Harvard Law Review Article Raises Question Of "Judicial Psychology" and Legality of NRA

A comprehensive survey of the National Recovery Act, dealing particularly with its constitutionality and enforceability, has been prepared for publication in the Harvard Law Review, it was announced today at University Hall. The article, written by editors of the Review, treats many of the legal aspects of the NRA, now a subject of conflict among lawyers, and lays particular stress upon the effect of the new legislation on anti trust laws and labor status.

The constitutionality of the Act, the editors state is largely a question of "judicial psychology." They hazard no prophecy as to the Supreme Court's decision, but conclude that there is no insuperable obstacle to its being upheld. The emergency caused by the depression may be used as a ground for either overruling or distinguishing decisions which might otherwise serve as a basis for overthrowing the Act. The article prophesies, however, that the codes for purely local business retail trade and the like will be held unenforceable.

A considerable portion of the survey is devoted to the extent of the modification of the anti-trust laws--a question which has been much debated by lawyers. The opinion held by many that the anti-trust laws are practically abolished by the NRA is repudiated by the Harvard Law Review, and it is shown how the courts, by adopting a "modified rule of reason," can allow industrial co-operation without opening the door to monopolistic abuses by profiteers. At the same time, a warning is issued of the possible conflict with state anti-trust laws, and the necessity for new state legislation is stressed.