Evening star., 1937-01-05

Deen SO nrmly
grooved as to make opposition later
on less effective.
As for the conservatives, they figure
that circumventing the Constitution
is q form of notification that means
loss of respect for the Constitution
itself.
Senator Robinson, ma jority leader.
has come out for constitutional
amendment on wages and hours.
Senator Ashurst, chairman of the
Senate Judiciary Committee, has pro-
posed an amendment giving Con-
gress the broad power to regulate
labor, industry and agriculture.
Bankhead Adds Voice.
Speaker Bankhead, Democrat. of
the House of Representatives, indorses
Senator Robinson's proposal and says
Of the CONSTITUTIONS n-amending idea:
This Is long and torturous proc
ess, but if We are to meet the issue.
and We must meet it, then it should
be done head-on and not by trying
to curb the powers of the court.
There are no doubt many Demo-
Gratis in the House opposed to chang
ing the Constitution to achieve this
goal. so it is quite likely that if the
question does come up it will not be
made a party ISSUE"
Perhaps the most striking state
ment on the subject of amendment
or circumvention of the Constitution
has been made by William Lloyd
Garrison, ardent New Dealer. former
chairman of the National Labor Re-
1ations Board and now dean of the
Law School of the University of Wis
consin and prominently mentioned as
Gov. La Follette's choice as successor
to Glenn Frank as president of that
university. Garrison said in a pre-
pared address before the American
Political Science Association and the
American Association for Labor Leg
islation
II believe that it is bad public policy
and beneath our dignity as a self
governing people to have to seek the
objectives Of these and other meas
ures (referring to recent laws de-
clared unconstitutionaD by round
about methods. tongue-in-check, in
sincere preambles and patchedup, sec
ond-best makeshifts which we hope
will somehow get by the courts
Would Develop Power.
RI believe that we should equip our
selves with power to develop policies
as need arises, and that We are taking
unnecessary chances when we resign
ourselves to Realistically criticising
particular decisions and hoping that a
chastened court may some day reverse
them"
This view is diametrically opposed to
the view Of those in the Roosevelt
administration who think there's moth
ing wrong with present constitutional
powers but only with the viewpoint
of a majority of the Supreme Court.
Their theory Is not to bother with
amendments but to wait till vacancies
in the court can be filled by Judges
whose preconceived attitudes toward
social and economic questions will in
sure their disregarding of precedent
or at least interpreting precedent in
ways that conform to the views of the
present majority of Congress on social
legislation.
It may come to pass, therefore, that
the conservative side of the argument
will be to insist on constitutional
amendments, believing that it is far
better to have such question, for
example. as the regulation Of wages
and hours passed upon by the people
in a special referendum than to let
the present Congress take chance on
ultimate Supreme Court action.
Multiple Problems.
There are some questions which
have been clearly outlawed by the
passed upon, but may run afoul OF the
courts and when 1t comes to writing
IN all-embracing amendment to the
Constitution and getting 1t through
two-thirds of both houses, the question
will be multiplied. Thus, for instance,
a specific act Of Congress deals only
with the subject matter covered. but a
constitutional amendment grants a
permanent power to Congress to deal
with all phases Of given question that
may directly or indirectly arise in the
future.
It might be supposed that the
south, with its cheaply paid labor,
would resist any amendment to the
Federal Constitution giving Congress
the power to fix minimum wages or
maximum hours, but not very much