The Indianapolis times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1922-1965, 1934-01-10
WEDNESDAY. JAN. 10. 1884.
THE NEW DEAL STANDS

THE supreme court will not destroy the new
deal That is the general Interpretation
OF the courts decision UNFOLDING as constitu-
tional the Minnesota mortgage moratorium
Law Perhaps that Interpretation is premature
in view Of the closeness Of the 5-to-4 decision.
Nevertheless, no one will deny the vast i'm
portance of this first test case and of the issue
raised. This was stressed even by the court
minority. In the minority dissent, Mr. Justice
Sutherland said:
Few questions of greater moment than
that just decided have been submitted for ju-
dicial inquiry during this generation"
The specific issue was the relation of the
state law to the contract clause of the United
States Constitution. The larger question was
the supremacy of the general social interest in
an emergency over contractuaI property
rights
The court majority sustained the state law
on the ground that the purpose of the latter
was the protection of basic interest of So
ciety" To the layman and to administration
lawyers it appears that this same reason is
sufficient legal justification and proof of the
consttutionality Of the federal laws enacted to
save the nation in an emergency.
Citizens and experts may disagree over the
assumed powers-or, as many believe, the
usurped powers-of the supreme court to make
and unmake laws through the method of re-
viewing constitutionality. But it is agreed
fairly well that the court either can wreck
itself or the Constitution or both in exercising
such legislative powers, unless it interprets the
dead letter of the Constitution in the light of
living facts.
growing nation, meeting ever-new prob
lens and emergencies simply can not be con-
fined in a legalistic straitjacket. If the Con-
stitution is a prison. our nation must escape
from it or die. And, of course the chief reason
our ancient Constitution has not been over
thrown long ago precisely is because the court
however belatedly-has interpreted it to fit
existing necessity.
Chief Justice Marshall, the great conserva-
tive, who largely was responsible, by usurpa-
ton or otherwise for making the court
all-powerful over the people and their elected
government, was wise enough to foresee this.
In our judgment the most significant part
of Chief Justice Hughes majority decision in
the Minnesota mortgage moratorium case is
that which states with such clarity that the
Constitution is not confined to the views of its
dead authors. Mr.. Justice Hughes. supported
by Justices Brandeis, Stone, Roberts and Car
dozo said:
1T is no answer to say that this public
need was not apprehended a century ago. or
to insist that what the provision of the Con-
stitution meant to the vision of that dav it
must mean to the vision of our time If bv
the statement that what the Constitution
meant at the time of its adoption, it means
today, it is intended to say that the great
clauses of the Constitution must be confined
to the Interpretation which the trainers, with
conditions and outlooks of their time, would
have placed upon them, the statement carries
its own refutation.
1T was to guard against such a narrow
conception that Chief Justice Marshall uttered
the memorable warning-'We must never for
get that it is a Constitution we are expound-
20 ing. Constitution intended to endure
for ages to come, and, consequently, to be
adapted to the various crises of human af-
fairs"