Evening star., 1946-06-06
Petri|Io Right in Test
Of Law Aimed at Him
Commentator Asserts CONGRESS
Neglected to Fulfill Duty
Bv David Laurence

BY David Laurence
Whatever may be the merits of the
labor controversies which James c. Pc
trillo, head of the musicians union, Is
engaged in with broadcasting COM
panies, he is certainly within his rights
in refusing to obey a law Of Congress
aimed at his union alone
This is but another way of saying,
however, that he must be pretty sure
the law will be declared unconstitu-
tional by the Supreme Court of the
United States or else he will face the
penalties of the law even though his
purpose may be merely to test the va
lidity Of the law and not just to fiout it.
Many persons who read about Mr.. Pc
trillo's defiance of the statute immedi-
ately jumped to the conclusion that he
was doing something improper or re-
bellious. Actually there is no way by
which any law OF the United States
with criminal provisos In it affecting
citizen can be tested as to its con-
stitutionality unless a citizen chooses
to challenge that statute by violating
Wagner Act Tested.
Memories are short but only a few
years ago - between July, 1885, and
April, 1937-many employers felt the
same way about the Wagner Labor Re-
lations Act as Mr.. Petrillo does about
the recently passed statute whereby
Congress endeavored to restrict some of
Mr. Petrillo's activities in relation to
broadcast music. Many employers in
1885 were confident that the Wagner
law would not be upheld by the Su-
preme Court. Some able lawyers under
the auspices of the Liberty League
issued symposium or brief stating in
detail why they thought the law was
unconstitutional. Unfortunately for
them, the Supreme Court later did up-
hold the law.
Yet many employers in the period be-
tween the passage of the law and the
rendering OF the Supreme Court deci-
sion-about 81 months-felt they could
ignore the law and enforcement did not
become widespread until after the su-
preme Court decided the first test case.
Mr. Petrillo no doubt has competent le-
gal advice but it must be said in all
candor that he has better chance of
seeing the recently passed law declared
unconstitutional than did the Liberty
League lawyers.
Applied to One Industry.
one reason is that the coercive prac-
tees which Congress prohibited in the
statute aimed at Mr.. Petrillo's union
were specifically barred only as to one
industry, namely broadcasting. The
Constitution requires that the laws of
the United States must be enforced
equally so that all citizens receive equal
protection and so that also no group
OF citizens shall be Disseminated
against by Congress in the imposition
OF penalties or criminal provisions.
IT Congress had barred all coercive
practices and had made it unlawful for
any union to compel an employer to
hire more persons than he needed the
situation would be different. Locally
the law should have been applied to all
employers and all unions, but Congress
was timid about that because 1t knew
the labor lobby would prevent that kind
of legislation from going through both
Houses and winning presidential sig
nature. -.
II, therefore, the Supreme Court does
lnvaldate the Petrillo law as uncon-
stitutional, the country will be faced
with a continuance of the coercive
practices complained of, or else Con.
gress will have to make such things un-
lawful as applied to all industries or
businesses and all unions. Mr.. Petrillo
is probably taking no chances in dis
regarding the law and at the same
time he will be inadvertently rendering
2 service exposing the negligence OF
duty by the Congress of the United
States.
{Repro6uction Rights paserv.S