OCR Text |
Show unions and their activities; and that during that period Congress, although often asked to do so, has passed no act purporting to exclude labor unions wholly from the operation of the Act." United States v. Elgin, J. & E. Ry., 298 U.S. 492, 500 (1935): "Notwithstanding the intent imputed to Congress by this opinion,!/ announced in 1915* no amendment has been made to the Commodities Clause. We must, therefore, conclude that the interpretation of the Act then accepted has legislative approval." Where the source of the statutory construction, upon which reliance is based, is a judicial opinion, it is not even necessary that the portion of the opinion relied upon be a holding. Missouri v. Ross, 299 U.S. 72 (1936), involved the question of the relative priority of the claims of public bodies against the estate of a bankrupt under the provisions of section 64b(6) of the Bankruptcy Act. Thirty years previously the Supreme Court, in a dictum contained in New Jersey v. Anderson, 203 U.S. 483 (1906), declared such claims were on a parity. In following the dictum of the Anderson case, the Court, in Missouri v. Ross, stated: "It is true that this statement was not necessary to the decision; but it nevertheless correctly states our view as to the meaning of the clause under consideration, and is now definitely approved. The decision in that case was made nearly thirty years ago, since which time the lower federal courts have 1/ United States v. Delaware, L. & W.R.U., 238 U.S. 519 (1915). (Footnote ours.) III-I66 |