Evening star., 1941-06-10

q IL tlllllllS Dd'iu LA"ithSe'
public opinion and yet the real germ
of the disease of industrial unrest
will not be recognized.
For the truth is there would have
been no need for the employment
of the United States Army if the
State of California had dealt prop
erly with mass picketing or, failing
that, if the Supreme Court of the
United States had not removed from
the civil laws of the Nation the right
to enjoin those who would interfere
by physical force with the shipment
of goods in interstate commerce.
The various States of the Union
do not possess adequate police forces
to deal with mass picketing and the
militia of each State is now absorbed
into the Federal Army, so that the
home guards are not sufficient in
most instances to deal with strike
disorders on a large scale.
But if the States do not prohibit
mass picketing specifically and an
effort is made to deal with threat
ened violence by injunction, there
almost has to be an outbreak of
violence before court order can
be obtained to prevent its repeti-
tion. The presence of large bodies
of strikers who forcibly prevent any
workers from going in or out of a
plant doesn't seem to have i'm
pressed either the National Labor
Relations Board here or even the
Supreme Court with the potentially
exerted force that is involved in
such an action. Rights are granted
Just the same to unions, while en-
ployers are penaliZed when they
refuse to deal with organizations
that use threats of physical force
against them.
Decision Is Decried.
Worse than this, however, is the
decision of the Supreme Court of
the United States declaring that
the Norris-La Guardia anti-injunc-
ton law prevents the issuance of
Federal injunctions against those
vino would by physical force inter-
rupt shipments of goods from a
plant picketed by strikers. Not long
ago in Philadelphia at the Apex
Hosiery plant, a c. I. o. union
actually prevented shipment of
goods by force and did considerable
damage to plant by means OF
the "sit-doWn" technique but the
Supreme Court with its New Deal
appointees held that the laws about
interruption of interstate commerce
didn't apply to labor unions and
that damages should be sought un-
der State laws. This did result in
an out-of court settlement in which
the union paid some damages, but
at the same time the people of the
United States were deprived of the
protection of Federal laws where
violence may occur in the inter
ruption of interstate commerce dur
ing labor disputes.
Subsequently the same Supreme
Court held that unions may, in
their jurisdictional fights with one
another, injure the business of an
employer who is innocent in the
matter and again Federal laws gov
erning restraints on interstate COM
merce cannot be invoked.
Thus it will be seen that only the
acuteness of the national emergency
relating to national defense con-
tracts has opened the eyes of the
people of America to the deStruc-
tive effects of New Deal partisan
ship in the handling of the right
OF the laborer to work. Everybody
knows that it is not merely the
picketing which prevents workers
from going back on the job but the
threats of violence to them and
their families. The right to work,
which ought to be as inviolate as
the right to strike peacefully is no
longer protected under the New
Deal courts.
A Sad Commentary.
1t Is a sad commentary on the
neglect of these rights that the
executive order instructing the
Army to take charge at the North
American Aviation Corp. plant
specifically extends protection to
the workers not only at the plants
but at their homes. This is a
recognition at last of the system
OF violence and threats of coercion
which has accompanied the extern