The potters herald. [volume] (East Liverpool, Ohio) 1899-1982, 1945-01-25


Last week this column discussed
the Supreme Court decision in the
Texas case involving free speech, ETC.,
under the Texas law requiring pald
business agents to register.
We held then that the decision is
tremendously important, but that 1T
by no means knocks out the whole
law.
Further study of the decision, a B
to affair, leads to the need for fur
ther discussion.
Actually the fact is that the court
puts its seal of approval on what
Thomas said, in this particular case,
but it left open to wide speculation
what might be the verdict in any
other case.
There just isn't anything sweeping
about the decision, except its highly
important and emphatic declaration
that laws mustn't monkey with free
dom of speech and freedom of as
semblage.
r. J. Thomas made it point to
appeal to one man by name to join
the union. Then he appealed to all to
join. The one man joined. But here
we got no clear-cut decision as to
whether Thomas had right, under
the Constitution, to make that per-
sonal appeal, because the personal
appeal was so interviewer with the
whole speech that it could not be set
apart.
And the Court, heaven bless it,
would not risk the major free speech
issue by letting segment of ques-
tionable conduct get in the way. That
is, five justices put it that way.
But we do not know now whether
individual solicitation, BY ITSELF,
would pass with the court, or whether
there are other things that a union
representative, paid or unpaid, might
do without being required to obey the
Texas law and register.
Actually, the court appears to in
vite further suits to test the whole
issue. Of course suits cost money, but
when that's the only recourse it is
fortunate that today unions in many
cases have the money.
But now comes a phase that should
cause many an oldtimer to turn over
in his grave so that he can get room
for bigger belly laugh.
AS everyone (almost everyone any
way) knows, the National Labor Re-
lations Act told employers to quit
trying to boss the unions around and
to quit trying to tell non-union men
not to join unions. Pretty plainly,
they were told to keep their mouths {
shut when ever they might think of )
talking to working man or woman.
1t was really something for the book
Well, unions got so strong that they
now can afford to let the boss have
his say in most cases. In fact, often
they like to hear what he has to say.
Old fears have been blown away.
But still, there's the law
Well, this decision deals somewhat
with this issue and it is mighty inter-
esting.
AS a matter of fact, the court
seems to think that the question of
whether the boss should have his
rights of free speech restored might
we'll be made matter of another
suit.
sThis writer thinks so, too. Isn't it
nice to be in harmony with the high
est court in the land?
So, we may get such a test suit.
But, let us remember that it never
was fear of the words of the boss, as
words, that really constituted a
menace to the rights of workers.
Workers are no more insistent upon
shutting up someone else than are
posses.
1t was the economic power of the
,oss to PUNISH workers who didn't
ollow the uttered wishes of the boss
hat raised all the fears.
Bosses COULD AND DID punish
workers. when they were unorganized.
There are some who remember the 4
lays of the blacklist which ended the u
hance of a worker to get job.
Now that the economic fear has
'een pretty well knocked into
ocked hat we can afford to let the
,OSS get uD on a box and have his