Evening star., 1937-05-25
DUKE LOSES PLEA
|NSUPREME COURT
Disbarred Attorneys Effort
to Upset Prosecutions
Case Fails.

Jesse G. Duke, diSbarred Washing
ton attorney. yesterday failed in his
efforts to convince the Supreme Court
he should have been prosecuted by
indictment instead of information on
a charge Of attempting to influence a
Federal grand jury in Alexandria, Va.
The unanimous opinion of the
court, holding that prosecution by
information was proper, was delivered
by Justice Sutherland.
Duke was convicted of handing a
letter to the foreman of the grand
Jury considering charges against him
OF harboring as fugitives Represent
ative John H. Hoeppel of California
and his son, Charles j. Hoeppel, con-
victed Of conspiring to sell an appoint
ment to West Point.
Asked to Present Case.
The letter asked that Duke be al
lowed to appear before the jury to
present his own case.
Duke appealed to the Fourth Cir
cult Court and it asked the Supreme
Court to answer two questions about
which it was in doubt. They were:
y. May miSdemeanor, for which
no infamous punishment is prescribed,
be prosecuted by information, where
the punishment therefore may exceed
$500 fine or six months imprisonment,
without hard labor, or both?
-. May an offense under section
1877 OF the criminal code dealing with
influencing juries) be prosecuted by
tnformation?"
The lower court will take further
proceedings in line with the ruling
Picketing Sustained.
In another decision yesterday the
Supreme Court upheld, to 4, Wis
consin's law prohibiting injunctions
against peaceful picketing in labor
disputes.
Clearly the means which the
statute authofizes-picketing and
publicity-are not prohibited by the
fourteenth amendment" said the ma
tority opinion, written by Justice
Brandeis.
The opinion upheld a Wisconsin
court ruling against Paul Sem, who
unsuccessfully sought an injunction
on December %. 1885, to restrain the
Tile Layers Protective Union from
picketing his place of business and
publishing, stating or proclaiming he
was unfair to organized labor"
The unions acted and had the
right to act as they did to protect the
interests of their members" said the
majority opinion. The laws of Wis
consin permit unions to endeavor tc
induce an employer, when unionizing
his shop, to agree to refrain from
working in his business with his owl
hands.
Wisdom Up to State.
whether 1t was wise for the State
10 permit the unions to do so is a
question Of It's public poicy-not our
concern. The fourteenth amendment
does not prohibit it. 1t is contended
in prohibiting an Injunction the
statute denied to Sem equal protec-
ton Of the laws. But the issue sug-
gested does not arise"
The dissenting opinion, written by
Justice Butler and concurred in by
justices McReynolds, Van Devanter
and Sutherland, contended ''picketing
was unlawful because the signs used
constitute Misrepresentation OF the
facts" 1t added:
The judgment Of the State court
violates a principle of fundamental
law: That no man may be compelled
to hold his life or the means Of living
at the mere will of others. The State
statue Is repugnant to the due
process and equal protection clauses
OF the fourteenth amendment"
Sem had refused to sign q union
agreement unless provision prevent
ing him, as owner OF the business, from
working with tools or acting as a
-helper, was stricken from the compact.
The unions declined.
Sem asked dismissal of the case on
the contention the Federal question
was not substantial and the lower
courts decision was based on nom
Federal grounds. The majority
opinion said, however:
The unions may seek by legal
means to induce him to agree to
unionize his shop and to refrain from
exercising his right to work with his
own hands. The judgment of the
highest court of the State establishes
that both the means employed and the
end sought by the unions are legal.
under its law
Peaceful Picketing Noted.
Inherently, the means authorized
are clearly unobjectionable. The
picketing was peaceful. Publicity did
not involve a misrepresentation of fact.
If the unions may constitutionally
induce Sem to agree to refrain from
exercising the right to work in his
business with his own hands, their acts
were lawful. There was no
violence. no force was applied, no
molestation, or interference, nor CO.
ercion.
The dissenting opinion contended
"There Is no escape from the con-
clusion the unions intended by the
picketing they carried on to mis-
represent the plaintiff in respect of his
relation to or dealing with the union
and by that means to deprive him OF
his occupation"
Jail Loses Caste.
Prisoners in the iail at G,lernsev