Evening star., 1937-04-13

the majority decision, which follows:
THE contentious that the act de-
prives the petitioner of property with
out due process, that the order of the
board deprives petitioner of the night
TO trial by jury, and that the act is
Invalid on its face because 1t seeks to
regulate both interstate and intrestate
commerce, are sufficiently answered in
the opinion in Texas and N. 81 o. r.
Co. vs. Brotherhood of Railway and
Steamship Clerks, supra, and in Ma
tional Labor Relations Board vs.,
Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp, No.
4l9, decided this day, and need no
further discussion here"
Opinion Is Unanimous
In Bus Firm Case.
Validity Of application of the act
to the case of the Washington, Vir-
ginia and Maryland Coach Co., was
upheld unanimously, Justice Roberts
delivering an opinion containing the
following excerpts
Because Of noncompliance with
an N. L. r. B. order) the board filed
petition in the circuit court of ap-
peals for its enforcement. That court
refused to disturb the findings Of
fact made by the board, over ruled
the contentious as to unconstitution-
ality OF the act as applied to petitioner
and passed a decree enforcing the
order.
While the petitioner, in its speci-
flcations vi error, attacks the holding
of the circuit court of appeals That
the act as applied does not violate the
fifth and seventh amendments, the
argument in brief and at the bar was
confined to two propositions: first,
that the act is an attempt on the part
OF Congress to regulate labor relations
in all employmentS whether inter-
state or intraState and as it is void
as an attempted regulation of intra-
state commerce the whole must fall
because its provisions are inseverable:
secondly, that the evidence does not
sustain the findings and the board
committed substantial error in the
exclusion OF evidence.
First No contention is made that
the petitioner is other than an instru-
mentality Of interstate commerce. II
is engaged in interstate transportation
for hire. Our decisions in Texas and
N. o. r. Co. VS.. Brotherhood Of Rail-
way and Steamship Clerks, 28l U, S.
SAB, and the Virginian Railway Co vs..
System Federation No. 40. No. 324
October term, 1886, put beyond debate
the validity of the statute as applied
to the petitioner The contention that
the act on its face seeks TO regulate
labor relations in all employments,
whether in interstate commerce or not,
is plainly untenable. AS We have had
| occasion TO point out in decisions rem
dered this day the act limits the juris-
diction Of the board to instances
which fall within the commerce power
and If the board should exceed the
jurisdiction conferred upon it. any
party aggrieved is at liberty to chal-
lenge its action.
Error in Weighing Evidence
Is Complaint
Second. The aIition for certiorarl
made no mention Of any claim with
respect to the suffciency of the evi-
dence to support the findings In the
light Of this fact the question is not
| open for decision here. But. were this
not so, We should not review the facts,
since section 10 (e) of the act pro-
vides that "the findings OF the board
as to facts, If supported by evidence,
shall be conclusive" and there was
substantial evidence to support the
findings
This is not case Of alleged confis-
cation, nor is it one where the board
lacked Jurisdiction. for admittedly the
petitioners activities are in interstate
commerce. The complaint is merely
OF error in appreciating and weigh
, ing evidence. In the case of statutory
provisions like section 10 (eJ, applica-
Die TO other administrative tribunals,
we have refused to review the evidence
or weigh the testimony and have de-
clared We will reverse or modify the
findings only if clearly improper or not
supported by substantial evidence.
The contentious respecting the reiec-
tlon OF evidence are not well founded.
In the majority decisions of both
the Fruehauf Trailer Co. case and the
Parliamentary Marks Clothing Co.
case delivered by Chief Justice
Hughes, the court declared it had
found the Labor Boards findings with
respect to the nature of the businesses
and the circumstances of discharge of
employees to have been correct.
The decisions then concluded with
the statements that the validity of the
act was fully covered in the Jones and
Lauehlin decision, with the principles
there stated applicable in both cases.
The DEGREES of the Circuit Courts then
were ordered reversed and the causes
remanded.