Document text
<'_ -16- .:
i I»i 8
Jr f .
Ye ,/ i e!., i ,»/ =a» <» e>e9292 /{J "I/'/if? "
_ _ - » . - '* ' I ' 7_~ Linri r '__||_i- In-In-1 7 ' -
High Court Refuses to-'Tr_espass.L' in Rail Unlionccelsel »
tr BANNING I. wnrrrmorr
The Supreme Court ruled yea-
erday that Conzreu intended the
funsd1¢t1qga1_dmnuu: oi'_ra11road
inirto be settled Without Fe-'
:dd!'§6totheI*iedera1courteal_e
"nal arbiter. _ t
Concurrentb. it ullheld the con-
ictione oi 18 Minnesota members
>1 the Socialist Workers Party
who were found guilty oi plotting
the overthrow or the Government.
Diaeente in lwo_Caeee- 92The court in effect I-X in twollil'Odd caaeo thiati til; Ra wa ornc afol-" wisdiction I-fl intro,
union controversiea. Juetices
Owen J. Roberts and Stanley
Reed dissented from both deci-
sionl. Justice Robert H. JacksonWrovl elrallroade and two unions. the?The rst opinion involved a
union appeal iron: action by the
national mediation beard orderingiam election to determine union
representation between rival
orzahizatione in one crett.
i Justice William. O. Doodles
iwrote the maiority opinion in
which the court denied, 4 to 3. its
Iauthority to review board deci-
aione. He said court review in not
necaeary to protect riahtl createdby statute law. *
com-to "SIIOIIIC NM Bllh Ill
In the second, case, involvin: twoi
court daid-A it 1-.-"ken newer to
le on labor contracts agreed on
y those parties. Douglas said the
ediation act did not embrace
udicial remedies.
ciilelitedinonecaae. .
14~ov2 1
- _ . A 2" . r.-; Hg;-Q,
92. ... . .. _ ._ i' _ 1. romeo seven to one that theford e judicial remedy plain be-
tore an oblisetion enrorcibie in the
#011111 should be implied," he said.
He edded thet the court: should
110% H-Bh in where Conireal hasnot chosen to tread."
; In the Socialist cane, the court
ldenied the 18 members Joint an-SPeel based on the contention that
$119? had been deprived oi free
speech. They were convicted in
Minneeote District Court both tor
advocating overthrowrot em. gov-
ernment and violating the Alien
Registration Law. i
In other decialona or orders, thecourt: -
sale of oil and gee leases for invee
ment Purposes constitutes sale of
"security" and hence ia within tn
command oitheeetehould
I
""'"i1° /U343 L!/
J"L3; D nix-ED N 0'1.Federal Securities Law. %-blelvlicitendthepuz-paeotoaf-Q
iNew York Court of A91]1 ll-18 I. union from picketineiu t
cafeterias where no labor dienu
elleoedlyezieted. H92'l'oHearLlquo|-Cue: S '
3. Aireed to hear-oral
:ln acaee involving legality oi
shipments to a military rue:-va
92inOhie.h0m&-_--ndnltatet
Ruiedei:-tothreeinthecau
Prank Roberts. Huntsville.
that Federal courts lack legal til
toimpoeeaneweentenee on a
son convicted oi a Federal otfe
it probation privilelee are viola
Q. _R.1iIed that Joseph _ Dot
weicn, general manager oi a B
falo pharmaceutical firm. wee
sponeible for misbrandina oi
Products by the company in vio
tion ot the Federal Food andI 2.R-everaed_tl1e a-etiono! S
. .. " 5* __=;;--.-.._ if
T! .
'1
1' 'l 1"
v eMe
- I;/7/ff
~ it-1% kg
"*'---i..._....,-i--II. CLIPPED raon THE
WASHINGTON TIMES-HERALD
EDITION NUHBR JPAnt.
Q-->-w
nu.
ii N-1'.
',| 1;.-.
.1 "
Y 51:.
1'};-_ _"92;...~|.: 3.
3 LL:
15 L
92M.r.
Ix.
mg. L.--I =1
Ml-_ 311 :;;';-r92'1--------RO"".l1--
1::.v...
Acerl __- ~---
Carrnn ._.-.-.-<--
92»"
L Q._,_<_-;"'i.'..:..L..t.-.._ . _, cu». .=_.-----~-
92e _»e -i92
J
1
if
ni-
1
3!
.71-_.
if
C. 3 h
__-
' High Court Rule
wrangle Luuuisi
In 2 Big Casesb
BI BANNIING E. WHITTHWGTON
i A fight paralleling in Intensity
H PIE B _ __ u.
p -.¬ §§ ma.y_deve1oo about
'=_ §*e="!="= ""1.le1m.=n11=>k-J
.er rutllu n _1umnmmur_.1n.eytake arrective hand, _
M E1581 : are_ihree._momJo
¢- col-11'tf5_j§K81 QIJ-Qrllln
ennd. "" "*-'r.._.now hanging tire, could reop
II iFlue Constitute Quorum H
l . They are the Govermn a anti-Q-trust suit agains ____ ~.92.om-a-" - maria». tnown leil1»**":i @"¢...,.......s ...g F..."¬W%"-F.-.L .¢ " 6 3% ° O! e can om ny,E iTml§__Ql3.Tnz s2ru'i..ce?¬.@vBT1FT§§g__<:_I_$19Q._QQ0.000 or i
=§§E§T'-' ""'*""*-"[- Eu: justices have constituted ll
Q1-iorum since the days when the
tribunal numbered 11. In the Alcoa.
case, four oi the present nine jug-i
tlcee--Chief Justice Harlan F.
Stone and Justices Stanley Reed,
Funk Murphy l.l!d. B.-obert E.
iJa.ckson-have disqualied them-selves because 0! prior connection
th the Department oi Justice. A quartet or Justices whose.
names have never been made pub
llc. a o have held themselves in-ellsih in the North Amer! 92
case. lth both action! thus led
H9 thi; court has transferred kmto wow docket--nendinz e-velo em-5..witl"1£l-11? -mmé- 92
s1i=§.oLthe_heoeh..I2:is.1r nrooosedfso -phLt two cases of zneat impoi-t,,r.
4
Prospective Way: Out
At present there are two 3100-p lve ways out. Conrress £
pad n low chenlinl the quorul or the cases can lie in nigh_an until the court: members lpi
lii: shuttled.
Three remedi thus for prbw
posed have come in for violent
criticism for tear that it the legal
quorum were reduced the court]
ould be "unbalanced" and conse-1
uently become unrepresentatsve
of the true court majority.
One is I bill by Representative
IJ-IIQDCIII. W. OLI-I111-IE1"! 92LI'.J, UL
exas. chairman of the House
udiciery Committee, under which
ve justices would constituter e
rich-or quorum--perm.lttin£ lie
isions on a three-to-two dividedB-sis.
The American Bar Asuociatlotve
eaction was instant. It celled
the bill "ad hoe in character."
his means that the cases tied up;
might be cleared but that there
would be established a. dangerousnr92.H|-we ushnw-dhv I [H v-nA.inr92|1.|| i-nu; -v..92--q,-; _ -.-in.-.1 um;-Haajority could adjudicate ques-
tions of sweeulng. national tm-.
portance. .
Other Meuurel PropoledMr. Cle::____/ Mr, CoHcy__
92 Mr. Glcvin___
92I'L/J.
A second pla.nby I!!!!resembl-
tlve Zebulon Weaver DJ. or
North Carolina, would automati-
cally remand the cases to the
Circuit Courts of Appeals where
they originated. , 1The third alternative-Jfpi-"
gested by Representative Emits
tiill quorum.
sl ould any of the Diana be
pun! . I long, bitter tight. is cer-
tain.Ke uver D.!, oi 'IenneaBdb--
wo authorize retired iustloel, to
hiMr. 'I'o1aon'/
Mr. 1:. 4.17m;
ta . 1;=aa__,__7
'I|:r".T'Niel:oll;¢r.Ro|en__J
Hr. Tracy
Mr. Acerl
Mr. Cnr|on_____
Mr. Hnrbo
Mr. Hondon___
Mr. Murnf0rd_____
Mr. Stnrke____
Mr. Quinn Tern:
Mr. Nelle
Min Good Y
l f ,-| 1 '_ / .- - ' .IL. -i " -I " /-T
$30 ='-T57? 11??-"7 i~;TJED~.~.~=Y> '/1 nu 5 i94£~
"*-@'lII|_-i-----0-nu
JMI =19"
34 1 WASHINGTON TIMES-HERALD
P
., ,_.;.._,=_,...~..-,-.. 92
I
92»;
~ 92
92e
.
92.
'9F
"J._.,;Hugo L. Black, cutie Juetice FrankC
...,
}1111111 GOURTBAGKSs1111'11>111-11~'1 01111111
qz_£h£lAh3,Q1i§E9H@% W*°
' iveded induction _
11!
. WASHINGTON, Jen. 3 u¥'i-Th
Supreme Court ruled today that a
draft registrant who object! to the
clauitication given him by a draft
board must report for duty before
he can test in the court: the valid-
ity of the board: action.
y The 8-to-1 opinion by Juetice
Murphy dieaenting, acid it was
well understood" that "dire conse-
quences might ow from apathy
and delay and that the Selective
Service Act was passed "to mobilize
national manpower with the epeed
atanding required."Up Ids Conviction of Minister
1
E
1
e
92
which that neceuity and under-
Juetice Black explained that en
1
tor service" because
Ition center and the conacientiouaobjector who in opposed to non-
cornbetant duty may be rejected atthe civilian public service camp."
"Il'iul." Justice Black asserted,"a board order to report ia no more
than a necessary indeterminate
step In a united and continuouaproceae designed to I-pee an armyJpeedlly and e1'£icienty." '
1 _ ecirion Ipeciticaily involved=Nic aibo of Welt Newton, Pa.,it me _ _-r or Jeeo"-h: '1" -* . ~ - - - ~-en yr abidi-
;Mr. Faibo contended that he lhould
have been claaaied u a miniateri
mime he was claaaied I-I
-conscientious objector and waa or-
Ved to five year! impriaenmentj~bytiu!eoara1courtatPittlburgh.;
1. The Government argued Indorethe court that ltr. 2%": ct",-eo=1
tiona to hie elaaaitlcatkln could 1' be1 by arriving for a writ orno e alter 1duty Bultpuliir paint fororder to report for induction was
not "the equivalent of acceptance '
the eeiectee 7- -- 7- -- V .may lll bg reiecfad 5|; Lg: §;gdgc= "' " *" "" " "
Ii.u¬ umiii §A92J92-FE!-lJ_5 __ _
gainat rim for faiiune to report.
. Juatice Bieclfa majority opinion.
which contirrna the district court
iruiing, laid that "Cong'1-eelwllnotirequired to provide tor judicial in-
tervention before nal acceptance
;ot an individual for national
aervice."
In ht! dlaaent. Justice Murphy
aeid that there was no expreae or
implied barrier" in the Selective
Service Act to the granting of a
fu judiciai review of induction cr~
dere in criminal proceedtnga."
The Supreme Court retueed tocompletely exempt from Iallita freview the conviction ct Sidne{training and lervice *1
irnit of New You-it on a
in; to report tor induction
iinto the A!-my altar his claim tor,d¢l'°4 W "P°rt for work underlciuaitication aa a onaclentioul:_ ' civilian direction at Bi: Flats, N. Y. ohjagtqr had ham meg,e railed to report and. was aeo-
11 Hr. lea-nit, amtenoad to threeyearn imgiaoumeut by the Federalcourt at cw York, contended thathe could not Iubunit to induction
" vrrtruour." iii: Oonlalonca.
_ me Justice Department asserted
that the proper procedure waa to
appear tor induction en leeka writ of]:ILT A '" _ .l
.-t ,
ELA-
Il-P. G01", "
I Ii
Mr. I-add
M]. Rell "'-
15,. Drew ----- ----' -
no-. Av"! ------ "
*1-. Car-DUI --
§u._ ggndnn _------
. rtumfvri ---- ---
iii;-.
M,-_ Quin-:1
I.
f bi/W 519/74
1.% /'/X-I
, .
I
/
1&2-. A Mi
}92; !';92 }_ i R IJED
87 mu 101944 »i
-.
T .-" M]
'u
4
-.
_ :_,._
ax :-
.-_s_.%
mlls i
l berts Says Court Fltpflops"
nfusing to Lower Tribunals W
By Mary Spsrgo |
Vigil-ous ,crit.ic of the present_-"tendency" of ll
-to disregard precedent to sucEF'mJ
=e:tent as to shake condence in.
the consistency or decision and!
leave the court below on an un-
charted sea of doubt and diliiculw"
was disclosed yesterday in an opin-
'ion written by Justice Owen J.
£30 18. ta'- '
Justice Felix Frankfurter joined
in Roberts opinion. which cited
_the court's ipops on various dc-i
-cisions concerning the Jehovah
iwitness sect. 92
The dissenting opinion referred
.t'o _a modern instance" of mem-
bers of the court making a public
announcement of a change of views,
with a citation referring to an
opinion ip which Justices Black,
Murphy and Douglas revealed that I
they had chanzedtheir minds on
the Jehovah Witness ag salute
case.- ~
Early last month Justice ant:
wrote s concurring opinion solely
;devoted to Liking issue with the-ressons given by Frankiurter tori
dissenting from a majority opinion. '
Black was joined by Murphy. The
split attracted more than usual at-
tention becaused all three Justices
- lack, Murphy and Frankfuter
w re appointed to the bench by
Pi sident Roosevelt and were re-
gt derl as a liberal team" which
wt uld work together.The strongly worded dissent.»
Justice Roberts c ticizing the lackFe! eeneistenq in the court weal
, /
53. U 1534 ~ '- i JUSTICE nosesrs
handed .down Monday in an ad-
miralty case Mahnich v. The
Southern Steamship Go}. Justice
Roberts charged that the court's
majority opinion nullied an ear-
lier decision of theiSupremg C ri
which has stood unquestioned or18 years." I
The evil resulting from o 1'-
ruling earlier considered decisj us
must be evident," Justice Roberts
opinion said.
"In the present case, the court
below naturally felt bound to tol-
r 5'91
1I T.iSeeonslell by Frankfurter 92 !
l
I
i
|
Lpublic nd themselves. Mr, 'l'olson_;J Mr e. a. Telfl M" '
I
in and apply the law as clearly
an ounced by this court. ll ti-
jl and lower I_'ederal co Isr not to do lo. the law beco&:
it-lo s chart to govern conduct ut
I lame of chance; lnlteed of let-
tlinl rllhts and liabilities it un-
ssettles them. Counsel and parties
fwiii bring and prosecute actions in
theteeth of the decisions that such
actions are not mmrtainahle on
the not improbable chance that
the asserted rule will be thrown
foverhoerd. Defendants will not
know whether to litigate or to
settle. for they will have no assur-
ance that a declared rule will be
followed. But the more deplorable
consequence will inevitably be that
the administration of justice will
Iall into disreputel ltespecii tor
tribunals must nu when wit bar
and the public come ~ underhtand
that nothing has been laid iniiprior
adjudication has force in a current
controversyf
Growth Allowed For '
"Of course. the law may grow
to meet changing conditions. I do
not advocate slavish adherence to
authority Where new conditions re-
quire new rules of conduct. But
this is not such e case. The tend-
ency to disregard precedents in the
decision of cases like the present
has become so strong in this court
of late as, in my view. to shake
condence in the consistency of
decision and leave the courts be-
low on an uncharted sea of doubt
and diiliculty without any con.
dence that what was said yestei-d:y
will be good tomorrow, unless tn-
deed a modern instance grows intoifs custom of members of t ' court U
of ~,to make public announce entI/a Jhange of views and to dicate
th t they will 'change the votesgonlthe same question when an-
rct r case comes before the coiut.
:_'Il1ls might, to some extent, ob-
Iviste the predicament in which
the lower courts, the bar and the
r7~'K/
1». vin _ yd? -
- Nle 4
llr. Ro
II. r
Mr. Acers__
Mr. Carsoni
Mr. Harbo____
Mr. Hsndon__
Mr. Mumford:
Mr. Sta:-ke___
Mr. Quinn'1a|:
Mr. Nease_____
Mill Gandy
I
s
92
-75 /3"-5 7/1sv 4 I ' I
§'92.~,¢ QRDED
?}ég'..>.-1.:lifi
n"lI920
Q ' !
I
92
L .Robert-8' reference to chan
. inimum wage laws for wo n._ sinsi
conditions: was interpreted asaible reference to his Fm' Inge of decision tn re: to
' n 1936 Roberts voted wi h th F - t e
ority to hold unconstitutional I
-New York law xing minimum! Mages for women. Less than a year
: '1ater the court sustained a similar
Washington State law by another
,5-to-4 decision, with Roberts
switching his vote to make the ina-
jority. This decision came in the
midst oi the bitter Senate con-
ftroversy over President Roosevelt's
unsuccessful plan to reorganize the
Supreme Court by adding six jus-
tices. a proposal attacked as a
- court packing" plan. During the
Supreme Court ght, Roberts was
frequently referred to as the court's
"swing man." -
Cites June 1940 Decision '
. The citations iiven by Rob .
in connection with the mod tn
right-about face tendency of m ti-1
"hers of the court go back to Ju ,
1940, when the majority, in a decl-
sion written by Frankfurter on a
Jehovah Witness case, held that a
public school requirement. of a
salute to the fl-Hg was constitu-
- tional. Chiei Justice Harlan "I.
Stone was then thr lone dissenter.i |
uit Court of Appeals cited the factat tour members of the U. S. gr-
'_ remn Gourt believed the |,-1 lute decision incorrect in 13»-ding the Jehovah Witness g t
against the ag salute in W t J
Virginia schools.
May '4, 1943, the Supreme Court
reversed its previous stand on the
constitutionality oi municipal
license taxes on the sale of reli-
gious literature. This time thecourt upheld the Jehovah Witness ;
sect in a ght against such munici-
pal ordinancees in a 5-to-4 decision,
with the scale tipped by the addi-
tion oi Justice Rutledge, who re-
placed former Justice Byrnes, now J
War Mobilization director. This
time _ Roberta, Frankfurter, J ack-
- In June, 1942 the court split. 5to 4. in upholding the mm of three K i
cities to impose license fees on
members of the Jehovah: Witness
sect distributing religious litera-
;ture. This time Justices Murphy,Black and Douglas joined with V
Stone in dissenting, andrthe first 1
three named added:
"Since we joined in the opinion
= the C-ebitia flag salute! cue,
think this is an approp e
asion to state that we now
ve it was wrongly decided.". In October, 1342, the Fourth C Iison and ed were in the minority. 1
June _15, 1943, the Supre eCourt re:-ruled its 1940 decisgni
on the tg salute, with Frankfurizerand Roberts consistently dissenting}
and joined in their opinion bv;
Justice Reed.
I
i
1-
| " .
r~-' _-"1' t1 ;§::i?,*' '
i = "iel
., r 92-..¢
Vin
iv. "_
up---'~1
."f*l.16
0
3 l"3"t 1 -'61¬ 3
m ~f reedom Of Worshipél ._.._..- Q!
The curious and confusing couvoluti s ot
Qnnrnvnn l "nurl- in intnr-nrnirinn Hon iref "" ' ""l""""' 5 " "' """
Amendment are doubtless due to the com-
plexity ot the problem raised by the sec-
taries callewehov-'ahs Witnesses who for
several years dmg the
court with a series of troublesome test
cases. The creed of the Witnesses is
apocalyptic; they believe that Armageddon
is close at hand when the righteous mean-
ing themselves! shall triumph ahd their
enemies be laid lcwt l'bei_r taith an-ii their
methods are fanatical; they regard E other
religions not merely as heresies, but sa-
tanical inspirations; and consequent] have
little regard for the religious sensibilities of
thers. They consider the Government itself
odless and rejoice in the thought of its im-
i- iaent destruction,'yet rarely hesitate to
' voke its protection. They appear to inirite
rather than to avoid repression or pe"secutlon, and there is some reason tcbelljlvo
that they welcome the publicity whit their
frequent conicts with local and S eu-
thorities have brought them.
The dilemma of the court lies in this: in
upholding local ordinances or State laws
under which the Witnesses have been prose-
cuted, precedents may be established which
ill ultimately react against other religions.
he principle. for example, that school chil-
ren belonging to the sect may be compelled.
en against conscience, to otter homage to
. vfk t 92
1/ 1
.1--rw92"§:F_.n _!~ t -=1 J L. ltb 91:1-14
-an-$11 .|,.,,?__- gm
'3 ...I
l H ll. could easily be extended to ni-
Pl-'=3 9-'-the irom persons -e-he have =-
lisious scruples against swearing. The pi-in.
iple of regulating religious activity by ll-
cense or taxation could, ii it became ex-
edientplbe directed against, almost every re.
{listens body. The principle that I secular
@0111! may prescribe which actions do or do
! not constitute worship, is one that scarcely-111! Peliious body could accept. Such p|%-
Iivies, in tact, if once established in l .
would modiiy the constitutions! print-i -ei of freedom to one of mere tolcration. 1*
It may be granted, of course, that there
is I theoretic limit even to freedom of
lW0l'!hip- "The limit would seem to b¢pl-Q.
¢iB¬ll' It U19 Pint where the. freedom of one
nibalism as practiced by the Aztecs or infant
imrnolation as practiced by the ancient
votaries oi bloloch. or polygamy as pry;-1,];-Q1
lu certain pstriarchical societies are entitled
in protection under the law. But in the eb-
sence oi. overt injuries to persons or to tr .
ditional moralitles--and, as for u ire know
ino one has alleged either agalrqt Jehovah;
Witnesses--we should like to ted these use;
dedided on the side of freedom. For u thone vital freedom is narrowly restricted, £3
otlie_l;__J:onstitutional right; wl inlf!!3FFiiy. N - '. ,,_
7? -TA
t.='e:;¢:*"L!be-it';¢. _
u,:'I._I_
. 4, religion collides violently and lnjurlously A 3 -- ~-
wlth established moralitles. No one would 1
say seriously, for eitmglc, that ritual can- "I ' "
r . I
' r
1.1:.
I l.|_.. ""2"-w ______
r. !'»~v...... .
y -14»-¢___ L,.In~'r
_ P
" e
92,_.
" "*-0 . ._
' --s -1.,
;__-.»:.~.»
1 .,-',.
3 n
92v
I G»
clipping frompage of the
Washington Post for
-ipped iii the §eat. 5?Government, _ bkY e it - "
V
Q1-_l -Q _I-H U LII lili- gdhepue
{¬" I '_'w1u_u§1I__.§'___"
' a _.e_ a1
_t___e
_; .1" ....--:.' g
u
I'll|
i
L
1
ii FF 1:! /]6~"*~eucgreme Co
?_ M I1I;10_Versy
-; .' 'A ' '
Justice Fell: an-% if
I'J= We ~-_- l
I
l 91:19.1: r!
ed welt! laLmggxtly exprelzp 0P wol-
C of New Jerpy. Three
s 'were diacontlnued. There-
u under law York StateIY£llI'l
II ID llleelllll Pflll
ur
"'ICL.u 4_ Ja1v._l:!- '
ol novel!
a acme
u eel B 11
l92
re
ever
than
Loreen P
- 1Blte!e_e2unL1_c.0r--
tion undergoing reor tlen
er 1;!! e?iTB 1'1--.1.-i
1unw$ltn1nU|p llnun
--5' Que the nmxruptey
determine the taea
the;
nda which the 81910190 Court
tar If-I ndilll ' -
eale involved the reorganl
| at the Reimolda Inve tlnl
Inc-.'.__1I the Federal D trtct
IMO!-
actlng for the debu>r,1nd!ite1_-
.,truate_e| let the eompeny. led
tn the New York courts to 1201- _
certain chime. Baiore Jud;-l
weriretumad. the atto eye
judb a
c kw and ln conformity with 1allenlII!t_ln the mrlaaln-Pgzbaedinl. the three lu -tn
eeurtl to obtaln lea: for
and were awarded
t *1:-*-' ~»*=.:.~:.;':'#E=- -1-2, e.-92:-Je Q - t an-I azeiullve" inll-5d an the hankrup!¢1.emrt.1/
ll c_ :11! nouanlntion sun?!--::'i"°yt=1.in{~ej3.I.l*::i 5;NM _Rll-It t|_ the one wclhnrlaa;lng>Te11ow the reach-"QOJ eXPeaees' incurred
u. prior _proceedln:." the
tf-Frantfurter asserted that
I the beginning Congress had
alievred Federally created right: to
be enforced in State courts not
cub by the general impiicatloru
or our Ian} ayutem but also by ex-
plicit authorization." -
lie deciared that the Constitu-
tion does not give the Bankruptcy
Act supremacy-over the right 01'
States to'det.ermtne whrt shall be
litigated in their courta.' and
under what conditlona. 5
And certainly," he added. sueh
a wholly novel doctrine of constitu-
tional law should not be reao
-iratuitouely when-1 the case -d
us can be dispt-zed of un-
c cluelve around that the 11
ti _ conducted in the New Y k_
cdhrte was conducted under an er-iniement conaonant with NewYorklaw... To on Y
! E: T12/r
,._ Culley
Glevin E
Canon
Hendon
Starks
Qlllllll Ta|mn_
M111 Gend
. e _____.__H_ _ 5 _92
k.192- 9292
92/.1? LU F p -~f"--7-T" 92 Q 92}|{UheD.0 . _
FEB 121344 .
-I-i. ._'____- ___,_-1-V
-v51_l'92 ' wt ;G :0 O Au TI@m_r ii Ir. cl."
xi l _ l"Z _%
'C5i1rt Discord Bored Again ~ .,
In Split an Jehovah C use *
5 Discord on the B Tork city. devotes the income to
bench was again revealed yester-rrelisioua ends. Must it, therefore.
day with a minority of three, bead-92
ed by Justice Frankfurter, chargingl
that a majority opinion had "start.-
ling implications," leading to the
establishment of the press "in a
class apart, untouchable by taxa-
tion."
This interpretation was ridiculed
by Justice Murphy of the majority
who warned. in his turn, that the
taxing power fin the hands oi un-
scrupulous or bigoted men could
be used to suppress freedoms and
destroy religion."
Divided Six to Three
'I'he court was divided, six to
thnee, in reversing the conviction
S. C., ovahs Witnessor sell- be exempt from paying its share
oi the cost oi government: pro-
tection of its property?
"The decision now rendered
must mean that the guarantee oi
freedom of the press creates an
immunity equal to that here up-.
held as to teaching or preaching
religious doctrine . . . It is un-
thinkable that those who publish:
and distribute for profit newspwpers and periodicals should sug-i
gest that they are in a class apart,
untouchable by taxation . . . Theirnlilitations oi the Present deci-
ision are s_tai'tling."
Justice Murphy, in a separatef
opinion concurring with the ms.-
! "It is claimed that the effect 01' oi Fo1lett. oi MCC0TmiCk,!jQrj§y, 1-idicmed this reasoning;
book a ent's licenseing r 1 iU'lis"'Ht'e'FEt'e without a
g .
The court has previously ruled
in similar cases that Deddlers of re-
. ligious tracts could not be taxed
{or a license. The only diiierence
in Folletts case was that he was
a resident oi the town where the
sale stook place, and the principals
salesmen. The majority held the
residence oi the salesman made no
difference-the tax was unconstl
tutiona1.¢ ,
Although the question _invclved
thus was a narrow one. six oi the
nine justices saw fit to air their
views separately on the meanin
or -the First Amendment to the
Constitution. which spmesi
Congress shall make no law . . .our decision is to subsidize re-_
lision." he wrote. But this is
,merely a harsh WHY oi saying that
to prohibit the taxation of re-
ligious activities is to give sub-
istance to the constitutional right
lroi religious freedom. 1
" Income Not Taxed
Concerning the references to
Trinity Church and use of the de-
cision in reference to freedom oi
speech and press. Murphy de-
clared
It is wise to reniember that-
the taxing and licensing power is
a dangerous and, potent weapon
which, in the hands of unscrupu.
lous or bigoted men, could
used to suppress freedoms a Hin other cases had been itinerant _ '
| . ." Z
f .. = * i
prohibiting the tree exercise i
iieligion!; or abridging the free-
dorn oi speech, or of the press."
Wanted Conviction Upheld
I Justice Frankfurter, with Jus-
_tices Roberts and Jackson concur-
lring, asserted the conviction oi
Follett should have been upheld.
Here, a citizen oi the communi-
ty, earning his living by a religious
activity. claims immunity from
contributing to the cost of Govern-
ment under which he lives." said
their opinion. Unless the phrase
free exercist. embodied in the
First gimendnrent. means that
government must render service
.i'nee to those who earn their living
iin a religious calling. no reason is
apparent why he should not con-
tribute hls share oi the communi-
ty's common burden of expense.
"In effect. the decision . . . re
quires that the exercise oi religion
bsidized . . . Trinity Church,iowniiig great" propertye-is!-*-lien
- 4
7 .1-I-'--'-._-. . ' ,1-,, ---..y religion unless it is kg:within appropriate bounds." t; I
i
is<
92_-. .- - ~ i . .. , V". .' ~ W ».. F . ' ' I .' ' ' 1. '-":~II'e> r:""
a_ 'a ' ¢ * 01> '
II. Tells:
Ir. Giavia % III. Laid ' 7'
Ir. Nichols
Ir. Bonn
Hr. Tracy
Hr. Carson
Hr. Coiiey
Hr. Hoodoo
Ir. Kramer
Hr. lleGuiro________
llr. Quinn Tanun_
llr. Neale
is 7
.59"
it
|
92
7 aw,»p ll». ' , Q- 175 Q /4 | hbbh '|j4:--92.";_l.-"._i_t_i I
W1 87' MAR s1r944 .
92
"*-~-.-qaaii
wissmoros rules-Hsiuw
' - uommio snrrron 3-.1!-¢ u
" " ' I! -. . . ~ ._ .-o -I i» __~.-ah ,-_92w- I - | n» "5-'__,_l:J._
1
i.
.92 4a' _-*-r_
' _-_ ._
.~- 1.7.--_ -I .1
,.92,..
:~é-'hf
xL_
7 ._ -r-4:
pssor Is Right: - 1!
u'.re Not in Army Ti" You
Take Oath, High C ourt Rules
The Bpreun Oourt yuterdayy he never would serve in the
ruledthatamanacuallidoesnot
become a member ot the armed
-toreea until he taken the Induction
oath.
1 nae tglbunal acted unanimously
tn rejecting the .Army's View-
point"as presented by the Gov-
ernrnerut-that i man becomes s
soldier when he Dasses his final
physical examination.
This case invql ed a. plea byArthur <2-oodwg#_;_11i_1;ss. formerU ivemty of xas economicsphfeesor, tor a writ of haheas_oo1-Eu: to release him from Army
'de92 ntlon.Army. passed a. nal physical ex-I
amlnatlon but refused to stand
when the induction oath was read
to him at Fort Leavenworth.
Kans., and refused to subscribeto it. l
5 For thus retuslhg to obev en
order of a superior officer, he
was placed in a post guardhouse.
He contended he was not eubject
lto Army discipline because he had
lnot taken a. valid oath and th
actually was not in the Army. I
Supreme Court upheld his conte
ltlon. thus paving the way 1'0:k Emma, who had stated puhlio-lrelease from the nun-dhouse.
Y92
P
,L/{,g___ »= 1: __1m~_- mw 1-:T'R.I'-»§§{T};',,3$
1'2-"J-F-C -"3
If-3
l ~ FZTAPQ aliasi-5|V- -_.. ._, 17"
"i--.-..--
L";-,1 '
. .-_;.f
-*1
-re ; .
<5, _. ..92* ee
§="a_>§.;_i
l"'I.":i§.5'*-
P .7 S55 .
L.--V1,II. rP -
4 9292_r
an-.-relli"
10.1.. A-"""""'
_- ung ------- "II: ll I
111- """" 1
1 r in gumbo"-aor
r I
/
_II" H- :""_o% ' u:.mIl°"' "" '-
ur.
It. Q¢i1"T""-
g¢.'!loil'.-"""'' km la %.§..----
_,-¢-
[H 1'gTiCourt Upholds Portal Pay
_F or Iron Ore Miners of Alabama
By LOUIS STARK [ i
By Clble to Ta: Nlw Yon: Tune.
WAS!-IINGTON. March 27Un- coal-mining industry, which has
Q ,derground travel for iron ore min t '° 511"-I 5-f1'6¢ti1l8' P°l'tl1-T-0-P0?ere constitutes working time nndyw U3: Am3°ntr"ct £"°"'dingI,. por ~ o-po " pay or coa pmust be Pam for unde 8 Fm, mines in before the National WarLabor Standards Act. th_ _upreme _a|_._,0:, Beard far apl.;mva}_
EL.-F"led today Philip Murray, prelident of
Justice Frank Murphy. writing C10, which joined with the miners
the majority opinion In the case of in initiating the iron ore case in
three Alabama iron mining compa- 1940, hniled today! decision no re-
nies, upheld ruling! by two lower eeting "e greet end epochs] vic-
courte favoring pay on n porta1-to- tory for underground miners whoportal basin. A sharp dissent wee have fought for many year; to es- V Uvoiced by Chief Justice Harlan F. tabiieh the principle of payment
for underground work, including '
travel time."
__Cre.mpton Harrie of Birming-Stone and Justice Owen J. Rob-
ertn, the latter writing the opinion.llunticee Felix Frankfurter andF.obe_rt H. Jeokeon. who were part-nain, Ala., who represented the0! U11! l¢V9"'ml1'l "'1lj°1iW- Wmletlron miner: ln the end who is °Q¢921Flil92S °Pi!1§° 5- inlet: counsel tor thnited MineThe decision may be construed -_%_4--H--, iea 1 mm applying _to___t_h_e_ ___ Oo:_1t|n_ue_d_o_n lfoge Fifteen
.7! " K I J
w -. l in
!l 192l..L PDBJD
APR 18194492
1&3-Q-I:
This is a clip 1-'1'°1'
¬
- $
:_2__.
= i
Z
92
.=-£-
-I
I
I
w-_/
7______,' -"* - _i'1o_IIIssdIros|sPs¢eQns" --.- - - ""
mi
W e the tollowing coin-
uneot The telephone:
There an be no differentia-
tion between work in an iron ore,
mine and work in a coal mine. 'Ihe
la-I-Hi law, the iiiii pciplei.
apply equally as regards travel
time constituting work time and
the work week, and in my opinion,
the decision in ths iron ore case
will apply as the law of the land
governing the worlr week in coal
mines."
Today's case came before the
court on a petition by the Bloss-
Shefffield Steel and Iron Company,
the Tennessee Coal, Iron and Bail-
rosd Company and the Republic
Steel Corporation. which souzht
,; Mill and Meiter Workers C
_~ mmnmnP Iminers in ¢raveling underground in
' mines to and from "the working
face" constituted work or employ-
ment for which compensation must
be paid under the Fair Labor
istandsrds Act. The companies
own twelve underground iron ore
mines in Jefferson County, Ala.
Not Dealing With "Ch.I-ttels"
x In determining wehther under-
: ground travel constitutes compen-
.l ;= sable work Within the meaning of
zhtlie act, Justice Murphy said, the
3.-1 court was not guided by any pre-
j'cise statutory definition oi! workor employment."1 We a.re not here dealing," he
'2
3.went on, "with mere chattels or
articles of trade, but with the
rights or those who toil, ot those
who sacrifice a Iull measure of
their freedom and talents to the
use and prot o! others.
, He said that the miners ride to
- their places in "ore skips" or "reg-
Qular man trips" and were forced to.jump several feet into the skip;
intrequently, injuries to ankles,feet and hands.
i 'I'he heads oi most of the men,
he added, were a foot or more
above the tops or the skips and,
qsince the skips usually clear the
llow mine ceilings by only a few
inches, the miners are compelled
to bend over.
"Thus they ride in spoon-
tashion,' with bodies contorted and
heads drawn below the level of the
1, skip top," he continued. Broken
i, ribs, injured arms and legs and
bloody heads often result; even
Matalities are not unknown." '
. "Dark, Maledorous Shafts §
The long rides tak the
in the dark orou hai'ts,
he decisf , an exacting and
- dangerous conditions in the mineL shaft: stand as e mum, unar-..swe.r-I able proof that the journey from,iand to t he portal involves continu-l
c out physical and mental exertionYjas well as hazards to _1i£e and;
,92l.imb.
i , ' I'h.is compulsory travel,"proceeded, "occurs entirely on pe
i tioners' property and is at all tirn
=-under their strict control and
Fagin." d H A t, ' , e Weill-I ours c ao-
cordiug to Justice Murphy. must
not be interpreted as applied "in
""""' ff?-E.-E..¬-1*"-.:i'.'."E"3=is. 2;""L- -J-11declaratory judgments hat;,tl1ree iron ore locals of th ' to
from I. loading p1a_tfnn,n' with n°t b '-1'!- OI! ruling ill. 1917, lppl.'OV8d.ii
as indicative of onal.in-
?tent to lgusrantee e regular.
or overtime comps for all
actual work or employment."Saying that the company's ob-jections had relied on al eged im-
mernoriii custom and agreements;
arrived at by the practice or col-.
lsctive bargaining" to uphold pay-I
,1-nent by the face to face" meth-
od, Justice Murphy asserted that;
the District Court had been un-.
able to find any such "immemo-'
rial" custom or collective bargain-
ing agreements. *
Custom Held "Immaterial"
1 However, he held that it was
"immaterial" that there may have
been a proper custom" not to pay
empioyesjor some par-ti of their
work, for the Fair Labor Stand-|
ards Act "was not designed to' codify or perpetuate those customs
and contracts which allow an em-
ployer to claim all of an employe's
time while compensating him for
only s part ot it."
Justice Roberts opened his dis-
sent by saying:
l "The question for decision in thiscase should be approached not on
the bssis of any broad humanita-
rian preopossessions we may aill
entertain, not with a desire to con-
strue legislation so as to accom-
plish what we deem worthy ob-
jects, but in the traditional and,
it we are to have a Government of
laws, the essential attitude of
ascertaining what Congress has
enacted rather than what we wish
92 it had enacted."
Taking issue with Justice
Murphy's remarks on the alleged
inability of the Federal District
Court to find "immemorial" cus-
tomer collective bargaining agree-,
mcnts" for pay on a "1'ace-to-face";
basis, Justice Roberts cited a pub-
lic arbitration proceeding in Bir
mingham in 1903, a board of ar
by the United States Fuel Admin-1
istrator, language qllte by thef
Bituminous Coal Commission in
I920 and the 1923 Code of Fair
Competition for the Bitu:min0us_
Coal Industry.
agreement of 1933, approved by
President Roosevelt, mid that eight
hours shall constitute a day's work
and this means work in tbs mines
at the usual woridng places tor all
classes of labor." 'He asserted that the fair labor?
standards act "was not intended
by Congress to turn into work
that which was not work, or not
so understood to be, at the time oi
1t; p ," nor was it intendedto have EL courts "designate as
work some activity o! an employs
which neither employer nor em-5
ploye had ever regarded as works
merely because the court thoughtl
hardship on him or involved condi-
tions so deleterious to his health
erweltsrethathe oughttobs
compensated."It was common blsaid, that me wm
portal" pay in oonneeCites Roosevelt Approval T,
He added that the Appalachian
_~ .-I '-,--"aww--
. I k
_ c can
"I FILE
fl
.._.A _______ __ .. - ~-~ 'f-liiyiiii fl iii ' f: '1'" " :1 i I 1 _" {
_ L ,~-» ..~ f
I Q13-; Supféfne D ec:;!dodih_t Upholds Texas Negro Vote Rig};I ,
_ _By John Meldon - 'l Delivering one of the severest blows ever euered -b the poht1cal-
_feudal overlords of- the entire. Soulll, lift! I?-. 5- S_1Pl:°m¬ ,lQ°92""-5 Ian an 84to 1 deciion yesterday upheld the c0IlBlltl1l1°113l F18 t ° ex cgmeat1-.1 . . ' -Ir ' I _.- t. -1-
.?" '.,,.. ~; < to vote Ill the D6Il10c18ll0 primaries. - - __ i Justice Sgmlgy Reed, who delivered the decision, declared that the---'-"' e _ ~ 4 ~ ~ ~c " ' _ ?ban against Negroes partici-
ating in the primaries was a- _: 9292 H iolation of the 15th Amend?' ' ~ . tent. Lone and bitter dis-
en'ter in the 8 to 1 ruling w -u ' . .
er
Ostlce Owen J Roberts 1
The case attracted u -.
4_ gal attention throughout _ e tn e .
:=.-92- _ g u em states, 1' in the high 92<§<jr;_~;--3-_=;_» 92 31111 d¢0l8l Texas case-j 92 " '- nown as th hm primary case '"' 1e polltlce "m §Fng I. I _ , _ W
. _ Q . 3
m
illfir rt!Jebant E -DI
Iheran Congressmen hangs re
=3 *-0'93 these notorious notables are
es-amen Martin Dies Binge
_' greatest wner in
_ erlca!, gang: umners and,;__-i_- ;_ *4; 1 ; here of u&i1m'%mpéT ""* ;.Q~e,:,_-1; 1; ~ 7 ! _ mac-nor mmvcs surr
- _ ' ' n_ 3033315 Yesterday: o1;n.1rt decistrm was"- i : I mane TAM um c JUST! Osman brought am hlsh mun by 92__e -. 7|-an mew»-L i i--i_ i" -. " @n= z an Houston N ' -' 7 ' " in-he t the Democratic
_,;; Patty of-Ital: but um federal eonstdhltlouH 1 Ne8!0Ol thqir filht
u 92 ;Texas anti Rocsevelt anti
._ ..92 -
_ ..__-__f_ . prhnn-tee solely u '* he-;=1______~1~=-" ~ r
Q! '
J Tris is a. c1iPP5-T18 frn 12-1 jsfsf-A * of thenmF7T'D]§YF"121-1<~1RT.T!' page "1;,T_1_'_'_,'%-.7£7tiII?I::¥.Y5, {>7 APR 5 1944 me»:-.-_~ %,L_:;_/
é C1.L-:19 at the B 01'
.__ _ 3overm1B!1t-
92 T
1Q APR lg 7 ~
is
"_-
:1
92
a _ - |-.-
§-
-':.w§:-4' '.
I
J
I
1-,"92r1
";.;Z:..§: W ~=~;_=_-|§ - 2'. !-Ll.iris, sued two Tenn nmu
ty election 1111188. ah!-11111
they refbed to accept hie ballot al
-e qualied voter in the 1010 Dem-
ocratle primaries for nomln offederal, state audloc-ll mrxztel.
He asked for damagea and a dec-
Iatory judgment alrrnlng the
of Neiroel to vote In the primaries-"It:naynowbetakenaeapoIt-
late, Iwee Ieelfalecleiea -
'11-iatlherllhtlevohheneha
primu1feei.benomiaatienefeaa-
luau: nu:-out ebmminnlq by
llleli-llO.llketherl¢hltoVei0illIlI'll_e1:ileI;ilrl[lIt|eeIf92I
by'theCemtitltl0n- " 1
lythetu-meelihelllbnnenlr
BB1lt11'= Mt had Mm DI9YWi-I-l1Ymellt,that right my not beabridged
rejected by a Texas Federal District
ourt, which claimed that the
Texas primariel were political
party am not aublect to
federal control. Meenwhiie, a Fed-1
eral Appeals Court it New Oriennaby anyataie. . .Undet ear Coastlin-
iion tie greet pririiele of choosing
hlarulen may notbedeuiedaman
iiyteltl-ieIIee'I-illeolhllwlnt.
lane dlssenter in the 3 to 1 decl-
sion. which is historic in Dropor-upheld the 'I'eiIa.s~ local oich.li..,.._, W Jam mbmm .,
thus setting precedent in Louisiana
barring Negroes from partiolpatinl
in primaries in that state also.
Yesterday: Supreme Court ee-
d legally ban: discriminationjtsin-st Negroes i.n primaries in aller southern states -where this
feudal praqice is still in effect.
- _ navcnsas :5 s-rum
'ITie.Texae white llrim-er! BI-BE
ihad l:_|een argued twice before the
1U. S. Supreme Court. Earlier, in
1 1935. the supreme Court had ruled
that e denial of the right or Ne-
.g'rces to Vote in the Texas pri-
|meries was "a mere refusal" by the
|Democratic Party to ldmit iiiegroel
Fand, as 5 private organization
had the right to make rule: as
who could vote in its primaries
However, in another ruling in 1941
em; decision. the min court hainn».-e um primaries involving can-
Continued on Page Z!
ML V/o'n't Like ii:!Hoover appointee, who bitterly as-
sailed. the ruling. Justina Roberta
s.n¢erlttheru11n¢I_'ll!_10tlt'r.he
legality of the ruling itself, but be- 92$02 1.113891; H18 110111818111 d6C181O!l-Icausl to um hi. ward we mat
justices bed shown intolerance?
against previous court judges w i
had ruled in raver oi the disc g
tor? practice. K
1 ' Preceding the Supreme Court
which must have struck
lite or into the hearts of the Dies-
Kleberg-Sumnere gang who have
maintained meir Congressional
seats by only a traction of the po-
tential vote in the Texas counties,
Negro organizations in Texas had
.1 been preparing for a favorable decl-
eion by conducting av broad cam-
poll tax in order to be eligible to
vote Thousands of Negroes voters
scraped up the necessary ta: and
have paid, it wafreported, A eur-Justlce Reed minted out in resteri vey conducted last month showed
that out of the 3,600,009 persons in
Texas oi voting age, about 1.700.had thus become eligible. Last Jim
Negro churches. clubs, ch -|'bera or commerce and
Ycumpcniee mapped out a campalgih
to turn out ibig Neg-ro vote in 1944.
92 Meanwhile, Texae has been theinto Democr;.ic Party rnemherel-113 palm among Negro to my mm
1 re .?g3!>
' ,1-,1]
.II _gacene of a huae inux of war labor,
and a shift of voting populationsin-nun the rural onetime, where the
Dies type of Congressmen held away.
to the urban rrpnufacturinl centen.
_'I'hll increasing politically conscious
Labor vote, plus the right of the Ne-
groea to pgrticipate in the primaries.
may result in putting the skids un-
lau one oi the wpm muum gang:'14 the mm south. - _[ Another new-min by-product ofilhe Supreme Court decialon my eiin this fact: whoever Irina in c
mane nimecreue primaries 1|
ii
92
l
._"-- =
one,
.~...eI- .':r
so-._92,rLe; ' 1.
e-=*. - - »-~e7f _j!- is-pom
u .1. .' -.;. ' '-_ "1-_:.+-.. .'U ;.".35- !
...-_._~
pen-... ,Ii-»%9>.* F 7 _-
. V,,__:»a, _
uf Ill B|fddIe&Urges '
hr:-I anII!glI W f
en e p_ __mmhe
quorum or th reme Court
l-to end an impasse which mem-tlces to assist when a quilt
could not be obtained. "
gross to Bass a bill introduoedh
Senator 0'Mahoney DJ, I
Wyoming. to establish a majority
of the court, or ve oi the was
P
1
§_o_u;1=_lienah_
§idc1le tus_e§l;§2ongress to re-
ausstne stftutory quorum
a us. Department of Justice ,;e-
;ng-Emfniewwsnrcwn.
Bisque fled From one
1 Thel-Supreme Court has beeniunabl to hear two major cases
recently because of the number or
Justices who have disqualied.
themselves, Previous connection
;wlth the litigation concerned is
j: the usual reason for disqualifica-
fltlon, the Justices having had a
1 hand in the cases as an officer of
the Department of Justice or an
ioffice holder in a Government
agency before appointment to the
,-Suprente Court.
The two major casesrnow stale-
jmated are an anti-trust action by
the Government azainst the
=iHAluminum Company of America,
Iand a suit brouaht by the North
American Company, large utilityl corporation. asainst the Beurities
wand Exchanae Commission to test
the constitutionality 0L1eg'is1ation
governing utility holding oom-
panies.Bkwe reported to conaressthat smaller quorum probably
would?-ice the proliiern.
Repi -sentative Reed attempted
to remedy the situation last Octo-
ber with a bill requirini the Chief
Justice to call upon retired lus-_¢-F-""'_'H - _ H-_'
3; APRBY WIIJJAM MOORE
Attorney General Biddle Ega-
m ii E las
5 .
fgmo PFFEEM 'guh5a;?ErfF *f_ilJ §§§§i&-§=§s§i§1mes&.nss camel
I.as the feud in the mpreme Court
was at its height. Members of the
court have recently been snillini
verbally at each other in their
opinions. One faction is led byi
Justice Frankfurter. No. 1 adviser
to President Roosevelt, and the
other by Justices Black and
lMurphy. - .
. Fault! WI! Itilterlnl
Biddle also recommended led»
lation making the intenti
manufacture or delivery or aerec-.
tive war material punishable as
;sabotage. The present ssbotsgel
law does not cover all such cases,;
so that the only prosecution pos-i
slble in some instances has beenfor simple traud.
The Attorney General asked
that Congress make provision for
the voluntary expat:-iation, or with-92
drawal from American citizen-
whose true allegiance is to a lor-
can-born Japanese who are Ameri-
can citizens, he said. wish to
abandon American citizenship
and be interned as enemy aliens
until they can be sent back to
Japan. But present law does not
permit them to expatriate them-
selves within the United States.
i! Biddle also asked Congress tomake a uniform definition ofhe
out? of Federal oifici to sis
an arrested person before a c -
mittins officer. providini for r-glznment within a reasons ee.l
Biddle, however, asked Kr
ship, of citizens in this country-
elgn nation. A number of Ameri-~T[|bun Because of Digialpifsications He sq: A __ _ _ |_
J
i
t-92 Q.
//_._-Z: __'__--e,»<
. SSAPRIT. tfigzlq gin :=-1* f""---Q-U--':.-=1r---~-.a----I-»-uu-
r. Tollon___g_
1:. A. Teu
- Cl=sa_i
. Coffey
llr. lavin
Mr. Lsdd
Mr. Nie Z-
Mr. Roaen
Mr. Tracy
Mr. Molar
Mr . Carson
Mr. Barbe
Mr. Hendo n
Mr. Mumford
Mr. Jones
Mr. Quinn Tamm
Mr. Nessa
Miss Gandy____
'i."" W
- 1
54APR20>~-_____
QM. 92
__ ________ _ __' <
igh Baud Hits
Iorida Peonage 92
Tzgsnmawbn, April 10 um.-
upreme Court. in e. '1 to 2 epiit,ihiitoday voided I-I e violation ol the
13th lmendment end the nae:-1
anti-Peonage Act a Fioride statute-
which makes 1: 1 crime to obtain
a. wage advance with intent to de-
fraud e.n.emp1oyer.f'
The tribunal reversed the Florida
supreme Court which. had reverled
a ruling of e Brevard, Fla!, Goun-
Ly Circuit C-curt. The County Oourt
of had ee pnide the conviction M
- described as en:
miter: egm." - __
The High Court fuled, in '1 ml.-
iority opinion written by Justice
Robert H_ Jackson, th the law de-
prived individuels 0! their liberty
witlnut due pcrocegis and that it un-
conetitutionniiy iumished employers
win an involuntary servitude
weapon. . l :
Jackson said that the court did
pot impute to the Florida Legis1n-
iture any "intention to oppress, but
.we are compelled to hold um the:
Florida Acts oi 1919 as brought to v
rd to 1941 are, by virtue of t
th Amendment ml the 1
onage Act, of the United Sta ,-92
f
J
T3 i
and void. __ i92 g ; t_i,,~,~-- .92' 92- 92
1/1I]z_Q_.--__L -
l92'O'l R ECOR DIED
8 1. APR 121944
1-.-,,,_ __-1'-' _ ;V ___
This is a. clipping/I
£1-mi
page ____L_____ 01" the
11- LIT if»5.KL .R1'1?"-* 4 .LZ_£1§L 1-. tlwejgea O
var ant.
-1
- -. K:-.'3.$-"L~ -l';..*-r1 -as r-4 ' .-
~- . -.--ea-1?"'* -:v-¢v--' ,,.'.-1:--J-Hr
y - 5
-" "3l-E~-..,,-_,-, .r";.mg .
. -Y E
='>¥#-'a.5i-
_ _-=__ _
-._
14-.
..=i
1 .
f
53APR 18 194$»U B t SI d
»
I
_ rulings Monday. Both of_ them
l
I
ll
l
l
l
'-92B 0
nion us era!! appe1
Y1
FILE
THE Wagner Labor Relations Act w b-
stantially reinforced m two mor u-
are timely since they hit directly against a
number of methods employers have used
recently in -their efforts to circumscribe the
law of the land. p .
First, the court slapped the employer who
schemes to stall and delay certication of
a union as a collective bargaining agent
while he pulls strings to Whittle down its
majority among the workers through favor-
itism, discharge or other such familiar
methods. No matter what happens while
the case is pending, the court ruled, the
union retains its right to bargain for the
workers. .
noted that employers are increasingly chal-lenging the rights of unions to bargain folE Only last week the War Labor Board
a
workers, shing out all sorts of excuses
obviously for no other purpose than to dis
turb labor relations stability to a point of
provoking strikes. i
The other ruling of the court slapped
down an employer who, after recognizing a
union, continued to enter into individual
contracts with workers, in feffect bribing
them with temporary favoritism, if they
would break with the union. This action was
a logical follow-up of the recent ruling re-
airming a ban on "yellow dog" contracts.
Such decisions are especially timely today
in view of an inclination among some reac-
-innnuav nvnv92p92qn92up I-A alnnlrn ||~L4~mw92nA'|unsa nzncavl92¢l92-Hllll! I311!-PIUJUID IIU B11715: LIICI-ilHUl92¬§ BITE:
from union contracts in preparation for their
post-war plans. The earlier the law of the
land is put before such employers in specic
terms, as the court has done in a number.l0 cent cases, the more healthy it will bekfclxpobor-emElgy_er relations generally. '
e This
_.~P E°
u---92
I
/ /
mpaxsr l
I , 1/ '7;~.: I . ____'___ ,__:___
NU1 R].j<_'fnl~Zl!l~.D
-LT APR 151944
" ---_- ii,
is a clipping frcm
£/ of theD.»92%1 IORKZR I!a.t0 _ _ _/,2; /QZZ' Clipperl t the Seat of
L}OVQI'l'llT1BlTli/7|
é
.?:.*,_
, 4 ._~.-u- F927 -"'-s
er -.can-.. y.
5.:-r->
_._
is
i" ="
.'. " *4-i
an
E-.*@+"F'..
:,s,-4:-""
7..-- 3§_i:"'*:
Fr _
if92
- _ ----_----w 77; '_ .- t --Q - -a *1
_-JIII---_-0 Supreme.92 P92 H
Q our? '
' - Bar Merle Pusey
Legislation From The Bench C
-, . III
HOST OI TH! controversies-
that have swirled around the
Supreme Court have concerned
its exercise of legislative powers.
The most infam-
ous decision the
court ever made
--that in the
Bred -Scott case
preceding t h e
Civil War--was
an adventure in
legislation from
the bench. There
; have been many
instances since.
It was the charge
PUSEY 0! court - room
legislating that won support for
President Roosevelt's attack on
the court in 1937. Now again the
sharpest barbs ying in the di-
rection nt the Supreme Bench
are pointed by the same accusa-
tion.
The court has always resented
i_hls charge. Regardless of how
far they go in stretching -the law
to accomplish their purposes, the
judges insist that they are merely
interpreting the law and the
Constitution as they stand. And
the best legislators on the bench
do not hesiate to denounce the
conclusions of their colleagues
as Iudicial iawmaking when they
are in disagreement. Only a
month ago, for example. Justices
Douglas and Black, who are the
courts leading law-makers at
present accused the majority in
the Saylor case of writing into
the law what Congress struck
out 50 years ago."
But if that was a case oi
l stretching the law, it was a com-
paratively minor one. What is oi
innitely greater concern is the
disposition oi the court to add to
or detract from the law in im-
portant matters of public policy.
Until recently this tendency was
manifested chiey in stripping
down statutes to something less
than Congress had enacted. The
most notable example was the
esnasculation oi the Antiracket-
eerlng Act in order to protect
unionized truck drivers who had
established a monopoly by the
slugging method.
. [*0-I
DURING ITS LAST term the
court went further than it had
previously gone in bridging overgaps in the law and extendid statute co ltu lhave been included. In the pre-
depression days Congress had
been negligent in regulating the
relationship between holding
companies and national banks. It
had put the stockholders oi!
"every national banking associ-atlon" under double liability. Bugnothing could be found in th
statutes applying the %e oh!!-
gation to the stockholders oi
State-created holding companies
owning hank stock. Congress had
simply not legislated on the aub-
ject, and when it did take the
matter up later it chose a very
diiferent means of dealing with
bank-holding companies.
Yet a bare majority of live
Justices held the stockholders of
a Delaware holding company
subject to double liability in
sT1ite'oi Congress inaction. Ap-
parently they acted on wl-[at the
1-lliman would call general prin-
ciples--that is to say they voted
to sock the holding company,
law or no law.
The tendency to legislate from
the bench came to ull ower inthe case of oMhmmm
Underwriters oc Lion. So far
as I can see, the real issue was
not any shenanigans oi the re-
insllrmce companies or whether
or not the business of insurance
aects interstate commerce sui-
cient to justify regulation by
Congress. Apparently real abuses
have crept into some of the
agreements insurance companies
have made across State lines.
The court was unanimously of
the view that Congress may
reach these interstate aspects of
the insurance business it it
chooses to do so: it spilt 4-to-3
chiey on the question of wheth-
er Congress had attempted to do
so in passing the antitrust acts.
. an-I
CONGRES_S PASSEP the
Shaman Act long alter the Su-
prams Court had said that in-
surance ls not interstate com-
merce. The House committee
ln'charge gave assurance that
the bill was not intended "to
occupy doubtful grounds" and
expressed the slew that %n.
gress has no authority to deal,
generally, with the subject re-
straint ol trade! within the
States." -Later Congress tuned
do many requests to legislate
erstata In in-" lxiceause its judiciary
tees ll ed -=!=~'7JIs-.'l'nleIl -
Is. I. A.'l"anIl-----
Ila. Clell-.-.------~
CoI'ey._-.....
cum ......... .-
Lldd .... . -
Nkh0|I-------
Boson . ------ .-
'l'ra¢y.........
I]. Iohr .......... --
Ir. Canon ........ .-
. ensIan..-____
. IIsn!ea'sl...-.---
.1030 .......... --
__ I.- _
l power. In 1014. Congress
amended the Sherman Act by the
Clayton Act and again dened
the meaning oi "commerce"
without including insurance. The
sponsor of the bill Representa-
tive Webb. told the House spe-
cically that insurance compan-
ies are not reached. as the Su-l preme Court has held that their
g contracts or policies are not in-
; terstate commerce."
These facts cited by the dis-
senting justices seem to me to be
pretty conclusive evidence that
1 Congress had no thought of sub-
1 jecting insurance companies to
1 the Antitrust Acts. .But the law
makers on the Supreme Bench
. were apparently not willing to
wait for a slow-motion Congress
to speak for itself. They crude-
ly tried to meet s legislative
-out .- ___ A92
I
P
92
u
r*92?q-47¢ géxproblem by injecting new me:
ing into a 50-year-old statute.
Now this policy is just as rt
rehensible as was the old com
habit oi choking o legialati
enactments which it did not iii
To torce the hand of Congres
said Justice Jackson, dlsaentii
is no more the proper functi
of the judiciary than to tie I
hands of Congress." The judi
pendulum has swung from o
extreme to the other. A major
or the court is still legisiatn
but with a dierent set of pre
lections. And it will douhtl.
continue to do so as long as i
President insists on giving it
majority of crusaders instead
judicial-minded men who 1
willing to interpret the law 1
jectively and let the chips I
where they may.
.54/L
92l92
i
P- -92
ac/fl i
A_ O
F 63
I?i. -- :2»'<»-t"',4 r "
R|q ':92i<l!l-.l92
lad/1
awe!
92'92..I
92-s
_. A----¢..-.-.._. .___
- light of ll/estp_lC'oast_ laps .
_ eighed by Supreme CourtQ _ I1 the Associated Press t t92-
s
P
.i
3.57?.
~:~=~--. _..*-=1»
'_|~.;92|¢". _ _ "
; -'_.. ~..
9292.!
92
l-' l u.
9292. =1
NR5
~92
~ {Eb 9292!
/Th Supreme Qogzt took In its
conference roorn yesterday for
decision one of the 'most coin-
Plicated legal problems faced by
the Government since Pearl Har-
bot-the constitutionality of evac-
uating and conning American
citizens of Japanese ancestry. '
The Justices listened through
ve hours of argument and red
pointed questions frequently at at-1
torneys as they developed unique
legal points involved in appeals
of a young: man horn in Oakland,
a1if., and a young woman born inleave the camp if she does not re-
turn to California or several other
West Coast States. But she refuses
to leave unless she can go to her
home. -
Does that imply." demanded
Chief Justice Stone. "that she will
be loyal in one place. and not loyal
in another?" ' 1
Solicitor General Charles Ilahy
urged the court to consider cir- -
cumstancea involved in the cases
in the light of sacrices made by
iinillions of other citizens sa far in
the WI!-' '
IASB Sacrifices Be Weighed .
Many persona have" been .re~
=quired to endure dislocations."
Fahy said. -"Hundreds of thousands
already have been casualties. Thoseiacramento.
The man, Fred T I_§_or_ernatsu,asked the high tribun to r'Gi'é"é'Ff"""'*° 1"" been "11""=<l' "'=P°1"-
validity of evacuation Lrders which
resulted in his being placed in a
war relocation authority center atrily, in relocation efforts should be
asked to view their cases along
with the great hardships millions
of our people have already endured
on Pearl Harbor evacuation and de-Topaz, tah. The woman, Miss 1 ml w'r'"- l . ~ - -
Mitsue Endol demands :1-e=EJE He argued that Her the tuck
from t e same center and a court
declaration that she has the right
to go wherever she pleases.
Loyaltli Not An Issue .
The court was told that there
is no question of the loyalty oitention were necessary, said it has
always been the Government's plan
to restdre evacuees to full liberty,
as soon as circumstancs permit, and '
stated the people concerned ha
;heen treated in a "lair and decen
manner." _ *92either to. the Qnited States, and|- K--~__._ ,____ _, .. 92 /
N that there was no evidence involv
ting any Japanese-American citizen
in espionage or sabotage on the
gwest Coast.
Htion by Lieut. Gen. J. L. Dewitt ex-92eluding persons of Japanese an-1
|cestry from certain West Coasts
areas. Attorneys tor Korematsu
argued that neither Congress nor!{the President intended such action;land said that only in Nazi Ger-l|rnlny'o0Il1d a similar imprison-l
Counsel for Miss Endo con-_
| her detention was "implied;
. F-l10l'it3" said to be conferred by
gress and the Presiden_t.__ I-Ia]
id she had been told she may
. /"i The cases arose from a proclama-A
. n'&53*? P Itmeat program" be found. ' 1. "V UV 92 ;
Ftended that the only legal around
f92=i O
1..-I92g,;..1xoir 1:"."v<.>l<"*'-";ps7 our 21 1944
A 1 I; ; ,
Clipped from the
WASHINGTON POST; 10-13-1.1. _
iipage 1'74Mr.
Mr
Mr.Tnlaon
E A Tru.921m_.
loge .
M..l'- $0.73.
M r
Mr
Mr
Mr
Mr
M:
RI:
WI;
M:
Ei in
i"..-.----
as; I
Iii 92 i
ill :. "
!'».::..i
!':'_rs-n _.,.--.
[Y1-1:1 92
.?~i:.l.':..'uld,_.-__,
J->1.-e _____
Q'_2l|LB
J1.:..isw____,_ .____Tamm.
Miaa I-an:!y__________
'-e g.-.*?7_'_ F- ._ "tsF-.-'.'.!'*
. . __~.. Q:
05,. -.;,t_'_~¢
4. ,; 4.-"*1 __;Dec. 18 in a 5-4 split. Justice
ilackson, in dissenting, expressed
belief that the majority opinion,
if carried out, denies the right
of each union to control its own
admissions to membership," and
permits the employer to police the internal affairs of the union!
Must Open Roster, l
In the majority opinion, Justice
Black said, in effect, that an em-
ployer must see that the union
with which he has been ordered' ' i eClosed Sh R 1' P "til; "* op u ner Jigllirfqthat, by requesting _
. players to make sure that unions
i F___I_-_!...." 2..
LUIlll.l5lUl_l Ill
i Labor and industrial attorneystoday predicted Q? a recent de-icision of the U.S. upreme Court
{will necessitate re
Wagner Act's provisions for
c1osed shop" contracts___betweenemployers d92inTUnS." """ Termed g§he of'the most per-
plexing and unsettled decisions in
the history of labor legislation,"
the ruling said, in effect, that angem 10 er niav not sign a closed T] U. .. - _,
shop agreement with a union if.
he knows that the union intends}
thereby to exclude certain em-1
ployees from membership in the
union because of their prior op-
position to the union.
I '1!-in |'IQA;n:I92I92 III!!! "92Q'I92I:I92I A4-92 -t411! u92.92.i.-nu vvqa nnuuuu uvvvu
E , had
been held, makes proper terms
for admission into that certied
union of all'emp1oyees, including
lthe union's former enemies anda con ran _Jr ,-a15_ _ ; gardless oi their prior antagonism
at the Wallace plant, in which an
independent union was the victor
over B C.I.O. union in n plant
election. Prior to the election,
the company contracted to acc
a closed shop with the union that
the independent union executed92nnI92 +5. 4-IQ;-Han Ali-An uric-uni-invvvla nu. unuuulvns iAJ.b5l nu---us.
55FEB1O.,a_ _..i.__to bar ain after an election lI ,.l._.- D! __1.----- i
Ld.lJUl' l.'lLll.lI'l'!
l
eni me IS ip Q
83 employees who voted for the
other union
In accordance with the con
tl'i¢t- the Wmpany was then
forced to discharge these 43 em
ployees who were not admitted
to union membership The com-
pany protested the discharge on
the grounds that the loss of suc
a large number of experience
workers would hamper prod
tion, but the union was adamant
Disehartes Ruled Dllt
The 51-iPI'8me Court then de-
cided that the discharges were il-
IEEHI. deilllte the closed shop con
"9-Ct, and GFdGTEC'| inf: Luilipuliy
to reinstate the discharged work
ers and pay them for the time
lost It also, in essence, abrogated
the closed shop contract in the
eyes of most labor attorneys.
Francis Heisler, counsel for
several C10. unions, declared to-
day that the majority opinion is
not a body blow to labor or to
the closed shop, as $ !|'_|1g aftgl-_
,neys seem to think.
Most unions, Heisler explained,
do not restrict their member h
,before an election, but irelcorne all
employees who desire to loin after
t ' t has been signed, ro-
The case arose after an election i t° the ni°n' cl
Called Club on Labor.
On the other hand, Daniel Car-
mell, counsel for the Illinois and
Chicago Federations of Labor, as-
the majority opinion asbludgeon in the hands of employ;
ere who want to obstruct a cioseo. I
the closed shop contract and thend ed mbe h to 43 oi th According to several attorn!
h .
I d 1.: :
_ . UC" l ;
t. L - ---- -1. -------- -- - - '
u I I ._ Fr. I~92iil,____ C I F IL 5 _"*¥ I» 4-1-
r
do not restrict membership i.n a.-Ins.-.1 !l92l'92I92 H1; nrnnlnunre arr92-Avnwus nuuy, nu. s----y--,;92--v ---
violating the unfair practices
provision of the labor law.
for industrial corporations, the el-
tec of the new decision is_one of
confusion and chaos." Hitherto,
lawyers Ior both Tiifiiiirnirit. and
unions have believed that once_an
election has been held, a union
recognized as a bargaining agent,
and a closed shop contract signed.
then the company's responsibility
ends insofar as union member-
ship is concerned
Motive: Under Scrutiny.
But, in light oi this decision, it
is presumed that the employer
must examine the "motives" of
the union before agreeing to a
rlnsnrl ehnp provision in the con-
tract, and that he may refuse to
sign such a contract unless the
union admits all employees to
membership
Because of this ambiguity of
interpretation, labor relations ex_-
perts agree that the next move In
up to Congress, which must amend
or clarify the National Labor Re-
lations Act in conformity with
the decision.
As things stand now," one at-
torney pointed out, the employer' vs I-I-in a-nil-Ir : Y! l-in inrarf rné5 lpQniy -to {hose who were membe 13 hi nu. iiuuu-w no. -- - -92.--¬---
and tells the union he won't sign
,a contract for a closed shop un-
,less membership is inclusive, un-
lder the law he is guilty of unfair
labor practices.T-_ Contrariwise, if he does not____n__! ALA ..-3. . §4- L-a.._J4._~ lb-lL¥P.lllPcl- 92l.lC Lll-IALI-Ii IrU I-IIUIII-llill 11eligibility to membership, he ls»gu ty of an unfair labor practice tinder the Supreme Court decision.
res
._shop provision." V _w____
H shop in their Plants. _ _ H
1.5- 4I92 J ?'92-if-. >_-
ICHiClI92bU uni»! -i=- /a-u.»"/ As "B45? rte s 1945
4r- 92 _'j {" ii Uent, no employer can know ,e is to do about the cloled92
I It /Jt W K
g H ;
. -1 _ ; '/'/ '
1..-I rs-< " " gs1=1*- Chum...
If-COQQ _ ___| ,5.i/ 5
lgllllvw, r... .________"
Hr. Nlolm-i,;____
r"-l'- H0323 ____
11:. Tm _____
l Fir. lrn||g,____
la-......l92'.I. 5; _
3|-8% Bendq____
lliellnu
Qdll hi
Meet...
2:1/*"
' /
F.
Q ll.' /if
. J -
I
/7 I,»-
F * 92 I 3
fr
Wage-Hour luw:,?ZWor!<ers, '§,up1rng;in_:g_§_ouri_Ru|e§ i
WASHINGTON, Jan. 2 UP!.-92
The Supreme Court held in an 8-1
decision today that the federal.
wage-hour law applies to piece-rate
workers.
The Perfect Garment Co., Lo:Angeles. charged w'ithk921niinu_r_n"wage and overti e violat ETaThad¥arozi'di§niis'saI A anagram as
. piece workers in California db-
E t oourt.
' 1 ustice Frank Murphy, who read
L ruling interpreting the act, said.
| We cannot amume Congress meant1 to discriminate" against piece work-
ers when it enacted the minimum
wage and hour standards.
Under the wage-hour law, em-
lpioyer must pay piece workers the
40-cents an hour minimum rate.
i ven though they do not earn that
ount at piece work rates.
i _ Justice Owen J. Roberta dissented
- thout an opinion.
The court agreed to review the
question whether bituminous e1
d .dahe court also agreed to review a
ligaining agreement between iar-1" ,4»
IIE ..
ET"
b
b
Covers Piece I
wage: on a portal-to-portal basis.
It accepted I can in which the.
Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals re-
vened a Virginia erai court rul-lng ainst th1%:'ei B_idg_g_
i urt decided to r vie e co also e
an ant trust action against colie
tive rgaining agreements betwee ,
an lectrical workers union, elec ,
tr u contracE:Yr'eT'_* and electrical.
equipment manufacturers in the}
New _Yo Cit! area.h'TI'h'e 9;:-t in two Ohio cases unan-
imously airmed the exemption of
-1ow- ost homing projects owned by RUc Housing Authorfro ocal an state ta"xatT6ii'
suit in which the iederal-govern-
ment has attacked a ooilective bar-
unions and employers as being
violation of the Sherman ant1- .-
law. The case involves the mil
oai
miner! ust be paid llndergrolnl
.1 , ,,work and pattern ber _in_clustry
In the Ban Fran '35? area. '
,'.. ""","'." "' "'f""""" in-/:
4~7.§_/¥This clipping fro
o-.In - P
'92' fl
.92|
_ Q
I
.6"/Q
" r. , , .-r*-_r_'; l./9.. 1" .. F, !
W
Q0
--s_g_;._-"~e - ->n = _- a~~ -
Supreme C ourt Upholds Uiiion ,
Qgiia w;Z_Siaie' Regulaiion7~ Z
WASHINGTON, I611: 11.7{éiai@1awu-_¢gu1atin,;l .L131: unions must not conict with the provisions of
ri t to bargain collectively through representatives of their ii qE,3&?agnen_l4nbor Relalionq Act giving workers the
n I H n T ' c..oc-sing, the U.S. Supreme uil, heid in a. magor qe-
cis on today. The court acted on the. Fioridii statute requir-
ing union organizers and bustneszéh V _ ~~ .. e _ e _
agents to register with 1 state
board and also calling on local
unions to file nancial reports and
iists of their otcers.
Associate Justice Hugo Black read
the majority decision with Justices
Felix Frankfurter and Owen J.
Roberts dissenting while Chief Jua-
tice Harlan Stone dissented in put.
Stone agreed with the majority
that the Floricla. provision ttquiring
lb: licensing oi. Business agents Ind
orgeniziers by 1 board that passes
upon their qualications, morals
mo citizenship was in direct ooh-
tct with the Federal labor Law.
lit Stone dissented from the
majority opinion that the require-31.: that local innonfie an-
reooriz smoother data in
l_P!1_~ooncf1_.h2 ecni!.L-t one the ...!=
lective bargaining relitiom oi the
Wagner Act. .
Black reviewed t
business agent Leo
SSJUN 2119455 334. United Association or Journey-
i men Plumbers iAFL! was mrglngd
by Florida irolrropernting until he
nnd the iocai complied with the
state law.
92§ The Florida Biipreme Court up-
held the conviction oi H111 and the
llocal, and Black found that estate law had been so
and BPlJ1ied um the union ma tsinected representative are probi t-N
ed from functioning as ooiiec ve,
b9~1'Ellni-I1: agents. or in my other;
.4598-¢llY. eloept upon conditionslnxed nv !'1or1¢io." '
» am: ma nut the declared»
purpose oi the Wiwner Act "in to
i encourage collective bargaining, gm1_
to nrotect the mil freedom oi,
worker: in the selection or bannin-
Hini reoresentitives of
choice. -The mnjority oi the oourt amtthat the 1"lorid_a law Illl'Il;l92-lliibli
Florian: judgment tor the work-
en judzment u to the'¢921
,3'1
/ f...-in-'.~"1f-~ I--.. '-- "7-' §-l.».'l.I . I
6» .i Jim 1 5 |94k92F, ET T gt -* v-'
it -ii
is n clipping from
page 5* Of $116
DAILY WORKER
Date K0~92;"'924-5" ' I "'3' -F. 4 / r _
/
Clipped at he Sent of
GDV8 rnment
1. L selection oi l PLI hlrsnlnl went. ' $6 '
.., K
. -1tr:. =<
'" >
;u " '
r
."i,t;<'3I Q»- .
»_;,=e;-_;;~er
'1'
'-_ ""-v=;1 i
In.-.F';921_'._7,.
"1 . ".. ,-4-~v. d:'_J'- n _ "'-§=':-':=
'_-}___~ -.92- _'
22*
:1" 1. =1 er}*1' l'92.l_
~. J__ _
J> .r~
u.92,5'l-I18 meal from functioning as nlabor union Links it complied, is}? inc latent with me fcdeniizll,p1-ote process oi collective barE am by I
I Specically. the Court did not ob-
iject "to the regulation thlt locaiy
9292.1l1i0Ii8_ file reports, but rather to
the sanction imposed. 1
Two Alabama eases, led by the
QAFL and C10. were di-nuinitd byi
the court in opinions rend by Chiel92 Justice Stone. 'Ihe Alabama Brad-
1 ford! Act does not provide my pen-
my that would prohibit I union
j or a union omclai mm functioning
i 5.5 such in event or non-compliance.It simply provides criminal p¬1'i8}vties, and the uniols did not cha -
ie e the right of the state ID_ire"E|n1ate labor unions. L WI iI ._.___
j 1 ..e supreme C-992.lJ"L alsoI8 1, 1 lower court decision thatis National Labor Relations Board
certication cl n union as bargain-
fing agent may not be reviewed by
-a Federal court. ,, i The ruling was mam in e. *:o.':92.
pieint ied by ve AFL local aw-
mill unions over an NLRB order
certiiying rival C10 unions ni the
bargaining agent for the employee
ol lire lumber plants at _Pot1a.teh
Fm-eats. inc. beiiston, Idaho. 1
The high court meanwhile ai-
lowed the back overtime wage
chime or maintenance employee in;
one New York City oce building,
but rejected the claims oi tiioe ini;
another budin-8. . - 1
court, in n. '1 cg 5 ye:-diet, -
low claims by employees: _ t
Bot Building 50 Midieon A .3
on [rounds that the buiidinl
themed cent-rel cl pinata en-
ged in Interstate Oomrnerce inEon cith. - .-1_-:-'~---;:-"~=r" r ' E