Evening star., 1937-05-26

rience with the courts of just "a
months, business and industry, and
all those individuals who fear confis-
cation of their savings by a system
of collectivism, know that the remedy
against unWise laws Is what Justice
Stone said it was in January, 1886
1t is outside the law courts and at
the ballot box, which is but another
way of saying it is in the great court
OF public opinion.
The public emphasis from now on
Is not going to be on whether a law
is constitutional or unconstitutional
its merely legal aspects-but whether
1t is sound or unsound economics. In
a peculiar sense, the Supreme Court
of the United States, by its unani-
nous rejection of the N. R. A. two
years ago-May 81, 1935-did dis
service to the opponents of the New
Deal which was far greater than the
alleged defeat which the administra-
ton claimed to have suffered.
For when the Supreme Court out
lawed the N. R. A., it furnished the
New Deal with a broad defense,
namely, that the social reforms it had
been planning were wise, but that the
courts had interfered with them. The
country from that moment on was
led to believe by President Roosevelt
that such setbacks as had been noted
In failing to re-employ millions of
people were due to "reactionary"
courts.
No Longer Interference.
Today, as one traces the decisions
of the last two years and sees how
judicial Interpretation has been grad
ually formulated to permit the broad
objectives of the New Deal to be vail
dated, there can be no further con-
tention that the courts are interfering
with social progress or legislative ex-
perimentation.
Little by little the New Deal, by
getting better and better lawyers to
argue the cases. by exercising better
and better craftsmanship in writing
the laws and more and more skill in
selecting cases for test purposes, has
acquired enough authority to do in
a constitutional way many of the
things which it had striven hastily
and clumsily to do.
But it was the Supreme Court
which saved the New Deal from con-
siderable adverse voting in 1886, be-
cause had the N. R. A. been per-
mitted to function uninterruptedly
the law would have produced such
cfa
ton as to cause reaction through
out the country.
From now in the coast is clear for
the New Deal. The administration
Is about to resume its social expert
ments, except that now no court
will intervene unless perhaps in ex-
treme cases of arbitrary or uneven
application of governmental power as
between individuals in the same class.
Likewise it is doubtful if the con-
stitutional argument will be invoked
as often as heretofore. In some re-
spects this is a progressive develop
ment, because American opinion and
debate has been so concentrated on
arguing the legal or constitutional
phases of New Deal laws as to OBJ
scure the questions of actual prac-
ticability or workability.
There is no constitutional barrier,
for instance, to unlimited spending,
unbalanced budgets or national bank
5uptcy.
There is no constitutional barrier
to conflscation Of property by heavy
taxation.
There is no constitutional barrier
against forcing more unemployment
through break down in the system
Of exchanging goods at fair prices.
There is no constitutional barrier
against reduction Of real wages,
which is but another way of express
ing the rising curve in living costs.
There is no constitutional barrier
now against working less hours and
producing less output and thus ma