The Connecticut labor news., 1923-04-27
PEOPLE MUST
 DECIDE UPON POWER OF COURT

"A decision by the United States supreme court by a bare majority against the Minimum Wage Law for women and children in the District of Columbia which by implication declared in valid all legislative efforts to fix minimum Value for labOr-WlH throw the court into the maclstrOm Ot pOll- tics in the next election.
 That is the opinion of members Of Congress and party leaders who are watching the debate over the court with keen interest.
 With Senators Borah, La Toilette and Fess proposing three different methods of preventing the supreme courts declaring laws unconstitu- tional except by a pronounced ma jority, and with Representative Frear of Wisconsin offering a con stitutional amcndment to the same effect, the coutt's dignity appears due for a severe ruffling.
 Labor Behind La Toilette.
 Organized labor is uniting with the La Toilette group to make an attack on the court, which the conservative forces are preparing to defy.
 The amendment suggested by Rep resentative Frear, who is close to Senator La Toilette, suggests the plan of attack the group plans to put up to the next republican convention a plan declaring against the power of the supreme court to Overturn by closely divided vote laws passed by Congress.
 Conservative republicans see in this an attack upon the constitution itself and point to the court as the keystone of the constitution
 They say it would be no more req sonable to demand a two-thirds vote of the court shall be to declare law unconstitutional than to require such a vote of Congress to pass a bill.
 Would Go to Records.
 They say the number of cases in which the court has declared a law unconstitutional by divided or unan imous vote should be checked up against the times state legislatures and congresses have knowingly pass ed unconstitutional laws with the ex- pectation the court would undertake the responsibility of scrapping them.
 The attitude of leaders of the Hard ing administration is well known. They will oppose any effort to limit the power of the court and will fight the La Toilette group in the next convention.
 Frear's Proposal.
 The proposed Frear amendment provides:
 "Congress shall have power to de ter1nine how many members of the supreme court shall join in any de cision that declares unconstitutional, set aside or limits the effect of any Federal or state law, and may fur ther provide by law for the recall without impeachment proceedings of any judge of the court, or for re- view and setting aside of any such court decision, providing that not less than two-thirds vote of both houses shall agree to such recall or review"
 The increasing restlessness of cer- tain groups of voters over the power of the supreme court was voiced in l connection with the minimum wage decision by Samuel Gompers, presi- | dent of the American Federation of Labor, when he said the tendency of the court was to lean in the direction of property rather than of humanity. l
 The same sentiment was recently l voiced by Senator La Toilette in his l weekly published at Madison.
 The right of the supreme court to 1 pass on validity of legislative enact | ments, regarded as a fundamental of l the constitution until the present agi- tation, was expressed by Chief Jus l tice John Marshall in Marbury vs. l Madison (I Branch, I37) when he l said 1t was of the very essence of l judicial duty for the courts to say what the law is, and that in a partcu- lar case to which both the law and the constitution apply the courts must l regard the constitution as superior to l any act of legislature and decide the l case conformable to the constitution, | disregarding the law.
 Records of the supreme court are i filled with instances in which laws ! have been set aside as unconstitution- l al. Here are a few important decis- | ions, some based on unconstitutional | ity, made by a close vote:
 Limited States vs Trans Missouri l Freight Association (I6o U. s. 29o, I8o7), Sherman Antitrust Act; four l dissenting.
 "Continental Wall Paper Company l vs. Voight Company (2I2 U. s. 227, | Ioo8), Sherman Antitrust Act; four | dissenting.
 Employers Liability Cases (2o7 U. S. 463, 1oo7), Federal law held un- constitutional; four dissenting.
 "Lochner vs New York (1o8 U. l s. 45, IooD, New York law held un constitutional; four dissenting
 Adams vs. Tanner (244 U. s. | 800, IoI7), Washington law held un- constitutional; four dissenting.
 Hammer vs. Dagenhart GAY U. s. z53, 1oI8), Federal Child Labor Law held unconstitutional; four dissent ing.
 "Southern Pacific vs. Jensen (244 U. s. 2o5, 1o16), State Compensation Acts held unconstitutional; four dis