Evening star., 1936-05-19
The Guffey Decision.

The Cuffey Decision.
There were at least three elements of
extraordinary interest involved in origi-
nal enactment of the Guffey act.
In the first place was the Presidents
famous letter, urging its passage de-
spite doubts of its constitutionality,
however reasonable" The Presidents
phrase added fuel to the flames of criti-
cism of other New Deal tendencies to
override the Constitution in its effort
at reform"
In the second place, the enactment
of this law, designed to raise prices and
wages in the sick bituminous coal in
dustry, was the expedient chosen to
avert serious labor troubles in the coal
fields. and in return for enactment Of
the law temporary truce was agreed to.
In the third place, while the need for
remedy of troubles in the bituminous
industry was generally granted, the
, Guffey act itself was subjected to severe
attack on the ground that if the Federal
Government had the power to fix prices
and to regulate wages and hours in the
coal industry, it would have the power
to accomplish the same ends in every
industry where products are shipped
from one State into another.
The decision of the court yesterday,
dividing six to three and five to four,
upholds the view of the President that
there was room for reasonable doubt as
to how the court would decide. The
court had the case under study for q
longer period than any other contested
New Deal legislation. And the decision
is such that some hope is offered for
re-enactment Of part. at least, of the
Guffey act in way that may avoid the
pitfalls Of the original act.
Whether that will be attempted at
this time, when Congress is beginning
the rush toward adjournment, is another
matter. There is little question in any
body's mind, however, between the i'm.
portance Of members Of Congress being
able to attend the political conventions
and get to the business Of mending their
political fences back home and the i'm
portance Of closing the ranks again ard
moving forward in an attempt to fiid
some solution of the serious economic
plight of the bituminous coal industry.
The decision apparently leaves room
for amending legislation. Congress
attempted to make the Guffey act
separable as to the fundamentals of
interstate price fixing and the control
s OF wages and hours. The majority
!: decided that the two provisions were
. not, as q matter of fact separable, in
80 far as the case before the court is
concerned. Price fixing was only
means to the end of regulating hours
and wages. A majority Of five decided
, that the price-fixing provisions Of the
act could not stand alone or be con-
sidered separately in this case, and that
Congress would not have passed the law
in that form. The minority of three
Justices Brandeis, Stone and Cardozo-
joined by the Chief Justice, held that
the price fixing regulations could stand
alone. But the majority left room for
doubt as to how it might decide If the
question of price fixing were presented
alone, although Justice Sutherland con-
veyed something of warning that such
doubt did not mean later approval of
the price fixing power.
AS a whole, the decision, while sug-
gesting the possibility of another legis-
lative test of the extent to which Con-
gress may go in price fixing, leaving
wages and hours in the different States
to be covered by separate compacts,
hastens the time when the constitu-
tional issue will be posed in the form
Of an amendment explicitly giving Con-
gress the authority it has 50 far sought
in vain to regulate wages and hours in
the manufacture of goods passing in
interstate commerce. This last decision
plainly threatens validity Of the Wagner
1ahor relations art