Evening star., 1934-01-09

~ voked the strike by the Pure
tributors, the former charging
relief provisions written and the long
line OF court decisions which, he argued,
upheld his views.
May Form Yardstick.
On its face, he said, the Minnesota
law impaired the sanctity of contracts
and it was consequently unconstitu-
tional.
Chief Justice Hughes also reviewed
previous decisions and quoted from John
Marshall and many other juristS who
nodded the law Finally he laid down
the conditions which, he felt, the Min
nesota law met. These may form a
yardstick by which to measure State or
Federal legislation enacted during the
past few years.
Briefly the conditions were: "An
emergency existed in Minnesota which
furnished a proper occasion for the ex-
ercise of the reserved power of the State
, to protect the vital interests of the COM
munity.
The legislation was addressed to a
legitimate end-that is. the legislation
was not for the mere advantage of par
ticular individuals, but for the protec-
ton of basic interest Of society.
The conditions upon which the Pc
riod of redemption is extended do not
appear to be unreasonable.
The legislation is temporary in oper-
alton. 1t is limited to the exigency
which called it forth, and the
operation of the statute itself could not
validly outlast the emergency or be ex-
tended as virtually to destroy con-
tracts"
times we're bad when the Constitution
was adopted and insisted that its franz
ers had rebuffed those who sought to
give debtors means of escaping contrac-
tual obligations because of economic
harship. He asserted. too. that there
! was decision after decision by the court
which bore out his arguments.
Agrees on Emergency.
"An application of these principles to
the question under review" he said, re
moves any doubt. if otherwise there
| would be any. that the contract i'm
pairment clause denies to the several
States the power to mitigate hard con-
sequences resulting to debtors from
financial or economic exigencies by an
impairment Of the obligation of con-
tract"
The dissenting justice agreed that an
emergency. such as war, may supply
the occasion for the exercise of power,
depending upon the nature of the power
, and the intent of the Constitution with
respect thereto"
But he took position that the case
| before them dealt mot with a power
granted by the Federal Constitution,
but with the State police power, which
exists in it's own right"
He said in his opinion the Senate
| lacked the authority it had assumed.
There was no hint, save in the tone Of
his decision, as to the attitude he might
take on legislation passed by Congress
to meet the economic emergency.
The Chief Justice emphasized the
fact that the emergency, economic or
otherwise. did not give either the State
! or Government additional power.
Thus" he said. the war power of
the Federal Government Is not created
by the emergency of war, but 1t Is a
power given to meet that emergency.
But even the war power does not re-
move constitutional limitations safe
guarding essential liberties Thus,
emergency would not permit State to
have more than two Senators in the
| Congress, or permit the election Of
President by general popular vote
| without regard to the number of elec-
/ tors to which the States are respective
ly entitled"
Powers Of State.
Again and again. Chief Justice
| Hughes emphasized the essential pow
ers retained by a State. contract or no
| contract, to govern for the welfare OF
its citizenry at large and to preserve
itself.
1T cannot be maintained" he said.
that the constitutional prohibition
should be so construed as to prevent
| limited and temporary interpretations
with respect to the enforcement of con-
| tracts If made necessary by great public
| calamity, such as fire. food or earth
quake. The reservation OF State power
appropriate to such extraordinary con-
| ditions may be deemed to be as much
| a part of all contracts. as is the reserva-
! ton of State power to protect the pub
! lie interest In the other situations to
which we have referred. And If the
State power exists to give temporary
| relief from the enforcement OF contracts
| in the presence of disasters due to
physical causes, such as fire, Hood or
| earthquake, that power cannot be SAID
| tn he non-existent when the urgent
public need demanding such relief Is
produced by other and economic
, causes"
He added that any doubt about the
protective power OF the State-"wlth-
out violating the true intent OF the
provision of the Federal Constitu-
tom was shown by the New YORK
| housing cases.
| in 1920. which prevented. because OF
| the housing emergency. the eviction OF
| tenants in New York City and adjoin-
| ing territory. The court upheld the
statute.
I'm the cases of leases" the Chief
Justice said. 1T will be observed that
the relief afforded was temporary and
conditional; that it was sustained be-
cause Of the emergency due to scarcity
of housing, and that provision was
made for reasonable compensation tc
the landlord during the period ne was
prevented from regaining possession.
"The court also decided that. while
the declaration by the Legislature as to
| the existence of the emergency was en-
titled to. great respect, 1t was not con-
elusive: sand, further. that a law de-
| pending upon the existence OF ar
| emergency or other certain state o1
| facts to uphold 1t may cease to op-
| crate If the emergency ceases or the
| facts change. even though valid wher
| passed It is always open to Judicia
inquiry whether the exigency still
exists upon which the continued op'
Grafton Of the law depends"
| Verge of Law
Justice Sutherland said Of the REM
cases that they dealt with an exigen,
situation due to a period Of scarcity Of
housing caused by the war"
II do not STOP he said, "to con.
slider. the distinctions between them anc
the present case, or to do more thar
point out that the question OF con-
tract impairment received little, If any