The Indianapolis times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1922-1965, 1936-02-18
Old Battle Renewed
BY HERBERT LITTLE
Times Special Writer

WASHINGTON, Feb. 10. - The
century-old battle of the judicial
power was renewed today with the
Supreme Courts 8-to-1 decision in
favor of IVA.
Chief Justice Hughes and the
four conservative justices took juris-
diction of the IVA case only over
protests from the four others that
the court had no right to step in
and decide whether power COM
panys contract with IVA endan-
gered certain minority stockholders.
Chief Justice Hughes said in eff
feet that I'VE must not be reluc-
tant to decided constitutional queS-
tions."
Justice Brandeis, speaking also for
his two fellow liberals and for JUS
tice Roberts, said in effect that
"these stockholders have no right
to attack the government through
a suit against their company"
Phase Is Important
The Importance of this phase nf
the fight is shown by the fact that
Justice McReynolds, only diSsenter
as to TWAS constitutionality, could
by voting with the Brandies-R Roberts
group have tossed the suit out in a
5-to-4 vote without ruling on
constitutionality But he preferred
to save the judicial power to inter-
vene.
1t is the first time, according to
Justice Brandies' opinion, that pre-
ferred stockholders have been
granted consideration of such a
constitutional suit.
Some lawyers believe this juris-
dictional ruling may open the Fed
eral court to numberleSs injunction
suits by stockholders against cor
porationS for alleged failure to pro-
tect their interests from laws of dis
puted conStitutionality. T. similar
device has been used by opponents
of the Guffey Coal Act, in the cases
scheduled for Supreme Court argu-
ment March IL.
Campaign Issue Lessened
In the political phase of the broad
battle between court and Congress,
however. the IVA decision, coupled
with two recent decisions supporting
civil liberties, is believed to have
lessened the possibility of an effec-
tive campaign issue growing out of
President Roosevelt's suggestion that
Congress would protect its "prerog-
ativeS."
1t is held that the IVA ruling
broadenS Congress power: that the
right of Congress to set up such
proprietary agencies as IVA is in
effect affirmed, and that the yard
stick" motive of Congress, as stated
In the act but not mentioned in the
Hughes opinion, will stand against
the views of the Liberty League and
of Justice McReynolds.
In a Mississippi torture confess
sion" murder case the court yester-
day unanimously voided the death
sentences of three Negroes. A week
previously it had unanimously
handed down a sweeping statement
unfolding freedom of the press. This
'tude for personal liberties is
-pected to strengthen the courts
popularity in many circles where its
MIRA, AAA and rail pension deci-
sions had caused protest.
Provide Interesting Contrasts
The states rights angles of these
suits provide interesting contracts.
In iva, the court specifically rules
that states rights are not invaded.
1t also holds that the fact there is
no specific authorization for limiting
production to the governments own
needs is no reason for the govern
ment to be thus limited. In the AAA
case, the Six-man majority held that
the lack of any constitutional au-
thority for controlling acreage pre-
vents the Federal government from
so regulating, and that such regula-
ton is a state function only.
In the newspaper and torture con-
fession cases, the unanimous court
overthrow a state Legislature and
state court for neglecting to observe
the Bill OF Rights under the Four
teenth Amendment. In the recent
Great Northern case, six justices
cracked down on North Dakota un-
der the same amendment for as
sessing railroad too much.
The three liberals-Justices Bran
deis. Stone and Cardozo--thus went