The Indianapolis times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1922-1965, 1935-05-07
TUESDAY NAY = 1885
THE PENSION DECISION

THE Supreme Courts 5-to-4 decision de-
Il claring the railway pension act uncon-
stitut.onal has frightened Congress and New
Dealers Some are afraid It marks the end Of
much Of the New Deal This may seem far
fetched. After all the law in question applies
10 only one industry and Its employees. it may
Be said
But that is the rub # the court majority
had merely found this law defective, Congress
could easily have redrafted it. That was done
following the hot oil decision Of last fall
\ reading Ct the majority and dissenting
opinions. however. shows that in this case the
court majority attempted to Kill not only this
particular legislation. but all Of similar pur-
pose Thus he majority says Of provisions re
Iating TO the social welfare" that: These
matters obviously lie outside the orbit Of con-
grcssionaI power" And Chief Justice Hughes
for the minority. comments in reply.
The ai0rity finally raise barrier against
all legislative action Of this nature by declar-
ing that the subject matter itself lies beyond
the reach Of the congressional authority TO
regulate interstate commerce that is
conclusion Of such serious and far-reaching
importance that 1t overshadows all other ques-
tons raised by the act. Indeed, it makes their
discussion superhuOus."
So. If the court majority continues to main
tain this generalized ban against social well
fare legislation. one of two results might fol-
low. Either the country will give up such social
welfare legislation. or csc abolish the courts
veto power over legislation, as often demanded
in the past
We doubt. however. that either of these
logical results will follow.
As TO the first, it seems inconceivable that
Congress or the country will give up social well
fare legislation-as a means of national self
preservation this type of law will be extended.
Doubtless if the Supreme Court in this, as in
other matters in the past Will change its mind.
That is the price of the courts survival. Most
OF our great jurists haze pointed out that the
Constitution was not devised by its authors as
a strait jacket. but as a living body Of prin-
eiples applicable to a growing nation and
changing conditions.
As Chief Justice Hughes said in the Mime
sofa moratorium case:
1T Is no answer to say that this public need
was not apprehended a century ago, or to in
sist that what the provision of the Constitu-
ton meant to the vision of that day it must
mean to the vision of our time. 1t was to
guard against such a narrow conception that
Chief Justice Marshall uttered the memorable
warnng-We must never forget that it is a
Constitution We are expoundIng-a Constitu-
ton extended to endure for ages to come, and
consequently to be adapted to the various crises
OF human affairs"
The basic issue in this railway case, as in
SC many others. is the conflict of property YER
sus human rights. The court minority defends
human rights as follows: The fundamental
consideration which supports this type of leg
islstion is that industry should take care of its
human waStage. whether this is due to acci-
dent or age That view can not be dismissed
as arbitrary capricous.'
But IT, as we hope and expect, the court
majority later changes its position, Congress
must do a better Job of legisisting. The rail-
way pension bill was passed hurriedly and vir-
tuslly without debate 1t was pressure legis-
lation-the product of pressure of a lobby and
Of time Railway labor succeeded in sinking
itself here.
This is a warning The court liberals re-
NtAAAN nave SlbNAA tAlthASCANCS even AAAuAC
patient than the conservatives with blunder-
Gus laW-making.
The immediate job of Congress is to re-
write the general social security bill now in
the Senate Finance Committee. in such in
teigent form that at least one other member
OF the Supreme Court will be brought over to
the position so brilliantly and justly stated by
Chief Justice Hughes yesterday for himself,
justices Brandeis. Stone and CORDOBA.