The Indianapolis times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1922-1965, 1932-12-13
HIGH TRIBUNAL
ED|CT HITS AT
TROOPS RULE
ASSaiIS Texas Governor for
Calling Out Military to
Curb Oil Output.
BONUS ARMY QUIZ UP
Supreme Court Decision in
Soldier Case Cited by
Critics of Hoover.

BIZ Scripps-H Otcard Newspaper Alliance
WASHINGTON, Dec. 13.-Before
the senate today was resolution
demanding an investigation of the
use of the military in ousting bonus
marchers from Washington, and be-
fore the country was a decision of
the supreme court of the United
States that a governor had no right
to call out the military to curb oil
production while this controversy
was in the courts.
The courts we're not called upon
to Gust the bonus marchers. Presi-
dent Hoover called out soldiers and
tanks to do the job.
The courts had issued an injunc-
ton in the oil case, and Governor
Sterling of Texas called out the
troops to see that petroleum, except
in specified quantities, did not reach
the surface.
Decision Read by Hughes
The supreme courts decision was
read with some fervor by Chief JUS
tice Charles Evans Hughes just as
Senator Kenneth Mcclellan Dem.,
Tenn was introducing his resolu-
ton for the bonus custer inquiry.
In that, some believe, the Presi-
dents legal right to call out troops
will be questioned. A special COM
mittee of five senators would con-
duct the inquiry.
The courts ruling was couched
in vigorous language that did not
spare Sterling. 1t grew out of Ster-
lings ordering the militia into the
oil fields to curb petroleum produc-
ton. The decisions last paragraph
discusses the use of the military. 1t
says:
Military Use Unneeded
''In the present case, the findings
of fact made by the district court
are fully supported by the evidence.
They leave no room for doubt that
there was no military necessity
which, from any point of view,
could be taken to justify the COVER
nor in attempting to limit COM
plainant's oil production, otherwise
lawful.
"Complainants had a constitu-
tional right to resort to the feder-
al court to have the validity of the
(Texas railroad) commissions or
ders Qimiting production judicially
determined.
There was no exigency which
justified the governor in attempt
ing to enforce by executive or mill
tary order the restrictions which
the district judge had restrained
pending proper judicial inquiry.
Governors Action Played
"If it be assumed that the Gov
ernor was entitled to declare state
of instruction and to bring mill
tary force to the aid of civil author
ity, the proper use of that power in
this instance was to maintain the
federal court in the exercise of its
jurisdiction and not to attempt to
override it; to aid in making it's
process effective and not to nullify
it, to remove, and not create, OBJ
structions TO the exercise by the
compliments of their rights as judi
cially declared"
Sterling's ordering out of the mill
tary while the orderly process" of
law was taking place had the quail
ity," the court said, "of a supreme
and interchangeable edict, over
ruling all conflicting rights of prop
erty and Unbelievable through the
judicial power of the federal gov
eminent"
The courts idea of what this
might lead to was explained as fol-
lows:
IF this extreme position could
be deemed to be we'll taken, it is
manifest that the fiat of a state
Governor, and not the Constitution
of the United States, would be the
supreme law of the land. Under
our system of government, such a
conclusion is obviously untenable.
There is no such avenue of escape
from the paramount authority of
the federal Constitution.