The Waterbury Democrat., 1936-05-18

Under the terms of It's "0 to 3" decision 1t appeared unlikely any successful New Deal effort could Do made to re.write control laws upon the ruins of the NrsA and other in- validated New Deal statutes. Addi- tional weight to this interpretation was lent by 0 district of Columbia court of appeals decision which, citing the high courts AAA and NRA decisions, held the use Of work relief funds for the resettle- ment administration was uncoElstis tutional.
 Three Opinions Seen
 The high import of the ouffey decision was seen in the fact thae three opinions were presented by the court: A majority ruling writs ten by Justice George Sutherland and concurred in by five colleagues; a minority decision in which jus- tices Cardoza, Brandeis and Stone joined: and a separate concirvtng opinion submitted by Chief Justice Charles Evans Huges.
 The courts decision was 50 far- reaching that 1t appeared clear that without constitutional change of some type, virtually all proposed substitutes for industry and labor control were barred.
 Seven Questions Answered
 The seven questions were presents cd in the majority opinion as iie- cessary for settlement.
 The questions and the majority'S answers:
 1. The right of stockholders to bring suits testing the duffey act. The court upheld this right.
 2. whether the suits were brought prematurely.
 brought prematurely. The court held that they were not brought prematurely. c
 8. Whether the IS per cent tax on coal sales at the mine was . true tax or Q penalty. The court held 1t was clearly penalty and not real tax.
 {. Whether congress had power to attempt such control as the Cuff fey law sought to impose. The court held congress under the constitution did not have this power.
 6. Whether the labor provisions of the act could be upheld aS regu- lation of interstate commerce. The court held they could not be up- held and ruled that mining was not interstate commerce.
 6. Whether power was unlaw- fully delegated under the Quffey coal codes to establish working hours. The court held this delega- ton of power to be c violation of the fifth amendment of the consti- tuition.
 2. Whether the price-fixing pro. visions of the act can stand alone if other parts of the act are un. constitutional. The court held they were an integral part of the act and, while not ruling on them die rectly, said they could not stand alone.
 The dissenting opinion, written by Justice Benjamin N. Cardozo, centered on the power of the fed. eral government to fix maximum and minimum prices for cornnlodi- ties moving in interstate commerce.
 Hughes opinion indicated his be- lief that the federal government had the right to exercise control over industry providing the control was exercised only over actual interstate commerce.
 Passed Last Summer
 The Guffey act was passed last summer, not long after the NRA had been invalidated by the court.
 Congress vote 1t at the request of President Roosevelt, who said it should be passed although its con- stitutionality was doubtful. At the time labor was threatening gen- eral strike in the bituminous fields.
 The law had been in process of formulation prior to the NfA dee cision. Organized labor generally and many operators joined in re- questing its passage. They con- tended that MIRA had put the in- dustry on a profitable basis for the first time since soon after the war.
 Their purpose was to maintain the asserted benefits of MIRA and at the same time give the industry itself independence of control.
 When the MIRA was abolished by the court, the law was rapidly re- vised in order to meet. as fully as possible. the objections voiced by the