Evening star., 1947-03-07

ceQeQ GQat the cQaraCLerlSLlcS OF
the present case would be such as
to bring 1t within the class If the
basic dispute had remained one be-
tween defendants and private en-
ployer, and the latter had been the
plaintiff below. = There Is an
old and well-known rule that
statutes which in general terms di-
vest pre-existing rights or privi-
leges will not be applied to the
sovereign without express words to
that effect. Congress would
not, in writing the Norris-La Guar
dia Act, omit to use clear and spe-
ciflc (language) to that effect" If it
actually intended to reach the Gov
eminent in all cases. $50
Congress Intent Considered.
We think that Congress
failure to refer to the United States
or to specify any role which it
might commonly be thought to fill
is strong indication that 1t did not
intend that the act should apply to
situations In which United States
appears as employer. -
+ In debates in both houses of Con-
gress, numerous references were
made to previous instances in which
the United States had resorted to
the injunctive process in labor dis
putes between private employers and
private employees, where some pub
lie interest was thought to have be-
come involved. These instances were
offered as illustrations of the abuses
flowing from the use of injunctions
in labor disputes and the desirability
OF placing limitation thereon. The
frequency of these references and
the attention directed to their sub
ject matter are compelling circum-
stances. We agree that they indi-
cate that Congress, in passing the
act, did not intend to permit the
United States to continue to inter-
vene by injunction in purely private
labor disputes.
But whether Congress so intended
or not is a question different from
the one before us now. Here we
are concerned only with the Gov
ernment's right to injunctive relief
in a dispute with its own employees.
*&
1t has been suggested, however,
that Congress in passing the War
Labor Disputes Act, effectively re-
stricted the heretofore existing
authority of the courts to issue in
functions in connection with labor
disputes in plants seized by the
United States. Chief reliance is
placed upon the rejection by the
Senate of Article S of the Connally
substitute bill. But it is clear that
no. comparable action transpired
in the House. Indeed, proposals in
the House and the House substitute
for S. 1876 authorized the use of in
functions in connection with private
plants not yet seized by the United
States. These admitted inroads
on the Norris-La Guardia Act drew
much comment on the floor of the
House, but nevertheless prevailed.
| =
We thus find nothing in the legis-
lative background of the War Labor
Disputes Act which constitutes an
authoritative expression of Congress
directing the courts to withhold
from the United States injunctive
relief in connection with an act de-
signed to strengthen the hand of the
Government In serious labor dis
putes.
Defendants Contention.
The defendants contend, however,
that workers in mines seized by the
Government are not employees of the
Federal Government; that IN oper-
ating the mines thus seized, the
Government is not engaged in q
sovereign function, and that. con-
sequently, the situation in this case
does not fall within the area which
we have indicated as lying outside
the scope of the Norris La Guardia
Act. It Is clear, however, that
workers IN the mines seized by the
Government under the authority of
the War Labor Disputes Act stand
in an entirely different relationship
to- the Federal Government with re-
spect to their employment from that
which existed before the seizure was
effected.
The question with which we are
confronted is not whether the work.
ers in mines under Government seiz-
ure are employees" of the Federal
Government for every purpose which
might be conceived, but whether, for
the purposes of this case, the Incl
dents of the relationship existing
between the Government and the
workers are those of governmental
employer and employe.
We hold that in a case such as
this, where the Government has
seized actual possession of the mines,
or other facilities, and Is operating
them, and the relationship between
the Government and the workers is
that of employer and employe, the
Norris-La Guardia Act does not ap-
ply.
The temporary restraining order
was served on November 18. This
was roughly two and one-haf days
before the strike was to begin. The
defendants filed no motion to vacate
the order. Rather, they ignored 1t,
and allowed a Nationwide coal
strike to become an accomplished
fact. This court has used unequivo-
cal language in condemning such
conduct, and 80 has provided pro-
lection for judicial authority in situ-
atjonS of this kind
In this case before us, the District
| Court had the power to preserve
existing conditions while it was de-
termining it's own authority to grant
injunctive relief. The defendants
in making their private determina-
ton of the law, acted at their peril.
Their disobedience Is punishable as
criminal contempt.
Court Must Be Obeyed.
Proceeding further, we find i'm
pressive authority for the PROPOSE
ton that an order issued by court
with jurisdiction over the subject
matter and person must be obeyed
by the parties until it is reversed by
orderly and proper proceedings.
This is true without regard even
for the constitutionality of the act
under which the order is issued. :"
Violations of an order are pun
ishable as criminal contempt, even
ihoJ1ol, the order is set aside on