Evening star., 1949-04-07
Supreme Court Ruling
Answers Question on
Nationwide Strike
Decision Says Congress
Moy Forbid Tieup by
Calling 1t Monopoly
By David Laurence

Calling 1t Monopoly
By David Laurence
One question that the average
American citizen has been asking
very often In the last few years
How can any man or group Of
men tie up the economic system
by q Nationwide strike and not
be restrained by law?-has been
answered clearly and explicitly in
q unanimous decision Of the
Supreme Court OF the United
States.
This decision says plainly that
Congress may by law forbid a
Nationwide tieup by calling 1t
an exercise Of monopoly power
and that any Of the States can
make laws to prevent the paralysis
Of its cities and towns by work
stoppageS and boycotts.
Justice Black wrote the opinion,
which says that labor unions are
not above the law or the Constitu-
ton and that the right of free
speech does not mean that a per-
sons business can be damaged by
statements designed to keep peo-
pie from buying the goods of a
business that is under attack.
Case Arose in Missouri.
The case arose In connection
with a statute Of the State of
Missouri which holds that a
labor union can be q monopoly
and act IN restraint Of trade, just
as a company or corporation can.
The Missouri law was upheld by
the Supreme Court of that State
and now the Supreme Court Of
the United States says Missouri
has the absolute right-and 80
has Congress-to deal with any
form Of monopoly. The Supreme
Court, Of course, does not pass
judgment on the advisability of
such laws but only as to the fact
that they would be constitutional.
Justice Black said:
More than that, If for the
reasons here contended, States
cannot subject union members to
such antitrade restraint laws as
Missouri's, neither can Congress.
The Constitution has not 80
greatly impaired the States or
Nations power to govern"
The union contended that when
1t notified the Empire Storage and
Ice Co. that 1t must not sell ice to
nonunion peddlers, it was merely
engaging in q labor dispute. IT
also contended that when 1t en-
gagged in picketing and merely put
the truth on placards. 1t was only
exercising the right Of free speech.
The Supreme Court noted, how
ever. that the business Of the En-
pire Storage and Ice Co. was re-
duced by 85 per cent. The picket
ing was, indeed, effective in al
most running the business. Justice
Black wrote:
But placards used as an essen
tial and inseparable part Of q
grave ofiense against an impor-
tant public law cannot immunize
that unlawful conduct from State
control. Nor can we say that the
publication Con placards) here
should not have been restrained
because Of the possibility of sepa-
rating the picketing conduct into
illegal and legal parts. For the
placards were to effectuate the
purposes of an unlawful combina-
ton, and their sole, unlawful i'm
mediate objective was to induce
Empire to violate the Missouri law
by acQuiescing in unlawful de-
mands to agree not to sell Ice to
nonunion peddlers.
Injurious to Society.
"It is true that the agreements
and course of conduct here were
as. in most instances brought
about through speaking or writ
ing. But it has never been
deemed an abridgment of freedom
Of speech or press to make course
of conduct illegal merely because
the conduct was in part initiated,
evidenced, or carried out by means
Of language, either spoken, writ
ten. or printed. Such an ex-
pansive Interpretation Of the con-
stttutional guarantees of speech
and press would make 1t practi-
cally impossible ever to enforce
laws against agreements In re-
straint Of trade as well as many
other agreements and conspiracies
deemed injurious to society"
What the Supreme Court is say
ing here is that companies and
labor organizations are equal un-
der the Constitution and before
the law and that neither can have
a monopoly Of economic power if
the national or State legislatures
wish to prohibit 1t.
Labor-union spokesmen lately
have been arguing that collective
bargaining Is such q sacred right
and so protected by the Constitu-
ton that any form of it is de-
fensible as speaking or writing
and that picketing is merely
speaking or writing on a placard.
The Supreme Court says what
should really be no surprise to
any one-that a mans business
can be damaged by something
spoken or written just as an in
dividual's reputation can be SIAN
dered by the written or spoken
word.
Decentralization piqhts paseryedl