Evening star., 1941-01-06

/ legislative objective of collective bar
gaining as the means of curtailing
labor disputes affecting interstate
commerce.
The freedom of the employer to
refuse to make an agreement re-
lates TO its terms in matters of sub
stance and not, once it is reached,
to its expression in signed con-
tract, the absence of which, as ex-
perience has shown, tends to frus-
trate the end sought by the require
ment for collective bargaining
The company contended an agree
ment reached with a local union of
the Canning and Pickle Workers
"a. F. L. had been reduced to
writing in the form of an official
bulletin and posted on the bulletin
boards"
1t said the agreement was still
in effect and that the obligations
of the Wagner Act had been met.
The Labor Board order, the COM
pany contended constituted COM
mand to make a substitute con-
/ tract"
The Sixth Federal Circuit Court,
in upholding the boards order,
ruled that the company's refusal to
sign a contract amounted to a re-
fusal to bargain. Contrary decisions
had been delivered by other circuit
courts.
The board also directed the COM
pany to disestablish the Heinz En-
ployes' Association, union OF COM
pany employees, even though the
company already had recognized
the Canning and Pickle Workers
following an election.
We are of the opinion that for
the purpose of payment under the
statute the certificate of the Secre-
tary of State must be deemed to be
conclusive" said the court in an
opinion by Chief Justice Hughes IN
/ the Black Tom and Kingsland cases.
There were no diSsents, but Justices
Black and Douglas joined in a
separate concurring opinion. Justice
Roberts did not participate in the
litigation which sprang from a suit
by the z and F. Assets Realization
Corp. and the American Hawaiian
! Steamship Co, on behalf of them
selves and others to enjoyn pay
ment of the sabotage awards. They
argued they had claims for approx
imately 100000 against Germany,
which should be given precedence,
and that to pay the sabotage awards
out of the special deposit accounts
set up in the Treasury would strip
! that fund and bar collection of their
claim.
i Claims Rejected in 1880.
The decision dated back some 13
years when about $50 claimants, in
Guiding the Lehigh Valley Railroad,
the Bethlehem Steel Corp. and the
agency for the Canadian Car and
Foundry Co. sued to collect damages
out of the special deposit account
that was set up from sequestered
German property. The claims were
first rejected by the commission, sit
ting in Hamburg in october, 1890,
when it was decided that the blasts
we're industrial accidents.
The commission met again in JAN
uary, 1899, to take up the case, the
contention being advanced that the
first decision was induced by fraud
Germany protested reconsideration
and in the argument DR.. Victor
Huecking, the German commission
er, withdrew. The American COM
missioner, Christopher B. Garnett,
Washington attorney, went ahead
with the case and the awards were
made on the basis of evidence that
the original decision was based on
fraud, perjury and the suppression
of evidence by German witnesses,
who included Count Won Bernstorf
wartime German Ambassador, and
Franz Won Papen, who was military
attache here and who is now one
of the Nal leaders.
The plaintiffs lost in the lower
courts here, the Court of Appeals
holding that the questions were
political and beyond the power of
the courts. Chief Justice Hughes
said, however, that there are Ger
tain preliminary questions which are
indubitably appropriate for judicial
consideration and we think that the