Evening star., 1946-11-28

from free communication and that
members of union can, make
known the facts Of a labor dispute.
He said the. courts order was
tantamount to involuntary seryi-
tude for 1000 miners"
II don't see that argument" JUS
tice Goldsborough said. 'Ti1e re-
|straining order was to maintain the
status quo until the courts could
determine the merits Of the con-
troversy"
Mr.. Padway: .'The order was a
command to Mr.. Lewis to tell the
men to remain at work. The order
wants to get Mr.. Lewis and the
miners to do something they do not
want to do"
Justice Goldsborough: Maintain
ing the status quo to 10 days could
not have hurt the union in any
way"
Mr.. PadWay: "If a man Is de-
prived of his rights under the status
quo order for 10 days. 10 hours or
10 minutes that is involuntary seryi-
tude.
Court Can't Make Man Work.
Justice Goldsborough: You know
a man cannot be made to work by
court order. There is no question
about that. This matter is serious
to the people of the United States
as well as to the members of this
union. I knew what ] was doing
when I issued the order
Mr.. Padway then cited many
court cases to show the right to
work or refuse to work cannot be
abridged He said, "The miners have
as much respect for Government as
any one representing the Govern
ment. They have as much respect
for the courts. They have no intent
to defy this court. The miner must
stand on his right to work or not
to work regardless OF the conse-
quences." He then suggested the
whole question be submitted to q
vote of the people.
Justice Goldsborough said the
whole argument was aside from the
point" and that no order had been
issued that the individual miner had
to work or not work. He stated 1t
long has been a practice that when
the president of the UNIV an
founces no contract In effect. the
miners stop working. The Govern
ment said the contract did exist, the
president of the miners said no.
1.-THE miners themselves are not in
this case, sir" the jtrist told Mr..
T think they are" the attorney
said.
The court doesn't agree with
YOU" the judge replied.
Lewis Statement Cited.
At this point, Mr.. Padway con-
cluded his argument and Mr.. Hop
kins told the court the defendants
would rely on .'our brief without
further oral argument at this time. Z
MIR. Sonnett then took up for the
Government with the announcement
that 1t would "be in the public in
terest to have the Government make
a brief argument on this case"
He said the mines obviously were
taken as a sovereign function and
quoted from the executive order for
their seizure. He said soon after
the signing of the Krug-Lewis agree
ment, John L. Lewis, speaking for
Fox Movietone News. said: The
contract has just been signed. 1t
settled for the period of Govern
ment operation of the mines all the
questions at issue"
There has been a concerted at
tempt to confuse the minds of some
people on this ISSUE" Mr.. Sonnet
declared.
The Assistant Attorney General
made three principal arguments.
q. The defendant, John L. Lewis,
is, has been and win be in contempt
of court" regardless of whether or
not the Norris-La Guardia Act ap-
plies in this case.
''2. The Norris-La Guardia Act
does not deal with disputes where
the Government is involved.
'3. There is not any question of
fran cnaonl, inuaIuod hnrc 70