Evening star., 1947-01-11
Lewis, Mine Workers
Ask Supreme Court 10
Void Coal Injunction

AGtGrnSy IOr JOnn l.. Lewis and
his United Mine Workers today
asked the Supreme Court to void
an injunction issued in District
Court against the November mine
strike and to set aside the subse-
quent contempt conviction and fines
of Mr.. Lewis and the union.
The action was taken in the form
of q 159-page brief filed with the
high court today attacking the va
lidity Of. the ruling of Justice T.
Alan Goldsborough, which was de-
signed to headoff and end the IT.
day coal strike.
A 127-page brief also was filed by
the Government, in which the Jus
tice Department asked the Supreme
Court to sustain Justice Colds
borough.
Argument Scheduled Tuesday.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday
will hear oral argument from each
side in the precedent -shatterins
case.
Justice Goldsbcrough fined the
UNIV $500, 900 and Mr.. Lewis $10,-
600 for ignoring his strike-restrain-
ing order of November 18. He also
issued an injunction against the
strike which began November 20.
MIR. Lewis called off the strike
December Z. the day the Supreme
Court was asked to rule on the case
He ordered the miners to return to
work until midnight March 81 to
allow the high court to rule on the
case free from public pressure
superinduced by the hysteria and
frenzy of an economic crisis" Two
days later, the court decided to re-
view the case.
Lewis Arguments Cited.
The Lewis attorneys, in their brief
advanced the following arguments:
i. The Norris-La Guardia Act of
1882, which limits the powers of
courts to issue injunctions in labor
disputes, and the Clayton Act OF
1914 apply in the case. It was added
that, since Justice Goldsborough re-
jected application of the acts, his
restraining order was invalid.
2. The restraining order and in
junction were void because they
coutravened the Constitution of the
United States.
8. Since the court orders were In
conflict with the laws and the Con-
stitution, "they could be disre-
garded with impunity or, If they
could not be disregarded, trial by
jury Tin District Court for con-
Tempt was mandatory.
4. The judgment against the
UNIV is mot warranted under the
law and the evidence"
S. 'The pleadings and procedures
in this case cannot sustain judg-
ments in civil and criminal con-
tempt, or either"
Fines Termed Excessive.
6. Fines imposed on the union and
Mr.. Lewis "are excessive and are in
no way related to any evidence at
the hearing"
Z. Justice Goldsborough erred
when he extended the original
understanding order on Novem-
ber 27.
The Governments brief, signed by
Attorney General Clark, argued
that:
Neither the policy, purpose, noa
language Of the Norris-La Guardis
Act extends to this case. It does
not expressly include the United
States, and its legislative sponsors
disavowed any intention so to do
Moreover, the language of the stat
ute is wholly inappropriate to COM
prehend the United States"
Declares Rulings Valid.
Mr.. Clark's brief contended that
even should it be found that the
Norris-La Guardia Act applied In
the case, the contempt judgments
are valid since, "in any event." JUS
tice Goldsborough had the right to
determine his own Jurisdiction. This
argument was based on the theory
that the court could issue an order
maintaining status quo" until
merits ofthe case could be heard.
The Government asserted also
that the fines imposed were "ap-
propriate and within the ability Of
each ofthe defendants to pay"