Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1936-07-10

rub. There is just mid I,wr.nce
enough definition
of purpose in the remainder OF each
of the two planks to show the lines
Of demarcation and a close reading
of the platform announcements will
show that on the outcome of the cleo
ton depends whether the American
form of government is really to be
changed
This Interpretation does not mean
TO imply that the Constitution ought
or ought not to be altered, nor does
1t assume that change is not to be
accomplished in the ways provided
within the Constitution. But it is
important to note that the platform
planks discuss Fundamental change,
and the reader, therefore. is likely to
inquire about the nature of the
changes proposed and how such
changes will affect the economic and
social life of the country
Starts With Misstatement
The New Deal platform plank I'M
fortunately starts with a miSstatement
or rather Misrepresentation Of what
the Republican platform says The
New Deal charges that the Republican
platfrom proposes to meet many
pressing national problems solely by
action of the separate States"
Anybody who reads the Republic
can platform text will find that the
Republicans promise to use the Fed
eral power in social security legisla-
ton. enforcement of antitrust and
anti-monopoly laws now on the Fed
eral statute books, aid to agriculture
through land use and soil conserva-
ton as well as by export bounties given
by the Federal Government.
There Is not the slightest justifica-
ton either for assuming that the Re
publicans would fail to use Federal
power in aid of persons affected by
dust storms drought, and floods. Dur
ing the Hoover administration flood
and drought relief was granted by
the Federal Government, and the soil
conservation proposals of the Republic
cans. which would include the han
ding Of the dust storm problems, are
clearly within the Federal scope.
What then do the Republicans in
sist shall not be part of the Fed
eral authority? Regulation Of labor
and production conditions? These
the New Deal would regulate by Fed
eral authority. 1t is on this point
that the main difference occurs.
State and Federal Treatment.
But the New Deal platform does
not in so many words claim that the
problems of minimum wages. maxi
mum hours, child labor and working
conditions in industry are exclusively
Federal problems any more than they
are exclusively State problems. The
New Deal plank frankly says:
Transactions and activities which
inevitably overflow State boundaries
call for both State and Federal treat
ment."
With that brief sentence. nobody
could really quarrel for it is a state
ment of realistic truth as it exists
today. Where differences of opinion
will arise is on the question
of what is an activity that 'over-
flows State boundaries" To know
the meaning of this aspect one has to
be familiar with the background Of
a controversy that for more than
three years has been the spearhead
of the New Deal attack on the Su-
preme Court for its Interpretation
of the Constitution. Thus in the
famous N. R. A. case decided by
unanimous vote of the nine justices
on May u, 1885 the court rejected
the New Deal contention that acts
In and around a manufacturing plant.
that Is labor conditions, can be
handled by the Federal Government
just because the products of that
plant ultimately go into interstate
commerce. The New Deal sought.
without success, to have confirmed
its theory that anything which "af-
fects' interstate commerce becomes
an object of Federal authority under
the existing clause of the Constitu-
ton which gives the Federal Gov
eminent power to regulate COM
merce among the States
Court Has Decided.
The importance of this BACKGROUND
Is that the New Deal platform plank
says: eff these problems cannot be
effectively solved by legislation within
the Constitution, we shall seek clari-
flying amendments" But the Supreme
Court of the United States has al
ready decided the main issue namely
that it is subterfuge to attempt to
acquire Federal power over local
working conditions by means of laws
1,at -
is interstate commerce which ulti-
mately is shipped in interstate
commerce.
SO the New Deal plank may be
read as pledging a change in the
Constitution. The question then is:
What change?
1t is here that the New Deal plank
Is not clear. The proposal as writ
ten merely promises amendments
that assure to the legislatures Of the
several States and to the Congress
of the United States, each within its
proper jurisdiction, the power to
enact those laws which the State and
Federal legislatures, within their re-
spective spheres, shall find necessary,
in order to regulate commerce, etc."
But as the Constitution is now
written the States have no power to
regulate commerce between the
States and the Federal Government
has no power to regulate production
or working conditions within the
States. So there Is no proper
sphere" for either Federal or State
Governments to encroadh on the
power of the other
Question of Government.
If the proposal means that the
States are to retain what they have
but the Federal Government is to
acquire concurrent jurisdiction over