Evening star., 1936-10-26
SUPREME COURT
TO RULE ON TWO
LABOR ACT CASES
Associated Press and W., v.
& M. Coach Co. Challenges
to Be Heard.
COMMUNIST DECISION
FASTENING is REFUSED
Tribunal Adjourns Until Nov. 8
and Will Spend Interim Writ
ing Decisions.
By the Associated Press.

By the Associated Press.
Two cases involving constitutional
ity of the Wagner labor relations act
we're added today by the Supreme
Court to the list of New Deal litiga-
ton awaiting final decision.
In a brief announcement, the
tribunal agreed to pass on challenges
of the legislation filed by the Asso-
ciated Press and by the Washington,
Virginia and Maryland Coach Co.
The act was sustained by lower
courts in both controversies.
The statute guarantees collective
bargaining to labor and sets up ma
tional labor relations board to settle
industrial disputes.
Communist Plea Not Speeded.
In acting on approximately 80 ap-
peals, the court also refused to speed
up a final ruling on a petition by
Illinois Communists to compel State
officials to place the names OF the
Communist candidates for President
and Vice President on the ballot Tor
the November election.
That action made it impossible for
the court to act on the petition until
after the election. 1t adjourned today
until November 9 and will spend the
intervening time writing opinions on
cases argued during the last two
weeks.
Seven cases involving New Deal
legislation already were under review
by the court. No decision on any OF
these disputes is likely before Decem-
ber or January.
Arguments on validity Of the Wag-
ner act will be heard in few weeks
followed by a final decision.
Justice Stone, who has been confined
to his bed for several days with an
intestinal ailment, was absent from
the brief session. His aides said he
expected to be present at the Novem-
| Der session.
Five Cases Appealed by Board.
In addition to the two cases in
volving the labor legislation on which
the court agreed today to rule, f1ve
other cases involving the act have
been appealed to the high court by
the Labor Relations Board, which lost
in lower courts.
The litigation was against three
companies, Jones g. Laughlin Steel
Corp. of Pittsburgh, Fruehauf Trailer
Co. of Canton, Ohio, and Friedman
Harry Marks Clothing Co., Inc. Of
New York. There were two cases
against each of the two latter con.
Germs.
Whether this litigation will be re-
viewed probably will be announced on
November 9.
The Associated Press appealed from
a ruling by the Circuit Court of APP
peals at New York upholding an order
of the National Labor Relations Board
directing it to reinstate Morris Wat
son. a discharged employe of its New
York Office.
Watson contended he was dismissed
because of activities in connection
with the American Newspaper Guild.
The press association said his dis
charge was for cause.
In its petition, the Associated Press
said the freedom of the press was "se-
riously jeopardized" by the act. This
was denied by Solicitor General STAN
ley Reed in urging a Supreme Court
review of the controversy on behalf
of the Government.
The coach company appealed from
a ruling by the Fourth Circuit Court
of Appeals upholding the law and di-
recting it to reinstate Is employees with
back pay. 1t contended this was the
first case to reach the Supreme Court
in which a company admitted It was
engaged in interstate commerce.
Charges Raised by Is Employees.
A National Labor Relations Board
hearing in this case grew out oi
charges by the 18 employees that they
were dismissed by Leon Arnold, COM
pany president, because of their affili-
alton with the Amalgamated Associ-
alton of Street Electric Railway and
Motor Coach Employees Of America.
The Arnold Line contended the men
were discharged because of inefhciency'
1t was brought out the dismissais be-
gan a few days after charter OF the
Amalgamated Association was granted
Local 1919, which the coach company
employees had joined. The discharged
group included drivers and repairmen
In joining the request for SUI
preme Court ruling on the two dis
putes. the solicitor general said the
question of the constitutionality Of the
act was IAN important question Of
Federal law which has not been but
should be settled by this court"