Evening star., 1942-03-04
Rucketeerinq Decision

The recent decision by the Su-
preme Court in a New York rack
eteering case should come as a dis
tinct and decidedly unpleasant shock
to good many Americans.
The case involved some of the
activities of the New York local of
the American Federation of Labor
Transfers Union. Certain members
Of the union were convicted of vio-
lating the so-called Anti Racketeer-
ing Act, the evidence showing that
they lay in wait for trucks coming
into New York from New Jersey,
forced their way onto the trucks,
and by beating or threatening to
beat the drivers procured payments
to themselves from the drivers or the
employers of the drivers of sums of
money equivalent to the union scale
for days work. In sohle instances
the union members assisted or Of
fered to assist in unloading the
trucks; in others they simply dis
appeared as soon as the money was
paid without rendering or offering to
render any service.
In holding that these defendants
were improperly convicted under the
law, the majority opinion covers a
great deal of ground and its reason
ing is often difficult to follow. The
majority found, however, that Con-
greSs intended to make the law
applicable to racketeering in the
usual sense of the term, and not to
legitimate or even militant" labor
activity. 1t might be pointed out
that the court conceded "it may be
true that professional racketS have
sometimes assumed the guise of labor
unions" and that it may also be true
that labor organizations of good
repute and honest purpose can be
misdirected and become agencies of
blackmail."
In this case, however, the majority
of the court held that the trial Jury
was not properly instructed con-
corning the intent of Congress as
expressed in the law. After the bill
in original form had passed the Sen
ate, the American Federation of
Labor induced Congress to accept an
amendment excluding legitimate la
Dor activities from the scope of the
law. The New York case turns on
what Congress intended to exclude
by this exception.
THE doubtful case," said the ma
jority of the court, "arises where the
defendants agree to tender their
services in good faith to an employer
and to work if he accepts their
offer, but agree further that the
protection of their trade union in
terests requires that he should pay
an amount equivalent to the pre-
vailing union wage even if he rejects
their proffered services We think
that such an agreement is covered
by the exception"
In other words, so far as the Fed
eral law is concerned, the union
members may beat up the drivers
and exact tribute from the employers
whether or not he accepts their
Services" In the eyes OF Congress,
the court says, this is a legitimate
labor activity-a protection of trade
union interests-which is not rack
eteering and which cannot be
brought within the scope of the Anti
Racketeering Act unless it can be
proved that the union members were
not acting in good faith" The fact
that the employer, after few of his
drivers have been beaten up, hands
over the money in the belief that he
is paying for protection" has no
bearing on this question, according to
the majority opinion.
The reasoning of the majority
brought from Chief Justice Stone a
sharply worded dissent. But, under
these circumstances, there is small
comfort to be derived from a dis
senting opinion, however pointed.
The blunt fact is that the majority
OF the court, through an interpreta-
tion of the intent of Congress. has
made it extremely difficult for the
Department Of Justice to use this
law to reach any of the labor rack
eteers whose reprehensible activities
add millions of dollars yearly to
bill which ultimately must be paid
by the public. The one hope of relief
lies in an aroused public opinion
which will bring the enactment of
legislation aimed expressly at these
labor activities, and which will be so
explicitly worded that it cannot be
subject to any other Interpretation.