Henderson daily dispatch. (Henderson, N.C.) 1914-1995, 1937-04-06
OTHERS VIEWS
MORE ABOUT THE COURT.

NUM- Adult 1HE COUNI.
To the Editor:
Before breaking down the legisla-
tive enactments of the New Deal ad-
| ministration, as promised, 1 think it
| would be of both interest and profit
| to give your readers a classification
of the membership of the United
States Supreme Court, which is as
follows There are, I think some five
different mental types on the Court,
and the political affiliations are in no
wise a determining factor, which
types are Cd ultra conservatives, (2)
ultra liberals, 90 conservative, "a
liberal and 90 middle-o -the-road
type In the first group we should
place Van Devanter, McReynolds and
Butler (the last two Democrats); in
the second group Brandeis, Stone and
Cardoza in the third Sutherland; the
fourth Roberts; and fifth the Chief
Justice, Mr.. Hughes. With this group
ing there may be some minor objec-
ton, but think it is substantially
correct. If that be true, it will be OBJ
served that the court is pretty well
balanced, which should mean neither
stagnation nor haste, but orderly pro-
greSS.
Now, the order in which / am go
ing to classify the legislation of the
New Deal administration may not
meet with entire approval, but I am
confident that it will he accepted by
those who have made a study of the
subject as being substantially cor
rect, and that is as much as we could
hope to do within reasonable space
! limits In this classification, I shall
arrange the groups according to the
degree of favor they have met with
at the hands of the court which is
i like this ID Foreign affairs, (2) fin
ancial or currency, 90 production
, and az social security. In the first,
that of foreign affairs, we will stop
merely to say that the President has
had his way completely, with only
member of the court objecting In the
second the President. has prevailed,
though with a sharply divided court
In the third, that of production con-
troll, he has lost consistently and I'M
animously on the score of compulsory
control. And in the fourth, that of
social security, the record is in the
making, as it were, as there has been
only one case decided, that of the rail
way pension act, which was adverse
to the administration, but the in
validity may be cured as limited by
the court, by redrafting the act.
Inasmuch as the President has pre-
vailed in the first two groups we can
diCpnicc Thorn hoiToo inv
in this controversy with the court
However, we should not overlook the
fact that it was a great victory for
the New Deal when all it's financial
legislation, including the gold clause,
devaluation of the dollar, etc. was
sustained. Nor was it of little conse-
quence that the President was given
carte blanche Gree HANDY to deal with
our foreign problems.
/ But the cockpit of the New Deal is
in the third group, that of production
control. Here is the sore spot, for the
President has lott all of his cases in
this group. Is he right in fighting the
court because he has lost in this
group? I can only give you the facts.
You must draw your own conclusions:
otherwise, / would be violating my
pledge that I would not argue the mat
ter. But you must accept something
as a standard in arriving at your con-
clusions. The contention is that the
New Deal detectives cannot he at
tanned under the present interpeta-
ton of the constitution by the court.
What the New Deal detectives to be
attained are we do not know, except
the President has been reelected by
a tremendous. majority, which sug-
gests approval of the New Deal pro-
gram, however varying that program
may be interpreted. In short, having
no legislative program before us or
Blueprint to figure from, we are
forced to do the next best thing-aS-
sumo.
Now, assuming that the President
desires to enlarge his control in the
third group of activities production
controD, we are confronted by the
fact: that the entire court was against
him in the MIRA case, liberals as well
as conservatives. This case involved
production control in the Industrial
field Does he expect more liberal
Interpretation of the constitution
than these ultra liberals, Brandels,
Stone and Cardoza, are willing to give
to him This you must answer for
yourself. Would a more liberal inter-
probation meet with substantial ap-
prevail? This you must also answer
for yourself. I have answered the
question to my satisfaction, but l do
not essay to answer for you.
Now, let's turn to the agricultural