About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

7 Monthly Bull. Int'l Jurid. Ass'n 159 (1938-1939)

handle is hein.journals/injasmb7 and id is 1 raw text is: 


                            MONTHLY BULLETIN

Vol. 7, No. 1

JULY, 1938   ' ,   9  1 m3

Price $2, a year

  The Bulletin sadly records the death of Mr. Justice
Cardozo. He earned the reverence of men because he
turned his gifts to their use.



  After more  than a year of bitter controversy, the Presi-
  dent's demand for establishment of national wage and hour
  standards, and prohibition of child labor, was met by the
  passage, on June 14, of a compromise measure. Approved
  by the President on June 25, this measure marks the in-
  troduction of a national floor for wages and ceiling for
  hours, and the reintroduction, after twenty years of un-
  constitutionality,' of a prohibition against the interstate
  transportation of the products of child labor.
  Except  in its child labor provisions, the Act as passed
  differs materially from the original bill and the Committee
  measures which have been analyzed at length in the pages
  of the Bulletin., The House Committee   measure there
  discussed was recommitted by the coalition of Republicans
  and Conservative (principally but not exclusively South-
  ern) Democrats, and this recommittal for a time threatened
  to prevent the passage of any bill. The House Committee
  then reported a new, and radically different bill, which was
brought  to the floor by a petition to discharge the Rules
Committee,  and  passed without  substantial amendment.
The  measure  which has been  passed is the product of a
conference  committee  which had  before it this second
House  measure, and the bill which had passed the Senate
in July, 1937.
   The field for compromise between the Senate and House
measures  was practically limitless. Where the Senate bill
imposed  regulation only after administrative action of the
most  elaborate character, the House measure was  auto-
matic  in operation, with  administration and flexibility
reduced to a minimum.  While a compromise  was reached,
its predominant character is that of the House bill. With-
out any administrative action, the minimum standards are
imposed  by law. While variation is provided for, no action
is required in order to bring into operation, after stated
periods of time, the highest standards which the adminis-
trative Board would have been authorized to impose under
the Senate bill.
  The  floor for wages and ceiling for hours will become ef-
fective automatically one hundred and twenty days after
the enactment of the Act.3 At that time it will become un-
lawful to employ any employee  who  is engaged in com-
merce or in the production of goods for commerce  at a
                 (Continued on Page 169)
  1. The Act of 1916 was declared invalid in Hammer v. Dagen-
hart, 247 U.S. 251 (1918).
  2. The Fair Labor Standards Bill, 6 I.J.A. Bull. 55.
  3. H6  (b); 7 (d).


                     CIVIL RIGHTS
   Conviction on  Perjured Testimony  a  Denial of  Due
 Process of Law. On June 8, the Circuit Court of Appeals
 for the Sixth Circuit, by its decision in a habeas corpus
 proceeding, released a man who had  been in the shadow
 of the electric chair for nearly two years. The court held
 his conviction for murder on perjured  testimony was a
 denial of due process of law.' November  4, 1935, Tom
 Jones was indicted in Kentucky for the murder of his wife
 five days earlier. November 8, he was arraigned, pleaded
 not guilty. Counsel was appointed for him and his trial set
 for November  12. Although the case was not reached till
 November  14, counsel was obliged to remain in court sub-
 ject to call. Excluding Sunday, November 10, three days
 were left for the preparation of the defense. A motion sup-
 ported by affidavits for a ten day continuance was denied.
 No one had  seen the shooting. The defense was that the
 pistol was discharged in a scuffle for its possession when the
 wife threatened her  own  life. The principal witnesses
 against Jones were a six year old girl, who testified to a
 threat of killing by the appellant, and a woman  of  ill
 repute, who testified to the slain woman's dying declara-
 tion. On the ground of newly discovered evidence estab-
 lishing that the testimony presented at the trial by the
 prosecution witness was perjured, a writ of habeas corpus
 was sought in the federal court less than twelve hours be-
 fore the time set for Jones' execution.2 District Judge El-
 wood Hamilton granted the writ, but regarded the Mooney
 case as controlling that the federal court could not grant
 relief until state remedies had been exhausted. When this
 had been done  a second habeas  corpus was  applied for
 in the federal court.3 In the Circuit Court of Appeals this
 writ was finally sustained.4 Both the District Court and the
 Attorney General were obviously impressed by the  new
 evidence, none of which was known to the defense at the
 time of the trial and much of which might have been dis-
 covered if a reasonable continuance had been granted.5

 1.   Tom Jones v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, C. C. A. 6, No.
 7978, not yet reported, Simons, C. J.
 2.   After the conviction a petition for clemency was circulated,
 but Governor A. B. Chandler twelve hours before the time set for
 execution declined to intervene because he regarded himself as
 bound by a campaign pledge not to exercise the pardoning power.
 3.   A writ of habeas corpus and an application for a writ of
 coram nobis were unsuccessfully carried through the Kentucky
 state courts which denied relief on jurisdictional grounds.
 4.   The United States District Judge, now a judge of this
 court, seemingly convinced that appellant's constitutional rights
 were impaired and that his convictidn was procured by perjured
 testimony, questioned the power and propriety of a single district
 judge to reverse the decision of the highest court of the state, and
with commendable restraint, contented himself with the issuance
of a certificate of probable cause to permit decision by a court
clothed with higher authority.
  5. The  Court quotes from a statement of the Attorney Gen-
eral to the Court of Appeals of Kentucky in which he said:
    Hypertechnical reasons for overruling the petition for re-
  hearing in the instant case might be found and urged with
             (Footnote Continued on Page 160)


What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing nearly 3,000 academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.

Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline with pricing starting as low as $29.95

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

profiles profiles most