Evening star., 1937-04-13

buildings, machinery and equipment.
The raw materials which are brought
to the liant are delayed for long
periods and, after being subjected to
manufacturing processes, "are changed
substantially as to character, utility
and value" The finished products
which emerge ARE to q large extent
manufactured without reference to
pre-existlng orders and contracts and
are entirely different from the raw
materials which enter at the other
end" Hence respondent argues that
III importation and expectation in
interstate commerce do not singly
transfer purely local activities into
the field Of congressional regulation.
1t should follow that their combina-
ton would not alter the local situa-
tion.''
We do find it necessary to determine
whether these features of defendants
business dispose of the asserted analogy
to the stream of commerce" cases.
The instances in which that metaphor
AAeAso 6NSi ooSd oi z OuS ptl ain
not exclusive, illustrations of the pro-
tective power which the Government
inyokes in support Of the present act
The congressional authority to pro-
tect interstate commerce from burdens
and distractions is not limited to
transactions which can be deemed to
be an essential part Of flow" of in
terstate or foreign commerce. Burdens
and distractions may be due to in
furious action springing from other
sources. The fundamental principle
is that the power to regulate commerce
is the power to enact "all appropriate
for Its protection and
advancement" -
Although activities may be intra-
state in character when separately
considered, If they have such close
and substantial relation to interstate
commerce that their control is essen
tial or appropriate to protect that
commerce from burdens and obstruc-
tions, Congress cannot be denied the
power to exercise that control. Schech-
ter Corp. VS.. United States, supra.
Undoubtedly the scope of this power
must be considered in the light of our
dual system of government and may
not be extended so as to embrace
effects upon interstate commerce SO
indirect and remote that to embrace
them, in view Of our complex society,
would effectually obliterate the dis
tinction between what is national and
what is local and create a completely
centralized government. Id. The queS-
ton Is necessarily one Of degree. As
the court said in Chicago Board of
Trade VS.. Olsen, supra, p. 81, repeat
ing what had been said in Stafford VS..
Wallace, supra: Whatever amounts
to more or less constant practice, and
threatens to obstruct or unduly to
burden the freedom of interstate COM
merce is within the regulatory power
OF Congress under the commerce clause
and it Is primarily for Congress to
consider and decide the fact OF the
danger and meet It,"
Commerce Commission
Is Given Powers.
That intrastate activities. by rea-
son of close and intimate relation to
interstate commerce, may fall within
Federal control Is demonstrated in the
case OF carriers who are engaged in
both interstate and intrastate trans
portation. There Federal control has
been found essential to secure the
freedom Of interstate traffic from in
reference or unjust discrimination
and to promote the efficiency of the
interstate service. The Shreveport
case, 234 U. S. 342, 351, 352; Wiscon-
sin Railroad Commission VS.. Chicago.
B. & G. r. Co., 257 U. S. 563, 588. It
Is manifest that intrastate rates deal
primarily with a local activity. But
in rate-making they bear such close
relation to interstate rates that effec-
tive control Of the one must embrace
some control over the other. Id Under
the transportation act, 1920, Congress
went 80 far as to authorize the Inter-
state Commerce Commission to estab-
lish . Statewide level Of intrastate
rates in order to prevent an unjust
against interstate COM
merce. Wisconsin Railroad Commits
sion vs.. Chicago, B. & Q. r. R. Co.,
supro; Florida VS.. United State, 282
U. S. 210, 211. Other illustrations are
found in the broad requirements Of
the safety appliance act and the hours
Of service act. Southern Railway Co.
VS.. United States, 222 U. S. 20; Balti-
more &, Ohio r. r. Co. VS.. Interstate
Commerce Commission, 221 U. S. 612.
1t is said that this exercise of Federal
power has relation to the maintenance
Of adequate instrumentalities Of inter-
state commerce. But the agency Is
not superior to the commerce which
uses it. The protective power extends
to the former because 1t exists as to
the latter.
The close and intimate effect which
brings the subject within the reach
of Federal power may be due to
activities in relation to productive in
dustry, although the industry when
viewed is local. This has
been abundantly illustrated in the
application of the Federal antitrust
act. In the Standard Oil and Ameri-
can Tobacco cases, 22l U. S. /, LOG,
that statute was applied to comnina-
tions OF employers engaged in pro-
ductive industry.
1t Is thus apparent that the fact
that the employees here concerned
were engaged in production is not de-
terminative. The question remains as
to the effect upon interstate commerce
of the labor practice involved. In the
Schechter case, supra, we found that
the effect there was 50 remote as to
be beyond the Federal power. To fnd
"immediacy or directness" there was
10 ind II Almost s~eTywhsre," q