Evening star., 1937-04-13
terminal railroads located at It's man
ufacturing plants.
Self Contained. Highly
Integrated Body.

Summarizing these operations, the
Labor Board concluded that the works
in Pittsburgh and Aliquippa might
be likened to the heart of a self
contained, highly integrated body.
They draw in the raw materials from
Michigan, Minnesota, West Virginia,
Pennsylvania in part through arteries
and by means controlled by the re-
spondent; they transform the ma
terials and then pump them out to
all parts of the Nation through the
vast mechanism which the respondent
has elaborated"
To carry out its activities 5000 men
mine ore, $4,000 men mine coal,
1000 men quarry limestone, $4,000
men manufacture coke. $4,000 men
manufacture steel and $4,000 men
transport its product. Respondent has
about 10000 employees in its Aliquippa
plant, which is located in community
OF about 10000 persons. '''
Employees Were Active
Leaders in Union.
Practically all the factual evidence
IN the case, except that which dealt
with the nature of respondents busi-
ness, concerned it's relations with the
employees in the Aliquippa plant whose
discharge was the subject of the COM
plant. These employees were active
leaders in the labor union. Several
were officers and others were leaders
of particular groups Two OF the en-
ployes were motor inspectors; one was
a tractor driver; three were crane op-
orators; one was washer in the coke
plant, and three were laborers. Three
other employees were mentioned in the
complaint, but it was withdrawn as to
one of them, and no evidence was
heard on the action taken with re-
spect to the other two.
While respondent criticizes the evil
dence and the attitude of the board,
which is described as being hostile
toward employers, and particularly
toward those who insisted upon their
constitutional rights, respondent did
not take advantage of its opportunity
to present evidence to refute that
which was offered to show discrimina-
ton and coercion. In this situation,
the record presents no ground for set
ting aside the order of the board SO
far as the facts pertaining to the cir
cumstances and purpose Of the dis
charge of the employees are concerned.
Upon that point it Is sufficient to say
that the evidence supports the find
ings of the board that respondent dis
charged these men because of their
union activity and for the purpose Of
discouraging membership in the
union" We turn to the questions Of
law which respondent urges in con-
testing the validity and application Of
the act.
First. The scope of the act-The
act is challenged in its entirety as an
attempt to regulate all industry, thus
invading the reserved powers of the
States over their local concerns 1t IS
asserted that the references in the act
to interstate and foreign commerce
are colorado at best; that the act is
not true regulation of such commerce
but on the contrary has the funda-
mental object of placing under the
compulsory supervision of the Federal
Government all industrial labor rela-
tions within the Nation. The argu-
ment seeks support in the broad words
of the preamble (section one) and IN
the sweep of the provisions of the act,
and it is further insisted that its legis-
lative history shows an esential uni
versal purpose in the light of which its
scope cannot be limited by either con-
structisn or by the application of the
separability clause.
II this conception of terms. intent
and consequent inseparability were
sound, the act would necessarily fall
by reason of the limitation upon the
Federal power which inheres in the
constitutional grant, as well as because
of the explicit reservation of the
tenth amendment. Schechter Corp. VS..
United States, 295 U. S. 495, $40, $50,
554. The authority of the Federal
Government may not be pushed to
such an extreme as to destroy the
distinction, which the commerce clause
itself establishes, between commerce
among the several States and the
internal concerns of State. That
distinction between what is national
and what is local in the activities
of commerce is vital to the mainte-
nance of our Federal system. Id.
Principal Is to Save and
Not to Destroy.
But we are not at liberty to deny
effect to specific provisions, which
Congress has constitutional power to
enact, by superimposing upon them
declarations of an ambiguous char
acter, even if found in the same
statute The cardinal principle Of
statutory construction is to save and
not to destroy. We have repeatedly
held that as between two possible
of which it would be unconstitutional
and by the other valid, our plain duty
is to adopt that which will save the
act. Even to avoid serious doubt
the rule is the same. Federal Trade
Commission VS.. American Tobacco
Co., 264 U. S. 298, 307; Panama R. r..
Co. VS.. johnson, 264 U. s. 375, 800;
Missouri Pacific R. r. Co. VS.. Boone,
270 U. S. 466, 472; Blodgett VS. Holden,
275 U. S. 142, 148; Richmond Screw
Anchor Co. VS.. United States, 275
U. S, 33l, 346.
We think it clear that the national
labor relations act may be construed
so as to operate within the sphere Of
constitutional authority. The jurisdic-
tion conferred upon the board, and
invoked in this instance, is found in
section 10 (a), which provides:
Section 10 (a). The board is en-
powered, as hereinafter provided, to
prevent any person from engaging in
any unfair labor practice (listed in
section - affecting commerce"
The critical words of this provision,
prescribing the limits of the boards
authority in dealing with the labor
practices, are affecting commerce. :"
The act specifically defines the "cono-