(3 of 5)
'. . . the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law, and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make."
If that provision is not an effective curb to avoid disasters such as followed the Dred Scott decision, why was it included in the Constitution?
WOLFRAM HILL
St. Paul, Minn.
The pregnant sentence from the examination quoted by Reader Hill has not been fully construed, may never be. The Supreme Court itself would probably declare void any law restricting or denying its power to declare laws unconstitutional. It could justify its act although there is not a sentence in the Constitution directly giving the Court the power in question. The Constitution does say "the judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme court. . . . The judicial power shall extend to all cases in law and equity arising under this Constitution. . . ." If Congress passed a law that its present members should hold office for life, the Supreme Court could hardly exercise its judicial power extending "to all cases . . . arising under this Constitution" unless it had the power to declare such an act unconstitutional.
The Court has frequently recognized the validity of such implied powers when exercised by other branches of the Government. Not a sentence in the Constitution directly authorizes Congress to conduct investigations. The Constitution says, however: "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States." The Supreme Court has upheld the legality of Congressional investigations because obviously a legislative body must be able to ascertain facts in order to legislate wisely. The duty to cook a goose implies the right to make gravy.—ED.
Indians' Friend
Sirs: TIME, Feb. 10, under caption "Beatty to Indians" quote: "In 1879 General Richard Henry Pratt (who once proposed apportioning the Indians like so many marbles, nine to each county in the U. S.) founded Carlisle School in Pennsylvania."
Correct: Pratt founded the school. Incorrect: He proposed apportioning the Indians ''like so many marbles" to each county in U. S.
Pratt was a friend of the Indians and considered them human and was the first educator so to do. He fought Congress, Bureau of Indian Affairs, politicians and racketeers to give his Indians opportunity to show their human qualities. Frances E. Willard. W. C. T. U., asked him how the "Indian Problem could most quickly be solved." He replied: "By placing an Indian in every little town in every county you would get the 'Indian Problem' solved most quickly.". . .
His constant urge: "To civilize the Indian, get him into civilization; to keep him civilized, let him stay." As proof he pointed to many of his "boys" who had received co-equal opportunity and had become doctors, lawyers, preachers, priests, business men, mechanics, farmers and athletes. . . .