The Waterbury Democrat., 1935-07-08

siuestions raised by its recent
 New Deal decisions.
 By JOHN A. REICHMANN
 fUnited Press Stan Correspondent
 Washington, July (UP)-New Deal legislation devoted to recov- cry and reform was based on be- lief that the present Supreme Court was more liberal tribunal than any in recent years. Leaders based their whole line of assault on the problems of the depression on the theory that many old legal theories had been so discredtted that the court would discard them.
 TO bolster that reasoning they pointed to the picture Of the na- ton prostrate industrially, with the welfare of every state affected by the plight of its neighbors They argued that with the actual . display of their problem visible on every side, convincing evidence would force the court to accept their viewpoint.
 The court had given recognition to changed economic conditions even before the New Deal was Z 4visualized and long before Presi- dent Roosevelt took office.
 Issue Raised Previously.
 In the Appalachian Goals case the court either had to forbid CO., operative action which coal pro- lducers in the Appalachian fields had taken to save their industry or it had to revise to some extent it's previous rigid interpretation Of the antitrust laws.
 Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes wrote the opinion in which Judicial notice first was given the Repression. He decided that, since prohibition of the combination would tend to destroy commerce entirely and since safeguards were present to maintain a degree Of scompetition, the agreement of the Appalachian producerds could be permitted to continue.
 More important than the imme- s diate effect was the liberal attitude taken by Hughes and other mem bers of the court.
 Decision Gave Advance Warning.
 Soon after the New Deal, an- totlire case gave hint as to how the court might stand on ques- tions affecting delegation of pow CT. In the Arrow-Hart X Hege- man case the court ruled, by five construto four decision. that a narr row construction should be given the authority extended the federal frEie commission in prohibiting mergers.
 The first real emergency legis- Iation to reach the court was the Minnesota Mortage Moratorium which was upheld by fve-to- four vote, Owen J. Roberts and Hughes both joining the liberals. # The same alignment controlled the court soon afterward when it upheld the New York Milk control Jaw which provided jail sentences { for those who sold their milk at 41e6s ahn established prices.
 It was not. however, until its decision on the hot oir' provis- ions of the MIRA that the court < passed on New Deal legislation Then it struck the provision down on point involving delegation of power by vote of eight to one.
 Gold Cases Next.
 The oil decision threw a wave of apprehension over the worlds s markets, however, when the fa- mous gold cases came up for re- L,view. The monetary and fiscal polfcies of the government were at stake and there was direct evil sdence that an adverse ruling would throw the world into financial and <economic turmoil at least for a time. The decision by a vote of i've to four sustained the govern nnent under it's power to regulate the currency.
 The railroad pension case was next. Not strictly a New Deal policy, 1t furnished a feeler to des \ termine how the court stood on social reform legislation. The act providing a system pensions for rail workers, was stricken dowan when Roberts deserted the liberal ! group to join the four conserva- tive members. The grounds for ! invalidating the law weer that it wan NOT a regulation of inter- etate commerce.
 Few believe that the Frazier xsemhe farm mortgage act furnish ed . test of the courts liberalism E *Eongress. the President and most <1eEzl authorities had grave doubts .as to it's validity before it came < zup for court test. The court struck i t down unanimously.
 Thee Schechter Live Poultry case s m which the entire code structure 'of MIRA was obliterated, remained <1no chief test of the New Deal
 any observers believe 1t was a s<1ore severe blow politically than m its actual effects on New Deal Ie&a1 policies.
 4 Briefly, the court ruled that the deelegation of power to the Presi- z&nk to promulgate codes was an eh1ication by Congress of its law making responsibilities. The wage HMl hour provisions were struck HoWu because the cade covered only the Transactions involved in bxInging a chicken to Brooklyn S3<o1u the Manhattan markets and <htering 1t there.
 For. this reason many lawyers
 M NOT think that the questions 1. .E><zsented formed a fair test of the n6urt's attitude on interstate com z4erce. They are bolstered in this view by the fact that the liberal IHs<ice Louis D. Brandeis, who ! flIShSented in the famous child la 6tr case, joined with the rest of f6e court in the Schechter case.
 -------------
 TED1NCAY REAAI 10