Evening star., 1939-05-09

am enc d tn e $s$ $ -.
Sherman law is N$g
coupled with S
the Apex ho- s 81
siery workers
case which the David Lawrence.
Federal courts of the United States
have said is the direct consequence
of an attempt to paralyze inter-
state commerce.
The hosiery workers union in
flicted damages on the company in
question which have been ordered
paid to the extent of 100000. An
appeal against the amount of dam
ages is being taken, but the original
verdict held the union guilty Of in
terfering with interstate commerce
by means of Shutdown" strike.
The c. I. o. statement says:
The issue involved is not the sit
down strike, nor the claimed dam
ages to the company's plant, but
whether unions can exercise their
lawful rights in strikes free from
possible prosecution and triple dam
age lawsuits under the Sherman
Act, regardless of the effect on in
terstate commerce"
Last Phrase Is Key.
1t is in that last phrase-"regar
less of the effect on interstate COM
merce"-that the purpose of the
amendment is disclosed. What is
asked is that the right to strike
hereafter shall be absolutely un-
limited and that it shall be upheld
regardless of the effect on inter-
state commerce. Such a change in
the law Is natural one for labor
unions to demand because it gives
them unlimited power of physical
and economic coercion, but it is
doubtful whether the rest of the
citizens will wish to hand over to
any group a license to do as they
please with business property as a
means of extorting favorable con-
tract.
There is merit in having the issue
defined, for heretofore it has been
assumed by the G. I. o. that the
"sit-doWn" strike was a legitimate
weapon of industrial warfare. 1t is
difficult to see, also, how the Apex
hosiery case involves anything else
but a question of the right to use
any weapons for strike purposes,
irrespective of the effect on inter-
state commerce. The courts have
denied this right on the part of
any group but it is, of course, within
the authority of Congress to make
an exception of any group of citi-
ZenS.
The effort to get a special po-
sition of exemption under the anti
trust laws is not new. It used to
come up with the appropriation bills
for the Department of Justice and
again and again was the subject of
bitter controversy in Congress. In
the old days, however, the conflict
was over the right of labor unions
to act in concert without being
accused of restraint of trade or
monopoly. The weapons used were
not the same as those employed in
the Apex Hosiery case. The A. F.
of L. supported efforts in the past
to keep the Sherman antitrust law
from preventing unionization as
such, and this is unobjectionable,
but 1t would be surprising if the
A. F. of L. today, in view of its de-
nunciation of lawlessness through
Shutdown" strikes we're to join the
c. I. O.'s demand for unlimited
power.
Frank in Explanation.
The c. I. o. statement is frank
In its explanation of why it wants
the amendment: "If this verdict is
upheld, no union can feel safe in
exercising it's right to strike without
danger of lawsuits designed to bank
rupt and destroy it,"
The argument is logical-after
the Apex case no union can feel
safe in using force to seize a business
property and prevent goods from
beng shipped out or raw materials
from being shipped in without run
ming afoul of the Federal statutes
assuring the continuous flow of
commerce.
But even if the c. I. o. should
succeed in persuading Congress to
amend the Sherman antitrust law,
there's another law which will need
amendment before the tactics of
extortion can go without punish
ment. 1t is what is known as the
"anti-racketeering' law, passed in
1884, which makes it crime to seize
property as means of coercion to
obtain contract of any kind. This
law specifically exempts labor unions
in their right to strike lawfully" I"
but the question is What is lawful"
If the Federal Government should
close its eyes to violence used in
strikes as means of extorting a
contract, then the power of the c. I.
o. would truly be complete. If, how
ever, the courts should say that
seizure of property or interference
with interstate commerce is an un-
lawful act, then the anti-racketeer-
ing statute would be an effective bar
against sit-down strikes. 1t would
not mean triple damages, but it is
much worse from a union standpoint
to inflict criminal penalties against
those who trespass on property
which does not belong to them or
who obstruct the orderly shipment
Of products in interstate commerce.
"Joker" in Statute.
There is, of course, a Joker" in the
"anti-rackAeering" statute. Prose-
cutions can be begun only by the
order of the Attorney General him
self, and the c. I. o. may feel it can
always control the Attorney Cen
eral This is hazardous reasoning
because one of these days the Re-
publicans may have an Attorney
General who will order prosecutions
for violence.
Probably the surest safeguard
against political control of the De-
partment of Justice is an amend
ment giving to Federal grand juries
>-I - 1a,oI YYVotfoI Cfotac otfory,ov