Evening star., 1935-06-25
Supreme Court Is
The Best Safeguard
To the Editor Of The star:

To the Editor Of The Star:
There is no better evidence available
to support the contention that this adj
ministration Is advised by men of zeal,
well meaning, but without understand
ing, than the effort Of the head of the
American Federation of Labor, Mr..
Green, to have written into law a def
milton Of interstate commerce with a
view Of getting by the limitations pre-
scribed in the recent N. r. A. decision.
"A clear definition of interstate opera
tions is expected to avoid any question
OF conStitutionality raised on that point, 7"
is all that Is needed according to this
esteemed adviser Of the administration.
or course, this Is purely mechanical
conception of the law and the Consti-
tuition to which such law must conform.
According to this conception, all that is
necessary to make a biped a quadruped
is to have the Congress so name It and
the Supreme Court would be bound
thereby.
Now I respectfully submit it is time
to stop acting the part of disappointed
child in this matter of trying to duck
and dodge the provisions of the Consti-
tuition. The Constitution was adopted
ment and the protection of the people
against that government, whether the
government be an ambitious executive
to whom Congress has surrendered, or
a Congress dominated by partisan ma
jorities or controlled by organized MI
norities. I am especially delighted that
we have a Constitution which is inter-
preted by an independent judiciary. It
ha cfrttad T tbiFk ~ chnbl1d
be, but know that final decision must
be made somewhere. There is no such
thing as infallibility among human
beings, be they New Dealers, Old Dealers,
Democrats or Republicans. However, I
believe that the United States Supreme
Court, independent and capable as it
now is and has always been, is about the
best bet any people ever made when 1t
comes to the safeguarding of their po-
litical, personal and property rights.
Let's look at this matter Sensibly for
q few minutes. If you are going to
define interstate commerce and tie the
courts to that definition, let's define
fraud and tie the courts to that deflni-
ton, or define due process and tie the
courts to that definition. Congress de-
fined intoxicating beverage as being
anything containing u OF ! per cent
by volume Of alcohol, which the Supreme
Court accepted, though the Government
in its brief admitted that the definition
was not true. OF course, it made Con-
gresS, the administrative agencies and
the courts look silly, and such a fool
definition was never accepted by the
American people. But no irreparable
damage was dbne-just q colossal abb
surdity was established.
But If Congress can define interstate
commerce and tie the courts to its def
milton, 1t can certainly define both fraud
and due process and likewise tie the
courts to such definitions. 1t does not
require any elaborate discussion of what
would happen under such conditions.
Frauds would be perpetrated and prop
erty and personal rights destroyed just
outside the boundaries set by the defini-
tions given by an all-wise and benevo-
lently actuated Congress So let's think
our way out of our present difficulties
rather than let motives and impulses.
be they New Deal or otherwise, drive
us to foolish, absurd and injurious ends
JOHN w. HESTER.