The times-news. [volume] (Hendersonville, N.C.) 1927-current, 1937-02-10
WAGNER LABOR
ACT IS BEFORE.
HIGH TRIBUNAL.
Is Attacked as Compelling
Collective Bargaining
in All Industry

ed before the supreme court yes
terday that the Wagner labor re.
lations act Of 1888 seeks ITO make
collective bargaining compulsory
in all industry"
| Appearing as counsel for the
Associated Press in q suit attack
ing constitutionality Of the law,
Davis contended it violates the
first, fifth and 10th amendments
to the constitution.
The white-haired veteran of
many a tilt with the New Deal
opened argument on the first of a
series Of five cases testing the law
which will occupy the court for
the rest Of the week. The tests
come at time when the automo-
bile industry is torn by labor
strife and the court itself sub
ject of national discussion due to
President Roosevelt's proposal for
judicial reorganization.
For more than an hour Davis
developed his arguments of uncon-
stitutionality, ending just 10
minutes before the courts 4:3O
o'clock recess. Charles Wyzanski,
Jr., special assistant to Attorney
General Homer S. Cummings, then
started the governments defense.
He denied that the act intended
to create universal closed shop, in
which all members must belong to
q union.
at just says that no federal
statute shall curtail the right OF
employees to have a closed shop
Wyzanski said.
Davis argued before q court
room packed with attentive listen
ers, among them Senator Robert
F. Wagner, D., N. T., author OF
the law, and Frank B. Noyes, pres
ident of the Associated Press.
Just before he spoke, however,
Morris Ernst, New York, attorney
for the American Newspaper
Guild asked the court for 2O
minutes time in the case. Chief
Justice Charles Evans Hughes said
that the court could not extend
the time already allotted, but that
he might obtain government time
| from Solicitor General Stanley
Reed. Reed declined on the ground
that many labor organizations had
sought to enter the argument and
he could not discriminate in favor
of one.
Davis traced the case from its
origin on October l8, 1885, in the
discharge by the Associated Press
of Morris Watson, a $295-a-month
editorial employe in its New York
office. The dismissal, Davis said,
conceded with the receipt of a de-
mand from the American News
paper Guild for collective bargain.
ing.
Davis said that Watson's imme-
date superior gave five grounds
for dissatisfaction with his work
but that Kent Cooper. the APPS.
general manager, specified in APP
proving them, that, the discharge
be "soiely on the grounds OF ms
work not being up to his capaoil-
The Guild, however, contended
Watson was dismissed because OF
his activity in its organization,
and filed complaint with the ma
! tional labor relations board. The
board, after hearings before q
trial examiner, ordered the Asso-
ciated Press to reinstate Watson
and pay him back wages, less what
he had earned in the meantime.
The A.P. refused and the labor
| board took the case to the second
circuit court of appeals, which up
held it. From that court the A.
P. appealed to the supreme court.
"This case" Davis said, docs
not turn in any sense on the mer-
it's or dement's of collective par
gaining. What is involved is the
power of the federal government
to make collective bargaining
compulsory in all industry. we
challenge that power. ..
"We assert that the act by It's
scope outruns the commerce
clause Of the constitution and is
an effort to exert power far out
side that field"
Reading those sections OF the
law relating to unfair trade pracs.
tees, Davis pointed out that J.
was specified that nothing should
prevent an employer from making
a closed shop agreement with q
union, :, al
= an other words" he said the
purpose of the aSt is to make the
closed shop permanent and com
pulsory." ,~,.. go
There is no phrase to limit 1t 10
employees engaged in interstate
commerce, he added, and minority
employees have nothing more thah
| the right to. petition. ,..
Davis argued that the iaoof
boards order that Watson be re-
instated infringed not only the
freedom of the press. as guaran..
Iteed by the first amendment. oui
that it deprived the Associate1,
Press of dliberty and property
without due process of law, as pro-
hib;ted in the fifth amendment,
ut is not" Davis said, that ne
may be more biased or less biased,
but it is that those who pucnsn
| and print the news have the r1gn.
10 choose who will handle the
na,Ss -, ~ - - o.