Evening star., 1947-07-02

system, a law cannot be tested with
, out risks to those who challenge 1t,
but the penalty In some instances
under the Wagner Act and under
the Taft Hartley law is the ultimate
imposition only of cease-and-
desist order. This does not involve
any loss OF money but mostly loss
Of time.
There are, however, certain pro-
visions in the Taft-Hartley law re-
1ating to jurisdictional strikes and
boycotts which the unions might
better respect, for, If they make a
test of constitutionality and lose
In the courts, then damage suits can
be filed by any one who was injured
in business or property" Suits must
be entertained in the Federal courts
regardless of amounts.
ANY One May File Suit.
Any one, therefore, who is indirect
ly injured by the effects of boycott
called In defiance of the express pro-
, visions OF the new law can file suit
for damages. The unions which defy
the law will have to be certain their
advice from constitutional lawyers
is sound before they risk defiance.
In the very week that the Taft
Hartley bill became law over the
Presidents veto, the Supreme Court
of the United States, in an opinion
rendered by Justice Black, upheld
the power of Congress to regulate
labor union practices in the broad
casting industry. Justice Black In
dicated that the power of Congress
to regulate Is a sweeping one.
There were many skeptics who
thought surely the law aimed at one
business or industry would be held
invalid, but the Supreme Court opin-
ion clears all doubts now.
There is much talk about defying
the law with respect to the prohibi-
ton of any 'expenditure in con-
nection with any election to political
ofice." This is defined in the law
as meaning congressional and presi-
dental elections and primaries.
But If labor unions succeed In
overthrowing this clause in the
courts, they will be opening up the
way for corporations, too, to make
expenditures for political purposes.
Both labor unions and corporations
are. treated alike in the law. II ex-
j.. penditures are permissible for one,
they are permissible for both.
The case in favor of constitution
ality Is frequently misunderstood,
because it is assumed that the con-
stitutional right of free speech or
of the press is or has been unlimited.
No, constitutional right is unquali-
fed where the taint OF fraud or mis-
use of money is interjected.
Thus, the Supreme Court has
barred publication of lottery num-
bers, This means newspapers are
prohibited, too, from publishing
them. Laws against publication of
libel or against obscenity have been
upheld as constitutional, and they
limit the freedom of the press.
Power Confirmed.
Congress has been confirmed in
it's constitutional power to regu-
late Federal elections by many de-
cisions in the Supreme Court. Each
time law has been passed there
had been some fragrant abuse in
.volving the misuse of money. Cor
porations and banks were barred
from political expenditures when
public scandals were uncovered.
Congress has the right to specify
whether any private money can be
spent on elections and how much.
If Congress chooses to ban ex-
penditures by unions of their mem
bers' money or by corporations Of
stockholders money for political
elections, 1t certainly would seem,
based on previous decisions, that it
can do so.
The question of whether pro-
nouncement by a bona flde publica-
ton, in the course of its regular
handling of the news, is an lex
penditure in connection with an
: election" Is not difficult to determine.
Borderline cases probably will never
be prosecuted. But a fragrant dis
regard of the law must inevitably be
Tested, and such a disregard would
,he involved if a union appropriated
out of its funds directly or specifi-
cally for a political expense.
q , Just why unions need to worry
about this when all they need to
do is to ask their members to contrib
lite directly to separate political
committee is something of puzzle
unless, of course, the unions want to
use their members money without
their consent and give 1t to politi-
cal party with which members may.
happen not to be AFFILIATED. The
real purpose of the law is to safe
guard the political rights of the
individual who presumably joined
a labor union and not a political
organization.
N Reproduction RIGHTS Reserved.)
n 4 r. SREInT DENTIST