Evening star., 1945-07-01
Labor Wins Favored
Place Before Court
A Double Standard of Justice
Now Seen as Established
By John H. Cline.


There has been some suggestion that
the Supreme Court, in refusing to APP
prove the order for the deportation OF
Harry Bridges, was influenced by
deeply rooted prejudice against doing
anything contrary TO the interests or
wishes Of labor leaders. The record
does not support this conclusion. But
the record does reveal that the court
twisted its own concept of the law
to fit the Bridges case and refused
to apply rule which 1t has often en-
forced to the benefit Of unions and
the disadvantage Of employers.
In decisions beneficial to unions, the
court has said time and again that 1t
will not go behind the findings OF ad-
ministrative agencies II they are sup
ported by some evidence. And 1t has
said that this Is consistent with the
intent of Congress, for which the court
processes tender regard. The order
for the deportation Of Bridges was
issued by the Attorney General under
an act of Congress which unquestion-
ably was intended to fit the Bridges
case. and which provided specifically
that the decision of the Attorney Gen.
eral should be final. Nevertheless, and
despite its past professions, majority
Of the court proceeded to override the
expressed intent Of Congress, and
through process of reasoning reminis-
cent of Alice in Wonderland. to over
rule the Attorney Generals findings of
fact, although they we're undeniably
supported by evidence. In brief. one
can only conclude that the court ma
jority, believing that Bridges should not
be deported, substituted its own judg-
ment for the judgment of Congress.
and invented double standard Of law
to achieve that purpose-one standard
for Bridges and a diametrically op-
posed standard for employers accused
Of violating some regulatory statute.
But aside from the fact that Bridges
Is a conspicuous and radical labor
leader, the facts OF his case were only
remotely connected. II at all. with the
troublesome issue of erhployer-employe
relationships. And the Bridges decision
Is relevant TO this issue only to the ex-
tent that 1t is an exceptionally clear
illustration of the lengths to which some
of the members of the Supreme Court
viii go in using their judicial power to
make the law conform to what has been
called the 'predelictions of the judges"
On the day of the Bridges decision,
however, two other rulings were an
nounced which show beyond any pos
sibility of doubt that the most funda-
mental concepts OF justice have been
impaired by the interpretations which
this court has placed on acts of Con-
gress. Primarily, the fault rests with
Congress and its attempt to give effect
to two conflicting policies in the anti
trust laws. On the one hand, Congress
has sought to prevent business monop-
olies. And on the other it has sought
to immunize certain labor monopolies
which produce effects just as harmful
10 the public interest as any industrial
monopoly. But the court, In its zeal to
promote the interests of labor, has gone
to such extremes in interpreting" the
intent of Congress that neither en-
ployers nor the public have any protec-
ton against the most vicious union
abuses, provided only that the union
acts on its own account. If there is
any way out of this dilemma short of
congressional intervention, 1t Is not ap-
parent to the layman. for. as Mr.. Justice
Roberts says, the court las result of its
past decisions. is in the position that
whatever 1t decides must entail disas-
trous results"
The first of the two labor rulings is
known as the Allen Bradley case. A
union of electrical workers In New
York City agreed with New York manu-
facturers and contractors, In return for
contracts granting high pay and excel
lent working conditions. to bar all out
side electrical products from the city.
The plan was successful, and one result
was an unconscionable increase in the
price which New Workers had TO pay
for electrical equipment. Since the
manufacturers and contractors were
parties to the monopoly, and benefited
from 1t, the court struck 1t down. But
the opinion stated very bluntly that the
union, acting alone, could have done the
things which became unlawful when
done in concert with employers. In
other words, the interests Of the people
of New York count for nothing because
the court says Congress intended to
sanction course of conduct by unions
which becomes illegal only when en-
ployers are brought into the picture.
The other decision dealt with what is
known as the Hunt case, in which a
union, with the courts approval, put
an employer out of business, not In the
course of labor dispute but because
the union thought that the employer
ought to be punished. Hunt was
trucker, one of number working un-
der contract in Philadelphia for chain
grocery. In 1887 a local union called a
strike to enforce closed shop. There
was a great deal of violence. and
union man was killed. A member of the
Hunt firm was tried for the homicide
and acquitted. Some time later, how
ever, the union secured closed-shop
contract with the grocery concern, and
all Of the truckers we're notified that
their employees must become members
Of the union. But the union refused to
admit the Hunt employees, and demand
ed that the grocery cease doing husi-
ness with the trucker. This was done.
When Hunt secured another contract
with another employer the union re-
peated the process, with the result that
HUNT was forced nlIf Of hilSi,,ass The