The Waterbury Democrat., 1936-05-25

justices knows.
 But attorneys who followed this and other New Deal cases closely say there is considerable external evidence of what happened be- hind the scenes before the three opinions in the Guffey case saw the light of day. This is what they think it was:
 3-3-3 At the Coon
 At the start the court appar- ently split 3-3-3. That is, three justices wanted to hold the law valid, three to rule 1t out entirely and three to i1validate the labor sections, but approve the price control provisions. The last was the position taken by Chief Jris- tice Hughes in his individual opin- ion.
 But Q 3-3-3- division would have stalemated the case and al- lowed the divergent lower court decisions to remain in force. It would have created widespread confusion and chaos. In Kentucky, for example, a federal court had thrown out the entire law. But in the District of Columbia, only the labor provisions had been ruled out.
 Deadlock Dangerous
 Perhaps even more important, the prestige of the court was at stake. A deadlock would have played directly into the hands of its critics, who claim that the justices economic and political views, not law, determine their rulings.
 So, according to the analyzers, there ensued some horse trading among the six justices who favor cd some kind of decree against the act.
 The three justices who wanted to toss out the entire law proposed tempering their stand, to the ex- tent of not rendering final judg- ment on the price fixing sections, but merely holding them illegal in this specific instanc ebecause they were wrapped up with the uncon- stitutional labor provisions. Tie is Broken
 By this concession, two of the three justices who favored the price fixing features presumably were induced to go along with the three die-hards.
 Tn confirmation of this theory the legalists cite three points:
 FIRST: Justice Sutherland's majority opinion shows signs of being Q patchwork" decision; that is, more than one pen had a hand in writing 1t.
 SECOND: Sutherland, in one portion of his opinion, says specifically that he will pass on the constitutionality of the price-fixing sections later in his decision. Yet when he finally reaches this part of the law he withholds final Judgment, say- ing, "The price fixing provisions of the code are thus disposed of without coming to the question of their constitutionality. ."
 FINALLY: The great length of time 1t took the court to act upon the case-68 days-one of the longest periods of chamber debate in recent court history. SOmersauIt
 During the house debate on the Frazier-Lemkle imitation bill, Tom Blanton, strident-voiced congress- man from the Texas Panhadle, was discussing the measure with Q group of colleagues in the demo- cratic cloakroorn.
 q signed the petition to force the bill out of committee" BlantOn said. "But I'm not going to vote for 1t. It's dishonest bill. It'lI bankrupt the country. I'd rather be defeated than vote for such . dangerous mea- sure."
 A little while later Blanton ob- tained permission to address the house on the issue.
 "T want to do something for the farmer" he Orated. For fifty years I have seen them growing poorer and poorer. The time has come when we should do something for the farmers and I am going to give them my vote on this bill. do not care what 1t may cost me in my dis trict."
 At this point the official sten- ographic report read: Laughter" But as revised by Blanton 1t now reads: Laughter and Applause" Labor Leader
 Luis Morones, one time labor czar of Mexico, now an exile together with ex-President Gales from his native land, came to Washington lest week.
 There was e day when MoroneS was the object of as bitter venom from Frank B. kellogg's state de- partment as was ever leveled against an official of a foreign country. He was accused of com- nunisni, seizure of American property. His policies. Mir. Kellogg proclaimed, set Mexico lon trial before the world"
 But times have changed.
 When Morones arrived in Wash ington he held a press confer ence.
 "Is 1t true" he was asked,