Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1940-02-02

cellent administration of the law
But the same sort of argument was
totally ignored by the President just
three years ago this week when he
asSailed the Supreme Court. Up to
that time there had been approx
mately $4,000 statutes passed by
Congress from the beginning of the
Republic and yet less than 60 had
been declared unconstitutional by
the Supreme Court.
The relatively insignificant num-
Der of instances where the court had
overruled Congress was ignored and
the New Deal centered its attention
on three or four laws which 1t re-
garded of such major importance
as to demand that the judges be
relegated to a minority by the device
OF packing the majority with extra
Judges.
Review Power Limited.
If the merits of public questions
or their effect on the citizens were
to be measured by numerical stand
ards in court cases, there would be
other agencies of the Government
equally unmindful of private rights
which have as good if not better
records. The power of review of de-
cisions of executive departments and
agencies is limited, and If the New
Dealers have their way, there will
be virtually no more review by the
courts of the work of the indie.
pendent commissions.
There are many thousands of en-
ployers who did not dare to avail
themselves of recourse to the courts
either because of expense or fear of
reprisals. whereas the few who did
take their cases, under the Wagner
law, to the courts found themselves
In many instances defeated by a
judiciary with pronounced New Deal
tendencies.
Thus, more than half of the Fed
eral judges now on the bench were
appointed under the present admin
istration. Now that a majority of
the Supreme Court justices are New
Deal appointees, it would not be
surprising if the box score of the
labor board went up still further.
Testimony Interpreted.
What is important In any i'm
partial examination of the record
of the labor board in the courts is
how far-reaching are the issues
decided In one case alone the
Labor Board has been held to have
disregarded the rules of evidence
and to have substituted "surmise"
and guess" for proof" How many
other courts took the time and trou-
bic to examine the record infinitely
to see whether the same thing had
happened? The New Dealers insist
the courts must not disturb find
tngs of fact" by the board itself, and
yet trial examiners read into the
records their own Interpretation of
what witnesses testify and otherwise
present to the reviewing tribunal a
distorted picture of the facts.
In recent months the courts
have shown a tendency to override
the Laboar Board more than they
did year or SO ago, but even this
trend is meaningless because 1t is
the issue in each case that's i'm
portant and not the total number of
cases. It doesn't take but one de-
cision to deprive whole citizenry
of a fundamental right. Thus the
board has ruled that freedom of
speech between employer and EN-
ploye is a qualified right" If this
should be upheld by the courts, it
would mean far more to the Labor
Board in its power of coercion over
employer-employ relations than all
the other victories it has won in the
courts put together.
Seen as CRUSADER"
Statistical summaries will not
erase from the public mind the
growing impression that the Labor
Board has lost prestige with the
country because it has behaved as a
crusading institution rather than a
judicial tribunal. The public
speeches by the members Of the
board are filled with class prejudice.
Too often, in sizing up employer
attitudes, the board has ruled that
public statements are contributory
evidence to a state of mind of an
employer toward employees. So also
:.