Detroit evening times. (Detroit, Mich) 1921-1958, 1943-02-06
Justice Murphy Dissents

THE United States Supreme Court recently upheld by
vote Of to 3 the right of the secretary of labor
to exercise the power of subpoena circumstances pre-
vousy held BY lower court TO preclude such exercise
of power.
Ii is not unusual for the Supreme Court to overrule
lower court
Nor is unusual for the supreme Court TO be divided
within itself in doing.
Many disputed matters find not only the several
courts involved odds, but the several justices COM
prsing the highest at odds well
And of course the final determination of the matter
as represented by the majority Of the Supreme Court
constitutes the prevailing judgment.
DUT it is well to note in this connection that the judg
- ment which prevails is not necessarily nfaibe or
permanent
Minority judgment often has not merely the weight
of sound reasoning and basic justice, but also the ee
ments of subsequent acceptance
Therefore minority opinions within the United States
Supreme Court always significant and are accorded
Importance.
That is especially true in the case involving the SUBJ
pena powers of the secretary of labor.
Justice Jackson and his five colleagues the
majority, and gave the opinion which prevails now.
DUT Justice Murphy and Justice Roberts who concurred
- with him. offered the dissent which will ultimately
prevail if their reasoning and Interpretation stand better
the test of time and experience.
Obviously there has been final disposal of the specific
involved whether the disposition just unjust
But since other involving the same issues and
facts will arise in the future and the prevailing Judgment
will apply unless and until reversed it is important to
know if sound principle of law has been enuncated and
real justice done, if start has been made for the
repetition and compromising of and injustice.
The ority opinion held that the secretary of labor
had the power of subpoena in this instance beyond the
right of any court to challenge it, because:
Congress submitted the administration of the act
to the Judgment of the secretary of labor not to the
Judgment of the courts
JUSTICES MURPHY AND ROBERTS dissented from
J this on grounds which merit study in view of the
bearing future law and philosophy of government.
Justice Murphy conceded that administrative agen-
ces such the department of labor should certainly
not be subjected to nwarranted and l-advsed INTRU
SIONS by the judicial branch of the government
But, he wrote:
"f they are freed of all restraint upon INQUIsI-
TORIAL activities and are allowed UNCONTROLLED
discretion in the exercise of the sovereign power of
eminent to INVADE private affairs through the of
subpoena, to the extent required sought in situations
like the before and other inquiries of much broader
scope, under the direction of well meaning but OVER
JEALOUS officials they may at times become INSIRg-
MENTS OF INTOLERABLE OPPRESSION AND
INJUSTICE"
WHEN this dissent is viewed in the tight Of the long
w record of "intolerabe oppression and injustice"
attributable to administrative agencies in recent years. its
weight is impressive.
Many of these agencies have frequently gone far
beyond mere administrative" functions.
Many have claimed and usurped, and certainly
exercised JUDICIAL powers.
And consequence bureaucratic decree has too often
HAD THE EFFECT OF LAW, depriving the people of
their traditional right of appeal to and protection in
established courts OF law.
THAT is the substance of the MurphyRobers dissent
that safeguards must be maintained and erected
If necessary against bureaucratic inquson oppression
and injustice
For several years the Congress itself has attempted
to provide such safeguards through the Waer-Logan
bill, measure requiring Judicial review of all acts by
administrative agencesand has been defeated in that
attempt by the President
The startling fact that the voice which speaks against
bureaucratic nquisition within the Supreme Court itself
has been reduced to the proportions of minority and dis
surely emphasizes the great and pressing need for
legislation of the Walter-Logan pattern.
PRIVATE BUCK =. BY Clyde Lewis
-