Evening star., 1937-02-27

illegal but that
no final opinion has been rendered on
the subject by high court.
Meanwhile, the employer whose
property is seized or the workman
whose job is stopped by the act OF
fellow workman will have to seek
redress through local governments
This, of course, is in line with the
precedents because employer and en-
ploye relations are considered wholly
a matter for State action except in
the few instances where interstate
commerce is clearly defined as, for
example, In the transportation busi-
ness.
u. s. Could Intervene.
There is ground on which the
Federal Government might intervene
II It desired. That is where con-
spiracy is Matched across State lines
to get q group of workmen to inter-
fere with the processes of production.
The Supreme Court in the famous
Coronado case has held that any physl-
cal acts of interference with the actual
production or shipment OF goods couid
be regarded as a conspiracy in re-
straint Of trade.
But such a conspiracy is dlfncult
TO prove as is also the purpose OF the
strike. The workmen would contend
that their purpose is not to prevent
shipment into interstate commerce,
but to prevent other workmen from
he
contention would be accepted by
court is something else.
1t is doubtful if any such case would
ever be brought by the Federal au-
thorities This is because the entire
Federal Government at the moment
is dominated by the view that labor
warfare is justified and that neither
the courts nor the Federal Depart
ment of Justice should be used 70
interfere even remotely with the right
to strike.
Exempt From Monopoly Laws.
For many years labor unions have
enjoyed exemption under the Federal
laws from being prosecuted for acts
which would amount to monopoly II
, practiced by corporati tons. This ex-
emption is due. of course, to the po-
Gtical power of the labor groups.
Nor is there any sympathy with the
view so often expressed by citizens that
the Federal Government should take
coenizance of the sit-down strikes
and quell them. The administration
points to the fact that employers uni
formly have objected to the Wagner
labor relations act on the ground that
the Federal Government had no au-
thority in labor disputes.
The Wagner act itself has been
fought by the injunction process and
the Supreme Court has heard argu-
ment, but has not yet rendered its
opinion on the validity Of the statute.
The general guess among well-informed
lawyers Is that the Supreme Court will
decide all the various cases at about
the same time that it will uphold the
Law where the company in question IS
engaged in interstate commerce and
that 1t will hold the act imperative so
far as company engaged in local pro-
duction Is concerned.
Seen As Growing Pains.
While the whole series of strike epi-
sodes are causing widespread economic
loss and undoubtedly is interrupting
the march of,recovery, the administra-
ton tends to the view that all this is
part of the inevitable growing pains of
q nation in the midst of social reform
program. 1t is often pointed out here
that in Great Britain much of the
same experience was encountered and
that ultimately a degree of control or
supervision over labor union activities
was forced upon the government. Such
a reaction comes, however, only after
labor troubles become acute and the
public becomes conscious of the i'll
effects Of certain aspects of labor wars
Thus it was general strike in England
which brought Parliament to pass the
present industrial disputes act, which
covers certain amount of government
supervision Of labor unions.
The disposition here is to believe
that the labor troubles will continue
during the remainder of 1887 in more
Or less sporadic form and that, per-
haps, the struggle will become even
more far reaching as "sit down" strikes
and other labor disputes are carried
into the larger industries
Copyright 1879