◆ SpookStack

O 3 - 11 .- and could once again be trusted with matters in these fields. However that may be, I do want to call attention to the fact that Congress did on a previous occasion make use of the same constitutional provision which I would make use of through the enactment of my hill S-26b6, and that the Supreme Court of the United States considered the matter_and held the bill to be constitutional, and bowed to its provisions. The Attorney General apparently does not think that the question of constitutionality of the bill is sufficiently important to receive any mention in his report. On page 2 of his report, the Attorney General raises the question I have already discussed, with respect to the possibility of different rules of decision in different circuits and in different State courts. I have already spoken about that question, but I will add this: There may be some argument for uniformity of decision among the circuit courts of appeals; but there is no logical argument for uniformity in the decisions of the courts of the States. The State courts are exercising residual powers. The Federal courts are exercising only specified powers granted under the Constitution. we do not demand that all of our States be alike. We do not demand that they think alike on matters of public policy. There is no reason for demanding that their courts think alike or adhere to identical rules of decision. There are in fact many subjects today on which there are different rules of decisions in the various State supreme Courts; and no one has been suggesting that there should be Federal legislation or Supreme COurt legis- lation to force uniformity.