Evening star., 1943-04-10

W QooS Vic Aes I'm
islation. The
reason given was David Lawrence.
not that extortion was condoned,
but that the language of new law
might be used to harass legitimate
labor activities But that was exact
ly the kind OF phrase which was
written originally into the anti
racketeering law and that gave the
justices on the Supreme Court their
opportunity to question whether the
statute covered a labor union GUS
tom whereby the employer is COM
PEELED to pay toll for work not
done 50 that trucks, for instance,
may pass into a given city and be
handled by his own employees as
against union employees of another
craft or jurisdiction.
Tho union argument was that
unions had q right to exact pay
equivalent to that which their men,
bers would collect If they were en-
ployed and that this was not extor-
ton. Unfortunately, violence ac-
companied the so-called legitimate
labor activity and the transaction in
point happened to involve interstate
commerce.
So the Supreme Court left the
Inference that the violence would
have to be dealt with separately
and could not be touched by the
so-called anti-racketeering law.
James F. Byrnes, now director Of
economic stabilization, wrote the
opinion Of the court and indicated
that he felt the words of the statute
compelled him to decide as he did.
Protects Other Laws.
Now, however, the House has
written specifically what is a legiti-
mate labor activity. An amendment
has been adopted which says that
nothing in the proposed law shall
be construed to repeal, modify or
affect the Clayton Act, the Norris
La Guardia anti-injunction law, the
Railway Labor Act or the National
Labor Relations Act.
All these laws are designed to
protect labor's legitimate activities,
but none Of them Is supposed to
make labor or any other group i'm
mune from the laws that punish
violence, robbery or extortion. The
new bill also would prevent inter-
ference during the war with the
transportation of troops, munitions,
war supplies or mail in interstate
or foreign commerce"
This means that sit-down strikes
would be punished as an interfer-
ence with shipments and that any
violence in connection with the
movement of war materials from
plants to delivery points could be
punished during war.
1t will be interesting to see
whether the leaders of the labor
unions now will place themselves in
the embarrassing position of oppos-
ing the passage by the Senate of a
piece Of legislation that is specifical-
ly aimed at violence. The mere fear
that law might be misused is not
sufncient argument against its
passage as long as there is conf
dence in the fairness and integrity
OF the courts. The judiciary, which
has largely been appointed by the
present administration, has been
fair to labor and there Is no reason
to suppose that that course will be
altered.
May Be Halted in Senate.
1t is not surprising to see the
House pass legislation designed to
curb violence by labor unions, but
the proposed law still has to 60
through the Senate, where for near
" q decade the mere formal protest
by labor unions has been sufficient
to keep bill in committee or to
prevent its passage.
Will the Senate squelch the Hobbs
bill rs it has other legislation aimed
at curbing union abuses? II so, the
question doubtless will become an
important campaign issue. especially
In the farm areas where the tide of
feeling against labor unions has
resulted already in an augmentation
Of the votes of the opposition party
in Congress.
If the bill passes the Senate, it
will be signed by the President, be-
cause he, too, would be in q difficult
spot In declining to ban violence in
labor disputes. But it Is doubtful
whether the measure will ever get
to . vote in the Senate unless an
aroused public opinion so demands
(Reproduction RIshts Rexsrv>dN