Evening star., 1937-03-16
Sit -Dowt1ism's New Test
Standing of Courts in Protecting Property Also
Facing Crisis

reaching limitation of what has hith-
erto been universally looked upon as
the right of an owner to hold property
the courts and the executive officials
OF government.
After the success of the sit-down in
Flint, 1t was certain, Of course, that the
slt-doWn technique would at once be
initiated. The question was whether
other Governors would or would not
follow the precedent set by Gov. Mur-
ply. Newspapers reported that two
Governors, Cross of Connecticut and
Hoffman Of New Jersey, announced in
advance that If sit-doWn strikes were
attempted in their States, they would
put the force of the State behind the
courts in suppressing such invasion of
private property. In Illinois, sit down
strikers were evicted by the sheriff
with the aid of deputies; in that State,
the Governor was not asked for help.
Similarly, in California, a sit-down
strike was ended by the court and
other local laW-enforcing agencies,
without recourse to the Governor.
In Michigan it was predestined
that once Gov. Murphy had failed TO
respond to the Sheriff's call for help,
and had cOndoned one Sit-doWn strike,
he would have others laid on his
doorstep. The present sit-doWn IN the
Chrysler plant goes farther in several
respects than the one in Flint a few
weeks before. If this ChrySler strike
takes turn in which Gov Murphy
Is asked to aid in carrying out a
court order of eviction, and if Gov.
Murphy follows the same course he
followed in the Flint strike, then the
slt-doWn is likely to be looked upon
as an established institution, so far as
Michigan is concerned.
May Reach U. s. Courts.
So far, the only courts that have
acted in Sit-doWn strikes have been
State courts. All these State courts
nave held the sit-dOWn to be an illegal
invasion Of property. Herein lies the
relation between the sit down and
Mr. RoOSeVelts proposal about the
United States Supreme Court. Mr..
Roosevelt has in mind 10 bring about
legislation like N. r. A, which will
take away from the States practically
all power over industry and labor. 1t
is in order to have such legislation
held constitutional that Mr. Roose-
welt wants the Supreme Court
changed. If the court is changed, it
will then be the Federal courts. and
ultimately the changed Supreme
Court that will determine whether or
not the Sit-dOWn is to be an accepted,
permanent institution in America.
From another point of view, the
sit-doWn is to be observed for light
on the future. Gov. Murphy Of Michi-
gan said the Flint sit-down must be
brought to an end without force or
violence" On the same day, General
Motors used the same phrase in an
opposite connection. General Motors.
appealing TO the court, said their
shops were occupied by the sit -doWners
througuh force and violence" Pre-
sumuably, Gov, Murphy, when he said
force and violence meant bloodshed
A Slt-down Is, of course force and
violence" 1t is, so 10 speak. static
force and violence. But that kind of
force and violence, if persisted in,
can only be overcome by, so TO speak,
active force and violence.
Those who watch to see whether
America Will pass through this period
without the emergence of violence on
a considerable scale will observe care
fully future developments in the
whole Sit-down situation.
tCopyright, 1877