Evening star., 1937-03-27

''o Lawrence piece of legis-
lation which will have just been an
alyzed from a constitutional stand
point by the highest court IN the
land
1t NAV be taken for granted that
4 chart of what is considered Vallu
and invalid exercise of governmental
power. Federal and possibly State, IN
labor relations will be found IN the
forthcoming decision or decisions OF
the Supreme Court. There are sew
eral cases pending involving many
different aspects and it would not be
surprising to find the court hololng
the Wagner act valid in some IN
stances and invalid as applied by
the Labor Board in others.
Each case, of course, stands on It's
own merits Actually. too, each law
suit seeks to determine whether the
rights of the citizen have or have
not been taken away from him by
An act of Congress. That is all the
Supreme Court really decides-lt
doesn't pass on the validity or wis
dom of acts Of Congress as such.
May Equal N. r. A. Importance.
But from the language of the de-
eisions which probably will discuss
the broad rights of Congress to legls-
late on the question of employer and
en1ploye relationships. many interest,"
ing revelations Of legal Interpretation
will be disclosed. To those people in
America who still have respect for
judicial process and who accept the
idea that constitutional precedents
when presented in carefully reasoned
judicial opinions form the bulWark Of
the American system Of government,
the opinions to be rendered on the
Wagner act will assume an impor-
tance equal to, if not exceeding, the
Supreme Courts findings in the N. r.
A. case.
More prestige will naturally attach
TO the Supreme Court opinions II
they happen to be unanimously rem
dered because it is inevitable that
minority or dissenting opinions should
be seized upon by those who have
lost the decision as being, indeed, the
way the majority should have de-
cided.
II the various opinions in the differ
snt cases, each presenting different
circumstances and facts, should COL
lectively indicate how relations be-
tween employers and employees can
be governed by law within certain
definite spheres OF action, it will be
4 victory for the school of thought
which today insists that collective
BARGAINING and other desirable obiec-
tives Of labor can be achieved within
the Constitution and without the
necessity of packing the Supreme
Court, either.
May Stir Amendment Action.
II the opinions should indicate
plainly that Congress does not have
power to legislate machinery OF the
kind prescribed in the Wagner labor
act, impetus will surely be given to
the movement for a constitutional
amendment, bestowing on Congress
the power it does not, in the opinion
OF the court, seem to possess.
Nobody can know in advance what
Tie CupISDlC NoulL Will buS hiehAis
well-informed lawyers who have fol-
lowed the preoedents will hazard the
guess that where the cases plainly
involve interstate commerce, Congress
will be upheld in its intent under
the socalled commerce clause to regu-
late employer and employe relations
in certain limited ways.
Where. however, the cases involve
entirely what is known as intra-State
or within -the-State matters, such as
production as separated from trans
portation or distribution. the court
may hold that such regulation of en-
ploye-employer relationships in the
field OF production is not a matter
for Federal control under the COM
merce clause.
The Supreme Court in following
past decisions and precedents has
little choice and hence rarely "re-
verses" itself though it does often
find new case not on all fours with
mitting of different opinion or in
terpretation of the same law
Heretofore the Supreme Court has
again and again said that ''produc-
ton was q local matter, and that
regulation of production and its Incl
dents was not a matter for Federal
legislation. 1t has also said that labor
engaged in railroad transportation
was interstate and subject to Federal
power.
Inherited These Distinctions.
The court of today was handed these
distinctions between State and Federal
power by its predecessors. The dual
system OF government in which States
have within their domain powers not
given the Federal Government by
the Constitution may be inefficient
or outmoded, but as long as the
dual system is not changed by con-
stitutional amendment, the Supreme
Court has no right to change it.
The court Of today is also much
more progressive as a whole than
courts OF earlier periods in American
history In that the Congress today
Is held in check so that 1t may not
take away rights from the citizen
almost at will. For the first so years
Of American history. the Congress
WAS allowed free rein in the sense that
the Supreme Court held only two
acts OF the National Legislature tt
be invalid The attacks made by
jefferson and others against the
Supreme Court were based on it.
refusal to restrain Congress. 1t was
said that the court allowed Congress
to amend the Constitution without
submitting amendments to the people
in the way prescribed by the Consti'
tuition itself.
Today the criticism is just the
other way The Supreme Court i
enoeavoring 10 protect the citizer
and the people generally against 9
usurpation of rights and liberties be.