The Indianapolis times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1922-1965, 1932-02-26
PUSH FIGHT ON
LABOR DISPUTE
BILL CHANGES
Noted Attorneys Say Hebert
Substitute Benefit Only
to Employers.
BY RUTH FINNEY
Times stan Corresnondent

Times STAN Correspondent
WASHINGTON, Feb. 26.-Two
noted attorneys charged today that
employers would benefit, instead of
working men, if the Hebert substi-
tute for the Norris-La Guardia
anti-injunction bill should be adopt
ed in the senate.
Donald Richberg, attorney for
the railway employees organizations,
declared that in his opinion the
purpose of the substitute is to ex-
tend the power Of employer organ
izations to combine regardless of the
antitrust acts"
He referred to phraseology
throughout the substitute which
provides that both the employer
and employe shall have full free
dom Of association, self-organiza-
ton and designation of representa-
tives, and other privileges which
the original bill gives only to work
ing men.
Several senator's previously had
suggested that the Hebert substi-
tute might accomplish the modif-
cation of the antitrust laws which
business has been advocating for
the past year.
Substitute Is Attached
The second attack on the substi-
tute was made by j. S. Easbysmith,
attorney for the American Fedora
ton of Labor, who declared that
"the substitutes have been prepared
carefully and shrewdly for the ex-
press purpose of destroying many of
the essential features of the senate
bill as reported, and to so change
many of the provisions as to make
the bill a statement of the several
provisions of the Clayton act as they
have been construed and applied by
the federal courts.
In other words, my opinion is
that if this substitute were to pre-
vail it would, in large part, legally
ratify the decisions of the courts,
and would leave labor in the same
situation it is today"
Hebert was under fire from half
n dozen of the senate's leading con-
stitutional lawyers when he at
tempted to explain his substitute
Thursday, particularly as to the ex-
tent to which his measure would at
ford protection against yellow dog
contracts.
Hebert Defends Proposal
Hebert said that while the Norris
La Guardia bill would deny all legal
rights under yellow dog contracts,
his bill would deny equitable rights
only.
Speaking for the Norris-La
Guardia bill later in the day, Sena-
tor Thomas Walsh Dem, MONTH
declared that a perfect analogy X
lists between laws already in exist
ence forbidding usuriouS contracts
and the proposed law to forbid yell
low dog contracts. The former have
been upheld by the courts, he point
ed out, on the theory that they take
undue advantage of a mans neceS-
sity.
He cited numerous instances to
show the widespread existence of
yellow dog contracts and declared
that if their use becomes general,
no labor unions could exist, in spite
of the fact that the supreme court
has declared unions necessary for
the protection of labor.
Appears Before House Group
Appearing before the house
judiciary committee where Repre-
resentative Fioeillo La Guardia
.(Rep., N. " is seeking favorable
action on the anti-injunction bill,
Richberg declal / that instead of
proposing new and radical meas
ures, the bill would bring back to
American courts ancient traditions
Of justice.
He pointed out that in the
original judiciary bill, written soon
after creation of the United States,
st. was provided that no injunction
Should be issued without notice, and
that the provision in La Guardia'S
bill to limit the effect of restrain
ing orders to five days is only a
FIRST step back toward this principle.