Evening star., 1942-12-04

and Roberts
concurre in NJ :
that decision in David Lawrence.
the NRA case in 1885. The great
liberals-Justices Cardoza and
BrAndeis-also concurred.
But today it is being said openly
that there Is no use questioning
the validity of the recently passed
anti-inf1ation law because the courts
will not question any act of the
Executive.
The assumption that the courts
will be guided by the Hitler rule
judgments according to prevailing
sentiment reflection on the
Judiciary, but such impressions do
exist because the present Executive
has appointed all but two of the
present members Of the Supreme
Court and more than half of all
the Circuit Court Of Appeals and
District judges-possibly a number
closer to two-thirds than a half.
Courageous Judiciary.
Experience has proved, however,
that judges do not always follow the
wishes of the party to which they
have belonged or the administra-
ton which gave them the appoint
ment. The idea that the courts will
not deal justly with a usurpation of
power by the executive agencies is
not borne out by recent trends
among the lower court justices,
some of whom have courageously
reversed the fantastic petitions of
some Of the New Deal agencies and
rehuked them as well.
The snti-inf1ation law contains
the seeds Of a major issue. 1t is
an issue bigger than imitation itself,
because 1t goes to the roots Of con-
stitutional government. Shall an
executive agency-in this case, the
Once Of Economic Sterilization,
created by executive order-be per-
nitted to nullify bona fide contracts
entered into by employers and en-
ployes governing their compensa-
ton for the year 1942 and there
after.
Shall the vaguely expressed state
ment IN the anti-inf1ation law to
the effect that the President shall
have the power to correct Unequal
ities" be interpreted to apply to
salaries or wages contracted for
even before the present began and
before the conditions referred to as
imitation" were present? Shall the
mere decree Of the Chief Executive
that he thinks reduction Of mans
salary below pre-war levels is
needed to correct an inequality" be
sufficient justification for the taking
Of a mans earnings from him?
Shall there be said to be fair
standard when persons Of similar
income go untouched within the
same bracket?
II the answer is in the Affirmative,
then the famous decision of the Su-
preme Court requiring that Con-
gress prescribe the standards within
which executive agencies must oper-
ate will have been nullified and the
power of the Executive over the
legislative body becomes absolute.
The issue, too, of whether the
executive agencies may issue ex post
facto rulings governing contracts in
existence in 194l and prior years
by merely declaring them invalid is
also a pertinent one for considera-
ton. Certainly the State courts will
be interested to know that they no
longer may pass on the validity of
contracts for wages and compensa-
ton and that decree from the
White House invalidates all such
contracts.
Provides Court Action.
1t Is interesting to observe that
the high handed manner in which
the first executive order undertook
to deprive the citizen of his right
Of court review has been modified
to a large extent The language of
the latest regulations issued this
week says concerning the new wage
and salary DEGREES:
ANY such determination of the
commissioner is final and not sub
ject to review by the Tax Court of
the United States or by any court
in any civil proceedings. Nothing
herein is intended, however, to
deny the right OF an employer or
employe to contest in the Tax
Court Of the United States or in
any court of competent jurisdiction
the validity of ID any provision OF
these regulations on the ground
such provision is not authorized by
law, or (2} any action taken or de-