Evening star., 1934-09-30

Minnesota Law Held Emergency.
1t is important to recall that the
ajority of the court upheld the Min
neSota law as an emergency PROPOSE
ton. Chief Justice Hughes in deliver
ing the majority opinion said
An emergency existed in Mime
sofa which furnished proper occa-
sion for the exercise of the reserved
power of the State to protect the vital
interests of the community. The
declarations of the existence OF this
by the Legislature and by
the Supreme Court of Minnesota can
not be regarded as subterfuge or as
lacking in adequate basis"
Chief Justice Hughes also said: I'm
view Of the nature of the contracts
in question-mortgag of unques-
tionable validity-the relief afforded
and justified by the emergency, in
order not to contravene the constitu-
tional provision, could only be of a
character appropriate to that emer-
gency and could be granted only upon
reasonable conditions"
Further, he emphasized that "the
1t is limited to the exigency which
called it forth"
The minority OF the court, in the
dissenting opinion handed down by
Associate Justice Sutherland, took the
view that the Minnesota law impaired
the obligation of contracts and If it
did so impair that obligation, ''the
emergency no more furnishes proper
occasion for its exercise than il the
emergency were non-existent,
Sound Foundation Sought.
Thus, it appears that If the highest
court upholds the New Deal legisla-
ton to the extent that it is founded
on emergency, that will not solve the
question of what is sound legal foun-
dation for the permanent legislation
which the advocates of the new order
are seeking to put through Congress
seeking to adopt. For the court to
say that the national recovery act
and the N. R. A. are justified as an
emergency proposition still would
leave as far from settlement as ever
the question of how far the New Deal
can go as permanent and nom
emergent matter.
Not a little has been said in recent
months to the effect that the Gov
ernment lawyers were holding of
cases involving phases of the New Deal
legislation which went through Con-
gress under the emergency plea. For
instance, the court last Spring was
prepared to hear Texas oil case
which involved features of the recov-
cry act, but the Department of JUS
tice sought postponement. The rea-
son for the delay has not been made
entirely clear, but it is assumed In
well-advised quarters that Govern
ment lawyers are seeking to build
their cases on the basis of something
else than existence of an emergency.
Presidents Program Eyed.
The President will urge on Con-
greSs at the Winter session a far
reaching program of New Deal legisla-
ton of permanent character, in
volving great extensions of Federal
power and authority. Unless the Su-
preme Court makes much more clear
than it has thus far, its attitude as
to permanent new dealing the House
and Senate will be wandering in the
dark.
AS indicating what is going on. the
lawyers for the Government have
been seeking to justify much of what
is being done under N. r. A. and some
other new activities, on the ground
that it is regulation Of interstate
commerce, authority for which is
clearly given to Congress by the Con-
stitution. Getting away from the
emergency theory, the attempt is
being made to expand the power of
regulation of interstate commerce to
lengths heretofore considered out of
the question. That is to say, the
theory is being put forward that vir-
tually all commerce, though osten-
sibly intrastate, has a relation to in
terState commerce and affects inter-
state commerce and so can be reached
by the long and lengthening arm of
the Federal Government.
1t goes without saying that if this
theory can be sustained in the courts,
the old State lines as to commerce
will be wiped out.
AS Cases ON Calendar.
1t will be many weeks before the
Supreme Court hands down opinions
on New Deal cases. 1t is quite pos
Sible, of course, it will issue orders
bearing on some of these cases at al
most any time. The court when it
meets tomorrow will have about AIS
cases on its calendar. All members
OF the court are expected to be pres
ent. The meeting Monday will be
formal. The court then will recess
for week, until October 8. In the
meantime, it will consider a long
array of petitions for certiorari and
Jurisdictional question, about 800 in
number. The great majority of these
petitions for certiorari will be denied
and orders issued accordingly when
the court conveneS october 8. On
that date the court will begin hearing
arguments.
Five cases are now on the calendar
which present phases of the New
Deal. Three of them are from Texas
and involve the Interpretation of a
section of the recovery act and ex-
ecutive orders and rules of Secretary
OF the Interior Harold L. Ickes re-
gard1ng the control and restriction of
oil production. Two of them are gold
cases, one of which involves the valid
ity OF the devaluation law and the
other the law and regulations for
bidding gold boarding.
While these cases are important,
they are not altogether commanding
the thought of the bar, the New
Dealers, the chiefs of industry. the
leftists and their opponents. Real
attention is being directed to the large
and imposing array of great cases
being started or already decided in the
lower courts. especially in the Fed
eral district courts. Some of these
are virtually sure to reach the Su-
preme Court before next June and
to be decided.
They squarely challenge nearly all
important phases of the new order,
and the challenges have back of them
some of the ablest legal brains OF
America. Such cases as the injunc-
ton suit Of all the great railroads,
n Il