Evening star., 1932-03-30
Views of Court
On Competition Are Debated

Decision Of the United States Su.
preme Court that the State of Okla
homa Violated the Constitution wher
it declared by law that ice should bt
treated as public utility has attracted
much attention from the public. Tht
Is due partly to the fact that Justice.
BrandeiS and Stone disSented, on the
general principles involved and thai
the former set forth his views as to the
possibility of restraining excessive COM
petition. 1t Is widely held that as an
experiment such restraint might prove
dangerous
In the course of his opinion. Justice
Brandeis said: Increasingly, doubt is
expressed whether it is economically
wise, or morally right, that men should
be permitted to add to the producing
facilities of an industry which is al
ready suffering f;om overcapacity." At
another point thk member of the Court
remarks: All aglee that irregularity In
employment-the greatest of our evils
cannot be overcome unless production
and consumption are more nearly bal
anced. Many insist there must be some
form of economic control. There are
plans for proration. There are pro-
posalS for StabiliZauon."
The difference bstween the minority
and the other progressive minded JUS
tices in the Oklahoma case" according
to the Philadelphia. Evening Bulletin
"iS that the majority are not willing to
menace the essential rights of the in
dividual by an exaggeration of the
powers of government, even as matter
Of experimentation. Extension of the
principle and formuls Of government
control over public utilities to all bust
ness enterprise would take us far. II
permitted in the matter of ice manu-
facture and distribution, as an expert
ment, what next, and where would be
the limit? The problem of unbalanced
production and consumption and con-
Sequent irregularity in employment and
periods Of depression must be solved
There is need of price stabilization, OF
employment and wage shbilization as
well. But the Supreme Court opinion in
the Oklahoma case is warning that
the Government cannot take charge
of all business under the American
plan, and that the solution of the prob
lens of business does not lie merely in
turning them over to the Government
for regulation"
= ~
Referring to the contention by the
two dissenting justices that the
judiciary ought not to prevent reason
able social and economic experiments
ton by the States the Chicago Daily
News makes the comment: But what
Is a proper test of reaSonableness in
social and economic experimentation?
Clearly, experiments repugnant to the
Federal Constitution, or to the conStitu-
ton of the State concerned, cannot be
sanctioned by the courts. However,
there Is, apparently, a twilight zone for
certain experiments. Heretofore the
test applied has been the necessity of
a franchise. With few recent excep-
tions, public utilities have enjoyed spe-
cial privileges. or monopolies, and have
been regulated because of that fact. On
the other hand, competitive industries
or trades have been regulated OILY by
the law Of supply and demand. and have
not been subjected to State regulation.
There Is q tendency to treat coal, oil
and bread as public utilities, but 1t has
not gone far. Manifestly, the Federal
Supreme Court adheres to the logical,
old test of q public utility, the expe-
diency of monopoly from the standpoint
OF public interest. Those who favor a
different test should assume the burden
Of proving the necessity and propriety
Of the departure"
Mr.. Brandeis." remarks the Newark
Evening News, took the position that
States should not be prohibited from
experimenting along such lines. He did
nntp howepers commit htmself IN fhvoe