Suchergebnisse

The 1938 term of the Supreme Court brought substantial changes in its personnel. Mr. Justice Cardozo died on January 9, 1938. He was succeeded by Mr. Justice Frankfurter, who took office on January 30, 1939. On February 13, 1939, Mr. Justice Brandeis retired, and on April 17 Mr. Justice Douglas was appointed to fill his place. By the end of the term, therefore, four justices appointed by President Roosevelt had taken office. It is too early to appraise the results of these appointments upon the decisions and doctrines of the Court. One statement may be made, however, which throws some light upon the recent trend of judicial decisions. In preparing the present survey of the Court's decisions, some sixty cases were examined, all but one or two of them turning upon constitutional issues. In these sixty-odd cases, Mr. Justice McReynolds and Mr. Justice Butler, the two remaining members of the conservative "old guard," dissented together twenty-five times. In several instances they were joined in dissent by Mr. Justice Roberts, and once or twice by the Chief Justice. In the main, however, they stood alone against a compact majority of six or seven justices. With the death of Mr. Justice Butler in the fall of 1939, Mr. Justice McReynolds stands like the boy on the burning deck amidst what obviously appears to him to be the imminent destruction of the old constitutional system.

During the 1937 term, the Supreme Court underwent the first changes in its personnel since Mr. Justice Cardozo succeeded Mr. Justice Holmes in March, 1932. On June 1, 1937, Mr. Justice Van Devanter retired and was succeeded at the opening of the new term in October by Mr. Justice Black. On January 18, 1938, Mr. Justice Sutherland retired and was succeeded on January 31 by Mr. Justice Reed. During a substantial part of the term, Mr. Justice Cardozo was absent on account of illness, and his death occurred July 9, 1938. Mr. Justice Black, whose appointment had attracted much public comment, threw himself into the work of the Court with unusual vigor. During the term, he wrote the opinion of the Court in fifteen cases. He dissented in fourteen cases, in nine of which he wrote dissenting opinions. He concurred without substantial opinion in eleven cases, and wrote a concurring opinion in one other case. Mr. Justice Reed participated less actively, first because of the lateness of his appointment, and second because his prior service as Solicitor-General of the United States disqualified him from sitting in a considerable number of cases. These changes in the membership of the Court have altered the almost even division on the bench between the so-called conservatives and the so-called liberals. Without attempting to speculate as to the course of future decisions, it is significant that the irreconcilably conservative block of justices, consisting of Justices Van Devanter, Sutherland, McReynolds, and Butler, has been broken up.

The 1936 term of the Supreme Court will probably be rated a notable one. This is due both to the Court's own work, and to certain extraneous occurrences which could hardly fail to have some impact upon it. In any attempt to evaluate the work of this term, one should bear in mind the following facts: First, a month after the Court convened President Roosevelt was reëlected by one of the most impressive popular and electoral majorities in our political history. Second, in February the President submitted to Congress his proposal for the reorganization of the Supreme Court, including the enlargement of its membership by the addition, up to fifteen, of a new justice for every one remaining on the Court beyond the age of seventy. This proposal aroused violent opposition, the debates on it continued for many months, and ultimately the plan was defeated largely through the efforts of the President's own party. The discussions on this proposal were going on during much of the time in which the Court was sitting. Third, in every case in which New Deal laws were attacked, they were held valid. These results were accomplished in many instances by five-to-four margins, and in the Minimum Wage Case by a five-to-four reversal of a previous five-to-three decision.

As was pointed out a year ago in this Review, the Supreme Court was able to deal with the cases involving the New Deal which came before it during its 1934 term without any striking enlargement of judicial power and without the announcement of any novel constitutional doctrine. The N.R.A., the Gold Clauses, the Farm Bankruptcy Act, were dealt with by the familiar processes of deciding whether Congress had actually exercised a power not granted to it by the Constitution, or had exercised a granted power in a forbidden way. The New Deal issues which came to the Court during the 1935 term were quite as far-reaching in significance and were certainly not of a routine variety. They involved, in some cases, constitutional clauses never before interpreted by the Court. Some of the federal laws under attack were obviously exercises of delegated powers, but at the same time, they exercised delegated powers for purposes which were novel and which had been commonly supposed not to be within the reach of federal authority. In dealing with laws of this type, the Court brought forward and established as a working implement of constitutional construction the so-called doctrine of "dual federalism."

The Supreme Court has at last passed squarely upon the broad powers of the Federal Radio Commission over the business of broadcasting and has upheld them in a sweeping manner in the case of Federal Radio Commission v. Nelson Bros. Bond & Mortgage Co. The general authority conferred on the Commission by the act of 1927 was enlarged in 1928 by provisions directing the Commission to maintain as great equality as possible in the allocating of broadcasting licenses among the zones created and further to distribute such licenses fairly and reasonably to the states within each zone according to population. In 1930, it appeared that Illinois had 55 per cent more than its quota of stations, while Indiana had 22 per cent under its quota. The Commission assigned to station WJKS at Gary, Indiana, operating rights on a frequency theretofore used by two Chicago stations. One of these, operated commercially by the respondent, used much National Broadcasting Company program material; the other, operated by the North Shore Church of Chicago, broadcast only religious programs. The effect of the order was to rule these stations off the air. It appeared that the Gary station had suffered from interference, and was furthermore equipped to serve its audiences with programs of unique interest.

In its decision in United States v. Smith, the Supreme Court has given final victory to President Hoover in his bitter fight with the Senate in January, 1931, over his appointments to the Federal Power Commission. On December 3, 1930, the President sent to the Senate Smith's nomination to the Federal Power Commission. On Saturday, December 20, 1930, the Senate advised and consented to the appointment and ordered the resolution of confirmation sent to the President. The Senate thereupon adjourned to Monday, January 5, 1931. On Monday, December 22, 1930, the President received the notification that the appointment had been confirmed and on the same day issued Smith's commission. Smith immediately took the oath of office and entered upon his duties. While the record of the Court does not disclose this fact, it will be recalled that one of the very first "duties" entered upon by Smith and his colleagues was the summary dismissal of two subordinates of the Commission generally admitted to have been active in the protection of the public against the aggressions of the so-called power interests. Accordingly, when the Senate convened on January 5, 1931, a majority of its members very much wished to recall the confirmation of Smith's appointment.

In November, 1930, Judge William Clark of the United States district court in New Jersey achieved nation-wide notoriety by a decision holding that the Eighteenth Amendment was not properly ratified and is therefore not a part of the Constitution. A prosecution had been brought against one Sprague, under an indictment charging unlawful transportation and possession of liquor in violation of the Volstead Act. This indictment Judge Clark quashed on the ground that the Eighteenth Amendment upon which the Volstead Act rests should have been ratified by conventions called for that purpose in three-fourths of the states, rather than by the legislatures of those states. This conclusion he supported by a long argument emphasizing the fundamental character of the constitutional change effected and the importance and necessity of having such a change accomplished by the agency of representatives elected by the people of the several states for that specific purpose. An appeal from Judge Clark's decision was at once taken by the government under the provisions of the Criminal Appeals Act of 1907. In fact, it was to meet just such situations as this that the act of 1907 was passed; for without the possibility of such appeal a decision of a lower federal court adverse to the constitutionality of a federal criminal statute might be final within the district concerned. No question of double jeopardy is raised by this procedure, since the accused is not placed in jeopardy until the trial jury is sworn and the quashing of the indictment occurs long before that point is reached.

The Supreme Court continues its century-long task of drawing the line that separates commerce which is interstate or foreign from that which is local. The realistic nature of the test which it uses is made clear in two cases decided during the present term. In Superior Oil Company v. Mississippi ex rel. Knox, the plaintiffs, by a cleverly devised arrangement of technicalities, sought to make it appear that they were selling gasolene in interstate commerce. They hoped thus to escape the payment of the tax of three, and later four, cents a gallon imposed by Mississippi law upon the sale of gasolene within the state. The device used was as follows: The plaintiffs sold oil and gasolene to fish packers in Mississippi and delivered it to them at their wharves. The packers loaded this onto their own boats and sent it to a point in Louisiana where they in turn delivered it to shrimp fishermen who used it in fishing. The fishermen brought back their catch and sold it to the packers and were charged for the oil and gasolene. In each case the oil company gave the packers a bill of lading stipulating that the gasolene remained the company's property until delivered to the consignee's agent at the point of destination. In other words, a Mississippi seller deliberately takes gasolene outside the state of Mississippi in order to deliver it to a Mississippi buyer in the expectation that the transaction will have the appearance of interstate commerce and escape local taxation as such.

"Pocket veto" is the term applied to the killing of a bill by the President by the process of retaining it without signing it when Congress adjourns before the bill has been in his hands ten days. The Constitution provides for the pocket veto by stating: "If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law." In the "Pocket Veto" case the Court decided that the word "adjournment" in this clause refers not merely to the final adjournment at the expiration of a Congress, but to any temporary or ad interim adjournment. In short, the President may effectively pocket veto a bill whenever Congress, by going home, prevents him from returning it within ten days. The Court thus gave judicial sanction to a practice which has been followed sporadically ever since the days of Madison.On June 24, 1926, a bill was presented to President Coolidge authorizing certain Indian tribes to sue in the Court of Claims. On July 3 the first session of the 69th Congress adjourned, and it did not meet again until December. It was not in session on July 6—the tenth day after the bill was presented to the President (Sundays excepted).

A protective tariff is constitutional. While most of us—Democratic party platforms to the contrary notwithstanding—had suspected that this was true, the Supreme Court, curiously enough, never passed on the question until its decision in Hampton v. United States. In that case the plaintiffs attacked the validity of the Tariff Act of 1922 on two grounds. In the first place, the so-called flexible tariff provision embodied in Section 315 was alleged to authorize an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power to the President. That section provides, in substance, that when the President, upon investigation, finds that differences in the cost of production here and abroad of articles produced in this country are not equalized by the tariff duties fixed by the act, he shall thereupon fix such new rates as will equalize these differences. The Court had no difficulty in rejecting this contention under the authority of Field v. Clark, in which the reciprocity sections of the Tariff Act of 1890 were sustained. Chief Justice Taft, speaking for a unanimous Court, reviews the general theory of the separation of powers and the doctrine that legislative power may not be delegated. He emphasizes, however, that each department may properly call upon the others for assistance "so far as the action invoked shall not be an assumption of the constitutional field of action of another branch." The scope and character of this assistance, furthermore, "must be fixed according to common sense and the inherent necessities of the governmental coördination."

The decisions arising under the commerce clause of the Constitution during the 1924 term of the Supreme Court did not involve any striking extension of national authority in that field. There was no case approaching in significance the Recapture Clause Case decided in the previous term. However, the reinforcement of a familiar principle through a striking application of it, or the lucid and pungent expression of an old doctrine, lends some significance to several cases which otherwise have no far-reaching importance.In the case of Brooks v. United States the court sustained the constitutionality of the National Motor Vehicle Theft Act of 1919. The act subjected to heavy penalties any one who transported or caused to be transported in interstate or foreign commerce any motor vehicle, knowing it to have been stolen, and any one who, with the same guilty knowledge, "shall receive, conceal, store, barter, sell, or dispose of any motor vehicle, moving as, or which is a part of, or which constitutes interstate or foreign commerce." It is certainly no surprise to learn from the opinion of Chief Justice Taft that the power to regulate commerce which is broad enough to enable Congress to bar from interstate transportation lottery tickets, diseased cattle, adulterated food, prize-fight films, and the like, and to penalize the interstate transportation of women for immoral purposes, is a power which can likewise be used to punish those who abuse the privileges of interstate and foreign commerce by using them in the furtherance of larceny or the disposal of stolen goods.

No one who has followed the steady expansion of federal authority over the business of interstate carriers sanctioned by the Supreme Court in the Shreveport Case, Illinois Central R. Co. v. Public Utilities Commission, and Railroad Commission v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co., will view with surprise the unanimous decision of that tribunal in Dayton-Goose Creek R. Co. v. United States, sustaining the validity of the "recapture" clause of the Transportation Act of 1920. This clause provided in substance that since it is impossible to establish uniform rates upon competitive traffic which will adequately sustain all the carriers needed to do the business, without giving some of them a net income in excess of a fair return, any carrier receiving such excess shall place one-half of it in a reserve fund to be maintained by the carrier for certain specified purposes, and shall pay the other half into a general railroad revolving fund to be maintained in the interstate commerce commission. This fund is to be used by the commission to make loans to carriers to meet expenditures for capital account, and so forth.

The opening paragraph of Section 8 of Article 1 of the Constitution reads as follows: "Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes‥‥ to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States." For what purposes may Congress, in light of this phraseology, spend money raised by national taxation? Hamilton answered, for any purposes which Congress itself found to be promotive of the general welfare. Madison, on the contrary, held the power thus granted to be only instrumental—Congress might spend money only as a means of carrying into effect its other granted powers. So far as the practice of Congress is concerned, Hamilton's view has long since prevailed, but the Supreme Court has never had occasion so far to develop its theory on the subject. Its failure, therefore, to seize the opportunity proferred it in the Maternity Act cases is somewhat disappointing.By the Maternity Act of November 23, 1921 Congress extends financial aid, in the work of reducing maternal and infant mortality, and protecting the health of mothers and infants, to such states as shall accept and comply with the provisions of the act. The act was attacked on two grounds; first, that the appropriations voted were "for purposes not national, but local to the states," and secondly, that the acceptance by a state of the terms of the act would constitute a surrender by it of its reserved powers.