Evening star., 1947-01-01
Congress Could Close
Courts to Portal Suits
Many Precedents Are Cited in
Limiting Jurisdiction
BY r. NJ. BoekeI

Limiting Jurisdiction
BY r. NJ. BoekeI
II Republicans in the new Congress
mean to 60 all the way In outlawing
claims for back portal-to-portal pay,
there Is a very simple way to DO it.
and one against which no constitu-
ttonal question can be raised. A short
amendment to the Fair Labor Standards
Act can close the Federal courts to all
suits Of the type now being tiled by trade
unions. =
+ The power Of Congress to limit the
Jurisdiction Of the lower Federal courts
Is unquestioned. The Supreme Court
held In q leading case in 1922 that juris-
diction, once having been conferred by
Congress in any class of cases, may,
at the will of Congress, be taken away
In whole or in part, and If withdrawn
- all pending cases, though cog
nizable when commenced, must fall"
Congress may similarly limit the Ap-
pellate Jurisdiction OF the Supreme
Court if it considers such action in the
public interest. In famous case in
1868, Elk parte McCardle, the right Of
appeal to the Supreme Court In habeas
corpus cases was withdrawn for the very
purpose of preventing decision Of this
single case.
Case Already Argued.
The McCardle case had already been
argued before the court, but when the
act canceling its Jurisdiction was passed
over President Johnson's veto, che court
bowed to the will of Congress. A unani-
nous statement said at Is quite clear
- : that this court cannot proceed
to pronounce Judgment in this case, for
1t has no longer jurisdiction Of the
appeal"
The device of closing the Federal
courts to cases that may be decided as
Congress wouldn't like is familiar to the
present leaders Of that body, for it was
used twice during the New Deal
In case decided in February, 1885,
the Supreme Court held that an act Of
Congress invalidating gold clauses in
public and private contracts was actu-
ally unconstitutional as applied to
United States Government bonds. But
the owner Of the bonds had shown no
actual damage as result Of the Treas
ury's refusal to pay in gold. Therefore
he was not entitled to recover. A test
case was Immediately brought in the
Court of Claims in which Robert A.
Taft (now Senator Taft undertook to
show actual damage to a bond holder,
as required by the Supreme Courts
decision. y4
In q special message, June ~. 1885,
President Roosevelt asked action by
Congress To close the Court of Claims
to such suits. The legislation as finally
enacted provided that no such suits
should be considered by the court after
January /, 1896.
Flood Of Suits.
A decision by the Circuit Court Of
Appeals at Boston in July, 1885. holding
the processing tax provisions Of the Ag-
ricultural Adjustment Act unconstitu-
tional, brought flood of suits to enjoin
collection OF the tax and for refunds
of taxes previously paid. The House
voted Overwhelmingly to close the courts
entirely to suits for recovery OF process.
sing taxes, S.. ....
The Senate voted to permit such suits
If the professor could show that the
taxes had not been passed on to con-
suners. The Anal compromise gave the
decision to the commissioner Of internal
revenue, thus In effect closing the courts
to processing tax suits. The statute in
this form was upheld by the Supreme
Court in 1897.
Congress acted to block the process
sing-tax and gold-clause suits because
they were against the Government and
threatened very serious losses to the
Treasury. The portal-to-portal suits are.
against private corporations, but they
also threatensvery serious losses to the
Treasury If the unions are successful.
According to Representative Smith.
Democrat, Of Virginia 1.-The United
States Treasury needs congressional ac-
ton more than any one else Should
all the unions collect on their portal-to.
portal suits. 1t would mean that cor
porations would deduct the amounts
from their taxes"