The potters herald. [volume] (East Liverpool, Ohio) 1899-1982, 1945-01-18

Labor will for a long time be look
ing over the Supreme Court decision
of few days ago in which it Knocked
hole in the Texas labor registration
lava hole big enough to drive
wagon right through.
r. J. Thomas had made a speech
to union mass meeting and he had
MT bothered to go through the for
mality of getting permit to speak
as union representative.
So the majesty of the state was
offended and suit was promptly
clapped on Mr.. Thomas as an alleged
violator of said law.
The case was tried and finally it
came up to the top court of the land,
the Supreme Court of the United
States.
The Supreme Court said the acts
performed by Mr.. Thomas were per-
fectly legal and were acts the per-
formance of which was protected by
nothing less than the Constitution OF
the United States.
You see, Mr.. Thomas made a speech
and those who heard him, naturally,
were assembled in meeting.
The Constitution guarantees the
right of freedom of speech. So, Mr..
Thomas had a constitutional right to
get up before crowd and let go with
what was on his mind. State laws
must not curtail freedom of speech!
The Constitution guarantees the
right of assembly. So, the crowd had
a perfect right to be there. State laws
or even state constitutions must not
curtail the right of free assemblage!
So, big chunk of the Texas law is,
as of now, invalid and without any
meaning whatever.
But, what about the possible appli-
cation of the law in other directions?
Suppose, for example, that Mr..
Thomas should undertake to walk in
to see the boss and talk about con-
tract provisions.
Well, we don't know for sure yet,
but it would seem as if Texas might
about as well forget the whole thing.
Free speech and free assembly are
big terms and they can cover a lot Of
territory and lot of actions.
While we know now only what this
decision covers, the chances seem to
be that it pretty well knocks out the
whole Texas law.
But even more important than that,
this decision is a socko decision be-
cause it warns other states that have
enacted laws or are thinking about it,
to go slow and take heed of the Con-
stitution of the United States, which
still means what it says.
This decision may not touch those
states that have sought to forbid
union shop contracts. We may not
know about that for some time. Per-
haps there will have to be another
suit. Probably so.
But it is quite clear that the Su-
preme Court is thinking in terms of
guaranteeing proper freedoms and
rights, just as the Constitution stipu-
lates.
There is no denying the fact that,
with rising power, unions face
growing responsibility, which they
will be wise not to try to avoid.
But they will fight and should fight
the witless actions of state legisla
lures when they act out of spite and
prejudice rather than in a broad
spirit of sound and progressive public
policy.
Sam Gompers years and years ago
pounded home the fact that labor SIS
not a commodity or article of COM
which makes all the difference
in the world between a union and
pound of tea.
The responsibility of the union is
NOT. the same as the responsibility of
a manufacturer or a merchant.
So, when an effort is made to fix
and define union responsibility, the
rights of men and
women come into play and must be
needed, as the court points out en-
phatically and effectively.
1t seems gratifyingly clear that if
states forget that fact, the Supreme
Court will remind them of it. Back
ward states cannot long remain
pockets of prejudice and spite. "The
moving finger writes, and having
writ" has writ mouthful,-CMW.