The Waterbury Democrat., 1937-03-10

~e@N~@ WAAS SA~ AA MA~ 4AtNSA seat.
 It h the American people themselves who want the furrow plowed.
 It is the American people them- selves who expect the third horse to pull in unison with the other two.
 I hope that you have re-read the Consultation of the United States. Like the Bible, 1t ought to be read again and again.
 Constitution Understandable
 It is an easy document to un- derstand when you remember that 1t was called into being because the Articles of Confederation un- der which the original 13 states tried to operate after the Revo- lution showed the need of a Ma tional Government with power enough to handle national prob- lems. In its Preamble, the Con- stitution states that it was intend- ed to form a more perfect Union and promote the general welfare; and the powers given to the Con- gress to carry out those purposes can be best described by saying that they were all the powers needed to meet each and every problem which then had a na- tional character and which could not be met by merely local action.
 But the framers went further. having in mind that in succeed ing generations many other prob- lems then undreamed of would become national problems, they gave to the Congress the ample broad powers ito levy taxes :. and provide for the common de- fense and general welfare of the United States"
 That, my friends, is what I honestly believe to have been the clear and underlying purpose of the patriots who wrote 8 Federal Constitution to create 8 National government with national power, intended as they said, Ito form more perfect union for our- selves and our posterity."
 No Conflict
 For nearly 20 years there was no conflict between the Congress and the Court. Then, in 1903, Congress passed a statute which the Court said violated an ex- press provision of the Constitu- ton. The Court claimed the power to declare it unconstitu- tional and did so declare 1t. But little later the Court itself ad- mitted that it was an extraordin- ary power to exercise and through MT. Justice Washington laid down this limitation upon 1t: Tt Is but Q decent respect due to the wis., dom, the integrity and the pa- triotisn of the legislative body, by which any law is passed, to pre- sume in favor of its validity until its violation of the Constitution is proved beyond all reasonable doubt"
 But since the rise of the mod ern movement for social and economic progress through legis- lation, the Court has more and more often and more and more boldly asserted a power to veto laws passed by the Congress and State Legislatures in complete disregard of this original limita- tion.
 Sound Rule Discarded
 Tn the last four years the sound rule of giving statutes the bene- fit of all reasonable doubt has been cast aside. The Court has been acting not as judicial body, but as 8 policy-making body.
 When the Congress has sought to stabilize national agriculture, to improve the conditions of labor, to safeguard business against un- fair competition, to protect our national resources, and in many other ways, to serve our clearly national needs, the majority of the Court has been assuming the power to pass on the wisdom of these Acts of the Congress-and to approve or disapprove the pub- lie policy written into these laws.
 That is not only my accusa- ton. It is the accusation of most distinguished justices of the present Supreme Court. have not the time to quote to you all the language used by dissenting justices in many of these cases. But in the case holding the Rail- road Retirement Act unconstitu- tional, for instance, Chief Justice Hughes said in 8 dissenting opinion that the majority opinion was "a departure from sound prin- ciples," and placed "an unwar- ranted limitation upon the com- merce clause" And three other justices agreed with him.
 Tortured Construction"
 In the case holding the A. A. A. unconstitutional, Justice Stone said of the majority opinion that it was tortured construction of the Constitution" And two other justices agreed with him.
 Tn the case holding the New York Minimum Wage Law uncon- stitutional, Justice Stone said that the majority were actually reading into the Constitution their own personal economic predilections,"