The Waterbury Democrat., 1937-05-25

1 that the court is re-orienting itself to new times and new conditions. They brief their case by reference to the decision of this session and particularly those rendered yester- day when the general welfare clause of the constitution became suddenly a firm foundation for New Deal law. That clause hitherto has been of questionable scope and uncertain dependability. It is in section 8, paragraph l of the constitution, as follows:
 "The congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, im- posts and eXcises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare O. the United States"
 Major Ground Is Found
 Associate Justice Cardoza found in those five final words the major ground upon which the two federal social security cases were sustained Justice Benjamin Cardozo wrote both of the opinions on federal statutes. Discussing unemployment insurance, he cited the unprecedented heights of unemployment" in the depression.
 "The fact developed quickly" he continued, that the states were unable to give the requisite relief. The problem had become national in area and dimensions. There was need of help from the nation Ii the I 1- a4% %N ct
 Tt is too late today for argu- ment to be heard with tolerance that in a crisis so extreme the use of moneys of the nation to relieve the unemployed and their depend- ents is use for any purpose mar rower than the promotion of the general welfare"
 Other Explanations
 He and the majority held, too, that the inducements offered by the federal government to enactment of state unemployment insurance legislation was neither constralnt nor coercion, on which grounds :t could have been held unconstitu- tional.
 In the old age pensions case, Car dozo insisted again that congress may raise and spend money TOT "the general welfare.
 Notable in the Cardozo opinions and that of Justice Harlan F. Stone validating Alabama unem- ployment compensation was an un- i precedented wealth of economic cl- tations, statistics and references. The pro-New Deal majority cited depression conditions with force equal to their citations of constitu- tional law in arguing the validity of the legislation they upheld.
 McReynolds DiSsented
 Associate Justice James c. Mc- Reynolds, dissenting from the fed eral unemployment insurance opm- ion, challenged the act on the grounds that it implied the loss of distinct and individual existence of the states and citedprecedent for an interpretation of the constitution which would look "to an indestructi- ble union, composed of indestructl- ble states"
 McReynolds made individual gen. eral dissent from the majority opin- ion. Associate Justices George Sutherland and Van Devanter joined in a dissent in which they said they agreed with most of the majority opinion. This dissent, written by Sutherland, was typical of those in which member of the bench may have been attempting 10 guide the administration toward what might be deemed more con- stitutional achievement of its ob- jectives.
 State Funds Challegened
 Sutherland and Van Devanter challenged the disposition of state funds collected for unemployment insurance. They must be deposited in the federal treasury. The two justices did not challenge federal and state powers to cooperate.
 Associate Justice Pierce Butler, another of the conservative group, agreed with both the McReynolds and Sutherland dissents. He spe- officially challenged the acts service of imposing a federal tax against which an employer could obtain credit in recognition of his pay ment of a state tax for the same purpose.
 obviously" wrote Butler, "the act creates the peril of a federal tax moi to raise revenue but to persuade"