Evening star., 1937-02-03
Hy the Associated Press.


picketing and orderinl
evacuation of Fisher body plants Nos
| and at Flint:
This procedure involves simple
legal question that would be OF rel
atively little Importance except to
the litigants involved, other than
that it is Of great public interest
because of the relationship existing
between the parties litigant at the
present time and as they affect the
general public and welfare of all Of
our people. The question involved
is solely as to the right of the de-
PENDANTS to occupy the premises
involved in this litigation described
in the amended bill Of complaint
of the plaintiff.
1t is proper that this matter
should finally be brought before
court of competent jurisdiction for
decision. If two individuals were in
difference, the law would not permit
them to take their grievance or
wrongs in their own hands and at
tempt to redress them by their own
actions. Because a great number
Of people are involved. there is no
difference, and the courts are the
proper forum to redress wrongs and
protect rights.
If the plaintiffs in this action
are legally entitled to possession OF
the premises in question. they
could, by appropriate action. seek
the assistance of this court in the
protection of their right of posses
sion. The defendants, if they are
right, could apply to this court and
be assisted by the injunctive process
of this court in maintaining their
position of possession.
These defendants have not seen
fit to do that, but on the contrary,
the plaintiffs have sought the as
sistance of this court. II makes no
difference, however, which side to
the controversy first seeks the as
sistance of the court. The court
must fairly and impartially inter-
pret and administer the law rela-
tive to the question involved, name.
ly. the right of possession of the
premises
Courts Cannot Create
Tribunals Of Adjustment.
1t is deplorable that in this coun-
try. and with the respect for law
and order in our institutions that
prevail. that it should become
necessary to have conditions exist
as they are. Courts cannot set
up any processes or tribunals to ad.
just differences between an em-
ployer and an employe. That is a
matter for the Congress or of the
various State Legislatures. In pass
ing, it might be well to remark that
the English system has adopted
means to have completely removed
these controversies from direct &C
ton and place them under proper
government supervision, with
proper legal procedures and tri-
bunals to settle and adjust differ
ences. The Danish system that has
been in operation for some time
likewise provides means and meth
DDS of peaceable adjustment.
This should be done in America,
and probably in the near future
will be done. 1t must be remem-
bered that both sides to any con-
troversy should be required to sub
nit their differences to the proper
tribunal set up for the adjustment
thereof. The courts, of course,
have nothing to say relative to such
procedures. as the courts can but
interpret and enforce the laws as
they find them. In doing this, the
courts must take no SIDES in the
controversy, but act fairly, i'm.
partially and fearlessly in the en-
forcement of our laws, redress OF
wrongs and protection Of rights.
This court realizes, no matter
how the court decides, that ne will
meet with condemnation from some
of the involved groups or interested
parties.
The courts are constitutional
part of our Government, and must
fearlessly function without thought
of personal standing. or criticism,
and this court will attempt to do
that. 1t naturally follows that the
court, being in a public position, is
acquainted with a great many of
the people involved on both sides
of the controversy, has friends on
both sides of the controversy, and
the court must act fearlessly, even
by jeopardizing that friendship. in
upholding and enforcing the law,
protecting the rights and prohibit
ing wrongs of any parties involved.
With these thoughts in mind,
this court will attempt to interpret
the laws with fairness and impair
tiality, without any opinion as to
the merits of the main controversy,
but only in relation to the legal
proposition that is now before this
court for consideration.
Deals With Question
OF 1896 Election mandate"
At the outset OF the argument
on behalf OF the defendants, coun-
sci stated that we were now not
operating under the laws Of 1898,
but were operating under the clear
mandate of the people as expressed
in 1896, probably referring to the
election of 1896.
This court has previously stated
he must take the law as he finds
the law, and he must interpret
and follow that law. If there Is
to be a change in the laws it is
legislative function to make those
changes, and the court perforce
must follow the mandates of the
Legislature relative thereto. but the
court cannot legislate, the court
can but interpret and enforce.
The question involved here as to
the right of possession Of the prem
ises in question seems to have been
clearly settled by the law through
the Supreme Court of our State.
In Lane VS.. Au Sable, 18l, at
page 26, the court took occasion to
pass upon the rights of a striker
in and to premises that he occupied
as his residence The opinion Of