(2 of 2)
On a short, incomplete and spotty record, the Supreme Court is said to be disposed, by the thinnest of margins, to take a broad view of recovery legislation. Widely advertised as victories for the Administration were the Minnesota mortgage moratorium (TIME. Jan. 15) and New York milk cases. In each instance the Supreme Court lined up 5-to-4 in favor of the New Deal: Chief Justice Hughes, Justices Brandeis. Stone, Roberts, Cardozo against dissenting Justices Sutherland, Butler, McReynolds, Van Devanter. But thoughtful conservatives point out that those cases did not involve Federal legislation and that since the laws in question were passed by Legislatures, the additionally ticklish question of State rights was to be considered. Furthermore, the legislation under scrutiny was of an emergency nature. The court may balk when the time comes to pass on the more permanent legislation New Dealers want graven in the statute books.
Lest this occur, on the eve of the court's convening. President Roosevelt passed it a broad and hopeful hint when in his sixth "fireside" radio talk he recalled: "The great Chief Justice White said: 'There is great danger, it seems to me, to arise from the constant habit which prevails where anything is opposed or objected to of referring without rhyme or reason to the Constitution as a means of preventing its accomplishment, thus creating the general impression that the Constitution is but a barrier to progress instead of being the broad highway through which alone true progress may be enjoyed.' "