Evening star., 1948-02-01
Anti-C Communist Proviso
Of Labor Act CHALLENGED
District Court to Weigh Validity
of Affidavit Requirement
By Gerard D. Reilly

By Gerard D. Reilly
The ffrst serious challenge to the constitu.
tionality of the Taft-Hartley Labor Manage
ment Relations Act will be considered tomorrow
by statutory three-judge Federal court con-
vened by Chief Judge Bolitha Laws OF the
United States District Court for the District Of
Columbia. 1t arises in suit filed by the
National Maritime Union (CIO) to compel the
National Labor Relations Board to place the
name Of the union on the ballot in two pending
election cases despite the fact that its officers
have failed to file the afiidavits disclaiming
membership or af1iliation in the Communist
Party. The board had previously decided that
the unions refusal to conform to these require.
ments Of the act had rendered 1t ineligible to
compete in elections called for by the Seafar.
ers' International Union. an AFL afnliste
According to brief filed by General Counsel
Robert N. Denham In the District Court last
week, the board will argue for dismissal not
only on jurisdictional grounds, but also on the
theory that section (h) of the act, which Is
under attack, was valid exercise Of the power
Of Congress
Contending that the court has no jurisdiction
to entertain the unions claim, the Government
brief points to the fact that the new labor law,
ike lJS pUcucCcSSOr StdtuVc, VIC "d6ACA avn
does not create private rights, but was written
by Congress to formulate set OF public rights
in the interest of protecting interstate COM
merce from interruption. Moreover, the legis-
latve history of the act, it is pointed out, shows
that the committee in charge OF the bill re-
jected proposed amendment which would
have subjected board decisions in representa-
ton cases to judicial review.
OF much greater interest to the layman Is
the portion of the brief written by Mozart
Rather, one Of the younger lawyers on Mr..
Denhams staff, dealing with the merits OF the
Communist disclaimer section, In which he
meets head-on the unions argument that the
denial of the use of Labor Board facilities to
noncomplying unions is a restraint on freedom
Of speech and freedom of assembly and there
fore conflicts with the first amendment to the
Constitution.
Mr.. Rather argues that section (h) imposes
no limitations upon what any person may
think or say, nor does 1t prohibit any one from
joining or supporting any organization II 1t
did deny to Communists or supporters OF Com
munist-front organizations the right to dis
seminate views, he comedies that the court
might have to consider whether or not Com
munist activity presented so real and present
danger to the Government that some curb
was necessary to self-preservation. First he
shows, however, that where Congress Is grant,
ing a privilege 1t may lay down certain condi-
tions for the exercise Of that privilege. His
toric examples are the immigration laws and
the statutes relating to employment In the
Government service.
Under the immigration laws Congress has
~A~k1 THaA
Court many years ago held that this provision
was valid even though the record showed that
the alien was q philosophic anarchist and did
not believe in revolution or the use Of violence
to attain his goal of social reform. Similarly,
the Supreme Court has held that Congress may
properly deny Government employees the right
to engage in the kind of political activity which
the Constitution insures to private citizens.
On the basis Of these precedents he concludes
that Congress was competent to deny the bene-
Ats of the Labor Relations Act to labor or
carnations whose officers were Communists or
supporters of Communist dominated organiza-
tions.
Although In conducting hearings on the pro-
posed legislation the Senate, committee did not
20 into the matter of Communist control OF
labor unions, the brief relies upon the fact
that the House committee received considerable
testimony on this point. One dispute which
aroused the interest of the committee was the
protracted strike in the Allis- Chalmers plant
which was instigated in part by Communist
officials of the United Automobile Workers.
This caused the committee to believe that
Communists and their supporters when they
attained positions Of power and leadership in
labor union did not practice collective bar
gaining as method OF amicably adjusting
disputes between employers and employees but
instead used this process as a vehicle for pro-
noting industrial strife Moreover the timing
of the Allis- Chalmers strike indicated that If
union officials were Communists they might
promote strikes which were contrary to the
interests Of the United States If those interests
happen to be opposed to Soviet Russian policy.
Somewhat ironically, a great many Of the
documents on the kind OF policies promoted
by Communists in trade unions was furnished
by the very labor organization which Is the
complaining party in the suit. The brief quotes
at length from some statements Of the presi-
dent of the union:
Most impressive in this regard is the expert
ence Of Joseph Curran, president of the NMU.
one of the plaintiffs in this action. Writing In
the Pilot, official newspaper of the NMU. Pres
munists within the union during the period Of
hostilities between Germany and Russia to
force upon the union policy of collaboration
with employers and total abandonment OF
strikes, whatever the cost of such a policy to
the economic interests of the union members.
He pointed out, however, that since the end
of the war, shortly after relations between the
United States and Russia began to deteriorate,
the Communists did their utmost to preclude
the establishment of amicable relations and TO
provoke hostility between employers in the
industry and the union"
President Curran repeated this observation
on October "a, 1947, in column in which he
also said: They Communist delegates) came
to the convention fully instructed and with
program directed by the highest chiefs in the
Communist Party ''. These party delegates
(Who voted contrary to the instructions OF