The Catholic bulletin. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1911-1995, 1914-02-28

NAANubON W LuC 4NO1Lu AM6I1Cdu tie
view some somber and pessimistic
pages on what he is pleased to denom-
mate The Crisis in Constitutionalism
Promising that the fundamental prin-
c1ple of constitutional government is
the rule of law versus arbitrary poll
tical action, and the guarantee of
equal rights to all persons and class
es, he proceeds to consider three cur
rent tendencies by which this princi-
pie seems to be jeopardized. The
first two are: hasty changes in the
Constitution, and encroachment by
one department of the government
upon the constitutional prerogatives
of another. His criticism of these is
somewhat vague and platitudinous.
presume we all condemn haste" and
''encroachment," where the integrity
OF the Constitution is involved. In his
reference to the income tax amend
ment he does, however, give us some
thing specific. Incidentally he be-
trays his viewpoint, and his apparent
ly inadequate consideration of the
economic and social side of the politi-
cal problems that he is discussing.
He fears that the constitutional
power to levy an income tax "may
eventually become the instrument of
mere class and sectional legislation"
TO be sure, it may; but no constitu-
ton and no law can be expected to
guard against all the possible and re-
mote perversions of their principles
That all the enlightened nations of
Europe have income tax laws, and that
the first legislation of this kind in our
own country was declared unconstitu-
tional by five to four vote of our
Supreme Court, after one of the judges
had changed his mind,-are facts to
which apparently DR.. Hill attributes
little or no Importance.
The third and most insidious form
OF attack upon constitutional govern
ment is the effort to change laws and
even the Constitution itself in the in
terest of special industrial and social
classes. In this connection DR.. Hill
speaks strongly but somewhat vague
ly about recent manifestations of
class antagonism, the growing spirit
of disrespect for the Constitution, and
the doctrine that the majority has a
right to do as it pleases. Finally,
however, he intimates that the pre-
else and urgent issue is the mainten-
ance of the constitutional guarantees
of life, liberty, and property.
Social Legislation and the constitu-
These, then, are the concrete goods
that DR.. Hill believes to be endan-
gered by the new social movements
and aspirations. In what sense are
they threatened? and to what extent?
The guarantees in question are all
contained in the fifth and fourteenth
amendments to the Constitution. By
the terms of these provisions, no fed
eral official and no state may deprive
any person of life, liberty, or property
without due process of law, or deny
to any person the equal protection of
the laws. Now, we know that certain
specific reforms today advocated have
been interpreted by some of our courts
as forbidden by these constitutional
provisions. In a general way these
reforms are designed for the benefit
and protection of the working classes.
Conspicuous among them, and typical
of all the others in their constitutional
aspects, are workmen's compensation,
legal minimum wage, and shorter
work day for laboring men.
The first of these measures is prob
ably recognized as fair and necessary
by all disinterested persons. Concern
ing the merits of the second and third,
there is greater difference of opinion;
but it is safe to say that no intelli-
gent opponent would publicly advo-
cate putting into new constitution a
section which would formally prohibit
their enactment by a legislature. In
view of this fact, there does not seem
to be anything politically immoral or
essentially revolutionary in the pro-
posal to modify our present Constitu-
ton sufficiently to enable any legis-
lature that so desires to pass work
mems compensation, minimum wage,
or shorter workday laws. Why should
such constitutional changes be made
the text of alarmist articles about a
constitutional crisis?
No Need Of Alarm.
AS matter of fact, the constitutional
guarantees of life, liberty, and proper
ty, should never have been brought
into conflict with the proposed so
cial legislation. The language in
which they are stated does not clear
1y express any such antagonism, and
there is no evidence that the men who
were responsible for adding them to
the Constitution ever intended that
they should have this effect. The rea-
soning by which the courts have inter
preted them as prohibiting certain
forms of labor legislation and welfare
legislation is based chiefly upon the
general conceptions of natural justice
and public policy held by the courts
themselves. And the courts have
been neither infa1lible nor unanimous
in their interpretations of these
amendments.
When it declared unconstitutional
the first workmen's compensation law
of that state, the New York Court of
Appeals formally rejected the view
OF the police power enunciated by the
Supreme Court of the United States.
II, +bo dooicion nv which III 1nhnId thp