Suchergebnisse

In the 1934 term, the Supreme Court came to grips with some of the major constitutional problems of the New Deal and rendered decisions more intimately affecting our national life than any since the Dred Scott case of 1857. The great slavery decision rocked the nation to its foundations by its futile attempt to solve a problem insoluble by any means save war. The important constitutional decisions of the Reconstruction period in their immediate consequences affected mainly the South, and it will be remembered that by a series of side-steppings, some involuntary and some not, the Supreme Court escaped the necessity of passing squarely upon the validity of the basic program of Reconstruction as embodied in the act of 1867. Forty years ago, in its 1894 term, the Court incurred much unpopularity by three decisions of major significance. It invalidated the Income Tax Act passed in fulfillment of Democratic campaign pledges; it emasculated, temporarily at least, the Sherman Anti-Trust Act by holding it inapplicable to a most obvious and vicious monopoly—the sugar trust; and it incurred the hostility of organized labor by sustaining the issuance by a federal court of a labor injunction. None of these decisions was, however, nor were all of them together, as far-reaching in significance as those handed down in the last term of Court.

Following the repeal of the Eighteenth Amendment, the state of Ohio authorized by statute the creation of a state liquor monopoly, purchased $4,500,000 worth of liquor, and perfected plans for the retailing of it through 187 stores owned and managed by the state. In Ohio v. Helvering, the state sought an injunction to restrain the commissioner of internal revenue from collecting from the state the customary federal excise taxes upon the sale of intoxicating liquors. It alleged the immunity of the state and its instrumentalities from federal taxation and further claimed that the federal taxing statutes were not intended by Congress to apply to the states. The court, speaking through Mr. Justice Sutherland, upheld the collection of the tax, reaffirming the doctrine laid down in 1905 in the South Carolina Dispensary Case. The immunity from federal taxation enjoyed by the states extends only to those agencies and functions which are governmental in character and not to those which are proprietary. "When a state enters the market place seeking customers, it divests itself of its quasi-sovereignty pro tanto, and takes on the character of a trader, so far, at least, as the taxing power of the federal government is concerned." The Court rejected as "altogether fanciful" the argument that the passage of the Eighteenth Amendment and its later repeal had so altered the status of the liquor traffic that its conduct by the state has become an exercise of the state's police power, and hence a governmental operation immune from federal taxation.

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).