Evening star., 1946-06-11

JUSTICE JACKSON.
Harris & E1Uing Photo.
a right to know the facts and issues
involved. This is the appropriate
opportunity so far as they involve
myself and my participation in court
decisions. I also have personal rea-
sons for wanting this situation made
clear.
Such news as reaches me here in
dicates that in my absence one
of my colleagues made publicized
threats to the President and that
they have been exploited through
certain inspired commentators and
columnists to imply that offensive
behavior on my part is responsible
for the feud on the court.
I could not defend myself even to
the President while the appointment
of Chief Justice was pending with
out being in the position of pleading
for the post. That I would not do.
Now that the appointment is made.
am free to answer, and chose to do
so not by inspired innuendos but
over my signature.
Expands Revelation.
The most specific attack on me is
that in the Washington Star of May
is. 1916. 1t purports to bespeak Jus
tice Blacks grievance that my opin-
ion on the denial of rehearing in
the Jewell Ridge case was an open
and gratuitous insult and a slur
upon his personal and judicial honor.
to which he reacted with fiery scorn.
1t purports to relate the inside story
of this case as laid before the Presi-
dent.
The omissions from this column
are more significant than its inside
facts. Since the confidence in which
internal matters in the court ought
usually to be held has already been
broken by partial disclosure. I shall
reveal the undisclosed part of my
story.
The jewell Ridge Coal decision
1926 U. S. 161) in itself was a some
what startling one. The United Mine
Workers reversed the position it had
previously taken about the Fair La
Dor Standards Act superseding the
coal miners collectively bargained
contracts. 1t employed as counsel
Mr.. Justice Blacks former law part
ner to argue its new contention to
the Supreme Court, and he. too, took
a position as to coal miners not
consistent with his argument used
the previous term to win q case for
the iron miners. Mr.. Justice Black
reversed the position he had taken
in managing the bill as a Senator.
The court by bare majority of
flye-to-four supported the change
Of front by the United Mine Work.
ers. The facts are set forth in the
dissenting opinion which 1 wrote at
the request of Chief Justice Stone
and in which he and Justices Rob-
erts and Frankfurter Joined. Pro-
fessor Dodd, leading scholar of
labor law and critic not unfriendly
to labor, writes of the majority de-
cision as follows in the February,
1916, issue of the Harvard Law
Review:
ut is difficult to believe that a
majority of the members of the
court would have held the agree
ments invalid if the case had come
before them prior to the date of
the unions change of front. So wan
ton an interference with collective
bargaining would scarcely have COM
mended itself to justices for whom
the right of workers to bargain COL
lectively Is one of the essential free
'doms of an industrial society"
Controlled Assignment.
Parties winning this case, which
arose in Virginia. were represented
before the court by Champion Harris
OF Alabama, who is Mr.. Justice
Blacks former law partner. Mr..
Harris had also been employed by
Justice Black, when he was SEN
ator, to defend him and his commit
tee against litigation resulting from
the seizure of certain kilograms in
the course of Senate investigation
on the court.
Mr.. Justice Black controlled as
signment of the case because the
Chief Justice was in dissent. Mr..
Justice Black chose Mr.. Justice
Murphy to write the ajority opin-
ion. While Mr.. Justice Murphy was
preparing his opinion a strike of
the mine workers and negotiations
with the operators were proceeding.
1t was proposed to hand down the
decision in favor of the miners with
out waiting for the opinion and
dissent. The only apparent reason
behind this proposal was to an
nounce the decision in time to in
fuence the contract negotiations.
During the coal strike, Chief
Justice Stone protested such pro-
posed irregular treatment vigorously.
I do not believe Mr.. Justice Murphy
favored 1t. In all events, it was
abandoned but the conduct of this
case following the Tennessee case
created uneasiness in my mind in
Tennessee Coal VS.. Muscoda Local
1921 U. S. 500.
A term earlier. Mr.. Justice Blacks