OCR Text |
Show J National Topics Interpreted -m fcf$ I by William Brtickart pElM! National Press Building- Vashlneton, D. C. CEteTrnVlF j AYashlngton. It Is seldom that j any genuine widespread interest is evidence in de- Supreme Court cisions by the I Hat Last Word Supreme Court j of the United j States. Although that distinguished body of nine men holds in its hands power co-equal to that of the President Presi-dent and of congress, some way it lias never been a part of the government gov-ernment to which attention has been directed nationally. Of course, there are more people who are not lawyers than who are familiar with laws and that may be the answer to t lie fact that the Supreme court can be said to be little known. But it seems now that the court is to be a center of attraction just as interesting as either the executive execu-tive or legislative branches. The reason Is that the highest legal tribunal in the land has before it for decision some of the most momentous mo-mentous legal controversies to engage en-gage the country since the days of the Civil war. Through many months, questions concerning the New Deal, their legality and constitutionality, consti-tutionality, have been wending their slow, tortuous way through the lower low-er courts, through the courts of appeals ap-peals to the court of last resort under un-der the structure which we know as our government. One of these, as I reported to you previously, has already been decided. decid-ed. In that instance, the Supreme court by a vote of eight of the nine judges determined that President Roosevelt had gone beyond the powers pow-ers accorded him under the Constitution Consti-tution in prohibiting export of oil from the state where it was recovered. recov-ered. Within a very short time now the most important case of all affecting the New Deal will be decided. I refer to the so-called gold cases. Five questions are before the court and if it decides adversely to the government's claim on any of them, the monetary policy upon which the New Deal has been operating becomes be-comes virtually null and void. The court heard lengthy arguments by high powered lawyers on the part of the government and on the part of private citizens who claim that their rights have been abridged by the Roosevelt money policies and they naturally are seeking redress. No one dares to make a prediction predic-tion concerning pending action by the Supreme court. It can be only a guess at any time In advance of a rule by that group of men because with one or two exceptions since the nation was founded, its decisions deci-sions have never leaked out ahead of the time they are formally handed hand-ed down from the bench. Lawyers throughout the land are watching and waiting for the court's 1 findings. But the most fidgety of all lawyers are those in the government govern-ment who recognize that an adverse decision by the court will flatten out the New Deal and force a wholesale revision of policies. I am told that this group of lawyers is none too certain of its ground. True, they made what is recognized as a strong argument in support of the government's position but the difficulty seems to be from their standpoint that the Constitution was written before the brain trust came into action and the Constitution itself it-self provides the only ways by which It may be changed. Among the questions before the Supreme court in the gold cases, that one brought Important forward by a suit Question to compel the government gov-ernment to pay gold In redeeming one of its own bonds is by far the most important. Indeed, that case can be said to have an overwhelming importance. If the court rules that the government govern-ment cannot void its contract for a bond is generally recognized as a contract to pay back the borrowed money under the term named in that bond, then the seizure of gold by the government in 1933 likewise is voided. In other words, every person holding a government bond containing a promise to pay in gold is entitled to have that gold from the treasury. It takes no stretch of the imagination to see what effect that will have on the whole money program. Likewise, if the court determines that an individual who has promised prom-ised to pay in gold must observe the terms of that agreement, the administration is again in a hole. Since contracts, agreements or bonds containing the promise to pay in gold are in general use and have been written since time Immemorial the amount of such payments is virtually incalculable. I have heard many estimates of the total amount of money involved by the so-called gold clause but I hesitate to use any of them because it Is patent on the face of things that an accurate figure is impossible. One can get down to brass tacks on the effect of affirmation of the gold clause, however, by the simple sim-ple application of the ratio of gold to the present dollar. When those gold contracts were written a dollar dol-lar In currency was redeemable for a dollar in gold. At that time gold was valued at around $21 an ounce. The Roosevelt administration arbitrarily ar-bitrarily Increased that value to a few cents over $35 an ounce. Without With-out going into all of the details it means that to gain the same amount of gold now which a dollar would have brought prior to the Roosevelt administration action one will have to pay $1.09. To state it another way, If the gold contracts Involve 51,000,000,000, those who are obligated obli-gated to pay in gold will have to pay $1,000,000,000, at the present rate. Obviously, debtors under that circumstance will find themselves them-selves between the upper and nether millstones, well squashed, If the court rules adversely to the government's gov-ernment's policy. Attorney General Cummings Mn his plea to the Supreme court made the argument that an adverse decision deci-sion would mean chaos to the country. coun-try. I believe there can be no doubt about that. But the point is deeper. Roosevelt administration administra-tion policies were hammered through congress and received the legislative legisla-tive body's rubber stamp by direction di-rection of the President. What is going to be done about it? I don't know. Further I don't believe the ad-What's ad-What's to ministration Be Done? knows what u 19 going to do In event the court rules against the government in these cases. There has been numerous conferences, frequent speculations by subordinate subor-dinate officials and many guesses by individuals. The President himself him-self said in a press conference the other day that he would not discuss dis-cuss the gold question while the matter was pending before the Supreme Su-preme court. It was a simple way to avoid expressing his hopes or his fears. It Is to be noted, however, that during the ten days ln which the court heard arguments In the gold cases, a considerable number of senators sen-ators and representatives sat glued In their seats in the gloomy old Supreme court chamber under the dome of the Capitol. They were obviously wondering. None of them thus far has offered publicly a suggestion sug-gestion as to what he will do ln event the monetary policies are overturned. After all, if the Roosevelt Roose-velt program is upset, congress simply will have to enact some new laws, and that was the chief reason why so many of the congressional leaders were seen In attendance at court. The court will rush its decision. Of that there can be no doubt. Always Al-ways It has put cases of paramount importance to the nation ahead of those that affect private litigants. Everyone believes, therefore, that in this Instance the Supreme court has laid aside most of its other work in order to devote its attention atten-tion to a thorough-going examination examina-tion of the present problem. Lawyers tell me that If the court rejects the Roosevelt policies as untenable un-tenable under the Constitution, congress con-gress will have to put through some new laws on the subject at break-neck speed ln order to avoid a hiatus that would flood the courts with an unprecedented number of suits. ' The agricultural adjustment administration ad-ministration has fixed the cotton crop for the com- To Restrict ing season at 10,-Cotton 10,-Cotton Output 500,000 bales the same as last year. At the same time, we have begun to hear talk ln Washington of a plan to seek a world agreement restricting the output of cotton after aft-er the manner of the attempt to restrict re-strict the world production of wheat, a move that went exactly nowhere. Determination of the same production pro-duction for cotton in 1935 that was used as the base In 1934 is accepted accept-ed as in line with the administration's administra-tion's plans for raising prices artificially arti-ficially through curtailment of production. pro-duction. It has been expected that the 1935 crop might be as high as 12,000,000 bales . But since the administration ad-ministration has decided to carry on further its experiment into artificial artifi-cial price raising fields by production produc-tion limitation, some of the background back-ground of that policy and the American relationship to the world condition warrant examination, The American production until a few years ago was about 00 per cent of the world's cotton output. Now it is down to about 43 per cent of the total. Last year, the world consumption of cotton, according to the Department of Commerce figures, fig-ures, declined by about 700,000 bales, whereas the world consumption, consump-tion, including that used in the United States, increased by something some-thing over 1,300,000 bales. It is to be noted further that although American exports ln general increased in-creased last year, the quality of cotton cot-ton shipped last year fell off by approximately ap-proximately 28 per cent . Western Newspaper Union. |