San Antonio light. [volume] (San Antonio, Tex.) 1911-1993, 1923-04-04

itself so deeply in this case, especial
~ in the record submitted by interior
ence with transportation. that any
backward step would be impossible.
Many equity suits no doubt will
grow out of the various acts occurring
during the strike when trains were
wrecked and passengers stalled in the
desert and various kinds of perishable
freight ruined ana non-perishable
damaged. The issue, therefore, has
to be fought out, from the govern
ment viewpoint, so that redress can
follow the fixing of responsibility.
Have Right To Appeal.
Should the district court in Chicago
issue decree making the injunction
permanent. the railway shopmen would
have the right of direct appeal to the
supreme court of the United States,
but if labor is not anxious to make
too much Of precedent out Of the
suit. the matter may be dropped in the
lower court and an effort made in
some other case in the future to ap-
peal the broad questions involved TO
the highest court in the land, possibly
in a case in which the record is more
favorable to labors side than it is
today.
Many of the leaders of the railway
shopmen have openly declared that the
temporary Injunction obtained By the
federal government broke the back
bone of the strike and some have gone
so far as to predict that there will
never be IN the present generation,
at least, another transportation strike
of nationwide character. There is no
telling how much of ali effect the in
junction has had ipon other unions
which did not participate in the re-
cent strike; but the supremacy of the
federal government over labor organi-
nations, or for that matter. employers
combinations has in the judgment of
government officials at least, been
firmly planted.
The injunction may have far
reaching effects upon any concerted
action that railway executives might
conceivably take which would bring
about a tie-up of transportation. This
phase of the controversy is not being
stressed, bat government officials will
not permit the impression to be broad
cast that they have assumed an at
titude of partisanship against labor.
In fact. the Department of JUS
tice waged n successful fight against
the Pennsylvania railroad, carrying
to the Supreme Court Of the United
States the case Of the shopn.en who
claimed that he Pennsylvania road
did not actually deal with TIE truly
elected spokesman of the employees
when they made certain agreements
concerning working condition with
their men.
The United States Railroad Labor
Board took the position that neither
the election conducted by the Ameri-
can Federation of Labor nor the one
carried by the Pennsylvania was valid
and attempted to lay down rules fol
a new election when the Pennsylvania
carried the fight to the courts. a cir
cumstance that is charged by many
labor leaders as having been the first
really fragrant disregard of the United
States Labor Boards position and
caused them later 20 ignore the board
when it was TO their interest.
Inc oupTeHhe tourt mas upheu the
labor board anu this de-.sion together
with the outcome OF the pendlng suit
to make the preliminary injunction
permanent will have much to do with
the problem of altering the transpor-
tation act in the next Congress. II.
indeed. it IS amended at all now that
both labor and capitil has been
brought TO book ii two important
cases.