The Indianapolis times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1922-1965, 1936-04-07
TUESDAY. APRIL 7, 1895.
FRIGHT CHURCH, WRONG PEW"

U Effective paragraphs about civil rights dot the
- majority Supreme Court opinion in Jones vs. the
SEC Such language as this:
Arbitrary power and the rule Of the Constitu-
ton can not both exist They are antagonistc and
Incompatible forces; and the other must of
necessity perish whenever they brought into
flict
If the various administrative bureaus and COM
missions necessarily called and being called into
stence by the increasing complexities of modern
business and political affairs permitted gradually
to extend their powers by encroachments-even
petty encroachments-upon the fundamental rights,
privileges and immunities of the people, shall in
the end, while avoiding the fatal consequences of
supreme autocracy become submerged by multi
tude of minor invasions of personal rights less de-
structWe but no less volative of constitutional
guarantees
The citizen when Intercepted about his private
affairs, has a right before answering to know why
the inquiry is made; and if the purpose disclosed is
not a legitimate one he may not be compelled to
answer.
THE philosophy that constitutional limitations
and legal restraints upon official action may be
brushed aside upon the plea that good, perchance,
may follow, finds no countenance in the American
system of government.
AN investigation not based upon specified
grounds is quite as Objectionable search warrant
not based upon specific statements of fact. Such
investigation, such search, is unlawful in its
inception and not be made lawful by what it
may bring or what it actually succeeds in bring
ing, to light"
1T is only when seek to apply those wellphrased
generalities to the in point that we become
befuddled and inclined to ask what has all that to
do with the story of j. Edward Jones and his deal
ings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Mr. Jones' it seems applied for certificate of reg
isration under the Securities Act, step preliminary
to the issuance of certain trust certificates to be sold
to the public
The commission spotted what appeared to be I'M
true statements and omissions of material facts is
suing thereupon to the petitioner notice of hearing
at which the petitioner might appear and show
cause why stop order on the certificate promotion
should not be issued.
The promoter thereupon sought to withdraw the
registration application and call the whole thing off.
About that effort at withdrawal the Supreme Court
decision was written with 6-to-3 victory for the
petitioner and blistering minority opinion by JUS
tice Cardozo which said
THE opinion of the court reminds us of the dan
gers that wait upon the abuse of power by official
dom unclaimed. The warning is so fraught with
truth that it can never be untmey. But untmely,
too is the reminder, host of Impoverished in
vestors will be ready to attest that there are dangers
In untruths and half truths when certificates mas
querading as securities pass current in the market
Isl To permit an offending regstrant to stfe an
inquiry by preciptate retreat on the eve OF his ex-
posture is to give immunity to guilt; to encourage
fasehood and evasion invite the cunning and I'M
sorupulous to gamble with detection"
We think that the Supreme Court majority could
have found more fitting rostrum than the Jones
case from which to deliver its effective distractions
y on the dangers of autocracy.