The Waterbury Democrat., 1934-03-09
HOLDER POLICY
 IN ENFORCEMENT
 OF RECOVERY ACT
That Can Be Expected Now Supreme Court Backs
 New Deal
By JOHN A. REICHMANN United Press Staff Correspondent

| (UmteO FreSS stan correspondent l Washington, March 9-CUP)-A
 more decisive and bolder policy in
 enforcement of new deal recovery
 policies is expected to result from the supreme courts action Monday
 in upholding the validity of the New York state milk control law. Coming at time when the na- tional recovery administration was faced with one of it's recurring crises, the courts decision that it | could not interfere with the en-
 forcement of an economic policy except in extreme cases offered a source of new courage to those seeking to vanquish the depression I by economic control.
 In substance the court said:- The legislature may decide on any | economic policy it chooses. The court may not intervene unless legislation is patently not in pur- suit of this policy or where it is abitrary and capricious as judged in the light of what is being sought to attain.
 In the words of the dissenting opinion of Justice James c. Me-
 Reynolds, who thought the courts should give consideration to the | wisdom of law and whether the end is legitimate and the means appropriate:-
 If a statute to prevent confla- grations should require household CTS to pour oil on their roofs as a
 means of surbing the spread of fire discovered in the neighborhood, we cOnld hardly nnhOld if The dissent held that the New York legislation was something of this nature.
 But within that wide line, the majority held that all reasonable
 legislation must receive the courts approval.
 The effect on the new dealers is expected to prove one of encour- agement. There have been several phases of the authority granted in both the national recovery and the agriculture adjustment laws that have been almost unused. These are among some of the most dras-
 tic of the provisions.
 One of these is the licensing pro- vision by which all members of an industry may be placed under a li- cense to do business if the presi- dent finds that recalcitrant groups are undoing the good being sought fo rthe industry as whole.
 This provision was written into the acts to give them teeth" and was insisted on by the administra- ton at the time the bill was being passed. So far almost no recourse has been made to it.
 In substance the provision would require all those engaged in an in- dustry to take out licenses. These could be refused those organiza- tions which refused to abide by the code provisions for the industry. Persons continuing in the business without 8 license would be subject to criminal penalties.
 Should affairs of the Recovery Administrations find themselves in serious straits because of opposi- tion from any substantial quarter. it is now believed that resort would be taken to the licensing provisions with considerable assurance.
 For if. under the fourteenth amendment, the states can regulate prices, hitherto considered one of the action the court would be un- likely to approve, and can impose restrictions on any important bus mess needed to protect the public good, then, new deal lawyers be- iieve, the federal government may do the same under the fifth amend ment.