The sun., 1919-10-29
rs LOCAL DAYLIGHT SAVING
UNCONSTITUTIONAL
A Contention That the New Ordinance
Here Is Absolutely Void.

To THE EDITOR OF THE SUN-Sr: I
was surprised that THE Sun should
have fallen into the grave error of COM
mendng the foolish action of our Alder
men in attempting to perpetuate the
daylight saving act over the read OF
Congress. The futile and absurd ordi-
nance which they so solemnly passed
and which was approved by the Mayor
is absolutely void and of no effect what
ever. Any person attempting to justify
a failure In an obligation due to a diff
ference in time would soon find that out
The principle has been established for
over hundred years by decisions OF the
Supreme Court of the United States that
where Congress has not acted under
power expressly given States may con-
tinue to act; but that when Congress
does act 1t reserves to itself all of the
position are absolutely void assume
of course that the action Of Congress is
under a power granted to the United
States by the Constitution
So long, then. as Congress did not choose
to enact any act whatever regarding the
standard of time 1t was competent for
the States-and perhaps, IL they chose to
permit II, for municipalties-to regulate
time TO suit themselves. As soon, how
ever. as Congress acted upon the subject
the power of the States wholly ceased
and determined. for Congress IL given
the power ito fix the standard Of weights
and measures" 1t will be noted that
Congress has acted twice first It passed
the daylight saving act directing that the
standard of time should be changed on a
certain date in the spring and changed
back again in the fall; second. it re-
pealed the daylight saving act and there
by revived the former status.
The question arose first with regard to
the so-called Interstate commerce clause
of the Constitution and was in the Su-
preme Court for a considerable number
Of times. from the decisions in the pas
senger cases In the It'll OF Wheaton and
Gibbons vs. Ogden In the 9th OF whea-
ton through Cooley vs. Port Wardens
in the 18th Of Wheaton and SO on. One
OF the instructive cases is Sinnott vs..
Davenport, % Howard. 227. Quoting
from Gibbons VS.. Ogden the Supreme
Court said
with the Constitution Is produced by
the declaration that the Constitution Il
the supreme law. The appropriate APP
plication of that part OF the clause
which confers the same supremacy on
laws and treaties is to such acts of the
State Legislatures as do not transcend
their powers, but. though enacted In
the execution OF acknowledged State
powers. interfere with. are contrary
IN ha L. Of IN
suance OF the Constitution. or some
treaty made under the authority of the
United States. In every such case the
act of Congress or treaty is supreme:
and the law OF the state. though en-
acted in the exercise OF powers not con-
/ troverted. must yield TO II.
Not only is the ordinance absolutely
void. but the absurd situation which
would be produced by attempting TO en-
force II should have prevented its pas
sage. Railway trains will arrive and de-
part by standard time as Fixed by the act
/ of Congress They would be compelled
! 10 do so II they were not willing to do
so. Business must open and close ac-
cording to the customs OF trade by the
same rule. City offices might adopt
different rule because they have power
over tnelT own out obviously tne
city could not interfere with contracts
and no attempt to justify under the or
dinance in case of breach of contract
could be successful. Furthermore. II
other cities chose to adopt the like ordi-
nances It would be entirely uncertain all
| over the country what the time was.
! The most important and deliberate
acts Of State Legislatures have been set
I aside by the Supreme Court OF the
! United States on precisely this ground,
and they should never have been passed
How much more futile and ridiculous Is
: 1t for the Aldermen of the city of New
York to attempt 10 invalidate an act of
! Congress AS has been repeatedly
! pointed out by the Supreme Court of the
United states the on-action OF Congress
on a matter exclusively in its jurisdic-
! ton is sufficient to show that the States
have no business to act on 1t at all, but
that tho matter must be left free from
| their control. r. j. JOHNSTON
NEW YORK, October IS