Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1930-04-13
HUGHES HAS SURPASSED
SPEED OF TAFT In COURT
New Chief Justice Surprised With
Action ON Writ Before Formally
Submitted.
BY GREGORY RANKIN.
THE Supreme Court of the Unit


L tice Hughes presided over the
court. While 1t Is too early to
discuss the work of the present Chief
Justice, it is worth making a few OBJ
servations on the basis of what he has
already done.
= When the late Chief Justice Taft re-
signed and Immediately afterward the
White House announced the nomina
ton of Mr.. Hughes, one question which
arose in the minds of the members of
the bar was whether the new Chief JUS
tice would keep up the speed under
which the court has been working III
the past number of years. That rate
Of speed was the result of Mr.. Taft's
Systematization of the courts work, and
at the time of his resignation the court
maintained this velocity, to a large ex-
tent, as it were, through the law of
inertia.
Unprecedented Speed.
AS soon as Mr.. Hughes took Office the
atmosphere in the court became charged
with still swifter current of work. In
one appeal a statement showing that
the court had jurisdiction in the case
was filed on February IL; on March
the court advanced the case TO be al
gued on April IA; on March IT the
jurisdictional statement was formally
submitted to the court. In other words,
the argument in the case will take place
on the same day on which the court
will pass on the question whether it has
jurisdiction in the case at all. Usually
this process Is reversed. First, the Ju-
risdictional statement is fled then 1t is
formally submitted to the court; then
the court renders an order that prob
able jurisdiction has been shown; then
the case may be advanced for argu-
ment. The case in point will thus be
argued within two months after the
jurisdictional statement was fled This
is unprecedented speed considering that
only two terms ago 1t took II months
for case to be reached for. argument
and only few years ago several years
elapsed between the filing of case and
the hearing of the arguments on the
merits. u
Another illustration of the speed
adopted by the new Chief Justice Was
in the case of a petition for a writ OF
certiorari, which was suddenly acted
upon before it was formally submitted
to the court. That came as surprise
to all those who were accus tomed to the
systematized proc .dure under the ad-
ministration of Chief Justice Taft. 1t
is difficult to foretell what further sur
prises the new Chief Justice has in
store. If one may express h mseH SO
lightly concerning serious matter, one
may we'll fear lest cases be disposed OF
while on their way to the Supreme
Court, which, by the way, is not at all
impossible.
Some time ago Chief Justice Taft,
addressing the American Law Institute,
said that some members of the profess
sion might think that the pace set by
the court is contrary to the Constitu-
ton. 1t was characteristic pleasantly
of the Chisf Justice, although as
matter of fact some lawyers have actu-
ally expressed that view. Now those
lawyers might we'll complain that the
speed of the court is becoming not only
contrary to the Constitution but also IT,
the laws governing time and space.
Another observation may be made
concerning the work of the new Chief
Justice in the disposition of cases. OF
the 80 cases argued since February %,
when Mr.. Hughes took Office, were dis
posed OF without opinions, l was as
signed for reargument and in cases 5
opinions were rendered. OF these. 3
opinions were rendered by Chief Justice
" Hughes and by Justice Holmes.
Hughes Opinions.
Since the opposition in the Senate to
the appointment of Chief Justice
Hughes centered about his views OH
economic problems and on such QueS-
tons where th:re is a cleavage between
what may be loosely termed as ICON!
Servatives" and liberals it might be
we'll to observe that the three opinions
rendered by Chief Justice Hughes thus
Tar are fully in accord with the views
OF the liberals" One of these was a
public utility case, in which the spe-
cially constituted United States District
Court in Wisconsin annulled a valuation
order of the Wisconsin Railroad Com
mission concerning the properties of a
water company. The District Court had
set aside that order without specific
findings as to facts and without giving
reasons for its decision. The Supreme
Court set aside this order of the Dis
trlct Court and r5manded the case for
further proceedings, Mr.. Hughes de-
clar1ng in his opinion that in such i'm
portant cases of public interest the
lower courts must make clear findings
OF facts and should state their conclU- |
sions Of the law.
The Judicial Veto.
On April Senator Brookhart intro
duced his joint resolution IS. j. Res,
1922, which declares that the Supreme
Court of the United State SHAH not |
declare an act of Congress in violation
of the Constitution and invalid except
by unanimous decision of such court"
This resolution followed on the heels of
an opinion rendered by Chief Justice
Hughes In two cases questioning the
power of the Ohio Legislature to limit |
the judicial veto" of the Supreme Court
OF that State The State of Ohio had
amended its constitution, forbidding the
Supreme Court of the State from de-
claring State act unconstitutional I'M
less 1t does so by vote of at least six
Of the seven judges, except in affirming
a decision of the intermediate appellate
court. 1t was maintained that this pro-
vision in the Ohio constitution was
contrary to various provisions in the
Federal Constitution. First, that 1t was
contrary to the provisions guaran-
teeing to every State republican form
OF government. To this Chief Justice
Hughes answered that this provision |
in the Federal Constitution is a politi-
cal provision, and relief can be had !
only from Congress, and not from the
courts. Second, that 1t was contrary to |
the due process and equal protection
clauses in the Federal Constitution, be- |
cause under this provision it was posi- |
BILE for the Supreme Court of Ohio to
reach opposite conclusions in the same
classes of cases coming from the differ
ent districts of the State.
Chief Justice Hughes answered that
the equal protection clause was rot |
violated by virtue of the fact that diff |
ferent conclusions may be reached by
lhe courts in the same types of cases. |
and that the due process clause was not
violated. because under the Federal
: Constitution the State is not obligated
to provide for supreme court at all.
The appellants in that case severely
criticized this provision in the State !
constitution, and also stressed the crit
icism launched against the provision by
the Supreme Court of Ohio ITSELF Chief
Justice Hughes said, however: 1T is |
urged that the situation has been de-
scribed as deplorable by the Supreme