Evening star., 1947-10-02
Unions Called Wrono
lnQuestioningLegaIity
OF Anti-Red Affidavit
Lawyers Testing Clause
In Labor Low Believed
To Have Mistaken View
By David Laurence

While the annual convention of
the American Federation of Labor
in San Francisco is deliberating on
how to overcome John L. Lewis one
man veto Of the desire of the other
executives of the AFL to sign the
anti Communist afidavits required
by law, the question of the consti-
tutionality of this provision is being |
raised by various union lawyers.
Gerard Reilly, former member of
the National Labor Relations Board,
appointed by the late President
Roosevelt, and the man who had
much to do with writing the Taft
Hartley law, has made clear that
most Of these lawyers are thinking
Of the new provisions as an inva-
sion of civil rights. He thinks this
is mistaken view. He said in a
public speech:
1T may be conceded that there
would be grave doubts about the
constitutionality of this section if it
were criminal statute and gener-
ally applicable to all officers of labor
organizations whose activities affect
ed commerce. "''
1T is one thing, however, to place
q criminal penalty upon the exer-
else of political rights by extremists
and quite another thing to condition
the exercise of privilege granted by
Congress upon limitation of those
rights. There are, for example, the
provisions in State and Federal laws
which prohibit political activity on
the part of public employees"
Mr.. Reilly points out that the
Supreme Court of the United States
has upheld the constitutionality of
the Hatch Act, governing the polit-
ical activities of Government en-
ployes, and he adds that the immi-
grafton laws have for many years
contained anti-Communist clauses
Thus. an alien has no right to en-
ter the United States. 1t is only a
privilege. To enter, he must sign
certain affidavits and fill out certain
forms. Any one. who desires to avail
himself or herself Of a privilege
granted by the Government is re-
quired by constitutional law. upheld
by the Supreme Court, to obey those
requirements.
There, for instance, may be an in
vasion Of the right of privacy to
ask who are the owners of a news
paper or periodical and to require
the publication of the names of
owners each year, but any publisher
who declines to fill out the forms
simply cannot get second-class mail
privileges from the Government.
One phase of legal attack on the
anti-Communist section of the Taft
Hartley law centers on the fact that
the law mentions the Communist
Party" by name, whereas the immi-
grafton statutes do not, but simply
require sworn statement that the
applicant does not believe in or ad-
vocate the overthrow by violence of
the Government of the United
States. Existing immigration laws
do, however, mention anarchists"
by name. These laws, Mr.. Reilly
points out, have been upheld by the
Supreme Court
The truth is the whole procedure
whereby certain information in af-
fldavit form is required from citi-
zens would be swept away if the
courts now ruled that the anti
Communist provision in the Taft
Hartley law were invalid. Even so
important statute as the Securi-
ties and Exchange Act forbids the
use of the mails to those who try to
sell securities but do not file certain
data with the commission. The
theory is that if one accepts or
wishes to make use of the facilities
or privileges of the Government of
the United States, he must fulfill the
requirements as to forms or affi-
davits that must be filed.
These principles have been well
settled in court decisions. Hence,
when John L. Lewis seeks to pre-
vent the hundreds of unions under
the AFL from using the facilities of
the National Labor Relations Board,
he is merely making another expert
ment in constitutional controversy
1t could meet the same adverse re-
suit as his ill-judged defiance Of
an injunction issued by the courts
here last year which cost the min
ers' union q huge fine.
Reproduction Rights Reserved.)