Evening star., 1934-09-18

ing explanatory statement and neg
lected to fill in the space for his
signature on the order itself.
1t was believed the Government
attorneys, in view of the slip-up, must
now choose between two courses. One
is to secure from President Roosevelt
an affidavit that he actually issued
the order, although neglecting to sign
it, and the other to secure the
issuance of a new and properly signed
order and then withdraw the present
suit and file another one against the
Roberts company.
The suit by the Government asked
for an injunction to prevent the de-
fendant from paying less than code
wages for straight and overtime work.
from working employees more than the
maximum number Of hours prescribed
by the code, and to compel the post
ing in the company's Offices of the
code provisions affecting that in
dustry.
Regarded as Test.
The suit, first of its kind filed here,
IS regarded as a test of the Govern
pO"Sl W clllOINc CONc
sicns upon a concern that has not
signed the code
Answering directly the Govern
ment's charges, the Roberts company,
one Of the Oldest printing concerns in
the District, contends it has been
paying, and is paying, its employees
substantially the rates of wages desig-
mated by the alleged code, and in de-
serving instances a higher rate Of
wages
The answer, filed through Attor-
neys F. Regis Noel and Harry A. Grant,
further contends the alleged code is
unconstitutional in that it is an un-
warranted delegation of legislative
power in violation of Article I of the
Constitution, which vests all legislative
powers in the Congress.
Set Forth Violations.
The code is also alleged to violate
the Constitution in the following par
ticulars:
l. That it effects an unwarranted
and unconstitutional delegation and
usurpation of the judicial power in
violation of artile III of the Consti-
tuition.
2. That it does not comply with the
fourth amendment, prohibiting unrea-
sonable searches and seizures, and that
1t violates the fifth amendment, pro-
hlblting the taking of private property
without due process of law.
1t is also contended the code Is in
the nature of class legislation and
tends to create monopoly and monopo-
listic practices
The answer was accompanied by an
affidavit signed by "A Of the defend-
ants employees asserting they are sat-
1sfied with all working conditions,
hours and wages.
The defendant also contends the
local court does not have Jurisdiction
OF the case because the matters set
forth in the petition constitute a
labor dispute under the terms of the
Norris-La Guardia act.
Target of Organized Labor.
1t is also asserted the defendant
company, which conducts an open
shop. has been the target of reprisals
by organized labor for many years.
1t was pointed out that in 1906 the
local court issued an injunction
against the Columbia Typographical
Union, No. 101, to prevent the union
and its members from interfering in
the conduct of the business of any
printing establishments in this city.
Since that time, it is asserted, the
typographical union and other labor
organizations and agitators have been
striving to organize and unionize the
defendants business.
The defendant filed affidavits pur-
porting to show the Graphic Arts
Association of Washington and the
typographical union have approached
the defendants employees, induced and
prevailed upon them to furnish con-
fldential and private information, sug-
gested and encouraged sabotage in
the defendants plant and rendered
its loyal employees dissatisfied and an
tagOnistic"