Evening star., 1939-12-11

Constitution or the law of the land.
In a problem such as that now
before us, two opposing concerns
must be harmonized: On the one
hand the stern enforcement Of the
criminal law; on the other, protec-
ton of that realm of privacy left
free by Constitution and laws but
capable of infringement either
through zeal or design. In ac-
commodating both these concerns,
meaning must be given to what
Congress has written, even if not in
eplicit language, so as to effectuate
the policy which Congress has
formulated"
Considerations Of Morality.
The result of the holding of the
lower court, Justice Frankfurter
said. would be to reduce the scope
of the prohibition set up by the
Communications Act Ito exclusion
Of the exact words heard through
forbidden interceptions, allowing
these interceptions every derivative
use that they may serve" This. he
added, would largely stultify the
policy originated in the original
Nardone case.
THAT decision was not the product
OF a merely meticulous reading of
technical language. It was the
translation into practicality of broad
considerations of morality and we'll
being"
The court found, the opinion said
that the logically relevant proof
which Congress had outlawed it
outlawed because inconsistent with
ethical standards and destructive of
public liberty
"A decent respect for the policy
OF Congress must save us from
imputing to it a self-defeating If not
dlsingenuous purpose.
The Supreme Court today upheld
the Court of Appeals of the District,
which had quashed an injunction
obtained by the Fur Workers Local,
A. F. OF L., against the Fur Workers
Local, c. I. O., In case involving a
labor dispute at the establishment
of H. Zirkin & Sons, furriers, 82l
Fourteenth street NV.
The Court of Appeals had said the
injunction should not have been
issued because there was labor
dispute at the plant within the
meaning of the Norris-La Guardia
Act, which limits the right of Dis
trict courts to issue injunctions.
The Supreme Court simply an
nounced that the Court of Appeals
was upheld, without advancing any
reason.
This action had been forecast last
Thursday when Chief Justice Hughes
announced that the c. I. o. presen-
tation would not be necessary after
the American Federation of Labor
union counsel had completed argu-
ment.
A. F. L. Accused C. 10.
The A. F. of L. was joined by the
zirkin firm in obtaining the injunc.
ton in District Court, but the COM
pany did not join in the appeal to
the Supreme Court.
The A. F. of L. said it had a COL
lective bargaining agreement with
Zirkin and that the c. I. o. was
trying to supplant it.
The Texas tax case came up on
an appeal from the Ford Motor Co.
which had paid under protest a
franchise tax of $500. Texas levies
this law by using a formula under
which the capital of concern
wherever located Is allocated to
Texas for taxing purposes in the
same proportion that its business
in the State bears to the total of
business done everywhere.
In this instance, covering the tax
year Of 1896, the Ford co. contended
that 1t employed in connection with
his Texas business a capital of
slightly more than 100000 while
the Texas law boosted the figure to
more than 100000.
Ford contended that this tax took
its property without due process, but
the tax itself was upheld by I'll
decision read by Justice Reed. It
was announced that Justice Black
and Justice Douglas concur in the
result" and Justice MeReynolds dis
sented.
Business Privilege Payment.
"The statute calls the excise q
franchise tax" the court said, lit is
obviously payment for the privilege
of carrying on business in Texas.
There is no question but that the
State has the power to make a