Evening star., 1935-05-03
LONG FIGHT SEEN
. ONN.R.A. MEASURE
Clause to Regulate Business
: In States to Bring Sharp
Debate.
BY DAVID LAWRENCE.

RESOLUTION 10 eAieIu LIle N. n. a iii
next April has brought indications of
Substantial opposition from both those
who really want the N. r. A. con-
tinued and from those who are un-
alterably against yielding to the Fed
eral Government the power to regu-
late hours and wages in American
industry.
Senator David Walsh of Massachu-
sets, Democrat, has put his finger on
one of the vital clauses of the COM
promise resolution. which says that
codes of the NJ r. A. shall not be ap-
piled to persons engaged In businesses
wholly within a State. He thinks
this would break down the whole N.
+. A., because businesses wholly with
IN a State would have advantages
over those engaged in interstate COM
merce. and that units would be or
ganized to separate business done in
side and outside a State.
This is precisely. however. the prob
lem that N. r. A. has faced from the
beginning. and is one of the reasons
for the collapse of enforcement There
Is no justification under the Consti-
tuition for the usurpation by any Fed
eral agency. even in times of emer-
..sency. of powers that are restricted
to the States themselves.
r. Confident of Court Backing.
Senator Walsh is confident that past
decisions Of the Supreme Court of the
United States uphold the Federal
right to include business inside and
outside a State in its laws But this
is simply a New Deal theory, set up
by taking fragments from past de-
-cisions and fitting them together to
make them mean something which,
~'taken separately they never were in
tended to cover. Many Senators, how
yer. including Senator Wagner of New
York, its principal exponent. have &C
~cepted the doctrine because it hap
rens to fit in with their desire to give
"the Federal Government complete
power to regulate employer and en-
plove relations
~. There is significance, incidentally,
TN the announcement of Speaker
Ryrns that the House would not act
till the Senate did and that. if what
the Senate did to the proposed N. r.
a. resolution was not satisfactory, the
House would correct it.
This clearly indicates that a storm
Is brewing and that the fight over the
N. r. A. is by no means over. The
House is much more responsive than
the Senate to presidential dictator
ship, and hence it would not be sur
prlslng If the House bill were unsat-
isfactory to the Senate and a pro-
longed debate on the conference re-
port ensued.
Must Accept Resolution.
Since the NJ r. A. dies on June Is
unless Affirmative action is taken by
: both houses, it will become increas-
ingly important for the administra-
ton to make the best of the situation
and take whatever resolution does
get through the Senate. Otherwise,
business will be in cloud of greater
uncertainty as it waits for the Con-
gress to act, and, judging by the sue
cess of the anti-lynching filibuster, it
/, Is not beyond the realm of probability
sat all that lengthy debate on.N n r.
A. can be staged by vigorous oppo-
7 nents of the measure
: Senator Walsh of Massachusetts is
! right when he says, 1T seems to me
I clear that all competing members of
an industry must be regulated or none
? should be regulated" and that's what
J the trouble is with the NJ R. A. 1t
/ has no constitutional sanction to reg
= ulate businesses inside a State, and
1t cannot obtain that authority by
subterfuge or circumvention. The
lawyers who advise business know this,
but many members of Congress prefer
tor political reasons to ignore it. Hence
sthe uncertainty must continue till the
sSupreme Court saves the politicians
sfrom their dilemma and business from
Its incubus.
Court Decisions Explicit,
The clause which would exempt
businesses wholly within a State"
sfrom codes is not satisfactory to op-
,ponents OF the N. r. A. either. For
athey think it plainly implies that the
Federal Government has authority
.over businesses partly within a State
sand partly outside a State, when, as
"a matter of fact, Supreme Court de-
icisions have explicitly held that
manufacture or production was not
asubject to regulation by the Federal
Government and that only when goods
'meved in transit or were part of a
selling operation across State lines
tcould they be included in Federal
jurisdiction.
/, The announced effort by Senators
Walsh and Barkley to amend the
Harrison Clark resolution for the ex-
tension of the N. r. A., to make it
cover all businesses both within and
without the States, would certainly
bring to head all the underlying
opposition to the N. r. A. and raise
a constitutional issue far more definite
than was the case with the original
national industrial recovery act.
, To get clear court test, it might
=. be better to eliminate all definitions
or exemptions as to business inside or
outside State, and let the original
language stand the court test. For the
preamble to the law points out that
the Federal Government has sought
to control operations in business and
industry that substantially affect"
interstate commerce or constitute a
burden on the free flow of interstate
commerce.
Borah Protest Seen.
Another subject of controversy that
will appear when the debate begins is
involved in the proposal to make a
special group of the mineral resource
industries, such as coal, oil, gas, iron,
copper. etc. 1t is stipulated in the
resolution that these industries shall
continue to be subject to the price,
fixing power. As matter of fact,
Senator Borah's outcry against mo-
nopolies applies far more in the large
industries, where price-fixing is to be
permitted on raw materials, than in
the small service businesses which
have been the victims of code regu-
lation. 1t is not likely that the Idaho
Senator will view without protest the
clauses that seek to maintain any
price-fixing by the Federal Govern
ment in any form.
tCopyrisht 1880