Evening star., 1932-12-27

Decision OF the United States su-
prerne Court condemning use Of mar
tial law by Gov. Sterling Of Texas to
enforce pruration orders In the oil field
is held to have upheld individual rights
among the producers, but the comments
on the case indicate belief that the
principle involved in handling the oil
situation is not affected.
THE decision breaks no new ground" I"
according to the Louisville Courier
Journal, "in the principle that Federal
courts have untrammeled authority to
protect the rights Of citizens under the
Constitution Of the United States" !"
That paper continues: The justices
sitting in the case may be assumed to
have considered only the constitutional
provision as it affected the personal
rights involved, Indifferent to the i'm
plication that they were exercising re-
straint on the commander In chief Of
the army and navy Of q sovereign Com
monwealth. Their action signifies
nothing more than the supremacy Of
the civil law. The Governor of Okla
homa recently interferred through his
military forces with the execution of q
judicial process by a sheriff. Unques-
tionably the National Guard officers
were liable to arrest and the Governor
was subject to citation for contempt Of
court. The judge evidently was discreet.
The Governor of Texas probably was
justified under authority from the Leg
islature In employing troops to enforce
regulation over q large territory. 1t
happened to be situation, however, in
which rights guaranteed by the Federal
Constitution obtruded. The Texas law
could not suspend them, nor the means
Of executing the law bar the operation
Of . Federal injunction"
X = y 4
I'm effect" says the Fort Worth Star-
Telegram, ''the Supreme Court has in
formed Gov. Sterling Of Texas that 1t is
out Of agreement with him ON the judg-
ment he displayed in declaring martial
law in East Texas, but that 1t hasn't
the slightest power to prevent him from
issuing a new mArtial-law declaration
tomorrow and keeping It In effect until
another protest weaveS its way through
the channel leading to the highest court
in the land. In which event it will be
happy to tell the Governor whether the
second act contained larger measure
Of discretion than the former. Then, II
It shouldn't have done so, In the Su-
preme Courts opinion, he would have q
perfect right to change his martial law
bite Of the cherry. One important fea-
ture omitted from the Supreme Court
decision has entirely to do with the ef-
feet Of Gov. Ste-ling's employment OF
executive prerogative. Order emerged
from chaos and degree Of stabilizAtion
made itself Immediately felt throughout
the wide ramificationS Of the oil in
dustry."
Considering the effect Of the deci-
sion, the Lincoln State Journal de-
clares: 1.-THE court says that 1t was
merely an attempt by the Governor to
regulate the lawful use Of property and
that disobedience to Federal Court in
functions was tantamount to the Gov
ernor's placing himself above the Con-
stitution. This Is the spirit Of dictator
ship, and when exercised in this coun-
try it deprives q person OF his property
without due process Of law, Chief
Justice Hughes Adda"
4 =
"For the future the decision settles,
particularly for the State Of Texas"
states the Houston Chronicle, - matter
which, since martial law was declared
during the dock strike at Galveston
some II years ago, has remained IN
confusion. 1t was . confusion which in
some emergency could, at any time,
have become vital. Because Of an III
advised concession made by Texas
counsel before the Circuit Court at New
Orleans, It was BY the Circuit Court In
that case stated as conceded PROPOSE
ton that under Texas laws the mere
nat or declaration Of the Governor that
state Of insurrection exists is conclu-
sive, 20 that the courts have no power
to inquire into its truth, or 80 behind It.
Explicitly t11s was denied In the deci-
sion Of the Supreme Court Monday