Evening star., 1935-12-22

Of Just and peaceful labor relations
| in industry"
I'm so far as the act impliedly pro-
hibits refusal by employers in
such a flour mill as that at Aurora to
/ bargain collectively with their EN-
ployeS and prohibits individual bar
gaining, is it constitutional" Judge
Otis asked.
Unless it is authorized by the COM
merce clause of the Constitution
(article /, section 8, clause 81 it is not
constitutional That clause is: The
Congress shall have power to regulate
commerce with foreign nations, and
among the several States, and with
the Indian tribes
Sees Regulation Limited.
Under the commerce clause, in so
far as we are here concerned with it,
Congress has power to regulate one
thing only That is--'commerce among
the several States Nothing else can
be regulated by virtue Of this power.
1T is inaccurate to say that under
Illt &c ClddSC NOAlSA CSo SoAA -
ulate that which, not itself a part Of
commerce among the States. directly
affects that commerce. Because 1t may
regulate commerce it may shield 1t. it.
may protect it, from that which would
directly affect it by burdening or OBJ
structing it.
1T is only when that outside thing
actually impinges or is about to i'm
pinge on commerce that it can be
reached by the power of Congress. The
impingement may be prevented, for
that is a regulation Of commerce, but
what goes on before and outside i'm
pingement or the threat Of it is be-
yond the power.
ITO illustrate: Congress may not
regulate intrastate railway rates, but
Congress may shield and protect inter-
state commerce from the direct effect
of an attempted State regulation Of
such rates.
Manufacturing is not commerce
nor any part of commerce. Nothing
more firmly is established in consti-
tutional law than that. Congress
therefore, under the commerce power
cannot regulate manufacturing. Hence
it cannot regulate the relations be-
tween employers and employees in
manufacturing. as commerce. Never
can these relations be any part of
commerce. Defendants (the
Labor Board) say. however, that
commerce may be affected by these
relations.
Calls Contention Absurd"
But it is absurd to say that the
refusal of the owner Of -four mill
to bargain collectively with his en-
ployes directly affects commerce
among the States.
e" Elaborate exposition OF its
unsoundness involves an assumption I
am not willing to make, that any in
dividual can be found who seriously
will maintain that interstate commerce
directly is affected by the manner in
which an employer bargains with his
employees"
Elsewhere in the opinion Judge Otis
said speculation as to what may
have led to so distorted a view OF the
commerce power as is advanced in
this case perhaps is valueless. Certain
verbiage appearing in the act, particu-
larly section l, setting out various
findings and declaration of policy
suggests that phrases in Supreme
Court opinions, and one or two de-
ciSionS of that court, entirely irrele-
want to the use now made Of them,
have been seized upon as foundation
stones to support an argument for
the asserted power.
THE Supreme Court has decided
that Congress may regulate that |
which is in a stream of commerce
or current of commerce or flow Of
commerce among the States
That is not a stream of commerce
which begins in Kansas with the pur-
chase of wheat for transportation to
a Missouri mill, which is interrupted
by the delivery of the wheat at the
Missouri mill, where -four is manufac-
tured from the wheat, and which ends |