The Connecticut labor news., 1922-12-29

tions made by the proponents of the
 The basis for the attack Is the fol- lowing provision of the U. s. Consti- tuition:
 'N6 preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or rev. enue to the ports of one state over those of another"
 One of the striking features of the ship subsidy bill is the great number of provisions for preference to ports of one state over those of another by regulations of commerce or revenue.
 A greater evil, considering the spir- it of the Constitution, is the fact that Congress by this bill would delegate to the U. s. shipping board the power to make almost any discriminations 1t chose in favor of one port against an other.
 The bill, as illustrated by the fol- lowing clause, admits that>discrimina- lions will result and purposes to rem edy the evil by empowering the U. 5. shipping board to establish new pref erenceS:
 Whenever the board and the com mission are both of opinion, and cer- tify, that putting into effect or keeping in effect the provisions of this section will result i'll unjust discrimination between ports of the United States on commerce accustomed to move through such ports, or III materially changing the channels of transporta- ton within the United States, or in unduly congestIng one or more of the ports of the United States. the siom- mission shall, by order, suspend the operation of said provisions until such time as it and the board reach con- trary conclusion in the premises, order, be terminated by the commis sion opon 30 days notice as herein before provided for the termination of other. suspensions. .a.ss.s
 Citizens of certain ports in the United States that are likely to be discriminated against in the admin istration of the subsidy bill are call ing the attention of their senators to the unconstitutional provisions of the measure. They assert that 1t IS un- constitutional from the standpoint of the commerce clause because the U. 5. shipping board Is given power to pay subsidy to ships sailing certain route from one port and not to ships sailing the same roufe from another port They also assert that the meas ure is unconstitutional from the standpoint of the revenue clause for two reasons: first, because of the in come tax exemption, and second, be- cause of the 10 per cent reduction of duties on cargoes allowed to vessels operating from ports favored by the ID. 5. shipping board.
 No prudent business man would risk making subsidy contract with the U. s. shipping board knowing that suit to annul the subsidy was inevitable
 'SWhat is the Constitution among friends" has long been a maxim of big business Somebody has made the mistake of taking that literally. Many acts passed by Congress would prob ably be declared unconstitutional if referred to the U S. supreme court Nobody bothers to raise the issue in many instances. For instance, nobody has yet had nerve to question the constitutionality of the Mann White Slave law although lawyers will admit readily that good case could be built ID attacking it. Not so with the ship subsidy bill The question will arise. That Is not the point, however. 1t will be interesting to know how many senators will ignore the Constitution m their desire to serve proponents ot Ire ship subsidy bill.
 If-and this is pertinent question the members of the House and Sen ate have waited until this late day without raising such an obvious ques- ton about the constitutionality of the measure, how many of them under stand even little of the ramihcations of the thousand and one other curious provisions of the bill2.