Evening star., 1947-01-12
Lewis and UNIV Ask
Supreme Court 10
Reverse Convictions
BY james Y. Newton

4
the Supreme Court to reverse
their District Court conviction.
on the grounds that a Goa
understanding order they ig-
nored was illegal.
Attorneys for Mr.. Lewis and hi.
union, and Attorney General Clarl
for the Government, filed 800 page.
of briefs with the high court in the
case which resulted from the recent
17-day Nationwide coal strike.
Argument in the briefs was ir
preparation for Tuesdays hearing
before the court. Each side has
been limited to an hour of ora
argument, but it is understood both
sides will ask for additional time.
Earlier Argument Recalled.
Major points in the briefs re-
called paralleled the argument five
weeks ago before Justice T. Alar
Goldsborough, who found the de-
PENDANTS guilty of contempt. He
fined the union $500, 600 and Mr.
Lewis $4,000. The contempt charges
were brought after the 400, 900 soft
coal miners walked out November
20 in defiance of Justice Colds
borough's order to call off the strike
After finding the defendants
guilty, the judge issued a prelim-
mary injunction against the strike
Specifically the miners are asking
the high court to set aside the
convictions and dismiss the in
junction.
Soon after the case reached the
Supreme Court December Z, Mr.
Lewis called off the strike, telling
the miners to work until March 81
to allow time for final court de-
termination of the issueA
In their brief 159 pages) the
Lewis counsel argued that the re-
straining order and the injunction
were in violation of both the Clay
ton and Norris La Guardia Acts
which limit the use of injunctions
in labor disputes; that the court
action abridged the miners con.
stitutional rights of freedom OF
speech and press and was designed
to force them to work against their
will.
public Hysteria" Charged.
The unions brief said Judge
Goldsborough had SO "disregarded'
legal rights "as reluctantly to COM
pei the suggestion that public hys-
terra and political expediency, rath-
er than dispassionate and Judicial
application of established legal
principles, have thus far dominated
and determined these proceedings.
Justice Goldsborough found Mr.
Lewis and the union guilty of both
civil and criminal contempt. The
union brief argued that the offense
if ary, was criminal tfor which
the penalties are limited. The
lower court erred in not providing
a jury trial for the defendants, as
the Norris-La Guardia Act calls
for in case of criminal contempt,
they contended.
There was no concession by the
defense of guilt of criminal con-
tempt, since it was argued that
evidence supplied by the Govern
ment did not support either charge
Mr.. Lewis lawyers also held that
the penalties imposed in the case
were excessive and hence in viola
tion of the Constitution. They
pointed out that the unions fine
is 8, 500 and Mr.. Lewis 10 times the
maximum provided in the War
Labor Disputes (Smith- Connally)
Act. .5s.
Non Striking Members Affected.
AS in the District Court trial
there Was no attempt to show that
the miners made any effort to COM
ply with the restraining order is
sued two days before the strike.
The brief pointed out that since
funds of the union belong to Its
members, the So, so 900 fine would
penalize $4,000 persons, Canadian
and anthracite miners and soft
coal maintenance workers, not in
volved in the strike.
! The Governments brief Q2r
pages argued:
Neither the policy, purpose, mol
language of the Norris-La Guards
Act extends to this case. It doe!
| not expressly include the United
States. and it's legislative sponsor!
disavowed any intention so to do
Moreover, the language OF the
statute is wholly inappropriate te
comprehend the United States"
Still Guilty, U. S. Contends.
Even should it be found that the
NorriS-La Guardia Act made the in.
junction illegal, the Government
argued that Mr.. Lewis and the
union still would be guilty of con-
tempt. This argument was based
on the contention that Justice
Goldsborough had the right to de-
termine his own jurisdiction ano
issued the restraining order merely
to maintain status quo until argu-
ment and merits of the case could
be considered at hearing.
Mr.. Clark asserted also that the
fines imposed were appropriate ano
within the ability of each of the
defendants to pay"
This case does not infringe upon
the guarantees given by the Con-
stitution and the statutes OF the
United States" the Government
stated in conclusion. "The general
application of the ris-LaGuardis
Act to ordinary conflicts between
private employers and employees i
not challenged. The Government l.
not seeking to establish any princi-
pie which would interfere with the
rights OF labor.
"To Prevent Injury"
'~The Government does seek, how
ever, to uphold its right and author
ity to operate facilities the posses
sion of which it has taken for wal
purposes under temporary (Smith.
Connally, Act) wartime statutory
authorization. The Government
seeks as we'll to vindicate the power
of the Federal Judiciary by issu-
ance of the temporary restraining
order to prevent irreparable injury
to the people of the Nation, to pro-