Evening star., 1934-01-14
Supreme Court and the Permanence of
The New Deal i'm Government Structure
By OWEN L. SCOTT.

By OWEN L SCOTT.
Just one really imposing question
mark still stands In the way Of the
Roosevelt administration In its effort
individualism and the new economic
planning.
That question mark Is: How can the
New Deal be made permanent with the
blessing of the United States Supreme
Court?
As temporary, emergency creation,
the New Deal received encouragement
from the court this week. Five Of the
nine justices concurred in the opinion
that the exact word Of the Constitution
can be stretched In time of emergency
to protect the public welfare.
The court stressed the fact that the
emergency played part in its decision.
Mr. Roosevelt, however, already has told
Congress that he wants the new system
made permanent, to carry on after the
crisis has been passed. He said that
ito consolidate what we are doing. to
make our economic and social structure
capable of dealing with modern life.
is the joint task Of the legislative, the
judicial and the executive branches OF
the national Government"
\ Il
The legislative branch is believed to
be in a mood to cooperate in that
Court also will join up remained a
mystery to officials after they had di-
gested the first important decision bear
ing on the courts attitude.
Some thought they saw indications
In the opinion written by Chief Justice
Hughes, and concurred In by Justices
Brandeis, Stone, Roberts and Cardozo.
that the Supreme Court would find a
way to work the N. r. A., the A. A. A.
and other agencies into the country's
permanent, constitutional set-up.
Others thought too much stress was
being put on the implications Of the
decision, and that all 1t really involved
was q ruling that contracts might be
modified or extended during q period
Of emergency.
The first group received support for
its view from the fact that the court
took occasion to discuss general prin-
ciples when deciding a case that in
Minnesota The case might easily have
been decided without lengthy discus
sion Of broad principles involved.
Instead. both Chief Justice Hughes
IN his opinion and Justice Sutherland,
In his dissenting opinion. used the oc-
casion to outline a philosophy Of con-
stitutional law, and both used oratoldcal
vehemence to bring home the points
they were making-Something unusual
for the court.
Chief Justice Hughes said in q signi-
f1cant passage, which some officials
think points to court approval of the
New Deal:
IF by the statement that what the
Constitution meant at the time of its
adoption, 1t means today. it is intended
to say that the great clauses Of the
Constitution must be confined to the
Interpretation which the trainers, with
the conditions and outlook Of their
time, would have placed upon them, the
statement carries It's own refutation.
1T was to guard against such o mar
row conception that Chief Justice Mar
shall uttered the memorable warning
Stitution we are exp0unding. - A
constitution intended to endure for ages
to come, and. consequently, to be
adapted to the various crises OF human
AFFAIRS"
That statement, coupled with the
whole tenor Of the decision, Is inter-
preted in the executive branch Of the
Government as indicating . liberal at
titude on the part Of the Supreme
Court toward economic questions.
Probably no question in Washington
has been more discussed In recent
months than whether the country's
highest court would be found approving
the Roosevelt recovery program. The
National Recovery Administration used
its punitive powers sparingly and tried
every way to keep out Of the courts.
AL Of the time, Donald Richberg, gen.
eral counsel Of the N. r. A., was preach.
Ing the doctrine that the Government
under the Constitution has as much
right to protect the welfare OF its people
during Q time Of economic stress as
during q time Of disaster caused BY
earthquake, or floor or fire. It Is that
doctrine that the Chief Justice ex-
pounded in his opinion.
Also. the Agricultural Adjustment
Administration went ahead with its
program of production control ana
price-fxing, but there was uncertainty
about what the Supreme Court would
say when the time came for account.
ing, Ofacials wondered what would
happen II Congress should decide it
necessary to add compulsion to some
Of the controls In agriculture now being
worked out by agreement.
Mr.. Roosevelt did not at any time
give any expression Of his thoughts on
the possible attitude Of the Supreme
Court until he delivered his message to
Congress January 3. Then there was
only the brief reference quoted above.
But officials al Of the time have
centered their attention on Chief jus
tice Hughes and Justice Roberts. They
thouellt that Justices Brandeis, Stone
and Cardoso would be found favorable
to the new legislation. They expected
Justices Sutherland. Vandevanter, NC
Reynolds and Butler to oppose 1t. Both
the Chief Justice and Justice Roberts
had been voting frequently with the
liberal group In the court. but how
they would align themselves on the
emergency acts remained . mystery.
Now they are regarded as having
leaned leftward TO give the Nation q
liberal Supreme Court, under which the
words Of that document may Be
afrefcI,ed fo covgP ao4ne of The ai1ift1 IN