The Waterbury Democrat. [volume] (Waterbury, Conn.) 1917-1946, 1935-07-05
Highest Court
Defines Scope
OF Commerce
Constitutional Clause Is
Most troublesome Issue
Down Through Years
EDITORS NOTE: This is the
fcurth Of q series Of dispatches
On the Supreme Court, outlining
the tribunals functions.

by 0OlN a. ttEASE1MANN
tUnited Press STAFF Correspondent
Washington, July s. (UP)--
When President Roosevelt said the
Supreme Court had put the nation
back to 'horse and buggy" days
By its Interpretation of interstate
cominerce in the NRA case, he put
his finger on perhaps the most
troublesome point in the history of
the courts deliberations.
Critics Of the limitation which
the court has put on both the
words Interstate and com
uaerce" contend that the narrow
definitions must be broadened II
the nation is to survive.
Federal authority to control in
terstate commerce was conferred
- the power to regulate COM
nnerce with foreign nations, and
among the several states. ;"
Conditions Vastly Changed
This phrase was written into the
constitution at time when the
states were, in the light of trans
variation conditions, far apart.
The states themselves, foremost
critics argue, were drawn UP in
outline whit little regard to geo.
graphical requirements and much
less In any relation to industrial
groupings which prevail today.
Enthusiastically the present day
states are outmoded, critics argue,
and are as out of date and as hap
HAzard in their boundaries as coun-
ties.
Gradual Changes Noted
In the face of these changing
conditions, critics argue that the
ceurt has steadily whitfield away
frbnr the realm of federal control
oyer commerce among the states
until the control actually amounts
oa1y to regulation of actual in
terstate transportation and COM
munication.
The powers in question have
formed the basis, perhaps, for as
much judicial opinion by the court
as any subject with which it deals.
For years opinions on the anti
trust laws have built up an inter-
Notation of the things that con-
sGtute interstate commerce.
lone aspect of the problem, and
one which has given the courts
critics something at which to level
their guns, has been brought about
by the fact that the problem has
bsen attacked from two angles.
-s5tate legislation frequently has
h&en .assailed in the courts on the
sounds that 1t invaded the fed
ss1al field of interstate regulation.
held state authority
81 4 N field.
ssf ~ rom the other side,
) III 81 4ssA@ legislation has been
uhder attack as invading a states
nowers over its internal commerce,
tie court has restricted the federal
sid.
State Issue Raised
In support of the New Deals
nQsition, some well-informed crit
tes contend that in other fields
than commerce the states do not
press their claim to freedom from
fkgulation. One critic regards az an
aRachronism the plea for state
supremacy at time when no state
can feed those on relief and when,
under the guise of interstate COM
naerce control. the national govern
rrent must use its police power to
cope with kidnapers and racketers,
thus enlarging the activities which
began with the Anti-Narcotic laws,
the Mann act and the Motor We.
hifcle theft laws.
Two opinions in support of the
itberal position on the question of
regulation of commerce among the
states stand out above all others.
The first is that of Chief Justice
John Marshall unfolding federal
regulation. The second is the dis
1ant In the Child Labor case.
Tin the earlier case Marshall.
Writing on the subject for the first
time said:
sCommerce. undoubtedly. is