflection
upon the character and honesty of the business
men of this country. ;
6 7