Evening star., 1938-06-05

TINE revival of the fight against the
Supreme Court by New Deal ad-
herents, which fared up during the
closing days of the term that ended
last week, was almost as bitter as last
years attack on the judiciary, but was con-
fined to smaller field of action.
Coming at the end OF an eight-month
court almost invariably had favored the
Roosevelt administration, the intensity Of
the new controversy was something Of a
shock to those who thought the tribunals
newly-found hberality had safely check
mated the campaign to inject new blood"
into the judiciary.
There has been no definite indication
that President Roosevelt has given his ap-
proval to the new attack on the court.
Most observers were inclined to the belief,
however, that the leaders of the attack,
notably Secretary of Agriculture Wallace
would not have acted without first consult
ing the President.
Threatens Further Criticism.
It remains to be seen whether the critics
have any definite objective in view,- or
whether their adverse comments amounted
to nothing more than a furry Of words
that will subside during the summer
months. Few persons believe the adminis-
tration would seek again to enlarge the
court through legislative action, the con-
sensus being that the criticisms primarily
were calculated to hold the justices in line
with the Presidents policies and discredit
If possible any decision that might be in
terpreted as slap at the New Deal.
The controversy had its inception when
Chief Justice Hughes delivered the opinion
of the court in the Kansas City stockyards
case late in April
That ruling set aside schedule of rates
that had been fixed for commission men
on the ground that the Department of
Agriculture had not given them fair
hearing. The issues involved were rather
technical, but the substance of the ruling
was that the procedure followed by the de-
partment in that case did not enable the
stockyard men to ascertain with sufficient
certainty the nature Of the Governments
complaint
Causes FURRY in Agencies.
The decision created measure of con-
sternation in official circles, and several
quasi-judicial agencies, principally the Ma
tional Labor Relations Board, moved to
revise their procedure to conform to the
specifications laid down by the court For
a time it appeared that the board might
have erred in several Of its important cases
but the court placed that agency on much
safer ground when it approved the pro-
cedure it followed in the case against the
Mackay Radio and Telegraph Co.
Secretary Wallace, in the meanwhile,
had not been idle
After newspapers had interpreted the
Kansas City decision as a rebuke to him, he
wrote letter to the New York Times at
tacking the court and Chief Justice Hughes
personally in language that had no prece-
dent IN recent years.
Contendtng that the ruling was incon-
sistent with an earlier decision, Mr.. Wallace
accused the court Of deliberately using
cloudy phraseology," which made it appear
that he rather than his predecessor had
been responsible for the procedural error.
He also accused the justice of ignoring the
interests Of the farmers affected by the
commission rates in order to flash a
warning" to quasi-judicial agencies that
they must give fair hearings
Seriously Questions Good Faith.
He concluded with the extraordinary
statement that I'VE may well ask whether
the court was interested In this case pri-s
marty from the standpoint of doing justice
as between farmers and commission men
in the Kansas City territory or in using .
convenient peg on which to- hang state
ment encouraging lower courts to attack
and delay the actions Of quasi judicial
agencies"
That thinly veiled accusation Of bad
faith. apparently made for political effect,
marked = temporary truce, but the HOSTILE
ties were renewed after the court had an-
nounced it's Mackay decision.
There were certain points Of similarity
between the procedure followed by the
Labor Board in that case and the pro-
ceedings Of the Department Of Agriculture
in the rate case. but the court decided that
the defendants in the labor case were SUM-
GENTLY informed Of the nature Of the
charge they were facing, and upheld the
board
The ruling was construed by Mr.. Wal
lace a. further evidence Of inconsistency,
however, and he asserted that it was "the
signal for new fisht ON the court"
n the meantime Solicitor General Jack
son AisA lpotion asking ths court 70 ~