Evening star., 1947-03-07
Laws Power Upheld
By Lewis Decision
Court Action Cited to Show Need
To Alter Injunction Act

i
Court Action Cited to Show Need
To Alter Injunction Act
By David Laurence
John L. Lewis and the miners union
are not above the law, They must obey
1t. They cannot defy q court order
and go unpunished.
This Is the major issue Just decided
BY the Supreme Court Of the United
States. But in fairness to Mr.. Lewis
and the miners union 1t must be stated
that they thought they had right
to disregard restraining order by the
court, for they believed the court had
no valid basis for the issuance Of such
an order.
Under our legal system, anybody can
defy what an individual believes to be
an invalid or unconstitutional exercise
OF power and ask court to decide the
casa- But If the citizen who does the
defying loses out, he pays the penalty.
There apparently is no other way to
test such ambiguous points of law.
MIR. Lewis and his attorneys could
have recognizeds the temporary re-
straining order and instructed the
miners to discontinue their work stop
page until the tangled points Of law
could be argued and settled in the
courts. But. as pointed out In these
dispatches at the time, the miners
chieftain refused and took q long
chance. Now he has lost.
There were other points of great i'm
portance decided by the Supreme Court
in the case. Thus majority of 1--WE
to four decided that Congress had not
intended by tine Norris-La Guardia Act
to bar the Government itself from seek.
Ing injunctions where the employees
were under Government control,
Four Justices Dissented,
-Four justices took the amazing view
that one Congress can, by broadly
written statute, stay the hand Of the
Government itself indefinitely from pro-
tecting its interests in a major crisis
affecting its own safety. Thus q law
which doesn't even mention the Gov.
ernment as an exception really applies
to governmental action-as the minority
see 1t.
The fact that they took this view
shows how uncertain Is the status of
the Norris-La Guardia law today and
how much need there is for an amend-
ment aff1rmatively outlining the powers
OF the Federal Government. 1t Ger.
tainly is narrow majority-namely
one vote in the Supreme Court-on
which to rest In future disputes involv-
ing labor unions
Also it brings sharply into focus how
wide-sweeping is the Norris-La Guardia
act, for plainly most of the Justices
agreed that. If the dispute had been
between private employers and the
unions, there could have been no relief
by injunction no matter to what ex.
treme Of hardship the whole nation had
been forced by nationwide coal strike.
This means that Congress must amend
the law and give the Federal Govern
ment power to intervene in any national
emergency, when declared by the Presi-
dent, Is a consequence Of paralyzing
strike. Certainly If there are four
justices who think the laws actually
forbid the Federal Government from
protecting itself, another justice may
turn up some day on the mercurial
Supreme Court and decide the issue
the other way.
Judicial Processes Upheld e.4
What the Court did about the fine q
not likely to excite too much contro-
versy. for the case itself was unprece.
dented and the extent Of the fine IL .
matter on which opinions may rightly
differ. What Is important and signifi.
cant is that the judicial process in .
broad sense was upheld. When District
Court Justice Goldsborough Issued o
temporary restraining order to hold
things in their unchanged state until
the merits of the question could DO
argued and determination reached as
to whether the temporary order should
be confirmed, he was merely following q
historic procedure There could be no
trials of complicated legal issues If the
delay, while the court tried the case.
were to result in damage to either party
so that the decision itself, when reached,
would be irrelevant. a
Congress, Of course. will take notice Of
the latest Supreme Court decision and
legislate accordingly. The public win
applaud the decision, but labor union
leaders will be resentful. Also If the
New Deal were in power today, the new
dealers probably would favor the passage
Of a law specifically forbidding even
temporary restraining orders from be.
ing issued by the courts In any labor
disputes even when the Government Ii
in control of the properties and Of ths
employees. Z
Fortunately, the New Deal isn't In
power today and the American people,
by the election last fall. indicated what