Evening star., 1943-10-03


give them live musicians. AS far as me-
chanical transportations are concerned
we are here to say to this board (the Ma
tional War Labor Boardl now We are
never going to make another mechanical
transcription
The language is that of a spokesman
Of the American Federation of Musicians
IN the year l943. He was laying down
his ultimatum in a peculiarly modern
controversy, involving radio and the juke
box, but controversy that in its essence
runs back hundreds of years
Whenever and whatever men are dis
placed by labor-saving machines
whether in the Lancashire of the 18th
century by the spinning jenny and the
other devices that revolutionzed the
textile industry or in modern America
by the electrical transcription-troubl
breaks out The argument that the
machine in quection works for the great
er good Of the greater number is not
likely to appeal to the man whom it has
just thrown out of a lob.
The Petrlllo case so called from the
name-James c, Petrillo-of the man
who heads the musicians union, offers
conspicuous recent example of union op-
position to the use of labor saving ma
chinery
When Thurman Arnold, now on the
Court of Appeals of the District of Co.
lumbia, was Assistant Attorney General,
in charge Of antitrust cases, the Depart
ment of Justice sought to get at num-
Der of unions for restraint of trade In
all its varied actions to test the applica-
blllty Of the antitrust laws to the activi-
ties Of labor unions, including an action
in the Petrillo case, the department
has run up against stone wall in the
form of the Supreme Courts decision of
February, l94l, in the celebrated Hutche-
son case.
Hughes and Roberts Dissent.
This was the case in which the court,
with the Chief Justice (Hughes at that
time) and Justice Roberts dissenting,
held there had been no violation of the
law by the carpenters union in its iuris-
dlctlonal fight with the machinists over
the installation of machinery at the
Anheuser- Busch plants in ST Louis.
An indictment had charged the car
penters with conspiring to restrain
trade by picketing the company-with
which it had no dispute on the score of
Wages-and with organizing a Nation
wide boycott of the companys beer.
The Supreme Court ruled. Justice
Frankfurter speaking. that the Norris
la Guardia Act "eXplicitly formulated
the public policy of the United States
in regard to the industrial conflict and
by its light established that the allowable
area Of union activity was not to be re-
Stncted to an immediate employer
employe relation" And then the court
went on to lay down this pregnant
clctim, one that has stood effectively
IN the way Of all efforts to prosecute
LABOR unions for restraint of trade
through refusal to use labor saving
devices.
So long as union acts in its self
interest and Goes not combine with nom
lahor groups, the licit and the illicit
under section 20 tof the Clayton Act
are not to be distinguished by any iudg-
inert regarding the wisdom or unwiscom,
the rlghtness or Wrongness. the selfish
ness or unself5hness of the end of which
the particular union activities are the
means"
Justice Roberts in strong dissenting
opinion declared the decision of the ma
Jorlty represented "a usurpation bv the
courts Of the function Of the Congress-
rot only novel but fraucht, as well. with
the most serious dangers to our constitu
tonal system of division Of powers"
Must Act Alone
But Roberts spoke only for himself and
one other; as the law of the land"
now stands union is immune from
prosecution under the antitrust laws as
long as 1t acts alone. 1t can only be
prosecuted for restraint of trade when
1t acts IN collusion with an employer.
Referring to the decision in the
Hutcheson case (Which got its name from
the head Of the Carpenters union.
CorWln D. Edwards, an economic adviser
to the Department of Justice has
written: In the literal meaning of this
language the question whether the anti
trust laws nave been violated depends
not upon what was done in the market
hut upon what group did it, Apparently
thlS meaning was intended Discus
sion today must proceed on the aSs,llnp-
ton that labor enjoys complete exemp-
ton from the antitrust laws no matter
now unreasonable or arbitrary it's actions
NAV be, provided only that it acts
clone"
Alter the Hutcheson decision, the De-
partment Of Justice, still searching for
the legal means whereby union might
be called to account for restraint of
trade, carried up three other cases to
the Supreme Court. In all three, the
court sustained demurrers without re-
CelVlng briefs or hearing arguments
The department interpreted this action
and still lnterpretS it-as granting i'm
mWnlty to labor unions provided onlv
that they do not Join in conspiracies
with outside interests.
one OF the cases leading to this con-
clNslon concerned a dispute between the
AL union of carpenters and the CIO
Union of WOOdCutterS. Each of them
wanted to become the bargaining agent
IN a plywood plant in the Pacific North
west An election to settle the question
was held by the National Labor Rcla-
tlonS Board, and the CIO won, The
carpenters union thereafter refused to
aIloW Its members to install plywood