Evening star., 1937-05-25


has done ignores
the true meaning of the decision writ
ten by Justice Roberts in the famous
A. A. A. case, which now Is quoted
as chief reliance by Justice Cardozo
tn upholding, for example, the Fed
eral old-age benefits law.
On January 7, 1886, this correspond
ent wrote a dispatch which said IN
part:
The New Deal won and lost In the
A. A. A. case. True, Tho admlnlStra-
tion was reversed by a A.o-3 opinion
IN its attempt to use the taxing power
as means OF regulating agriculture,
but the Supreme Court unanimously
upheld the Alexander Hamilton con-
ception of the use OF the spending
power Of Congress for the general
welfare
This judgment, rendered for the
first time in American history, may
well be considered to transcend In i'm
portance the ephemeral issues pre-
sented in the matter of processing
tax or a particular scheme for regu-
lating agricultural production.
Right to Levy and Spend.
What the opinion means is that
Congress is affirmed in its right to levy
and collect taxes and to spend the
4 money for whatever purposes it
pleases, so long as. in the spending
Of the money, Congress doesn't at
tempt any regulatory schemes or en-
act any laws that come into direct
conflict with the powers Of the Fed
eral Government or the several States
as specified or enumerated in the Fed
eral Constitution.
Congress tomorrow could pay out
all the money it wished to relieve un-
employment in cities or to help farm
ers. but 1t cannot tie this expendi-
ture up in any way with control Of
acreage. '"'
Broadly speaking, the opinion OF
Justice Roberts. speaking for the ma
jority of the court, gives the New Deal
. concession that its supporters had
hoped for but hardly expected. Only
the ballot of the people cali now re-
strain unwiSe expenditure, for the
Supreme Court says the words to pro-
vide for the general welfare have q
SPECIFIC meaning just like any other
enumerated power"
When the foregoing Interpretation.
written more than year before the
President announced his message ask
ing Congress to enlarge the Supreme
Court because Of their decisions, Is
compared with Justice Cardozo's latest
decision, 1t IS to be seen that the New
Deal in its outburst Of disappointment
had its mind focused on a single law
the A. A. A-and not on the broad
principle and that system of boun-
ties to the farmers if included in some
scheme that omits the coercion fea-
.'tures which invalidated the A. A. A.
might be held constitutional.
Decision Cited.
Justice Cardozo's exact words yes
terday on the general welfare clause
were these:
Congress may spend money in aid
OF the general welfare There have
been great statesmen in our history
who have stood for other views. We
will not resurrect the contest. 1t Is
now settled by decision, United States
rs. Butler, supra (the A. A. A. case).
The conception Of the spending
power advocated by Hamilton and
strongly reinforced by Story has pre-
vailed over that Of Madison, which
has not been lacking in adherents.
yet difficulties are left when the
power is conceded. The line must still
be drawn between one welfare and
another, between particular and gen.
eral. Where this shall be placed cam
not be known through a formula in
advance of the event. There is mid
die ground, or certainly a penumbra
in which discretion is large. The dis
cretion, however, is not confided to the
courts.
Dtssenters See Coercion.
The dissenting opinions this week,
1t will be noted, did not question the
view Of the general welfare clause
which had previously been handed
down, but did argue that the scheme
OF social security was as coercive in
Its effect upon the States as by an
alogy the A. A. A, scheme was held to
be coercive upon the individual
farmers.
But the supreme law Of the land to-
day Is the decision of Justice Cardozo.
and 1t Is significant that he shows
where the line may be drawn in the
future If Congress proceeds in an un-
limited sense to levy taxes and then
spend the money in pursuance Of some
regulatory scheme or some object
which cannot be construed to be "the
general welfare"
II 1t be said that the social security
decisions rendered by the Supreme
Court have tended to reduce the
chances Of passage of President Roose-
velt's bill to enlarge the Supreme
Court. 1t Is not because the court has
bowed to the will OF the New Deal
under pressure. as some mistakenly
Allege, but because the decisions Of
the court, begun long before the Feb
ruary message was proclaimed, were
clearly developing in progressive and
liberal fashion in lawsuit after law
suit some points that never had been
raised before because comparable cir
cumstances had never arisen. Thus
the Madison Hamilton controversy,
settled in January, 1896, after 100
years Of debate, furnished the basis
for the decisions this week and Gov
ernment counsel frankly based their
briefs apd their arguments ON those
very points and won.
Not since January 6. 1896, has there
been any logical reason why the pres
ent administration should really be at
odds with the Supreme Court For on
that day it affirmed the legality Of the
principal instrument Of benevolence
or political weapon-depending on the
. point Of view-which g Federal ad-
ministration with its spending pro-
gram Of billions has been applying In
~ war on depression"
0op111Sht. 1o3zA