You have found an item located in the Kentuckiana Digital Library.
No. 75 "Economic Planning - Mistaken But Not New: A Discussion of Similarities Between the New Deal and the Medieval Mercantilist System which Reached Its Climax Under King George the Third and Precipitated the American Revolution," November 11, 1935.
No. 75 "Economic Planning - Mistaken But Not New: A Discussion of Similarities Between the New Deal and the Medieval Mercantilist System which Reached Its Climax Under King George the Third and Precipitated the American Revolution," November 11, 1935. American Liberty League. 400dpi TIFF G4 page images Digital Library Services, University of Kentucky Libraries Lexington, Kentucky Am_Lib_Leag_75 These pages may freely searched and displayed. Permission must be received for subsequent distribution in print or electronically. No. 75 "Economic Planning - Mistaken But Not New: A Discussion of Similarities Between the New Deal and the Medieval Mercantilist System which Reached Its Climax Under King George the Third and Precipitated the American Revolution," November 11, 1935. American Liberty League. American Liberty League. Washington, D.C. 1935. This electronic text file was created by Optical Character Recognition (OCR). No corrections have been made to the OCR-ed text and no editing has been done to the content of the original document. Encoding has been done through an automated process using the recommendations for Level 1 of the TEI in Libraries Guidelines. Digital page images are linked to the text file. Pamphlets Available â˜… Copies of the following pamphlets and other League literature may be obtained upon application to the League's national headquarters: Statement of Principles and Purposes American Liberty League Its Platform An Analysis of the President's Budget Message Economic Security Inflation The Thirty Hour Week The Holding Company Bill Price Control The Labor Relations Bill The Farmers' Home Bill The TVA Amendments How to Meet the Issue Speech by W. E. Borah The Supreme Court and the New Deal An Open Letter to the President By Dr. Neil Carothers The Revised AAA Amendments The President's Tax Program The American Bar The Trustee of American Institutions Speech by Albert C. Ritchie Fabian Socialism in the New Deal Speech by Demarest Lloyd The People's Money Speech by Dr. W. E. Spahr Legislation By Coercion or Constitution Speech by Jouett Shouse Recovery by Statute Speech by Dr. Neil Carothers Expanding Bureaucracy The Impediment of Democracy Speech by Fitzgerald Hall Lawmaking by Executive Order The Test of Citizenship Speech by Dean Carl W. Ackerman Today's Lessons for Tomorrow Speech by Captain William H. Stayton New Deal Laws in Federal Courts Potato Control "Breathing Spells" Speech by Jouett Shouse The National Labor Relations Act Summary of Conclusions jrom report of the National Lawyers Committee Consumers and the AAA Straws Which Tell The Duty of the Lawyer in the Present Crisis Speech by James M. Beck The Constitution and the Supreme Court Speech by Borden Burr Budget Prospects Dangerous Experimentation The Economic Necessity in the Southern States for a Return to the Constitution Speech by Forney Johnston The National Lawyers Committee of the American Liberty League Speech by Ethan A. H. Shepley â˜… AMERICAN LIBERTY LEAGUE NATIONAL PRESS BUTLDING WASHINGTON, D. C. ECONOMIC PLANMNG--MISTAKEN BUT NOT NEW â˜… â˜… â˜… A Discussion of Similarities Between the New Deal and the Mediaeval Mercantilist System which Reached Its Climax Under King George the Third and Precipitated the American Revolution. AMERICAN LIBERTY LEAGUE T^ational Headquarters NATIONAL PRESS BUILDING WASHINGTON, D. C. Document No. 75 November, 1935 Economic Planning Mistaken But Not New â˜… In this present month of November, one of our country's greatest men said: "The very thing that caused the American Revolution is what is taking place today. The present course of our Government is not new. It is history repeating itself. The things that oppress today arbitrary economic planning and excessive taxes helped to cause our Revolutionary War." Perhaps unconsciously he was repeating a conclusion long ago reached by that great historical student, John Fiske, who said: "In one of its most important aspects, the Revolution was a deadly blow aimed at the old system of trade restrictions." Economic planning was no novelty to the framers of the Constitution. The people of the American colonies for more than a century had suffered from regulation of their trade by Empire planners. The restrictions of those days, which were among the foremost causes of the Revolution, have their counterpart in present-day control of industry and agriculture by a Federal bureaucracy. For years before the smoldering resentment finally broke into the flame of the Revolutionary War there had been a system of regulatory policies under the name of Mercantilism. Today in the United States a similar system is called the New Deal. In European countries where private property is still recognized it is known as Fascism. King George III was the symbol of the autocratic power against which the colonies revolted. The 27 grievances enumerated in the Declaration of Independence were directed specifically against him. Under New Deal laws and usurpations of authority, autocratic power to plan the course of economic affairs has become centered in the President of the United States who in his inaugural message on March 4, 1933, served notice that he would ask "broad executive power to wage a war against the emergency, as great as the power that would be given to me if we were in fact invaded by a foreign foe." In Italy Mussolini and in Germany Hitler typify autocracy and a planned economic order. In making comparisons with existing governments there are points of similarity between the New Deal economic planning and Soviet Com- munism as well as Fascism. Neither the New Deal nor Fascism, however, abolishes private property and the capitalistic system as does Communism, although both encroach upon them. Under Communism, which purports to elevate the proletariat to a position of dominance but nevertheless operates under a dictatorship, there is a centralization in the State of authority over all economic activities just as in Fascism and as attempted in the New Deal. In passing it may be noted that the economic planning of the present administration closely resembles in many regards the five-year plans of the Soviet Government. Some who now desire the Constitution changed to give free rein to the planning of all our daily affairs seek to convey the impression that regimentation had never been thought of in the "horse and buggy" days and that the framers of that historic document failed to anticipate the need of modern phases of regulation considered necessary by the "Brain Trust." The fact is that the colonists were the victims of economic planning, and the constitutional structure erected by the new nation was designed to furnish safeguards against economic experimentation conducted by a centralized authority. In the time that has intervened the Constitution has proved a strong and effective obstacle against complete control of the lives and activities of the people, just as its framers intended that it should. In the founding of our Nation the states surrendered to the Federal Government authority over only such commerce as was of an interstate or foreign character, thus guarding against control by a centralized authority such as that to which the colonists had been subject. What was the situation of the colonies prior to their war for independence? Under economic planning as practiced by a centralized power in London, affecting not only the overseas trade of the colonies but their domestic activities as well, the welfare of the Empire as viewed by the dominant British aristocrats was all that mattered. The planners held they were doing what was best for the Empire as a whole, regardless of injuries or injustices inflicted upon individuals or groups. The colonists were not permitted to have anything to say about it. The present administration has planned similarly along lines held by its "Brain Trust" to be for the best interests of the Nation as a whole. The people have had little voice in the program as carried out under general authority delegated unconstitutionally by the Congress to the President and his aides. The administration which put this program into effect was elected upon a specific platform. Not only did that platform contain no suggestion of regimentation for either industry or agriculture but, on the contrary, it voiced a striking denunciation of such a course. It promised the removal of government from fields of private enterprise and it condemned "the unsound policy of restricting agricultural products to the demands of domestic markets." This quotation is taken directly from the Democratic platform of 1932 which was endorsed by the presidential candidate 100 per cent. The principle underlying the New Deal, like that governing the regulation of colonial trade before the Revolution, was similar to the motivating influence of the policies of Fascist Italy. In Fascism there is denial of the ability of the majority of the people to decide what is best for a nation. The welfare of the nation as determined by a dictator is the prime consideration, that of individuals of secondary importance. An autocratic power is held to be desirable. National Socialism in Germany embodies Fascist principles. Planning of Different Types Economic planning under the New Deal, in British regulation of American colonial trade and in present Italian Fascism has contained the following chief features: The New Deal. Under the AAA, farming is controlled and the industries handling farm crops are subject to licenses, marketing agreements and processing taxes. Under the NRA, economic planning was attempted in a fashion wholly contrary to the Constitution. Although codes have been abandoned since the adverse decision of the Supreme Court, business and industry are under governmental domination at many points. An indirect control over industry exists through control of credit machinery. The Government manages credit more completely under the New Deal by reason of revised Federal Reserve and banking acts and the various new credit agencies. The Securities Act, the Securities Exchange Act, the Public Utility Act, the Tennessee Valley Authority Act, the Bituminous Coal Act, the National Labor Relations Act, the Social Security Act and the Work-Re-4 lief Act all fit into the scheme under which economic planning is carried out. Only the Constitution stands in the way of complete governmental control of industry and agriculture, of workers and farmers. Mercantilism. The American colonies were dominated by the British planners in conformity with highly nationalistic policies developed under Mercantilism. The maintenance of a favorable balance of trade by England was the chief objective. Through such a means it was sought to build up in England domestic manufacturing and commerce and to promote the exportation of finished goods. The regulations to which the American colonies were subjected included requirements that all overseas trade be carried in English ships and through English ports, that manufacturing be so curtailed as to force purchase of manufactured goods from England, that the colonies supply certain raw materials to English manufacturers and that exportation from the colonies of food and other commodities which might compete with British products be rigidly restricted. The economic planning thus imposed upon the colonies was of an autocratic character. Italian Fascism. Under what is known as the corporative state there are syndicates or associations of employers and workers, organizations designated as corporations but similar to NRA code authorities with power over different groups of industries, and a national council of corporations headed by the Italian Prime Minister which is the planning body for the whole structure. While private industry nominally is given encouragement, the power of the government is so far-reaching that strict control is assured. The Fascist party is the government. The official or officials at the top dominate the party. The economic planning is carried on in the way the ruling authorities wish it to be done. The British Crown had the same latitude before the Revolution. Through the rubber-stamp character of recent Congresses the President, except as restricted by the Constitution, has been given much the same power under the New Deal. Three Common Features The New Deal, Mercantilism and Fascism have three chief characteristics in common, as follows: 1. All three contemplate a broad control of our working lives and activities along lines 5 planned by the politicians in power. In the case of the New Deal this is shown in the attempt to expand the power of the Federal Government under the commerce clause of the Constitution and to use power under the revenue clause for purposes of regulation. New Deal policies do violence to our Constitution and our form of government while economic control is always a part of Mercantilism and Fascism. 2. In all three there is a governing class which considers itself an aristocracy of intelligence and morality. The Executive branch of the Government under the New Deal has usurped the functions of Congress in violation of the Constitution. Planning is in the hands of the President and his staff. In Italy parliamentary authority has been weakened almost to the point of destruction. The American colonies were regulated and taxed without the right of representation in the Government. 3. Under dominant theories of all three the interests of individuals are subordinate to the welfare of the State. In the New Deal this characteristic is typified by policies which have been attacked in the courts on the ground of violation of the due process clause of the Constitution. Redistribution of wealth as proposed through New Deal tax legislation and other measures is based on the principle that those who have property must share it with others for the welfare of the entire Nation. Under Mercantilism working classes were forced to live on subsistence wages in order that English manufactured goods might be sold abroad at prices comparing favorably with those of other nations. In Italy workers are denied the right to strike because it is inimical to the welfare of the state. Private property is tolerated but is subject to confiscation. In all three types of government, liberties of individuals are sharply restricted under the pretense of benefiting the State. Mercantilism There are many similarities between the planned economy of the New Deal and the Mercantilist system of the later Middle Ages. Mercantilism, which was in its last stages during the period of the Revolution, broke down at the be ginning of the modern industrial age which ushered in free competition and an opportunity for a development of private initiative. Under Mercantilism, governments, centering commercial efforts on building up foreign trade, granted all sorts of privileges, monopolies, rights and exemptions to individuals, groups and corporations. In England laws were passed fixing the wages of artificers, prohibiting luxury in apparel and empowering the government to name the prices of poultry, cheese, butter, beef, pork, mutton and veal. Under Mercantilism in France it was sought to bring every commercial and industrial interest into subordination to the State. Mercantilism is defined by Professor Gustav von Schmoller in The Mercantile System and its Historical Significance thus: "Only he who thus conceives of Mercantilism will understand it; in its innermost kernel it is nothing but state-making not state-making in a narrow sense, but state-making and national-economy making at the same time; state-making in the modern sense, which creates out of the political community an economic community, and so gives it a heightened meaning. The essence of the system lies not in some doctrine of money or of the balance of trade; not in tariff barriers, protective duties, or navigation laws; but in something far greater: namely, in the total transformation of society and its organization, as well as of the state and its institutions, in the replacing of a local and territorial economic policy by that of the national state. . . ." Mercantilist ideas controlled British colonial theory and policy prior to the American Revolution. Economic development was to be fostered by the State, and the end to be achieved by this direction of production and commerce was the strengthening of the central government. Specifically, the aims of the Mercantile system were to develop a large merchant marine which in turn would form the basis of an efficient navy, to protect domestic food production in order to be independent of foreign producers, to protect home industries and develop new manufactures in order to provide employment, and to acquire and keep in the country as much money as possible. This was the broad outline of the economic planning of which the regulations imposed upon colonial trade formed a part. Beginnings of Planning In the economic planning of the present day the system of rigid control of industry and agriculture has been applied as part of a sudden change in policies. Within less than a year after the Roosevelt administration came into power a far-reaching system of control was in effect. The systems of planned economies in Italy, Germany and Russia also took shape rapidly. The planning to which the colonies were subjected developed gradually over the years. The British commercial policy began to assume a form in which planning was applied to the colonies with the Navigation Act of 1651, passed by Parliament during the ascendancy of Cromwell. This was 125 years before the Declaration of Independence. The act required that all colonial products exported to England be carried in ships of English origin and that they be manned by Englishmen. It was the first step in a program in which the commercial development of the colonials was restricted for the benefit of nationalism in England. The policy was strengthened nine years later in the Navigation Act of 1660. By prohibiting the direct shipment of certain commodities from the colonies to a foreign port it was sought to make England the distributing center for certain colonial commodities. The law required that they be first landed at an English port. English manufacturers were given the first opportunity to secure raw materials and the merchants obtained handling profits in case of reexportation. Foodstuffs produced in the colonies became subject to restrictions in those early days. New England fish were excluded from English markets after the year 1660. Later many staple products of New England and the Middle Colonies, such as wheat, corn, flour and meat, were barred. Thus there grew up an imperial AAA with restrictions applicable to the colonies. The limitations placed upon markets automatically served to curtail production. The British planners were not content to limit what the colonies might produce but tried also to control what they consumed. Thus in the Staple Act of 1663 Parliament applied restrictions to imports into the colonies in order that English manufacturers and merchants might profit. Not only was it required that all goods received by the colonies be carried in English built and manned ships but it was stipulated that they should come from English ports. The importation of products directly from European nations was prohibited, with the exception of salt for fisheries, wine from Madeira and the Azores and provisions from Scotland and Ireland. Another step toward control of colonial commerce was taken in the Colonial Duty Act of 1673. Export duties were imposed as penalties for failure to comply with restrictions as to ex- ports from the colonies. All ships carrying products that by law could only be sent to England were required to give a bond to insure compliance. The administration of this law, which was effective a little more than 100 years before the Declaration of Independence, was the cause of much bad feeling on the part of the colonists. The Colonial NRA Restrictions upon manufacturing in the colonies went hand in hand with the control of trade and commerce. The colonies had an NRA but like the New Deal NRA its regulations could not be enforced. If complete enforcement had been possible, the Revolution might have occurred at a somewhat earlier date. Protection of the home market from any possible competition of colonial products was not only demanded but English manufacturers also wanted to control the entire colonial market. The exportation of wool, yarn and woolen cloth from the colonies was forbidden as early as 1699, and as manufacturing continued to develop in the northern colonies, the House of Commons in 1732 created a commission to make an investigation. Among other things this commission reported that "great quantities of hats" were being manufactured in New England and that some were being exported to the West Indies, Spain and Portugal. The English hat makers asked for a law and Parliament provided it. The exportation of hats from the colonies to a foreign country, to England, or to another colony was forbidden. The colonial NRA sought to limit production through labor provisions just as did the New Deal NRA. For example, the number of apprentices was limited to two to a master hat maker and an apprenticeship of seven years was required. The English iron and steel manufacturers were anxious to prevent the development of an industry for the processing of iron in the colonies. In 1717 the smiths and other iron workers in England petitioned Parliament to do something about it. A law was enacted which provided that bar and pig iron might be imported into the port of London free of duty later this was extended to include all English ports and foreign iron was subjected to heavy duties. This part of the law was designed to stimulate the mining and smelting of the ore, but the erection in the colonies of any mills or machinery to process it was prohibited. Mills already operating were permitted to continue, but new ones were classed as nuisances and their operation subjected to the penalty of a heavy fine. The methods employed were not unlike the production control devices made effective under the New Deal NRA. In the cotton textile industry under the NRA, for example, there were rules to insure a curtailment of output. Rural Resettlement The New Deal has its National Resources Board, which prepares comprehensive plans for economic development; the Resettlement Administration, which is engaged in the task of shifting portions of the population; the AAA, which among its activities takes submarginal lands out of cultivation; and the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Reclamation Service and other agencies which promote the settlement of new areas. The development of the colonies to the westward, involving shifts of population, the cultivation of new lands and the stimulation of new industries, was subject to a rigid control which was one of the important causes of discontent. In 1763 after the settlement of the war with France the government in London undertook to formulate and carry out a definite plan for fixing the boundaries of the American colonies. By the terms of the Royal Proclamation of 1763 the territory between the Appalachian Mountains and the Mississippi River was reserved for the Indians. While one purpose of this restriction was to prevent trouble with the Indians, it also stopped the westward expansion and restricted settlement to the coast. Even fur trading was forbidden in this territory except by royal license. These restrictions were favorable to the Hudson Bay Company and the English manufacturers, but naturally aroused protests on the part of the colonists. In one report considered by the Board of Trade in London, after arguments by the colonists against the continuation of the policy, the statement is found: "The new seacoast colonies provide a market for manufacture; but these (inland settlements), being 1,500 miles inland, would supply no returns to pay for British manufactures, and would probably be led to manufacture for themselves, which experience shows has constantly attended in a greater or lesser degree every inland settlement." Price Control Under the New Deal drastic measures have been taken to insure maintenance of high prices 10 considered desirable as part of the planned program. Thus under the Potato Act a buyer of potatoes which are not properly packaged and stamped is subject to a fine and jail sentence. The English planners adopted measures which were designed to enable the British West Indies to sell their products at high prices. As early as 1731 the sugar planters in the British West Indies appealed to Parliament to prohibit the importation of sugar, rum or molasses into England or the American colonies from that part of the West Indies controlled by other nations. As these products could be obtained more cheaply in the French, Dutch or Spanish West Indies, an extensive trade had developed between these islands and the American colonies. By pressure for protection by the special interests of the British West Indies, the Molasses Act of 1733 was passed by the Parliament. This act placed prohibitive duties on the importation into the colonies of these products from foreign plantations. If this law had been enforced it would have destroyed the trade between the colonies and the foreign West Indies. The Sugar Act of 1764 was passed by Parliament in a second attempt to control the situation. By the terms of this act the importation of rum or spirits from foreign plantations was prohibited, an increased duty was placed on foreign sugars and the duty on molasses was reduced in order to bring in revenue. The enforcement of this act ruined the legitimate trade of the colonists with the West Indies, encouraged smuggling and contributed heavily to the growing protest against restrictions on the economic life of the colonists. Colonial Planning Board In colonial days there was no long list of alphabetical agencies, each with its particular task of planning. There was, however, a planning board at London, where all authority was centralized, which was known as the Board of Trade and Plantations. It had supervision over all economic activities in the colonies. In regard to this organization Professor Charles A. Beard says: "Until the eve of the Revolution, this Board kept all American affairs drawn tightly within its dragnet, holding five meetings a week during most of its career, and, in periods of relaxation, eight or ten sessions a month. If an English merchant or manufacturer had a complaint or suggestion to make 11 about the acts of any colonial authority, or about methods of controlling American industry, he could find a sympathetic hearing before the Board of Trade." The colonial planning board had the same experience which New Deal regulatory agencies have had in finding that one step in control leads to another. Half-way measures were impractical. There was a steady expansion of economic control. The tendency was toward complete bureaucratic regimentation which in the end inevitably broke down. When the AAA was established under the New Deal the law provided for seven "basic" agricultural commodities. Now there are 15, one of the latest to be added being potatoes whose control was considered desirable because of diversion of acreage from controlled crops. Under the first rules laid down by the colonial planning board there were seven commodities that could be shipped only to English ports sugar, tobacco, cotton, wool, indigo, ginger and dye-woods. In 1704 naval stores, such as tar, pitch, turpentine, hemp, masts and yards, were added; molasses and rice in 1706; copper ore, beaver skins and other furs in 1722; bar and pig iron, whale fins, hides, lumber and raw silk in 1764. The changes represented a progressively expanding restriction on trade that the colonies might have developed with foreign nations. The addition of articles to the enumerated list went on until 1776 when it covered practically all products that were exported. Franklin's Comments The economic planning which was applied to the colonies was ostensibly in the interest of the mother country. Just as has been true under the New Deal the program frequently helped a special interest with strong political influence. Among those who protested against the economic planning of which the colonies were victims was Benjamin Franklin who said: "They (the colonists) reflected how lightly the interests of all America had been estimated here (England), when the interests of a few of the inhabitants of Great Britain happened to have the smallest competition with it. That the whole American people was forbidden the advantage of a direct importation of wine, oil, and fruit from Portugal . . . merely that a few Portuguese merchants in London may gain a commission on those goods passing through their hands. . . . But not only 12 the interests of a particular body of merchants, but the interests of any small body of British tradesmen or artificers, has been found, they say, to outweigh that of all the King's subjects in the colonies. ... It is of no importance to the common welfare of the Empire whether a subject of the King obtains his living by making hats on this or that side of the water. Yet the hatters of England have prevailed to obtain an act in their own favor, restraining that manufacture in America. ... In the same manner have a few nail-makers, and still smaller body of steel-makers (perhaps there are not half a dozen of these in England) prevailed totally to forbid by an act of Parliament the erecting of slitting mills, or steel furnaces in America." Causes of Revolution Economic planning on behalf of the British Empire but applicable to the colonies had been in progress for more than a century when the crisis developed which precipitated the Revolution. The Stamp Act of 1765 was followed by protests which resulted in its repeal. Then came the Townshend Acts of 1767 which proved failures as revenue measures. The Tea Act of 1773 was followed by violence. The next year Parliament enacted five so-called "intolerable acts" which closed the Port of Boston to commerce, revoked the charter of the Massachusetts Colony, prohibited town meetings, authorized the quartering of soldiers in towns, made possible under certain circumstances the transfer of accused persons to England for trial and extended the boundaries of the province of Quebec to the Ohio River. The Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776, included a protest against legislation "cutting off our trade with all parts of the world." In this historic document were demanded the liberties denied under arbitrary government. Planning and the New Deal There is nothing essentially new about economic planning. The planners under the New Deal have more governmental machinery through which to carry out their program. They have more money to spend. They have more elaborate blue prints and reports. But they are trying to do the same thing that many earlier planners tried to do, namely, to guide and control economic laws. Mercantilism in the later Middle Ages repre-13 sents only one of many experiments in planning. In ancient China managed economies go back to a very early date. The Chinese in the Fifth Century B.C. sought to fix and maintain prices at substantially an unchanging level which was presumed to represent equity for both the producer and the consumer. China had a public works program in the building of the Great Wall. The people of ancient Sparta were regimented. The Roman Empire was a victim of planned economy. Its experiences with planning reached their height under Diocletian who in the Fourth Century A.D. sought to fix maximum prices for all sorts of commodities and services, with the death penalty for violation. In the Byzantine Empire a few centuries later prices were controlled through trade guilds and a redistribution of wealth was attempted. Some germs of present-day planned economy can be found in the feudalism and guilds of the Middle Ages. The striking point with respect to economic planning wherever attempted is that it involves a different system of government than that to which the United States has become accustomed under its Constitution. Economic planning may appear to succeed for a time under an autocracy or dictatorship. It is out of place in a democracy. The liberties and freedom of individual initiative which have marked the American industrial system necessarily would be checked under a rigid governmental control of all economic activities. The New Deal in its attempt to regiment and control industry and agriculture has departed from principles of government established under the Constitution. This departure from constitutional principles has taken definite lines as indicated by the three points of similarity with Mercantilism and Fascism already outlined. In adopting policies whch are thus susceptible of comparison the New Deal has flouted the limitations upon economic control under the commerce clause of the Constitution, ignored the separation of powers in three coordinate branches of the government and ridden roughshod over the prohibitions in the Constitution against the taking of property without due process of law. The scores of cases now in the courts involving the commerce clause, delegation of power to the Executive and the due process clause make it impossible to sustain denials by the New Deal of the charge that the maintenance of our form of government is at stake. The people of the American colonies revolted against the rule of an autocratic government which sought to control economic activities. The framers of the Constitution were wise enough to devise an instrument under which it would be difficult again to exercise such far-reaching power. The limitations in the Constitution were intended to insure the maintenance of democratic principles. Through attempted control of economic activities under the New Deal these principles are being endangered.