◆ SpookStack

of 15 Senators on a committee—includin a . oa liberals and conservatives, Republe se Or take the decisions on the aight of s and Democrats, among the 10—to Sen- ws eee = ab Jenner when the bill bears virtually no ‘=jrelation to his measure except that both | gealt with the same subject; it is especially a far cry since the Jenner bill itself long since has been dead. ; - The Wall Street Journal, in discussing tthe Senate Judiciary Committee bill, brings ‘out very clearly just why such legislation is _ being put forth at this time. After pointing ‘out that Congress has the. power to limit ap- ‘pellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, it -eontinues: i “There is no question, though, why the ‘suggestion of applying that power has aris- ten, Professor Corbin, former Yale Law ‘School faculty member and an authority on ‘dgontracts, had some things to say on that score the other day. Professor Corbin said ~ ‘ithere was a great deal of difference between -rtthe slow development of law based upon | ell-established trends and the ‘sudden bout-face that reverses judicial and legisla- [rs a great deal of bewilderment about the ive doctrine, arousing violent criticism and —-pamotion because it is based on social and economic trends already in open political ‘Rispute.’ “Such about faces, even the most dedi- ( cated supporter of the present Supreme court would readily admit, are not un- SOUrt Would reaauy am are not ur known in its decisions. ", W"The High Court does not always follow | lstHk letter of the law as enacted by Congtess: i a | congressional investigators to ask questions, The Supreme Court has ruled that Congress can ask only ‘pertinent’ questions and then the Court proceeded to decide that some of them were not pertinent to any valid legislative inquiry. But how, it may fairly be asked, can Congress legislate prop- erly with a Supreme Court sitting over it deciding that this or that question js not pertinent—or that perhaps it is too imper- tinent—to the matter Congress is investigat- ing? “These are some of the questions that disturb Congress. There are others. smi is the decision that splits hairs on the Smith Act, when the Court held that ‘theoretibal advocacy’ of overthrow of the governm«nt $ all right but that ‘incitement to action’ s all wrong. That is something like saying is all right to teach people ways and moanc fa roHh hanke en lang as the teacher eGo LY LV Won OV vil ao Law PAL LICL , doesn’t say when to do it, “The result of all this has been to cre- iaw—as justices. of the Supreme Court have from time to time pointed out when they disagreed with their brethren. “Whether what the Senate Judiciary Committee proposes is the curé for the be- _wilderment we quite frankly do not know. | But we rather doubt it. Far better than a | curb by law would be the curbs of logic, rea- isoft and continuity of decision Professor Cars spoke of. But those are curbs no Con- fi ‘sometimes reads into it matters which are; a ss.can apply, They are curbs only the Su- ‘not there. A case in point is the decision {preme Court may apply .to itself.” ; a few years ago that producers of tural gas came under the jurisdiction of the Fed- | eral Power Commission, though the legisla- | . tion on which the decision was based clear- ly and specifically excluded producers of natural gas. “Nor does the Supreme Court always fol- | # flow its own prior rulings. Just last June, the | “> eourt ruled on the question whether civi- | — Vians overseas were “answerable to courts martial. The case before it was one contain- - ‘ing the same facts, the same pecple, the | same shootings and the same United States i Constitution as the Sunreme Court had rulad eh ee AEA Las) DET, Lesaliend shal wehbe LW lkd b AGE ee on almost exactly one year before. And it | brought in two different decisions on the | ‘Samomense within that time. Clearypthea ‘court could not have been right both times. -