Evening star., 1940-05-28
A Strange Doctrine

The Supreme Court, in its decision
In the Apex Hosiery case, has enun-
ciated what is indeed a strange doc
trine of constitutional law.
Specifically, majority of the court
is now on record as holding, in effect,
that the most wanton kind of law
lessness on the part of labor union,
despite the fact that such lawless
acts directly and Intentionally inter-
fere with the free flow of interstate
commerce, is beyond the reach of any
Federal statute. But the implica-
tions of the ruling are even more
significant.
AS Chief Justice Hughes suggested
in dissenting opinion, the majority
ruling has this anomalous effect:
First, it imputes to Congress an in
tent, through the medium of the
Wagner Act, to prevent employers
from engaging in unfair labor prac-
tices affecting interstate commerce.
And, at the same time, the majority
decision contends that the legislative
body, by enacting the Sherman Act,
did not intend to curb similar prac-
tices on the part of organized en-
ployes, and that no such intent can
be read into that statute now. In
other words, with respect to the
practices involved in this case, the
majority opinion comes close to say
ing that employers must conduct
themselves according to high stand
ards while employees, so far as the
Federal Government is concerned.
may engage in lawless acts with
impunity.
The case arose out of strike"
called at the Apex Hosiery Company
plant in Philadelphia by a branch
of the American Federation of Full
Fashioned Hosiery Workers, c. I. O.
affiliate. Only eight of twenty-five
hundred employees of the company
belonged to the union, but the latter
nevertheless demanded a closed shop.
When that demand was refused the
union called in workers from other
plants, the Apex factory was seized,
loyal employees were beaten, valuable
machinery was deliberately smashed
and the union leaders refused to per-
NIT finished goods to be shipped to
customers. OF this so-called strike.
the majority opinion, written by As
sociate Justice Stone and concurred
in by the five New Deal appointees.
said:
"The record discloSes a lawless in
vasion of petitioners plant and de-
struction of it's property by force
and violence of the most brutal and
wanton character, under leadership
and direction of respondents (the
union heads, and without interfer-
ence by local authorities"
But, despite this lawlessness and
its concededly direct and intentional
effect on interstate commerce, the
majority of the court held that there
was no violation of that section of
the Sherman Act which makes pun
ishable every unlawful Combination
or conspiracy in restraint of
trade or commerce" The reasoning
by which the majority arrived at that
conclusion cannot be set forth in de-
tail, but in substance the court held
that the Sherman Act was not ap-
plicable because the unlawful re-
straint Of commerce by the union
was not accompanied by monopoly
of the Apex firms product, price con-
troll or discrimination between would
be purchasers. From that view the
minority, composed of Chief Justice
Hughes and Associate Justices Rob-
erts and McReynolds, vigorously dis
sented.
For practical purposes there is lit
tie point in debating the respective
merits of the majority and minority