Evening star., 1934-09-30
VITAL NEW DEAL ISSUES
BEFORE SUPREME COURT
Session Starting Tomorrow May Prove
Most Momentous Since Early Days
of Republic.
BY JOHN SNURE.

important TERM OF LIle
wv Supreme Court of the
United States in genera
tions will begin at noon
tomorrow in the historic chambers Of
the court in the Capitol
In fact, it may turn out to be the
most momentous term since the early
days of the Republic, when John
Marshall and other great lawyers sat
on the bench and when the court was
the storm center of bitter and threat
ening party strife.
Before the court recesses early next
June, it is expected it will hand down
decisions which will determine the
validity of much of the emergency
recovery legislation and much of the
law on which the administrations
new dealing policy rests. These de-
cisions may go to the roots of the
questions involved in the experiments
which the President and his advisers
In the so-called brain trust are
attempting.
With much of the public sounding
loud alarms that the Constitution IS
In danger of destruction, and is being
steadily undermined by attacks on
both property rights and human
rights, while other elements of the
public are contending that the Con-
stitution can be stretched out indefi-
nitely If the general welfare seems to
require 1t, the Supreme Court is in
the spotlight.
Holds Confidence of People.
Above all others, it is the institu-
ton of government in which the great
masses of the American people re-
pose confidence, despite the fact that
from time to time it has incurred
criticism. There have been times in
the history of the Nation as in the
days of the elder Adams and of
Thomas Jefferson, and in cases such
as Marbury VS.. Madison. when the
feeling Of part of the public, menaced
the existence of the tribunal. The
Dred Scott decision in the years be-
fore the Civil War drew down the
fires Of severe attack, in which Abra-
ham Lincoln joined. In more recent
years there also have been outbreaks
of sharp criticism.
On the whole, however, the high
court is fortunate in commanding the
good will of the country at a time
when tremendous currents of public
opinion are contending; when radi-
calism is gathering head in some di-
rections and conservatism is amass-
ing its forces in other directions;
when able public men are insisting
democracy is going down and Social
ism or something much similar is
being designedly established by the
men who are thinking out the New
Deal program, while others are in
sisting that what Is being done is
necessary to lift the country out of
the morass of depression and that
the guarantees of the bill of rights
are not being impaired.
II the Supreme Court should shat
ter the hopes of the New Dealers and
reassert strongly the traditional limi-
tations Of the Constitution, or. if on
the other hand. give the leftward
elements clear road, is something
for the imagination. 1t is a matter
of conjecture, of course. To outward
appearances, however, the country
will be inclined to accept with rea-
sonable calmness what the court lays
down as constitutional in this un-
precedented economic situation.
Loose Talk Not Feared.
To be sure, there has been some
loose talk, emanating from some of
the enthusiasts for the New Deal,
that If the Supreme Court did not
uphold the legislation appertaining to
recovery, then the court would be en-
1arged and made over. Such sug-
gestions, however, have not been put
forward by responsible men, and
there is no reason to believe that
such an attempt would be made. The
court cannot be enlarged without leg
islation by Congress and there is lit
tie reason to believe such legislation
would be considered even if the ma
jority of the court should decide that
much of the recent legislative and
administrative fabric rested on un-
constitutional foundations.
1t is clear, however, that the court
is facing a series of grave legal ques-
tions, and confronted by what may
be called a constitutional crisis. No
similar situation has existed before
If the decisions Of Chief Justice
Charles E. Hughes and his associates
sanction, under the Constitution, all
the things that have been done under
the New Deal, then 1t is plain there
will have to be some remarkable re-
vamping of the law books and of the
thought of the bar and the courts in
America, not to mention the thought
of good share of Congress.
Such elasticity will be given to the
Constitution that no practical doubt
will remain that the believers, in going
still farther to the left, with vaster
expansion of Federal power in numor-
Gus directions, will be greatly encour-
aged, while those who wants to veer
to the right will find it difficult to
discover much to tie to.
Five May Be New Dealers.
Rumors have been heard that five
members of the Supreme Court are
likely to support the New Deal, while
four will take a stand against certain
phases of legislation underlying it..
Such were created by the attitude of
a majority of the court in the Mime
sofa mortgage moratorium law case
and in the New York milk case. In
the Minnesota case, widely advertised
as showing the Supreme Court was
backing up the New Deal, Chief JUS
tice Hughes and Associate Justices
Louis D. Brandeis, Harlan F. Stone,
Owen j. Roberts and Benjamin N.
Cardozo upheld the State moratorium
law. Dissenting were Associate JUS
tices George Sutherland, Pierce But
Ter, James C. McReynolds and Willis
Van Devanter.
But what has commanded little or
no notice is that the court has not
made its position known on the mat
ter of permanent legislation of the
sort the new dealers are seeking. What
the court will hold respecting emer-
gency legislation and permanent leg
islation are two vitality different ques-
tions. The time is approaching when
the New Deal will be labeled as emer-
gency. AS is well known, the President
and his advisers are pondering long
distance and permanent New Deal