Evening star., 1935-05-30
Bv JAMES A. EMERY.

By JAMES A. EMERY.
NEW YORK, May 30 tN.A.N.A.l--
The Supreme Court has spoken. In
three unanimous opinions, that tri-
hunal was called upon to determine
In three instances whether temporary
acts of the Executive and the Con-
e,ess were in conformity with the
permanent will of the people, as
expressed in their Constitution.
It should NOT be forgotten that In
the execution of this duty the court
rs the peoples court as much as the
Congress is the peoples Congress or
the President is the peoples Executive.
The people granted to each of their
agents specific powers, restricted by
specific prohibitions upon their exer-
else, and reserved to themselves and
the States powers which they did not
grant to their agents. The sole duty
of the judiciary, when the issue is
presented, is TO determine, in the pro-
lection of liberty and property,
whether prohibition established by
rhe people in their Constitution has
heen violated. Whether the policy
established by any executive or lesis-
lstive act is good or bad, wise or
upWise, is never the courts business.
Wanted Own Appoiniee.
In The Humphrey case. the President
had removed from office member OF
the Federal Trade Commission, under
an act of Congress which authorized
such removal for "inefficiency. neglect
of duty or malfeasance in office" The
President had asked for Mr.. Hum
phreys resignation. not for any one OF
these reasons but because he believed
the purposes of the administration IN
the work of the commission can be
carried out most effectively with per-
sonnel of my own choosing" The
question was whether Congress may
so limit the power of the President 10
remove commissioner, and, il it can,
whether such restriction is valid under
the Constitution. A unanimous Court
answered both questions in the affirm
arive.
The second ease presented the is
sue of whether a subsection of section
rs Of the bankruptcy act, added by
the Frazier r-Lemke act Of June %.
1884, violated the fifth amendment by
taking private property without just
compensation. A farmer named Rad
ford had mortgaged for $4,000 70 the
Louisville Joint Stock Land Bank
farm appraised at $4,000. In subse-
ouent years he defsulted on install
ments OF interest, principal, taxes and
his agreement 10 insure the buildings.
The Supreme Court held that the Fra
zier-Lemke act took rights in rhe Spe-
ciflc case from the bank without CON-
pensation and arbitrarily gave them
TO Radford. This, it said, was a plain
violation OF the fifth amendment.
Defense AsSaiied Code.
In rhe third case, that OF the
Schechter Poultry Corp. and others.
the individual petitioners had been
convicted on 18 counts of violating the
live poultry code" and Of conspiracy
TO do so. The defendants had con-
tended that: The poultry code was
adopted pursuant TO en- unconstitu-
tional delegation of the legislative
power Of Congress; it was an attempt
TO regulate intrastate transactions out
side the congressional authority: some
Of its provisions were violstive of the
fifth amendment
The Supreme Court, through Chief
Justice Hughes, first examined the
Governments insistence that the DOW
ers at issue had been granted in an
emergency. The court declared that
extraordinary conditions do not ere
ste or enlarge constitutional power"
The court then examined the Gov
ernment's contention that the eco
nomlc crisis required intensive CO.
operative effort from trade and in
dustry. The plan before the court.
however did not imply merely volun-
tary effort, but 'coerciye exercise OF
the lawmaking power" for violations
Of the codes were crimes.
Power Held Invalid.
The court held that there was
plainly invalid delegation of legislative
power because neither in the policy
declaration Of the recovery act nor in
section 3 was there any clear and in
'elligible standard TO guide the Presi-
dent or the industries in determining
their rules of conduct, but, rather, an
,mfeuered discretion in the Executive
10 make any rules through the codes
by his approval which he believed ad-
visable for rhe rehabilitation of in
dustry.
Secondly. the court held that the
attempt through the commerce power
fly rho hntIrS ond NJ La
ployes of the defendants in their in
trastste business, the processing and
sale OF poultry, was not valid exercise
Of Federal power over commerce.
The court very properly refused 10
discuss the economic advantages or
disadvantages of central system OF
control. Whatever its value. the Con-
stitllrion does not authorize It, So
while sustaining in its expression Q
wide exercise of the commerce power
over actions and transactions which
are substantially and directly related
to IT. the court distinguishes clearly
the definite line which separates such
control from that over hours. wages
and working conditions in local en-
ployment.
Labor Disputes Cited.
The court very particularly directs
attention to litigation growing out
of labor disputes where it was at
tempted to invoke Federal authority,
because strikes or other combinations.
local in their force or operation,
affected production or trade, but.
nevertheless, were not within the
reach OF the commerce power, or in
the particular instances presented,
within the scope of the antitrust
acts. Justice Cardozo expresses the
courts conclusion bluntly when he
declares: "I find no authority in that
grant Cthe power to regulate COM
merce) for the regulation of wages
and hours Of labor in the intrastate
transactions that make up the de-
PENDANTS business"
Probably no group Of opinions since
the Civil War is likely to have
more profound influence upon the
future regulation of our economic