The Waterbury Democrat., 1938-05-31
Liberals Interpret Constitution
 Broadly

re-eXAmllA ClOn ana mOQ1IlCa LlOn marked the 1937-38 term of the United States Supreme Court, con- cluded today.
 For the first time in several decades, the nations highest tri- bunal was controlled by its liberal members, believers in broad judi cial interpretation of the Consti- tuition.
 Most outstanding evidence of this change in the courts attitude was seen. in a group of decisions extending governmental powers in three major fields the public utility industry, employer-employe relations, and taxation.
 In a series of rulings the court charted a course for procedure of quasi judicial governmental agen- cies, such as the National Labor Relations Board, which would pre- serve constitutional rights to per- sons and corporations against whom the agencies actions were directed, while at the same time permitting as much administrative frtedom as possible.
 The court, in April, set aside rates proposed by the secretary of agriculture for the Kansas City stockyards because the stockyard operators had not been given op- portunity to answer fully charges and offer rebuttal. But three weeks later, the justices upheld NLRB procedure similar to that rejected in the stockyards case, holding that the NLRB proceedings were valid and, in effect, saying that each case must be judged on its individual merits.
 Set Aside Death Sentence
 At the same time the long line of court rulings giving judicial protection to civil liberties guar anteed under the constitution was bolstered. The court invalidated a ordinance restricting of handbills, set saide a Kentucky Negro's death sentence because members of his race were barred from jury duty and upheld the right of Negroes to picket in an effort to better their economic status.
 Two new justices sat during the 1937-38 term. Opening of the term in October found former Sen. Hugo Lafayette Black, on the bench in place of retired Justice Willis Vandevanter, who had taken advantage of terms of the 1887 Supreme Court retirement act.
 In January, Justice George called reporters into his spacious chambers and re- vealed that he, too, felt that he had reached the age when he no longer could adequately fulfill the duties of an active justice. To re- place Sutherland, President Roose- welt called on his solicitor general, Stanley Forman Reed.
 The two substitutions, together with the growing tendency of Justice Owen J. Roberts to vote with his liberal colleagues, left Justice James C. McReynolds and Pierce Butler the only remaining members of the five justice con- servativc bloc which during Presi- dent Roosevelt's first term held so many New Deal measures to be beyond the scope of constitutional authority.
 Decisions in Utility Field
 In the utility field, the court up- held validity of registration pro- visions of the 1895 public utility holding company act, dismissed twin challenges to constitutional ity of the Public Works Adminis- tration power peogeam, and indi- cated that the reproduction cost" method of avaluation of utility properties no longer is a judicial requirement. in rate-fixing cases.
 In the field of taxation, the court. in series of four decisions, cut down the broad conception of what constitutes an instrumental ity of a state government exempt from federal taxation and vice versa, and approved state taxes on income from so-called tax-exempt bonds of the states subdivisions.
 Nearest approach to actual over ruling of a conservative opinion made during MT. Roosevelt's first term came whtn the tribunal ap- proved onstitutionality of the substitute municipal bankruptcy law enacted by congress last year to replace the original measure outlaWed by a 5-to-4 decision of the tribunal in 1886.
 The justices avoided specifically overruling their 1886 decision, however, by holding that changes in the second measure-compara- lively minor, in the viewpoint of most observers Wese sufficient to bring the act within legal bounds. Justices McReynolds and Butler, however, dissented, arguing that the act should be invalidated on the same grounds as were given in holding the original measure in- valid.
 Overruled 1842 Precedent
 In April, the court took major step when it specifically overruled a doctrine laid down in 1842 whereby Federal courts were not bound by decisions of courts of the state in which the Federal court is sitting when considering com mon law matters not covered by statutes.
 Under the judicial code of 1793, Federal courts were and are bound to abide by statutes of the state in which they are sitting. But in l842 the court held the codes provisions was not intended to force Federal courts to accept state court interpretations of com mon, unwritten law matters and said that in such cases federal courts must exercise their own judgment.
 The recent decisions, delivered by Justice Louis D. Brandeis on behalf of a six-justice majority McReynolds and Butler dissented stated that the jurists had be- come convinced that the 1842 doc- t..l,~ L.