Evening star., 1936-01-29
CONST|TUT|0NDEFY|
LAID TO WALLACE
Opposition to Supreme Court
Majority Held Unprece-
dented Conduct.
BY DAVID LAWRENCE.

Deal mas just been OUeTeO Oy
member of President Roosevelt's cabi-
net-Secretary Wallace.
LET me first say" declared Mr.
Wallace in radio address, with
the utmost emphasis that not only
am familiar with the Constitution OF
the United States. but that believe
as did the minority in the Hoosac
Mills case-that the Constitution
means what it says
But what Mr.. Wallace overlooks is.
that once the majority make deci-
sion, the minority in the court it
self fee. themselves bound by it. Thus
the opinion in the rice millers
processing tax case, which declared
the 1885 Agricultural Adjustment act
invalid ard pointed out that the pro-
cessing tax was mot a true tax" was
rendered by unanimous Supreme
Court. In other words. once the prin-
ciple was decided on January 6, the
court unanimously accepted it as
fundamental rule of guidance in a
case Immediately afterward.
Policy of Personal Choice.
But Mr.. Wallace insists that the
opinion of the minority on January
6 is what he believes in, and he init
mates that so far as he is concerned
he will pick and choose as a rule of
public policy whichever opinion of
the Supreme Court he personally likes
Notwithstanding the custom OF rem
dering obedience to the majority opin-
jon- of the Supreme Court.
~ 1t is an unprecedented stand on the
part of an administrative officer who
takes the oath to defend the Consti-
tuition, which has always meant con-
stitutional law as decreed by the
Supreme Court in its majority opin-
tons.
It is also apparent that Secretary
Wallace, disappointed that the Su-
preme Court held the A. A. A. uncon-
stitutional, has started out to make 1t
appear that the court is responsible
for the present dilemma with respect
to the refund of processing taxes il
legally collected Mr.. Wallace said
on this point in his speech:
1T is shame that because of legal
ist theories, divorced from economic
realities and social justice. the court
should have created such an embar-
RAISING situation for farmers. con.
sumers, professors and the Govern
ment.'
The Secretary forgets that the Su-
preme Court did not write the law
containing the illegaP processing tax.
but that this was done by Congress
and the bill was signed by President
Roosevelt. This is an instance in
which it was plainly apparent from
the outset to any one who had the
slightest knowledge If constitutional
law that the A. A. A. would be de-
clared unconstitutional by majority
Of the court.
Court Not Stampeded.
But the New Deal refused to allow
precedents to influence its action and
assured that it could stampede the
Supreme Court into ignoring precedent
because there might be some day a
complicated and embarrassing Situa-
ton as consequence of holding the
A. A. A. invalid.
The Supreme Court refused to be
affected by any such set OF circum-
stances and ruled on the facts IN the
case in accordance with precedent,
and now Mr.. Wallace asks the public
to believe that the court is to blame
for the mix-up. The backflre against
the court by radio appeal is un-
paralleled.
It is also surprising to find the
Secretary of Agriculture telling
radio audience that the refusal OF
the court to hold the processing tax
legal was "all right to the mind
trained in legalism. but to the layman
1t doesn't make sense"
The reason it doesn't make sense,
of course, to the layman is that the
New Deal never conceded at any
time that the processing tax was an
improper or doubtful use of the tax
ing power and tried to make laymen
believe for nearly two years that the
tax was constitutional when it wasn't.
Had the "laymen" of America been
told the dangers of invalid legisla-
ton and something about the obliga-
tions and duties of Supreme Court
to declare any statute unconstitutional
which is at variance with the estab-
lished precedents of constitutional law,
there would have been no surprise
today.
Another Form of Tax.
AS for the ultimate disposal Of
the processing tax money. the New
Deal is preparing to recover 1t any,
way for general tax purposes by
another form of tax, so it is unlikely
the professors will ever reap much
benefit from it.
Meanwhile, the action of the court
in deciding cases on constitutional
precedents is made the object of what
really is the most intense attack made
by anybody in the New Deal against
States. Even President Roosevelt, in
his famous conference of May 81, 1885,
with the press, did not take issue with
the Supreme Court SO directly or on
such a basis. and what he said was
in indirect discourse to the news
papers ard not a direct appeal over
the radio.
The New Deal is not planning to
offer an amendment to the Constitu-
ton to regulate agriculture. but is
planning instead-if Mr.. Wallace's
speech means anything-to use the
radio and other facilities of commune
cation to try to make the American
people believe that their Supreme
Court cannot be relied upon to do JUS
tice even when it has issued, as it did
In the rice millers' processing tax case
on January 13, q unanimous opinion.
(Copyright. 1850