Evening star., 1935-05-07
DECISION RAISES
SECURITY DOUBTS
Railroad Pension Ruling
May Set Precedent in Sc.
curity Program.
BY DAVID LAWRENCE.

BY DAVID LAWRENCE.
After reading the lengthy decisions
Of the majority and the minority Of
the Supreme Court of the United
States ON pensions for railroad en-
ployes. the conclusion Is inescapable
that Congress acted hastily, clunsily
and unwisely in its manner Of writ
Ing the present pension statute.
II also Is regrettable that Govern
ment interference with the operation
OF railroads over q period Of years has
left the carriers in such bad f1nan-
cial condition that they cannot pro-
vide voluntary pension systems. And
most Yegrettable Of all Is that the
whole social security program Of the
administration may be subjected to
the same careless disregard Of con-
stitutional principles, raise hopes un-
duly and may result In the same dis
illusionment for millions of persons
of advanced age which now must be
felt by railroad employees deprived of
the benefits Congress intended for
them.
Justice Roberts. in rendering the
majority opinion, which, Of course,
throws out the railroad pension act
as a whole as unconstitutional, ap-
piled the logic which has always pre-
vailed with respect to the conf1scation
OF private property. His words, how
ever, sound strange in these days OF
the New Deal, when social objeetives
supersede all questions Of capacity to
meet social obligations.
Impraeticshty Cited.
It should be noted that the railroad
pension act was held invalid by the
lower courts, too, and that it included
some very impractical provisions,
such as the right Of thousands of
persons no longer connected with
railroads to collect back pensions. the
right of persons re-employed to collect
pensions from new railroad employers
Just as if there had been no inter-
ruption, and the placing Of q burden
on all railroads, solvent and insolvent,
to meet in a pool the expenses OF the
plan
Justice Roberts insisted that work
mems compensation laws were pre-
viously upheld by the Supreme Court
because injuries and accidents were
directly related to the operation OF a
railroad. He said, in writing the ma
jority opinion of the court:
1.-THE aet with which We are con-
cerned seeks to attach to the rela-
tien of employer and emplOye q lia-
bility, solely in the interest of the en-
ploye, with no regard to the cenduct
Of the business. or its safety or en-
cheney, but purely for social ends"
Huge Cost Cited.
Justice Roberts drew attention also
to the fact that the railroads total
contribution to pensions ION account
of prior service OF employees in service
at the date Of the act may amount
to $2,943, ,966, ,000," and he said that
this payment was not contemplated
IN the original contract between the
employers and employees nor In the
rates that were charged on the in
come side.
Chief Justice Hughes, who sided
with the minority, took issue on the
question of social ends, declaring
that, If Congress could legislate COM
pensation with respect to accidents,
it could do so with respect to morale
OF working men, who would look for
ward to security and hence would
work better and more Loyalty II they
na,,1I 11oIx foruya rJ fa v,o,cionc
Assurance of security it truly
gives" responds Justice Roberts, "but,
quite as truly. if morale is intended
to eonnote efficiency. loyalty and con-
tinuity of service, the surest way to
destroy 1t In any privately owned
business Is to substitute legislative
largess for private bounty and thus
transfer the drive for pensions to the
halls Of Congress and transmute
loyalty to employer into gratitude to
the Legislature"
Property Rights Upheld.
Perhaps the most comforting state
ment from the point OF view of own
ers of property which was contained
in the majority opinion was this
declaration. which no doubt viii be
heard again and again with reference
to pay roll taxes, and all pension
legislation generally:
1.-THE carriers have not ceased to be
privately operated and privately
owned, however much subject to regu-
lation in the interest of interstate
commerce. There Is no warrant tor
taking the property or money Of one
and transferring it to another without
compensation, whether the object of
the transfer be to build up the equip
ment Of the transferee or To pension
its employees"
II the Supreme Court Of the United
States feels this way about railroad
employees. who are plainly engaged In
work for an instrumentality Of In
terstate commerce, recognized clearly
as under the commerce clause Of the
Federal Constitution, how much more
likely, 1t may be asked. Is the court
to hold that businesses not clearly
under the commerce clause cannot be
compelled to pay pensions into the
Federal Treasury and that this is
the task Of the several States?
Precedent Seen.
The meaning Of the decision Is
plain. A majority of the Supreme
Court of the United States Il not
ready apparently to regard the power
Of Federal regulation over business
as extending beyond actual operations
OF businesses that are unquestionahly
engaged in interstate commerce. II
this Interpretation Is correct, the
N. r. AS effort to prescribe codes
will be held unconstitutional and so
will the labor legislation which seeks
to prescribe hours and wages or forms
Of collective bargaining In businesses
that are not themselves instrumental.
aties Of interstate commerce.
tCopyright. 1881