a vile the pection, if Sure de question which

sether the New tes de Formath Amendment.

ASSETS IS A TRAsoc. for granting 10 Accf the Consti

ne The States and a procr decision" of this sadly cured” and again, that "the

Sunes preling under which the New York law vis muret al for a reensideration of the Adkins case in the bent of the New York act and conditions aimed to be remehed thereby." Unless we are now to construe and apply the Fourteenth Amendment without regard to our decisions since the Adkins case, we could not rightly avoid its reconsideration even if it were not asked. We should follow our decision in the Nebbia case and leave the selection and the method of the solution of the problems to which the statute is addressed where it seems to me the Constitution has left them, to the legislative branch of the government. The judgment should lus reversed

Mi Jy stow BANDA and MR JUSTICE CARDOZO join

DECISIONS PER CURIAM, FROM MARCH 31 TO

AND INCLUDING JUNE 1, 1936.*

No. 797. CRAIG v. UNITED STATES; and

No. 798. WEINBLATT V. SAME. March 31, 1936. The application for writs of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is dismissed upon the ground that it is premature, without prejudice to a renewal of the application within thirty days after action by the Circuit Court of Appeals on the petition for rehearing. Messrs. Mark L. Herron and Aloysius I. McCormick for petitioners. No appearance for the United States. Reported below: 81 F. (2d) 816.

No. 856. FOLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF BRONX, ET AL. v. WACHS. Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. April 6, 1936. Per Curiam: The motion for leave to file jurisdictional statement is granted. The decree granting an interlocutory injunction is affirmed. Alabama v. United States, 279 U. S. 229, 231; Langer v. Grandin Farmers Coöperative Elevator Co., 292 U. S. 605; Baldwin v. G. A. F. Seelig, Inc., 293 U. S. 522; Grosjean v. Texas Co., 297 U. S. 697. Mr. Paul Windels for appellants. No appearance for appellee.

No. 817. P. J. CARLIN CONSTRUCTION Co. ET AL. v. HEANEY ET AL. Appeal from the Supreme Court of New York. Jurisdictional statement distributed March 28,

* For decisions on applications for certiorari, see post, pp. 647, 654; for rehearing, post, p. 691.

It is not for the courts to resolve doubts whether the remedy by wage regulation is as efficacious as many believe, or is better than some other, or is better even than the blind operation of uncontrolled economic forces. The legislature must be free to choose unless government is to be rendered impotent. The Fourteenth Amendment has no more embedded in the Constitution our preference for some particular set of economic beliefs than it has adopted, in the name of liberty, the system of theology which we may happen to approve.

I know of no rule or practice by which the arguments advanced in support of an application for certiorari restrict our choice between conflicting precedents in deciding a question of constitutional law which the petition, if granted, requires us to answer. Here the question which the petition specifically presents is whether the New York statute contravenes the Fourteenth Amendment. In addition, the petition assigns as a reason for granting it that "the construction and application of the Constitution of the United States and a prior decision" of this Court "are necessarily involved," and again, that "the circumstances prevailing under which the New York law was enacted call for a reconsideration of the Adkins case in the light of the New York act and conditions aimed to be remedied thereby." Unless we are now to construe and apply the Fourteenth Amendment without regard to our decisions since the Adkins case, we could not rightly avoid its reconsideration even if it were not asked. We should follow our decision in the Nebbia case and leave the selection and the method of the solution of the problems to which the statute is addressed where it seems to me the Constitution has left them, to the legislative branch of the government. The judgment should be reversed.

MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS and MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO join in this opinion.

DECISIONS PER CURIAM, FROM MARCH 31 TO

AND INCLUDING JUNE 1, 1936.*

No. 797. CRAIG v. UNITED STATES; and

No. 798. WEINBLATT v. SAME. March 31, 1936. The application for writs of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is dismissed upon the ground that it is premature, without prejudice to a renewal of the application within thirty days after action by the Circuit Court of Appeals on the petition for rehearing. Messrs. Mark L. Herron and Aloysius I. McCormick for petitioners. No appearance for the United States. Reported below: 81 F. (2d) 816.

No. 856. FOLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY of Bronx, ET AL. v. WACHS. Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. April 6, 1936. Per Curiam: The motion for leave to file jurisdictional statement is granted. The decree granting an interlocutory injunction is affirmed. Alabama v. United States, 279 U. S. 229, 231; Langer v. Grandin Farmers Coöperative Elevator Co., 292 U. S. 605; Baldwin v. G. A. F. Seelig, Inc., 293 U. S. 522; Grosjean v. Texas Co., 297 U. S. 697. Mr. Paul Windels for appellants. No appearance for appellee.

No. 817. P. J. CARLIN CONSTRUCTION Co. ET AL. v. HEANEY ET AL. Appeal from the Supreme Court of New York. Jurisdictional statement distributed March 28,

* For decisions on applications for certiorari, see post, pp. 647, 654; for rehearing, post, p. 691.

Decisions Per Curiam, Etc.

298 U.S.

1936. Decided April 6, 1936. Per Curiam: The appeal herein is dismissed for the want of jurisdiction. Section 237 (a) Judicial Code as amended by the Act of February 13, 1925 (43 Stat. 936, 937); Citizens National Bank v. Durr, 257 U. S. 99, 106; Jett Bros. Distilling Co. v. Carrollton, 252 U. S. 1, 5, 6; Indian Territory Co. v. Board of Equalization, 287 U. S. 573; Lewis v. New York, 289 U. S. 709. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was allowed as a petition for a writ of certiorari, § 237 (c), Judicial Code as amended (43 Stat. 936, 938), certiorari is granted. Mr. Elmer Clyde Sherwood for appellants. Messrs. Henry Epstein and Joseph A. McLaughlin for appellees. Reported below: 269 N. Y. 93, 199 N. E. 16; 243 App. Div. 648, 277 N. Y. S. 754.

No. 787. NATIONAL CITY BANK OF NEW YORK CITY v. OELBERMANN ET AL. On petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. April 6, 1936. Per Curiam: Petition for writ of certiorari granted. The judgment is modified by substituting a direction for a judgment of dismissal on the merits with costs in place of the direction for a new trial, and, as so modified, is affirmed. Baltimore & C. Line v. &C. Redman, 295 U. S. 654. Messrs. Carl A. Mead and Frank A. F. Severance for petitioner. Messrs. Kenneth E. Walser and Ralph B. Evans for respondents. Reported below: 79 F. (2d) 534.

No.-, original. EX PARTE MORTIMER. April 6, 1936. The motion for leave to file petition for writ of mandamus is denied. Messrs. Hubert E. Rogers, John T. Dooling, and John F. Condon, Jr., for petitioner.