The Waterbury Democrat., 1941-10-30

NdAkAOl Al4tAs N9AAO
 EdsOn believed the fu- ture in the Golden Gate State was somewhat roSier.
 Edwards made the trip in his old car and picked up the Duncans. l They had $20 when they started back to California. They had $t when they hit the state line. When they reached their destination, near Marysville, nobody had any cash.
 Mrs. Duncan applied to Farm Security Administration for tram sient assistance during her confine- ment. It was given, and at fed- eral expense, the Duncan heir was born into this strange new world after New Years Day.
 At this point the California state law caught up with the Duncans I and the Edwardses. None of them having been residents of California for three years, they were not elig- ible for state relief. Edwards was accused of bringing into California migrant worker in violation of state laws passed originally to curb the states terrific and still mount ing relief burden. Convicted, Ed wards was sentenced to six months in the state prison.
 But here the federal government, through Farm Security Adminls- tration, became interested in the case, for so far no state relief. funds had been involved. The case vas carried to the State Supreme Court, which upheld the law and ruled that Edwards must serve his sem tence.
 LITTLE PEOPLE
 BECOME IMPORTANT
 The purpose of this story is not to incite your pity for the Duncans and the Edwardses or to use them as text for any sermon or post script to Grapes of Wrath" All that is unimportant. What is i'm portant is that the Duncans and the Edwardses have become legal guinea pigs and their troubles have become legal grist for the legal sausage mills of the Supreme Court of the United States. And the long arm of the Law-with a capital l. has put its fingers on the hither- to inSconSpicuorlS and unknown Duncans and EdwardseS, just as It did to a fellow named Dred Scott back in pre-war- ar-between-the-stateS days, to make them famous. Law yerS and law schools will argue about migrant Duncan and appel lant Edwards for years to come not because they were poor or be- cause of their troubles, but be- cause they make legal precedent.
 How come? It's all about the case of Fred F. Edwards, appellant, vs. the People of the State of Cali fornia which was argued before the Supreme Court of the United States l in its beautiful big marble palace in Washington, D. C., the other day. It is a perfect test case 10 determine whether a state has the right to define indigency and by indirect prohibition prevent the en- try into any state of a citizen of the United States-Duncan-w whose only mark of distinction pertinent to the case before the court is that he is poor. Curiously enough, from the non-legal point of view, the lawyers who argued this case be- fore the court are in complete lc- cord that the ultimate issue is the constitutional right of the migrant 1 Duncan, and not those of the de- fendant Edwards himself.
 MEANS MUCH TO MANY
 When the worthy Justices hand down their decision in this case, it will affect a lot more people than the migrant Duncan or the appel lant Edwards.
 Twenty-eight states now have on their statute books laws bearing on restriction of the free flow of hu- man migration within the United States. If the Supreme Court de- clares the California law uncon- stitutional-a violation of the claus es guaranteeing that the citizens of each state shall have all the privileges and iInmunities of citi- zens in the several states and the United StateS-then the 28 states will have to alter their legal re- strictions on migrants.
 If the Supreme Court upholds the State of California = whose counsel contends that the states have an inherent right, not dele- gated by the Constitution, to de- fend themselves against an influx of paupers-then the way is opened for a flood of new regulatory re- Strictions on labor migration.
 The whole problem of defense la- bor supply, and labor migration af- ter the defense effort is over, is :n- volved. The problem, in fact, in- wolves not just the rightings of any wrongs done the Duncans and the Edwardses. Whatever has happened to them since Christmas two years ago, nobody in Washington seems to know. Or care. It's the legal principle and precedent that counts now.