Evening star., 1947-03-07
Excerpts From Lewis Coal Case Opinions

~
view. I have come to the contrary
view. But to suggest that the right
to determine so complicated and
novel an issue could not be brought
within the cognizance of the District
Court, and eventually of this court
is to deny the place of the judiciary
in our scheme of government. And
If the District Court had power to
decide whether this case was prop
erly before it, it could make appro-
pirate orders so as to afford the
necessary time for fair considera-
ton and decision while existing con-
ditions were preserved. To say that
the authority of the court may be
flouted during the time necessary to
decide is to reject the requirements
of the judicial process. SO
And so 1 join the opinion of the
court insofar as it sustains the
judgment for criminal contempt
upon the broad ground of vindi-
eating the process of law. 80
1t only remains to state the basis
of my disagreement with the courts
views on the bearing of the Norris
Lat aGuardia Act 4.4
The Norris-LaGuardia Act has
specific origins and definite purposes
and should not be confined by an
artificial canon of construction. The
title of the act gives its scope and
purpose, and the terms of the act
justify its title. 1t is an act "to de-
fine and limit the jurisdiction OF
courts sitting in equity" 1t does not
deal with the rights of parties but
the power of the courts. Again and
again the statute says mo court
shall have jurisdiction" or an
equivalent phrase. Congress was
concerned with the withdrawal of
power from the Federal courts to
issue injunctions in defined class
of cases. Nothing in the act remote
ly hints that the withdrawal of this
power turns on the character of the
parties.
JUSl1CE RUILEDGE
(Dissenting)
Mr.. Justice Frankfurter has shown
conclusively. I think, that the policy
of the Norris-LaG Guardia Act, al
Stat. 20) applies to this situation
The legislative history =" compels
the conclusion that the War Labor
Disp<sss Act of 1943, (57> Stat. 163)
not only confirms the applicability
of the earlier statute, but itself ex-
cludes resort to injunctive relief for
enforcement of its own provisions
in situations of this sort.
The Senate thoroughly considered
and debated various proposals for
authorizing equity to intervene in
labor disputes, one by the acts
sponsor in that body. Positively, re-
peatedly and unwaveringly it re-
jected all of them. They were like
wise rejected in conference, where
the Senate's view prevailed over
that of the House. The latter body
had not been inattentive to the
problem. It sought and failed to
secure the very thing this court now
says, in effect, was included ***
Whether Congress acted wisely in
this refusal is not our concern .~* =
Since in my opinion the order
was jurisdictionally invalid when is
sued, by virtue of the War Labor
Disputes Act and its adoption of the
Norris-La Guardia Acts policy, it
follows that the violation gave no
sufficient cause for sustaining the
conviction for contempt. = Lewis
and the United Mine Workers neces-
sarily took the risk that the order
would be found valid on review and,
in that event, that punishment for
contempt would apply. -. as
The power of the Federal courts
to issue stay orders to maintain the
status quo pending appeal, like
other matters affecting their juris-
diction except in the case, of this
courts original jurisdiction, is sub
ject to Congress control. That con-
troll has been exercised, in my view,
to exclude such jurisdiction In cases
OF this character. And, this befax
true, I do not think either we. or
any other court subject to that
mandate has power to punish as
for contempt the violation of such
an order issued in contravention of
Congress command.
AS the proceeding itself is
said to have been both civil and
criminal, so are the two fines"
Each was imposed in a single lump
sum, with no ALLEGATION of specific
portions as among civil damages,
civil coercion and criminal punish
ment. The Government comedies
that some part of each fine" was
laid for each purpose. But the trial
court did not state, and the Gov
ernment has refused to speculate.
how much was imposed in either
instance for each of those distinct
remedial functions. = -
No man or group is above the
law. All are subject to its valid
commands. So are the Govern
ment and the courts. If, as I think,
Congress has forbidden the use
OF labor injunctions in this and
like cases, that conclusion is the
end of our function. And If mod
ification of that policy is to be made
for such cases. that problem is
for Congress in the first instance,
not for the courts.
JUSTICE MURPHY
(Dissenting)
An objective reading of the Norris
La Guardia Act removes any doubt
as to it's meaning and as to its
applicability to the facts of this
case. Section provides in clear,
unmistakable language that mo
court of the United States shall
have jurisdiction to issue any re-
straining order or temporary or
permanent Injunction in any case
involving or growing out of any
labor dispute That Ian
guage, which is repeated in other
sections of the act, is sufficient by
itself to dispose of this. case with
out further ado. -
The crux of this caseais whether
the fact that the Government took
over the possession and operation
OF the mines changed the private
character of the underlying labor
dispute between the operators and