Evening star., 1937-06-28

strike and anybody else who under
takes to interfere with the shipment
Of goods in interstate commerce.
Now comes in corroboratlon a
unanimous opinion by the United
States Circuit Court of Appeals for
the third circuit which. while In no
way mentioning the duties OF Presl-
dent of the United States, clearly
establishes the laWlessness Of the sit
down" strike as we'll as laWless picket
ing or interference with the opera
tions Of industrial plants engaged in
interstate commerce.
This decision was handed down
last week but the full text of it did
not come to my attention until today.
A reading of the decision shows that
there is Federal power to prosecute
the consprators who have endeav-
ored to close down the steel plants
and other companies through lawless
methods.
Democrat Wrote Opinion.
The opinion was rendered by
three judge court, namely by Justices
Burlington. Davis and Dickinson. 1t
is interesting to note that Judge Davis,
who wrote the opinion, was appointed
to the bench by President Wilson and
before that was a United States at
torney and prior to that appointment
was a State Senator and Democratic
leader in the New Jersey State Sen
ate. First describing the laWlessness
that was suddenly introduced in and
oro,,rd tho Anoy hnciar,, Ufora
peaceful conditions had always pre-
vailed, Judge Davis then said:
If there had been strike or any
labor trouble at the plaintiffs fac
tory the law provides remedy for its
peaceful settlement. The main pur-
pose Of the Wagner act was to avoid
industrial strife by providing an Or
derly process of settling controversies
and causes of unrest. 1t defines and
declares the rights of labor and pro-
vides machinery for enforcing them
Underlying this case is the ques-
tion Of whether few laWlesS indi-
Niduals ignoring and condemning the
Wagner act and in defiance of all law
and order, and in ruthless disregard
OF the rights of others, should be per-
nlitted by assuming the name of
union, to deprive all others of their
means of livelihood and compel them
to contribute of their earnings to self
styled leaders.
Wagner Act Provided Recourse.
"A few 'sit-downers' are keeping
$500 persons who were entirely salts
fed with their positions from working
and from earning an honest living for
themselves and their families. II an
employer had denied to labor any of
Its rights, the Wagner act provided
an orderly way Of calling him to ac-
count Instead of resorting to this
act the defendants by force and vio-
lence sought to compel the employer
and its employees to do what the
Wagner act does not countenance and
what the judgment of every true friend
OF labor and OF all good men condemns
as wrong both in policy and principle
Public opinion will sympathize with
labor in using every fair, just and
legal means to secure and protect its
rights, but public opinion-and this
includes the sane, sober, thoughtful
the laW-abiding element of labor
will feel outraged at the laWless con-
duct OF the defendants which, if tol-
Grated, would strike down American
institutions, flout our long cherished
principles of even-handed justice and
destroy the foundations Of the Gov-
ernment itself"
Then Judge Davis proceeded to cite
the Supreme Court decision in the
Jones & Laughlin case, commonly
known as the case that upheld the
Wagner act, and he repeated the
language of Chief Justice Hughes as
follows:
Intent May Be Inferred.
When the intent of those unlaw-
fully preventing the manufacture or
production is shown to be to restrain
Or control the supply entering and
moving in interstate commerce :.
their action Is direct violation of
the antitrust act. And the existence
OF that intent may be a necessary in
ference from proof of the direct and
substantial effect produced by the
employees conduct"
Judge Davis continued to show the
parallel, declaring, with respect to the
"sit-down' strikers, in the Apex plant:
The defendants in effect argue
that the purpose of the conspiracy
here was not aimed at interstate COM
merce, but at the plaintiff, to compel
It to yield to their demand for a
closed shop and check-off; that, how
n ante
were incidental only as means to an
end, and do not constitute conspiracy
IN restraint OF interstate commerce.
This argument overlooks the fact
that = strike, if lawfully conducted is
in itself lawful and its lawfulness now
has statutory recognition. There
could be no conspiracy under the
Sherman act or otherwise because of
doing a lawful thing. It could not
become conspiracy unless the means
employed were unlawful.
TT may be that the ultimate intent
Of the conspirators in this case was
to force the plaintiff to sign an agree
ment for closed shop This would
be perfectly all right If the defendants
had used lawful means to bring it
about, but when they used unlawful
means-the commission of crimes and
the restraint of interstate commerce
they knew exactly what they were
doing and must have intended, as
rational beings, to do exactly what
they did. The ultimate object which
they had in view in no way exculpates
them from the violation of the Sher-
man act.
Knew They Were Restraining Trade
THE defendants knew full we'll that
the silk and cotton used in making
hosiery came from outside Of Pennsyl-
vaniA. They also knew that when
they seized and stopped the operations