Evening star., 1936-03-02
BILL WOULD CURB
RIGHTS OF SPEECH
Van Nuys Bill to Halt "Fear
Campaigns" Seen as
Censor Wedge.
BY DAVID LAWRENCE.

petltlOu.
On top of a very determined move
ment to intimidate all organizations
or associations which differ in their
viewpoint from the party in power,
now comes a bill which has Just
nassed the Senate and Is about to
be considered by the House, which IN
effect makes it possible to prevent an
employer from talking to his employees
about any current problems without
running the risk of a harassment by
those who can charge him with VI
lating a Federal law.
The Senate bill, which, by the way.
caught all the defenders of the Con-
stitution in the Senate asleep at the
switch. was passed without a syllable
of discussion. This week 1t Is to be
reported out with amendments by the
House Judiciary Committee. AS 1t
passed the Senate, the text OF the
measure is as follows:
BE 1t enacted that it Is unlawful
for any person or corporation to infiu-
ence or attempt to influence. through
fear or intimidation, the vote OF any
person employed by them. In connec-
ton with any election at which presi-
dental and vice presidential electors
or a Senator or Representative in Con-
gress are to be voted for.
$1,000 Corporation Fine.
Section 2. Any corporation violat-
ing any of the provisions of this act
shall be fined not more than $4,000;
and any officer, director or agent OF
any such corporation who violates or
consents to the violation of any OF the
provisions of this act, and any person
who is an employer as above described
who violates or consents to the viola
ton of any of the provisions of this
act shall be fined not more than 81 600
or imprisoned not more than one year,
or BOTH
Senator Van Nuys of Indiana, DEM
ocrat, author of the bill, denies vehem-
emily that the measure would prevent
the distribution of factual informa-
ton and Chairman Summers OF Texas
of the House Judiciary Committee.
while admitting that the bill Is pretty
broad, thinks it is better to have it
general so that the courts can deter
mine when there has been an overt
act.br willful violation, or when IN in
noeent act of sending out factual in
formation is involved.
As practical matter. however, the
bill will tend to cut OF intercourse
between employers and employees for
fear of having their words miSunder-
stood. But the employer has always
had a constitutional right to influence
his employees and one set Of employees
has a constitutional right to influence
their fellow employees. Indeed, the
employer has had the right to assemble
his employees in mass meeting and
tell them he fears the consequences
of continued Government deficits and
uninterrupted spending policies. But
under the Van Nuys law the employer
could be jailed for such opinions. In
fact, if he distributed copy Of a
newspaper which contained an article
predicting economic reverses If Gov
ernment policies are not changed. the
enaployer would run the risk OF be-
ing arrested.
SOulU DAT oESdulzcE.
What is an attempt to influence?
Who can define when the attempt
reaches the borderhne Of "fear" or
intimidation" Clearly the right Of
free speech is not limited to express
sions that emit phrases which might
be construed as inducing fear" But
If the employer cannot himself prac-
tice free speech he is likewise subject
to the penalties of the law If he lets
any speaker inside the factory gates.
For that would be "consenting" to
the violation of the law and the act
specifies it to be a crime to give any
such consent. This means that no
union organizer can hereafter be per-
i1iitted to speak on election matters
with any employees with the knowledge
Or consent of the employer. To pre-
vent such consequences employers
might now feel it incumbent to pre-
vent any representatives Of labor
unions to talk about any current
problems at this time with any of
their employees. Such result might
be considered extreme, but it is with
in the purview of the proposed law
just the same.
1t is significant that Representative
Perkins of New Jersey, who has a
bill to prevent any person in the Fed
eral Government from attempting to
influence or intimidate any Govern
ment employe, would by the provisions
of the measure. be subject to fine or
imprisonment, but since Mr.. Perkins
Is Republican his bill probably will
never be reported out of committee
to-the House.
Apart from the Van Nuys bill,
which is sponsored in the House by
Representative Griswold of Indiana,
there Is another measure introduced
by Representative Ramsay of West
Virginia, Democrat, which would pun
ist1vnot only any corporation, but any
'tstockholder'' or attorney who "ad-
vises or consents to the use of any
property" of the corporation which
might mean its auditorium or its
pysmises "for, or in aid of political
party, committee, or organization, or
directly to a person in aid of can
didate for President, Vice President,
Senator or Representative, ETC."
Would Curb Mail.
Inasmuch as labor unions are
this year actively in politics. it Is a
mystery why they have been caught
mapping while legislation so obvious
harmful to their opportunities for
electioneering is being proposed. The
Ramsay bill goes further and attempts
to forbid the use of the mails to
any employer who wants to distribute
Information to his employees or, as the
bill says, gives directly to any en-
ploye any statement intended or cal
culated to influence the political ac-
tion Of his employees or posts or
exhibits in the establishment any
posters, placards or handbills, or de-
livers verbally any messages to any
such employees containing any threat.
notice or information that If any
e,,cIa conSidoto ic e1anfod or dofoo for1