◆ SpookStack

0-19 (Rev. 10-29-57) ‘s0 a0 that: ov ler’ mov 40 discard it, except In cases involving state tegu- many wey r. to dispose of the Jenner brainstogm: ‘But what of Mr. Butler’s own device fer‘s ‘plishment of at least part of what the Indgina , Senator sought? The Butler plan, except in the, }.ease of bar-admission cases, is to change the _ statutes which he insists the Supreme Court has ‘ misconstrued. There is nothing,' of course, to it prevent Congress from modifying any Federal. -gtafute if the Court has miscéhstrued the con- wgressional intent, But each case of this sort ought - to stand on its. own merits or demerits, and in. the Butler list the demerits greatly predominate. Certainly the idea of assembling a group of un- related alleged grievances against the Supreme Court into a bill to take the place of a very differ- ent kind of measure is in itself a monstrosity. . ,In_an effort to overrule the Court in the Steve Neldn case, Senator Butler would sef up a svgep- ing ew principle. In that case the Court ipa datdd Pennsylvania's “little Smith Act om the ground that Congress had occupied the fidd of control over subversion against the United States. Senator Butler would provide that no act of Con- gress in any field would “operate to the exclusion of gny state law on the same subject matter unless suqdh act contains an express provision to t Affect.” The result would be to leave state ler 2 Iation in effect unless it could not be recongle : with Federal law in the same sphere. © j. lf Congress wishes exclusive control in a &<1d | . in which Federal and state regulations have been . traditionally intermingled, it would certainly be ' well advised te say so in very positive terms. We an see no objection to Congress saying by law ' Bhat when it does not say so specifically, it does ot intend to blanket out all state legislation in | Ghe field affected by its own act. But if such an > act were passed it should obviously apply only’ k to future legislation. To apply it to the past, as. . Senator Butler proposes to do, would have the | F effect of upsetting many delicate Federal-state 390 ; Telatignships that are not even in controversy. ort, there is no excuse for Mr. Butler's substitute, and it ought to be consigned n along with the criginel-demmer bill, # 191 APR 2 4989 wast-Post wi Tolson Boardman Parsons Rosen Tamm Trotter Clayton Tele.Room Holloman Gandy Awe a a a Times Herald Wash. News Wash, Star N. Y. Herald ——_ Tribune N. Y. Journal- American N. Y. Mirror N. Y. Daily News . N.Y. Times Daily Worker —__ The Worker New Leader