The Indianapolis times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1922-1965, 1934-01-11

Likewise II dlSInlSSeS the general
welfare" clause or the ground that
this is not a grant of power but a
description of the purposes for
which money may be appropriated.
TT is under the commerce clause,
l. then, that the act must stand or
fall. The Law Review finds that in
spite of the famous decision inval-
idating the child labor law, it is
not impossible that the court could
sustain some important parts of
MIRA.
Omitting the reasoning, let us
look at the conclusions. It appears
to be very probably that congress
has the power to regulate businesses
which ship all Of their products in
interstate commerce. 1t also is
probable that it may regulate those
which are within the stream of
interstate commerce." as, for ex-
ample, the stockyards..
But what about those businesses
now regulated by codes, which pro-
duce goods for consumption wholly
within a state? The Law Review
believes that there is much greater
doubt here, but that the supreme
court might stretch the comma Z 3e
clause to cover such enterprises on
the ground that companies with
high standards engaged in interstate
business had been protected against
destructive competition by intra-
state companies with low standards
But when it comes to business,
which is entirely local in character,
to the question which worries Mr..
James M. Beck so much, as to
whether a federal law can deter
mine how much a man who presses
trousers in Tampa, Fla, must
charge, the Law Review is as GER
tain, as scholars ever like to be,
that the court will not sustain
MIRA.
On the second question, as to
whether the act violates the due
process" clause, the conclusion is
that as temporary measures of
limited duration to meet an emer-
gency "the court may easily sustain
most of the code provisions as not
unreasonable methods for dealing
with the depression"
Although the Law Review does
not say SO, apparently it would not
be so easy to sustain the codes
permanently in the light of the
fifth amendment. 1t looks as if the
codes would be involved in immense
litigation if they are to be per-
petuated after the emergency has
passed.
I'm the third question, whether
" the recovery act transfers too
much legislative power to the Presi-
dent, the Law Review is much per-
picked. The codes, it should be un-
derstood, are federal laws. They
are written by business men, labor
leaders and the Presidents ap-
pointees, and not by congress. ut
is difficult says the Law Review,
ito conceive of greater power being
given to an administrative agency
during the active operation of a
congressional form of government
than have been conferred upon the
President under the recovery act"
Never before has there been such
a broad grant Of power with so in
definite a guide" The practical
conclusion would seem to be that
the courts may, and probably will,
uphold this radical departure from
the normal practice Of the Constl-
tuition as an emergency measure,
but that it is extremely unlikely
that NRA as now operated would be
made permanent.
Therefore, in SO far as NRA is to
outlast the depression and be con-
tinued into normal times, it almost
certainly will be necessary to re-
strict its scope, redefine its purpose
and set it up on a very different
legal basis. Looked at politically,
rather than legally, it seems reason
ably clear that NRA, as we know
it, has about eighteen months to
live.
During this time experience will
show what there is in it which is
good and is workable, and from the
experience the country will make up
its mind what it wishes to per-
petuate.
Probably next winter the question
will be raised in concrete form as
to what is to be done when MIRA
expires in June, 1885. Those who
wish to continue most Of it will come
forward with new legislation.