Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1937-04-13

obstr tions
which grow out OF serious labor dis
putes.
Thoroughly consistent with previous
opinions, the Supreme Court has
merely called attention with renewed
emphasis to q decision rendered in
May, 1925, known as the second Coro-
nado case, which covers almost iden-
tically conditions such as today,
though Shutdown" strikes and other
labor disputes, are Intentionally inter
rupting production and distribution of
articles of commerce.
No new commerce clause has been
written into the Constitution, but
definition of what really constitutes
distractions to interstate commerce
has been restated with remarkable
clarity and force.
Victory for People.
The American people in general
have won great victory and labor in
particular-that is, honest. decent,
law-abiding labor has won triumph
unexampled in American history.
To understand the latest decisions,
1t is necessary to go back to the second
Coronado case, which resulted from
actions by coal miners to obstruct the
entrance to mines and deliberately in
terfere with the shipment of coal by
selling coal cars and other equipment.
The Supreme Court said that was
direct obstruction and Stoppage of
interstate commerce and that it was
within the power of Congress to call
such restraint of trade a violation
Of the antitrust laws. In other words,
since the Constitution gives Congress
the power Ito regulate commerce
among the States" hence, under this
clause, Congress could prohibit such
stoppages and protect interstate COM
merce.
Now the Supreme Court has said the
same thing in another way. The
court has pointed out that production
itself may still be local, just as it was
in the coal mining case, but that
physical act of obstruction could in
terfere with the movement Of goods.
Congress Can at Least Try.
Can Congress protect interstate
commerce against the physical i'm
pediments of an obstruction such as
grows out of strike in which pickets
and other devices are used to prevent
production from being carried on?
The Supreme Court said Congress
at least could try. 1t can pass laws
providing for compulsory negotiation.
1t can define collective bargaining.
1t can insist that workmen have the
right to select agents of their own
to speak for them in negotiations and
that employers cannot interfere with
rights for self-organizat ton. All this
the Supreme Court said might appeal
down or eliminating the principal
causes Of labor warfare. The court
said in effect that Congress might
not eventually be successful in its
efforts, but that the Constitution per-
mitted Congress at least to make the
attempt and that the Wagner law
was in fact such an attempt.
The Wagner law does not compel
man to join union if he doesn't
wish to do so. 1t doesn't compel the
employer to pay the wages or accept
the hours demanded by his workmen.
1t doesn't compel him to face a loss
and go into bankruptcy just because
he can't get price high enough to
cover his labor costs. But what the
Wagner labor act does do is to COM
pei people to sit down around a table
to negotiate, and if an agreement
can't be reached, then there is no
power in the Constitution at present
to force agreement.
Supreme Law of Land.
Efforts will be made to show that
the Supreme Court ruled one way
in the Guffey and Schechter cases and
now has taken different view of the
commerce clause in general and pro-
duction in particular. Actually, how
ever, in the Guffey case the labor
provisions went beyond mere
adjustment machinery for labor dis
putes. In the Schechter case, too,
Congress sought by a delegation Of
the code making power to others to
set up a regulation OF interstate COM
merce, and likewise the labor pro-
visions Of N. r. A. went beyond
mechanism for adjustment of labor
disputes, as for instance in fixing
wages and hours.
These distinctions the lawyers will
argue about for many months to
come, but the fact remains that the
Wagner labor relations act is today
the supreme law Of the land.
John Lewis no longer can give as
sn excuse for Shutdown" strikes that
the Wagner law is being enjoined by
employers and hence is worthless.
The American Federation OF Labor
no longer need hesitate to ask the
National Labor Board to decide
whether the craft or the industry or
the plant is the appropriate unit"
for collective bargaining All this the
National Labor Relations Board now
has to decide, as the law specifically
requires.
Power to Make Laws Two Sided.
It Is true the Wagner act is one
sided and does not treat the en-
ployer and the employe alike. But
as Chief Justice Hughes pointed out,
a one-sided law doesn't mean that
Congress hasn't the power to make
it two-sided. That's what will hap
pen as public opinion comes to I'M
derstand fully the meaning of gov
ornamental intervention in labor dis
putes.
There remains the Associated Press
case to consider. Four justices
thought the freedom of the press was
involved. Five justices, also Jealous
in their desire to protect the freedom
Of the press, thought it was not In
volved. The truth Is the dismissal
OF any employe for belonging to a
union Is violation of the Wagner act
\ y