Evening star., 1934-01-13
To the Editor OF The Star:


An active experience of 36 years at
the bar has made me more or less IA
miliar with the important and leading
decisions of the Supreme Court. 1t is
my deliberate opinion that the court
has never in all its history rendered
more important or epochal opin-
ion than its decision of the 9th inst.
on the Minnesota moratorium law.
However. in view of the manifest ten
dency OF the courts in recent years to
decide cases involving the public well
fare more in the interest Of the social
good than upon technical grounds OF
individual right, I have recently pre-
dicted that the court would sustain
practically all of the so-called emer-
gencv legislation. whether of the States
or of the Congress. How any one, espe-
cially Representative Beck, could think
as he has expressed himself, that this
decision does not necessarily mean that
the court will validate the more dis
putatious features of the emergency
legislation of Congress, because the
court was not considering in this case
the powers of Congress, but only the
power of the Legislature of Minnesota
is hard to understand. In the entire
Constitution and the amendments
thereof there is no limitation upon the
legislative powers Of the Congress more
explicit or binding than that provision
of section 10 of the Federal Constitu-
ton that mo State shall pass
any law impairing the obligations of
contracts =" and the provision
of the fourteenth amendment that mo
State shall deny to any person within
its jurisdiction the equal protection OF
the laws.
If this law of Minnesota. which sus-
pends the payment Of interest on mort
cages and postpones the foreclosure or
mortgages, does not impair the obilga-
tions of contracts, and deny the equa!
protection of the law, then it is beyond
the power of the finite mind to con-
ceive a law that would. In truth, the
court does not deny the fact in its
opinion, but iustifies 1t on the ground
of the emergency by process OF dla-
lectical reasoning that is incomprehen-
sible to the ordinary mind.
The truth which Is ineScapable, IS
that the court has simply SUSPENDED
these provisions of the Constitution for
the period of the emergency and until
the country recovers economically ana
financially.
Although I do not share the opinion
of Mr.. Beck that this decision does
not necessarily mean that the court
will sustain all the emergency leglsla-
ton of Congress, share fully the 1ol-
lowing views expressed by him:
"The emergency legislation contains
MANY features which the Constitution
expressly denied to the Federal Gov
ernment. To hold that the mere fact
of an emergency can create powers
which are otherwise non-eXistent Is to
make a scrap of paper OF the Constl-
tuition at the very time when It's pro-
lection Is most needed.
IF the theory that an emergency
s,ispends the Constitution once re-
ceives the clear sanction of our highest
court. then the end of constitutional
government in the United States is
measurably in sigh, and in that event
which has not yet come to pass.
future generation of Americans may
wonder that this generation wasted It's
priceless heritage under which and
partly because of which we became the
most powerful Nation in the world"
AS if in apology for and in justin
cation of its decision in this case, the
court said:
with a growing recognition of pub
lie needs and the relation of indivld-
ual right to public security. the court
has sought to prevent the perverslon OF
the clause (herein quoted) through its
use as an instrument to throttle the
capacity of the States to protect their
fundamental interests"
In conclusion, this decision should
prepare our people for the most radical
Changes in the structure of our political
institutions and convince them Of the
ineffectiveness Of written constitutions to
safeguard individual rights and liber-
ties. It marks a break with the past