The Supreme Court rules that -
Media
Part of Panorama
- Title
- The Supreme Court rules that -
- Creator
- Chafee, Zechariah Jr.
- Language
- English
- Source
- Panorama Volume XVII (No. 5) May 1966
- Year
- 1966
- Rights
-
- Fulltext
- ■ The U.S. Supreme Court is the model of the Phil ippine Supreme Court and its decisions guide the latter. THE SUPREME COURT RULES THAT - Year by year new problems of economic organization and business relationships, new ideas of social welfare, new clashes between wealth and government reach the U.S. Supreme Court. The mem bership of a body with such great power over the dev elopment of American socie ty is, therefore, most impor tant; the appointment of a new justice is an outstanding event. 'On Jan. 11, 1932, Oliver Wendell Holmes, for twenty-nine years a justice of the United States Supreme Court and recognized as the foremost living judge in the English-speaking world, re tired from the court. Two months later his place was taken by Benjamin N. Car dozo, chief judge of New York State and long consi dered the ablest American judge outside the Supreme Court. Decisions which divide the court are naturally the most interesting, but they form only a small part of its work. During the 1931-32 session, in the cases which were of suf ficient importance to receive full judicial opinions, the court divided in 26, but was unanimous in 129. Of the unanimous deci sions two settled long-stand ing doubts concerning the relations between the Pres ident and Congress. United States v. George Otis Smith construes the Senate rule on reconsideration of its confir mation of a Presidential ap pointment and holds the Sen ate cannot withdraw its con firmation after the President has been notified thereof and has issued a commission to the appointee. The Senate cannot change its mind even though the appointee’s initial policies arouse regret that he was confirmed. It is interest ing that the opinion was written by Justice Brandeis, who hardly shares Mr. Smith’s views on water-power problems. Edwards v. Uni 26 Panorama ted States held that the President can approve an act of Congress after Con gress adjourns, thereby reliev ing him from the annoying necessity of remaining at the Capitol to sign last-minute legislation before the close of a session. The bill becomes law if "he signs it within ten days; if he does not there is a pocket veto. Another controversy relat ed to the structure of govern ment. The re-apportionment of the national House of Re presentatives after the 1930 census changed the number of Representatives from many States and required new Con gressional districts. By the Constitution, “the Legisla ture” of each State is to re district it. In Minnesota, Missouri and New York the two i hous.es of legislators as sumed that they were “the Legislature” and dispensed with the Governor’s approval of redistricting. The Sup reme Court took the opposite view. Chief Justice Hughes says the meaning of “the Le gislature” in the Constitu tion varies according to the particular action contemplat ed. Mere consent to Con gressional acts like the ratifi cation of a constitutional amendment needs only the two houses, but redistricting resembles lawmaking and is, therefore, subject to the Gov ernor’s veto. This invalida tion of the New York redis tricting bill leaves the old districts unchanged, with two added Representatives to be elected at large. But in Min nesota and Missouri, where the representation is decreas ed, all the Congressmen had to be elected at large on Nov. 8. Blackmer, head of an oil company involved in the Teapot Dome scandals, left for France to avoid testify ing. Consequently, Senator Walsh of Montana obtained a statute making an American citizen residing abroad guilty of contempt if he disregard ed a court order to become a witness, expenses paid. His American property can be seized to pay the fine. Blackmer’s attack on the constitu tionality of this law has fail ed. Chief Justice Hughes holds the duty to testify in his country’s courts remains one of the obligations of a citizen wherever he lives. The exemption from State income taxes on copyright May 1966 27 royalties, which authors have enjoyed for several years, was abruptly ended by Fox Film Corporation v. Doyal. Chief Justice Hughes declared that neither copyrights nor pa tents were instrumentalities of the Federal Government untaxable by the States. By overruling a 1928 5-to-4 de cision exempting patent ro yalties from State taxes, the entire court has now adopted the view expressed by Justice Holmes’s dissenting opinion in the 1928 case. Dissenting opinions thus sometimes fore case the' law of the future. Regulation of billboard advertising is considerably strengthened by Packer Cor poration v. Utah. This held valid a Utah statute forbid ding tobacco advertising on billboards, placards and in street car?. Justice Brandeis quoted approvingly the dis tinction drawn by Judge Fol land of Utah between bill boards and advertisements in newspapers and magazines, which the statute permitted: Billboards, street-car signs and placards, and such, are in a class themselves.*** Advertisements of this sort are constantly before the eyes of observers on the streets and in the street cars, to be seen without the exercise of choice or volition on their part. Other forms of adver tising are ordinary seen as a matter of choice on the part of the observer.*** In the case of newspapers and ma gazines, there must be some seeking by the one who is to see and read the advertise ment. The radio can be turn ed off, but not so the bill board or street-car placard. The most discussed case of last session, New State Ice Company v. Liebmann, held invalid an Oklahoma statute declaring the manufacture, sale and distribution of ice to be a public business which should be carried on without a license, and provided that a license could be refused to a new ice dealer in a commu nity where existing business afforded adequate services. Justice Sutherland for the majority said that the ice business was not a public utility but was essentially pri vate, and could not be sin gled out from other enter prises for this drastic regula tion which was designed to protect consumers by pre venting impurity or extortion. This statute does not prevent 28 Panorama monopoly, but tends to fos ter it, and no question of conservation of natural re-1 sources was involved. The States could not push expe rimental legislation to the length of depriving citizens of the privilege of engaging in ordinary trades. The Chief Justice, Justices Van Devanter, McReynolds But ler and Roberts concurred Justices Brandeis and Stone dissented. Justice Cardozo did not participate. The dissenting opinion of Justice Brandeis dealt much less with legal precedents than wifh conditions in the ice business. He showed that duplication of plants and de livery service is wasteful and ultimately burdensome to consumers. The business needs protection from des tructive competition. In con cluding he said: “The peo ple of the United States are now confronted with an emer gency more serious than war. Misery is widespread, in a time, not of scarcity, but of overabundance.” Many per sons think that a main cause of this disaster is unbridled competition and insist there must be some form of eco nomic control. The only way to prove if this view be sound is to permit experi ments to be tried. In the exercise of its power to pre vent experiments, the court must be on its guard lest pre judices be erected into legal principles. — By Zechariah Chafee Jr., abstracted from Current History, ’33. May 1966 29
- pages
- 26+