Evening star., 1935-01-11
Supreme Court Arguments
on New Deal Money
Policy End.
POWER OF CONGRESS
QUESTIONED BY HUGHES
Query as to Constitutionality Of
Act Stands 0ut-Early Deci-
sion Is Unlikely.

Supreme Court arguments on the
constitutionality of legislation sus-
pending gold payments were COM
pleted today with an appeal by At
torney General Cummings for the
jurists to keep the case open in the
event the Government had not fur
nished all the information desired to
sustain the Governments action.
Meanwhile, considerable attention
was centered on question asked by
Chief Justice Hughes yesterday as to
where authority was found to alter
the provisions Of Liberty bonds for
payment in gold.
The arguments started Tuesday,
the day following the courts action
in holding unconstitutional the Sec
ton of the recovery act under which
the administration had attempted to
curtail the interstate shipment OF
Illegally produced oil.
A decision in the gold Casa vital
part of New Deal legislation-is un-
likely before next month.
Attacked in Five Cases.
Constitutionality of the act setting
aside the clause in contracts provid-
ing for payment in gold was attacked
in five cases jointly argued.
The Chief Justice again today asked
a number of questions while Angus
D. MacLean, assistant solicitor gen.
eral, was winding up his argument in
behalf of the legislation. Among 9TH
er things he wanted to know whether
it was not a function of the Govern
ment to be able to contract in bor-
rowing money.
MacLean replied that it was, but
that in borrowing money the Govern
ment was not barred from changing
in subsequent years the terms when
it believed it became necessary.
docs not the validity of interna-
tional laws depend upon the prin-
ciple," the Chief Justice continued,
"that q sovereign may bind itself by
contract in borrowing money. and
that such obligations are sustained as
obligations Of sovereign in the tri-
bunals because it is the essence of
sovereignty to be able by contract to
bind itself?
otherwise the sovereign might not
be able to protect itself, when its SOW
ereignty is in jeopardy and get money
with which it might sustain itself"
MacLean answered that might be
true.
Suggests Reargument.
Attorney General Cummings sug-
gested that perhaps the court might
find it desirable to order a reargu-
ment.
In closing his argument, which he
said he had made with the utmost
confidence" Cummings declared:
IF we have not said everything
that we should in explanation of the
Governments position we will be glad
to come again before the Court at any
time 1t may wish"
After pointing out that the bond
before the Court matured in 1888 and
had been called for retirement, Chief
Justice Hughes said:
The bondholder was entitled to get
what his bond called for According to
his contention, instead of getting what
the bond called for he Is getting some
thing else. The question, it seems to
me, is what was due on that bond when
1t was called for redemption"
Court Shows Interest.
Again yesterday members Of the
court showed extreme interest by in
terjecting frequent questions and COM
ment on the arguments.
Breach Of q solemn contract" was
the accusation hurled at the Govern
ment by counsel for r. Eugene Nortz
Of New York, who contends he lost
money in surrendering 100000 in
gold certificates last January.
Denying any Reputation, Govern.
ment counsel urged the court to render
a judgment that will make for peace
and will not defeat the early return OF
prosperity to this weary land"
Last of the five contestants to ap.
pear was John NJ Perry, New York
lawyer, who argued his own case. He
asserted that the Government failed
to meet its obligation in redeeming q
AZ per cent Liberty bond, not in gold
as the security stipulated, but in new
currency. He demands either gold OF
dollars equal to the present value OF
the metal.