Evening star., 1935-07-06
WAGNER BILL HEIDI
CURB TO FREEDOM
Measure Clearly Unconsti.
tutionat. Observer Says.
Court Seen Repudiated.
ny DAVID LAWRENCE.

President Roosevelt has taken his
first important step of formal ma
ture repudiating the unanimous deei'
sion of the Supreme Court OF the
United States in the Schechter case oi
MAY 81 last-he has signed the Wagner
labor relations bill. which is plainly
unconstitutional and at variance with
the Supreme Court precedents,
Mr.. Roosevelt in his statement
issued when signing the measure said
1T does not cover all industry and
labor, but 1t is applicable only when
violation of the legal right of indie
pendent self-organization would bur
0en or obstruct interstate commerce.
Though the Department of Justice
argued at length that employer-em-
ploye relations tended to burden oi
obstruct" interstate commerce. the Su-
preme Court in the Schechter case
said this was a remote and indirect
effect and that for the commerce
clause of the Constitution to be in
voked it was necessary that the bur-
den or injury on interstate commerce
be direct.
Interstate huHHS'
In no case in the past short OF ply
steal obstruction or violence seeking to
prevent the shipment of goods in in
terstate commerce has the Supreme
Court ever held that the negotiations
between employers and employees were
matters of direct relationship to inter-
state commerce on the part of busi-
nesses which were not themselves in
strumentalities of interstate commerce
like railroads.
But there's still another ground on
which the Wagner law is palpably un-
constitutional. 1t sets forth thai
labor disputes" may burden or OBJ
struct interstate commerce, from
which it might be inferred that both
parties or either party to dispute
might be guilty of doing something
that directly Injuries or ohstruets in
terstate commerce. 1t certainly take:
two sides or two parties to have
dispute" about anything. In ths
Wagner Law, however, it is specifically
stated that only the employer car
possibly be guilty of an unfair labo
practice" Hence the measure j!
tantamount to saying that labor dis
putes do burden or injure interstat,
commerce, but only the employer car
possibly be guilty of wrongdoing.
A more preposterous piece OF legis
lauon was never written by the Amer
lean Congress or signed by an Amer
lean President. 1t violates the flftl
amendment, which forbids arhitrar.
and capricious acts.
No Opinion Furnished.
What, then, is the explanations I
may be derived from the fact that, o.
far as is known, the President did no
request and the Department of justice
did not furnish any formal opinion up
holding the constitutionality of tn,
act, fer the very good reason that NJ
such opinien was wanted. The simple
truth is that the American Fedora
ton of Labor set its heart On havihl
the Wagner bill passed irrespective O
the Schechter decision, and the Presi
dent had to choose between antagon
i1ing an important political group o
going along with it and letting tn
Supreme Court take the blame, so t.
speak, for outlawing the measure.
: This procedure unfortunately is be
coming all too frequent. No longer il
there any concealment of that purpose
Indeed, it was disclosed to the Housl
Ways and Means Committee in con
nection with another labor propose
known as the Guffey- Snyder bill, upor
which the Attorney General com
rnented that there was much to b.
said on both sides and that it Nigh
well be left to the courts to decide.
Now the truth is there never was {
more one-sided issue than that pre-
sented by the constitutional contro
versy in the case of the Guffey bill
and there never was clearer case o
Federal effort to encroach on tht
rights of the States to regulate EN-
ployer and employe relations than il
to be found In the Wagner BILL Blu
so long as 1885 politics dominates tht
scene here and the effort is to pill,
upon the Supreme Court the alleged
responsibility of blocking reform,
the New Deal is apparently going
ahead with that line of action in de
fance of the advice of a unanimou.
Supreme Court and the plain warn.
ings of constitutional lawyers at the
public hearings.
Test Cases Soon.
The courts will soon have test cases
but they will not arise out of the COM
plant of employers alone, but en-.
ployes who, under the terms of the
Wagner law, are forbidden, if they are
In the minority to negotiate directly
or through any spekesmen of their OWE
choosing with their employers, either
on wages or hours or working eendi-
tions. They can, of course, talk with
employers on grievances but are fer.
hidden to negotiate or bargain col
lectively for their fellow workmen.
This means that where a company
dominates a union and a majorit,
vote for representatives, the minority
who happen to be members of a ma
tional or outside union, are prohibited
from collective bargaining. But tn,
union leaders are not afraid of tina
issue. When an election goes agains
them, they will use their influence
with labor board appointed at thei
dictation and will take refuge in thu
grievance" clause and thus force al
election again and again or bring or
a strike until they get the desired
majority.
The employer is powerless agains
such tactics. He cannot discuss mat
ters with the minority of his employees
who might be willing to work unde
his terms. Indeed, if he refuses Il
bargain collectively" with the ma
jerity, he is subject to heavy fines.
The National Labor Board, who's,
decisions have been reaffiFmed by tn,
Wagner law, held that a refusal Il
sign written contract or a refusal Q
laber's proposals was net bona fid
effort at collective bargaining. Sc b!
the time the labor lawyers get through
with the Wagner law and all the ma