Justice Grinding

There are but five living men who have been defeated nominees of major political parties for election to the Presidency. Last week three of them assembled in one room, not to exchange reminiscences, but to settle a greater matter cf justice in regard to a principal sum of $148.28 and $20.40 interest.

The candidate who was defeated in 1912 wore a black robe and sat behind a long table. The candidate defeated in 1916 and the candidate defeated in 1924 appeared in long coats of black. Technically they were present as "friends" of the candidate who was defeated in 1912.

The case at issue was a suit brought by the banking firm of Ladenburg, Thalmann & Co. (of Manhattan) against the Alien Property Custodian and the banking firm of Delbruck, Shickler & Co. (of Berlin). The $148.28 was owing to the Manhattan firm by. the Berlin firm before the War. The Manhattan firm wished to collect the debt at the pre-War rate of exchange and with interest to the sum of $20.40. The Berlin firm agreed that the Manhattan firm was entitled to its claim, but argued that the German Government should pay the claim, since the German bankers were not responsible for the War and should not be held liable for its consequences. The question involved was, Should the German bankers be made to pay or should the German Government be made to pay through attachment of German funds held by the Alien Property Custodian?

Altogether there was $168.68 involved. The candidate who was defeated in 1912 was receiving about $50 a day for being present. The candidates defeated in 1916 and 1924 were doubtless receiving much greater compensation. So it would seem that there was little profit in the proceeding. But as usual behind the scenes there was a principle and several millions of principal. So the Guaranty Trust Co. of Manhattan was recompensed for the expense of hiring the defeated candidate of 1924, and Zimmermann & Forshay were recompensed for the expense of the defeated candidate of 1916--the expense of having them appear as "friends of the Court." And the defeated candidate of 1912 was justified in taking $50 a day from the U. S. Treasury for his attention to the case.

Other Cases Decided. Terence Druggan, convicted beer-legger of Chicago, appealed for a writ of habeas corpus to escape jail on the grounds that the Volstead Act was illegal because it had passed before the 18th Amendment was ratified. Justice Holmes read the Court's opinion sustaining the Act, declaring: "No reason has been suggested why the Constitution may not have given Congress a present power to enact laws intended to carry out constitutional provisions for the future when the time comes for them to take effect."

The Arizona minimum wage law for women was tested in the case of an owner of two stores in Nogales who employed four women clerks at less than the $16 a week minimum wage established by law. The Arizona law was declared invalid, the decision being based on the Supreme Court's previous decision that the Minimum Wage Law of the District of Columbia was unconstitutional. Justice Brandeis dissented, and Justice Holmes gave his consent only on the grounds of the previous decision.

Review Refused. Under its new powers for restricting its calendar, the Court refused to review a number of cases. The action in refusing review was of course equivalent to a decision against the appellant, since the decision of the lower court remained in force. Among the cases refused review were two patent suits and an appeal of the Kansas City Southern Railway against a valuation of its property made by the Interstate Commerce Commission.

The Court also dismissed for want of jurisdiction the appeal of Miss Charlotte Anita Whitney against her conviction under the California anti-syndicalism law (see RADICALS).

The Supreme Court announced that it would take a recess for three weeks.