Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1935-07-29
NEW DEAL HELD
STILL POSSIBLE
Change in Constitution Is
Held Unnecessary
for Recovery.
by DAVID LAWRENCE.

his suggestions to a single formula.
Rather, it invites him to point to
those broad powers In the Corstitu-
ton as interpreted in decisions OF the
Supreme Court making possible ma
tional unity and a recovery program
of genuine cooperation between all
component elements.
The implication that because this
New Deal has been reversed In the
courts there is no other is q reflection
On the resourcefulness Of American
craftsmanship.
The plain truth, of course, Is that
even the New Dealers of the Roose-
welt Administration concede there are
other methods, but they fear the
political repercussionS. Always in
considering governmental problems
there arises the question of individ-
ual continuance in political office or
the effect on elections, congressional
or presidential.
Change Due Some Day.
. Some day when American leader
ship changes from the wiles of self
seeking politics to the courageous per-
Torrance of duty, irrespective of re-
election, we shall have a change.
Meanwhile, it would appear to be
unfair to allow the public to assume
that it cannot have recovery without
amending the Constitution or with
out going back to the so-called "Old
Deal"
In this and several succeeding
articles, this correspondent will at
tempt to record some Of the basic
principles which could govern New
Deal within the Constitution, taking
up first the N. r. A. and then the
A. A. A. and each day other measures,
like labor relations, which are so vital
in a recovery and reconstruction pro-
gram.
The N. R. A. is first because on that
question the Supreme Court has
spoken by unanimous decision. What
the Supreme Court rejected was regi-
mentation by the Federal authority,
improper delegation of authority by
Congress to an executive agency and
the attempt to do by Federal bureau
cracy alone that which the Consti-
tuition says can only be done by the
consent of three parties-the Federal
Government, the State Governments
and the people.
All Business Not Wicked.
But it is not necessary to assert at
once the maximum of reform to OBJ
tain progressively improving eco
non1ic system, and it is wholly unnec-
eSsary to assume that all businesses are
wicked and all corporations are vicious
because greed and selfishneSs and even
dishonesty pervade few.
This was the fundamental mistake
the New Dealers made in writing their
laws, and quite naturally, they collided
with the principles of fairness which
are imbedded in our Constitution.
The dangers of concentrated power
In the form of trusts" or rnonopolies
were recognized as far back as 1890,
when the Sherman antitrust law was
passed. The Supreme Court held that
it was a proper exercise of the com
merce clause" of the Constitution for
the Federal Government to prosecute
restraints of trade in interstate COM
merce or conspiracies to restrain trade.
So that the violators should not escape
through lack of Jurisdiction, the sew
eral States passed antitrust laws, too.
We have, then. ample power to pro-
hibit monopolies. This means con-
k6o% Dc iv, he In
interest, we can sanction monopolies.
Had the New Deal frankly espoused
the idea of creating public monopolies
through State and Federal action, it
would have found itself on firmer
ground. But the truth is there must
be some representation of the public
interest to safeguard against abuse.
and here we run into the difficulties
of putting political government into
power as managers of private business.
Also, if public regulation is to be eff
fective, it means that the whole eco
nomic system has to be managed by
Government, and this is contrary to
the American spirit and tradition.
Answer of Trade Body.
What, then, could be done without
sanctioning monopolies and without
attempting to put the Governments into
complete control of industry and bust
ness?
The answer lies in a study Of the
progress made by the Federal Trade
Commission, beginning with the ad-
ministration of President Wilson and
continuing to the days just before the
New Deal started. The opposite of
public monopoly, indeed, the alterna-
tive is competition. But there's a
difference between unlimited COMPETE
ton that amounts to ruinous compe-
tition. ruinous for everybody involved,
including the economic structure, and
what we have come to recognize as
flair competition"
The courts have approved the phrase,
"unfair competition" as coming with
in the regulatory power of the Federal
Government with respect to businesses
engaged in interstate commerce and
as within the regulatory power of the
several States with respect to COM
pdlllco uUlIlS Uuolllccc Wltlllll d given
State. Many of the splendid features
of the N. R. A. codes relating tc
commercial bribery, the giving of re-
bates, and host of other unfair trade
practices were originally written in
the codes placed by about $50 different
business trade associations before the
Federal Trade Commission.
The administration is veering some.
what in that direction today, but il
could have saved much time and effort
and economic loss had it accepted the
doctrine of evolution rather than revo-
luton and had it built in 1888 on the
experience of the past. Lest the reader
say this is hindsight rather than fore
sight, he is referred to several dis
patches on this point written wher
the N. r. A. was first foisted on the
American people.
Trade association groups should
have the right to present their trade
practice agreements or codes to the
Federal Trade. Commission for ap-
r,roval That tribunal should b.