Evening star., 1935-04-02
NEW n. R. A.LAW
TO NULL|FY TESTS.
Business to Be Left Without
a Guide Unless Other
Suits Are Started.
BY DAVID LAWRENCE.

Virtually all the cases in the courts
today involving the constitutionality
of N. r. A.-and there are about $50
/, of them-Rill be useless as q guide to
business If the new national INDUS
trial recovery act is passed.
The implication of the move for
dismissal oy the Department of JUS
tice OF the Relcher lumber case Is
that. if there ale to be any tests the
preference of the administration is
|. that they should rest on the new
law, which, it is assumed, is worded
In such a way as to meet alleged de-
fectS in the present statute.
Even if those who have lost cases
In lower courts should take them up
on appeal to the Supreme Court the
impression mere is that the admins
tration will not regard adverse ver-
diets as any embarrassment. For it
will be content,ed by the admil!stra-
ton that the defects now have been
corrected and hence obedience to codes
should be on the basis of the new
rather than the oder statute.
Some Parallel Exists.
approximately 327 cases involving
the constitutionality of the NJ r. A.
were In the United States district
courts on March 81, and about 20
cases were n the Circuit Courts of
! preme Court of the United States.
It is true that some Of the issues
to be fought out will be of some aid
because the language of the new pro-
posal for the N. r. A. doesn't differ
from the law now in force, which
? expires in June. But the belief is
!. growing that ;he decision of the Su-
!. pfeme Court On January 7 last in the
! so-called hot oil' cases really makes
1T unlikely that the Department OF
!. Justice will ever press for decision in
! the highest court most of the cases
:. that have arisen under the present
statute governing the N. r. A.
New Tests Probable.
" y This is because the Supreme Court
:ssaid Congress could not delegate its
:. authority to an executive agency in
the vague way in which the national
industrial recovery act is at present
: written.
80. If. by citing the Supreme Courts
:. decision on January 7, one case is
dismissed, it is likely that most of the
remainder will meet the same fate
The proposed national industrial re-
covery act. which, if passed, would
succeed the present law, will probably
result in a number of new tests in
the lower courts. But this means that
the whole process must be done over
again and argument repeated on
many of the same points that were
made against the present law.
This business of abandoning the
present statute is like scuttling a ship
and the administration is coming in
Tor some bitter criticism by businesses
that have accepted codes and CO.
operated with the NJ R. A. in good
faith IN the belief that the statute
was constitutional and that dissenting
members of each industry could some
how be compelled to accept code pro-
visions.
= Now 1t turns out, after considerable
expense and trouble, that the whole
legal basis of the NJ R. A. was flimsy
and doubtful all the time and that
the legal questions will have to be
tested out anew with an entirely
different sort of statute.
Section IA Involved.
Some of the cases now in the Cir
cult Courts relate to collective bar
gaining and section IA, as it was
embodied in public resolution No. A,
. which created the National Labor Re-
lations Board. The lower courts have
criticized the Interpretation which the
Labor Board has put on collective
bargaining and particularly on ma
jority rule. but no case has as yet
reached the Supreme Court. The
: Guide Lamp case, decided last week
in Chicago by the Circuit Court of
Appeals, denies that the Labor Board
has any authority to issue orders that
the majority shall constitute an ex-
elusive bargaining agent, but the
Labor Board, like the N. r. A. itself,
Is looking forward to the new Wagner
labor disputes bill to be passed before
the present resolution of Congress
expires.
So it's a general un-around for
business which just about fights
through the courts to victory against
what appears to be unconstitutional
legislation when the Roosevelt ad-
istration counters with a new law
that supersedes the existing statute
and starts the wheels of litigation all
over again.