The Indianapolis times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1922-1965, 1935-01-04
This is the last of a series of articles on the
Constitution.

A DECADE ago an impressive play was pro-
L n duced called "R U. R." The initials, unless
our memory is faulty. stood fer "Rossom's IN
versity Robots" The plot was simple. scien-
fist invented a mechanical man which he sold
to industry. These robots could even feel pain
that was necessary to keep them from messing
up machines by getting their hands caught In
the cogs. They were very useful.
But after a bit the robots because too highly
refined. They rebelled and wiped human beings
from the face of the earth. The drama was
merely a variation of the old Frankenstein
theme.
Modern society is just beginning to realize
that it, too. has its robots. During the great
expansion period in America it was necessary to
invent a device that would provide ready and
flexible capital. The corporation, already well on
the way TO development in Europe, proved read
lily adaptable to the needs of the New World.
Since the Constitution was conceived the
conservatives have driven toward giving the
corporation-a legalistic robot-more and more
freedom. Today a belief is growing that the
robot-the synthetic man-needs to be sharply
curbed
Various explanations are offered for the de-
preston: over-production, stock speculation,
concentration of wealth. too much machinery,
monetary maladjustment
There is not one of these things which is not
attribute of the unhindered, unregulated
CROWN OF the cooperative 1Qed. LdSC year zUO
non-banking corporations controlled one-quar-
ter of the national wealth. Here is what ST.
preme Court Justice BrandeiS said about the sit
uation:
II THROUGH size, corporations, once merely
l. an efficient tool employed by individuals in
the conduct Of private business have become
an institution-an institution which has brought
such concentration of power that the so-cal!ed
private corporations are sometimes able to dom
mate the state"
Throughout the entire history of the Nation
the intellectual descendants of Alexander Ham
ilton have succeeded in getting the cooperative
man" more privilege The robot served well
while the Nation was shouldering back the from
tier. Today there is frontier And it is
proving difficult to limit the cooperative de-
vice as 1t would be to keep a full grown lion in
wardrobe trunk.
The chief issue of the Roosevelt Revolution
through which we are now living is to adjust
the radical differences which have grown up be-
tween the human being and the robot corpor-
alton Flesh and blood people have twice ex-
pressed their opinion at the polls. The present
session of the Supreme Court must decide
whether the wishes of the voters are in conflict
with the Constitution.
There is little doubt that the court, if it
chooses, has ample legal authority to move along
with the voters. Chief Justice Marshall, the
great conservative, remarked in his opinion in
the COhens VS. Virginia decision:
whenever hostility to the existing order shall
become universal it will also be irresistible. The
people made the Constitution and the people
can unmake it. 1t is the creature of their own
will and lives only by their will"
Let us take the arguments, one by one of
the privileged group which declare that New
Deal legislation is inimical to the Constitution.
EIRSTI there is the charge that Mr.. Roosevelt
l. aims at a redistribution of wealth. Possibly
but that is not unconstitutional Hear John
Marshall-certainly no "red"-on that
THE exigencies of the Nation may require
that the treasure raised in the north should be
transported to the south, that raised in the east
conveyed to the west or that this order should
be reversed
Second is the claim that the New Deal is at
tempting to regulate business beyond the limits
of interstate commerce.
But the Supreme Court has already decided
that Congress has authority over purely local
matters which unduly burden interstate COM
merce. The enforcement of Federal grain stand
ards, the regulation of intrastate railroad rates,
the structures on forged bills of lading are Suf-
fcient proof of this power.
No less a conservative than the late Chief