Evening star., 1931-05-26
MAJORITY SHIFTED
IN SUPREME COURT
Liberal Thought Group Rules
in Decisions NoW-Case
on Chain Tax Cited.
BY MARK SULLIVAN.

The decisions of the Supreme Court
handed down yesterday. and even more
those handed down last week. reveal a
new lineup in that body. The most
conspicuous illustration of 1t Is the de-
cision which in effect permits Indiana,
as well as any other State, to lay a
graduated tax on chain stores. The
decision permits Indiana to set a tax
Of only SO year on an individually
owned store. whereas on chain stores
the tax rises in an increasing scale from
$40 on each of the first stores up to
S25 each on stores in excesse of 20.
This is cne OF the Misunderstanding
decisions in the whole history of the
court. The consequences of the appli-
cation of the new principle go TO the
very foundations of the American So
cial system. In quarters aware of the
turning point nature of this decision, it
Is said, and it is undoubtedly true, that
the court, as it was constituted two
years ago, would never have decided
this case this way.
The changed trend of majority
thought in the court constitutes by far
the most important current news in
Washington. The shift that has hap
pened in the balance of thought on the
court has much more real weight than,
for example, a transfer of power in Con-
gress from Republican to Democratic,
or vice versa.
Liberals" Now Rule Court.
The change in the Supreme Court Is
not, of course, to be described In the
words Democrat and Republican. but in
those of. to use the words loosely, con-
servative and liberal Up to about jan
uary Of last year, the court was divided
int IN l4o
ly. six conservative ard three liberal
Decision after decision was handed
down with. speaking roughly, the con-
Servative six writing the majority opin-
ion, while the liberal minority wrote
dissentS.
With that condition existing, two of
the conservatives, Chief Justice Taft
and Justice Sanford, died during 1880.
To fill their places President Hoover
appointed as their succe ssors the pres
ent Chief Justice, Charles E. Hughes,
and Owen Roberts.
1t now turns out that Messrs. Hughes
and Roberts take prevailingly the lib
eral side. In consequence, the court
now divides five liberal and four con-
servative. This was the division in the
Indiana chain store tax case, the FIVE
liberals supporting the right of the
State to tax chain stores on an ascend
ing scale, while the four conservatives
dissented. Speaking very loosely and
subject to much qualification. it may
be said that whereas two years ago the
conservatives wrote the majority opin-
ions, they now write the dissenting
ones.
Three Groups on Bench.
Perhaps a more accurate spectrum
of the present shades of thought in the
court would, speaking broadly, picture
three groups. At what political termi-
nology would call the extreme right are
four conservatives, Justices Van De-
vanter, Sutherland. McReynolds and
Butler. At the extreme left are two,
Justices Louis d. Brandeis and Oliver
Wendell Holmes, called liberals in or
binary terminology, especially by those
who like their shade of thought, but
occasionally called radical by those who
find 1t repugnant.
In the middle is a group clearly to
be described, in reasonable use of the
terminology. as liberal or progressive.
They are Chief Justice Hughes and
Justices Harlan F. Stone and Owen j.
Roberts. The lineup, Of course, is not
iZation cases yesterday, for example,
Justice Roberts, usually liberal, stood
with the four conservatives and enabled
them to have majority. Justices
Hughes, Stone and Roberts, because of
their position in the middle and POS
sibly for some other reasons, hold a
kind of balance of power and for that
reason may be said, speaking loosely, TO
be in decisive position. The three
are. the newest members of the court.
MeSsrs. Hughes and Roberts having