Montana labor news., 1937-04-01

Unless we make this distinction, we
obscure the uses Of law in social
STRUGGLES and the manner in which low
grows. Low dt onY given period is q
crystdllizdtion Of past growths and post
STRUGGLES. 1t is response to the felt inn
pulsions Of the post. In America today
our ldW reflects the desperate need for
protecting property in rdpidlY growing.
mushrooming frontier society thdt turned
in an dmozinglY brief span Of time into
the most highly developed cdpitdlist
state in the world. It reflects also the
fears thut our industridlists felt when
faced by the growth of trade unionism
and democratic feeling. This need and
these fears hove been written-huve
written themselves-into the low. The
use of the Injunction in the past. even
more thOn today as q strike-breQking
weapon is q prime example Of how low
con be used to favor one side in the cdpi-
tdlldbor relationship. ToddY such q use
of the Injunction is illegdl in sixteen states
and in the federal courts. And not only
the Injunction. The strike itself Wds once
illegal. It is now. in theory dt least, legal.
The labor boycott Wds illegal. 1t is now,
under certdin circumstances, legal. Pick
citing Wds once illegdl. It is now Legal.
Moss picketing vas nee illegdL. 1t is
now generally legdl. Whdt we coll the
low" has on these subjects changed as
social realities have somehow got them
selves into peoples hedds and become
recognized as realities.
The low" on the sitdown will also
changes. in fact, changing under our
very hdnds. Judges are human, and even
judges ore not entirely impervious to
realities outside the courtroom. Judge
Campbell spoke more softly thdn Judge
Gddold before him: the next judge will
speak more softly thdn Judge Campbell.
For they will come to understand thdt
there is more in the heaven and earth Of
the sitdown thon is dredmt Of in the doc
trine of simple trespdss. You do not dis
pose of the controversy between the
ChrYsler corporation dnd its workers by
recourse to an eighteen century idea Of
private property. Such q controversy is
infinitely involved. On its settlement de-
pend not only the livelihoods Of thou
sands, even Of millions. but the social
health Of the state. Whoever you ore
judge, corporation head, newspaper pub
lisher-you must recognize thdt the stake
these workers have in their livelihoOds
dnd the stake the nation hos in healthy
and decent industrial conditions ore for
greater thdn your narrow dnd static
legdlism. You cannot chase these men
out ds you would chase out q trespdsser
from your back Ydrd.
Even on the score of strict Legality, the
total case is far from cledr. Every ddy,
throughout the notion, the corporate en-
ploYers ore breaking laws in their
struggle dgdinst collective bargaining.
Every ddY the Labor Relations Bodrd is
defied, labor spies ore used, men ore dis
charged for union activities. Every day
police brutdlitY is used to smdsh strikes
dnd break up picket lines. Two wrongs,
Of course, do not make q right. But we
cite these facts because we ore con-
vinced that the objection Of the corpora
tons to the sitdOWn is not thdt it is illegdl
but thdt it levels out the immense ddvGn-
tdge they have thus for had in the bdr-
gdining STRUGGLE. Thdt is whdt they con-
not endure-not the trespdss, but the fdct
thdt they ore now compelled to put their
houses in order dnd accept the workers
demands for collective bargaining.
In legal terms the sitdown must there
fore be seen as port Of the no mans ldnd
where the low is, except in the ndrrowest
dnd most mechanical sense, still unde-
termined. In such an area the consider
utions thdt should be decisive ore those
ledding to q decent living stonddrd for
all.