Evening star., 1948-07-29
Labor Studies Ruling
Backing Ban on Union
Political Spending
By Jones Y. Newton

major role in the national elec-
tions, was examining carefully
today the decision of a Federal
judge upholding the Taft-Hart-
ley Act ban on direct political
expenditures by labor unions.
In the ruling yesterday, Justice c
Hincks of the District Court at
Hartford, Conn, refused to dismiss
indictments against a local of the
AFL Brotherhood of Painters and
its president.
I'm the light of the legislative
history of the act, in silhouette
against the contemporary back
ground" Justice Hincks stated, Il
mold, first, that the act (Taft-Hart-
ley) was we'll within the limits of
Federal legislative power and, Sec
ond, that it was not invalidated by
i its incidental effect in restraint
upon the freedoms protected by the
first amendment freedom of speech
and press).'
The decision apparently turned
on the point that the painters
local used funds from its own treas
ury for political purposes.
The first opinion among labor
leaders here was that the Hartford
ruling would not greatly affect the
political efforts of labor. The CIO,
AFL, railroad brotherhoods and
others all have political organiza-
tions set up for participation in the
campaigns. 1t was pointed out that
these political arms are supported
by voluntary contributions of in
dlvidual union members rather than
by funds directly from the treas
uries.
In case involving the CIO and
its president. Philip Murray. the
Supreme Court ruled unanimously
last month that the Taft-Hartley
Act does not keep publications
financed either by unions or man
agement funds from taking part in
politics.
Case Involved House Race.
That case involved the indorse-
ment by Mr.. Murray in the CIO
News of the candidacy for the House
of Judge Edward Garmatz of Bal
timore. The high court agreed that
! if the law did ban such publication
of union or management political
views, there would be grave doubt as
to its constitutionality.
| But the court said there was no
need to decide the overall constitu-
tional issue now since the CIO did
not violate the act by indorsing a
congressional candidate in its Of
fetal newspaper.
The Hartford case was different.
In it the painters local and its
president. John r. O'Brien, had
sought dismissal of the indictments
on the grounds that the particular
section of the Taft Hartley Act vio-
lated the guarantees of free speech
and free press in the first amend
ment.
They were indicted last March
after they had openly challenged
the law by spending union treasury
funds for political advertisement
in a Hartford newspaper and to buy
radio time for a political broadcast
The funds were not contributed VOL
unfairly for the purpose by men,
bers of the union.
p Directed Against Taft.
Both the advertisement and the
broadcast were directed against the
presidential aspirations of Senator
Taft, Republican, of Ohio, one OF
the authors of the Taft Hartley
law, and called for the defeat OF
Connecticut members of Congress
who voted for it.
Judge Hincks held that the case
differed from that of the CIO and
Mr.. Murray.
The CIO case, Judge Hincks
pointed out, involved only expendi.
lures by union to meet the costs
of publishing an issue of a weekly
union periodical containing expires.
sions Of political advocacy anc
opinion in connection with a con.
gressional election and distributing
the same ="
In the Hartford case, the judge
said, union monies were expended
for publication of expressions OF
political advocacy intended to affect
the result of the election and the
action of the convention in an estab-
lished newspaper of general circrla-
tion and for broadcast by COM
mercial radio station ="
Appeal Expected.
THE congressional history of the
act" Judge Hincks said. makes it
iabundantly plain that the expend-
Iitures upon which this prosecution
is based were of that very kind which
Congress intended to forbid"
United States Attorney Adrian w.
Maher said he expected that Mr.
O'Brien and the local would appeal
within the next two weeks.
Violation of the political spending
ban carries a penalty of $1,000 fine
or one year imprisonment or both
for an individual The maximum
penalty for an organization S a
S., 900 fine.
The union had announced that it
hoped to carry the case to the Su-
preme Court, but persons familiar
with court procedure said it was
doubtful that final test could be
made before the elections.
Union Challenges Labor Act
On Employer Contributions