Evening star., 1935-06-07
A.E.OF |. TOPRESS
FOR WAGNER BILL
Decides to Ignore Court De-
CiSion in Order to Increase
Membership.
BY DAVID LAWRENCE.


Organized labor, the most powerful
pressure group in the National Capt.
tai has decided to ignore the deci-
sion of the Supreme Court of the
United States and insist that Congress
enact the Wagner labor disputes bill
BY rephrasing the preamble slightly,
the labor leaders have insisted that
the bill has been changed to meet
constitutional objections. But it is
plain that what they have in mind is
to force the measure through in the
hope that advantages gained between
the time of passage and the year or
two needed for a test by the high
court will give them membership in
creaSeS.
The new preamble states that inter-
ruption of business operations due to
labor disputes constitutes a direct in
jury and obstruction to the free flow
of interstate commerce The chief
reliance is on the so-called Coronado
cases and again on the Shreveport
case. all of which was carefully shown
by the unanimous opinion of the Su-
preme Court 10 days ago to have no
bearing at all on the effort to regulate
labor relations.
Debate Seen in Senate.
It is doubtful whether the lawyers
At the Department of Justice would
contend that the proposed Wagner bill
is constitutional, but such is the po-
iitical power of the labor group that
passage by the House seems assured.
A debate on the conference report
may be expected in the Senate.
Here are the reasons why the Wag
ner bill is in direct opposition to the
latest Supreme Court decision:
First in the Schechter case the
court laid down the rule that workers
engaged in A business itself intraState
could not be regulated as to wages and
hours by the Federal Congress.
Second. the court pointed out that
the Shreveport case was one in which
q common carrier" was affected by
transactions such as rate-making in
side State, and then went on to say
that cases involving common car
riers' could not be held TO apply TO
businesses wholly within a State, such
as manufacturing and production
conspiracy Is
Third. the court specifically pointed
out that the Coronado cases were vio-
lations of the antitrust laws ii.volv-
Ing a conspiracy 10 injure interstate
commerce. In the Coronado cases
labor unions not only conSpired TO
prevent the actual shipment of goods
between States but went so far as TO
commit overt acts embracing tie de-
struction of certain mile property.
Fourth. the Supreme Court mas held
time and again in previous occasions
that the friction between an employer
and emplove and questions Of union
membership were N no way related TO
the movement of goods in interstate
commerce. but that such disputes
when applied % common carriers or
businesses plainly engaged in inter-
state commerce night come within the
Federal jurisdiction 10 regulate The
latest word as % what does or &C es not
constitute interstate commerce con-
cedes that some transactions may "af-
feet interstate commerce. bur added
that all transactions inside a State
somehow affected interstate commerce
and the test was a direct injury or con-
spiracy to commit direct injury and
that regulation of wages and hours in
q business itself not a part of inter
state commerce was not such a direct
effect but remote and inoirect
effect
Constitutional Objections.
There are other constitutional OBJ
l.,
from those involved in an attempt to
make the commerce clause of the
Constitution include the right to regu-
late employer and employe relations.
There is, for eXamole, no question but
that the stipulation that employers
shall be forbidden 10 do certain things
which employees are not forbidden to
do constitutes an arbitrary and
"capricious' use of power by Congress
within the meaning of those words
In many past decisions of the Su-
prene Court. Congress may have the
right to exercise certain powers. but
not arbitrarily If it is asserted by
Congress anyway, then the law may
be declared invalid under the So
called due process clause of the Con-
stitUtton which says nobody can be
deprived of his property withoL: being
lawfully compensated
The new Wagner bill makes it a
violation Of the statute, subject to
heavy penalty. if an employer re
fuses to bargain collectively" and then
leaves to the finding of a Federal
board what is meant by such refusal.
Thus the previous Labor Board in a
written opinion held that refusal to
reach an agreement of fixed dura-
ton was hardly a good faith nego-
tiation. 1t is obvious that an en-
ployer who rejected all the demands
of his employees could be accused of
refusing to bargain collectively.
Many members of the House see
the flaws in the proposed measure.
but President Roosevelt has indicated
he will support the bill and hence its
passage may be looked for in the
near future.
Mr.. Roosevelts advisers are telling
him again that the Wagner bill is
free from constitutional objection and
that the court can test it later on,
By simple ruse in phraseology, the
measure has been changed sufficiently
to give excuse for another period of
legal uncertainty. and thus an era of
industrial disputes may be ushered in
which will be unprecedented.
The attitude of congressional lead
ers on the Wagner bill will furnish a
test of whether the Supreme Court s
unanimous opinion really meant any,
thing to the New Deal and whether
the next year is to see a continuance
of the effort to circumvent the Con-
stitution instead of direct proposal
to amend the Constitution in the Way