Evening star., 1950-05-11
What Is q Union?-Thot's the Question
By Jones Y. Newton

i ne dig SITlke O1 JOIlu AL 4cNlS 0O1k
l. coal miners happily now Is some
distance in the past. But as q sort Of
hangover from the long struggle. there
is up for decision in the District Court
of Appeals highly important and in
teresting case. 1t is the one resulting
from the refusal Of the miners to heed
the District Court order directing their
union to end the strike. The main issue
is delicate one for democracy. The
constitutional rights Of individual citi-
zens are brought hard up against
responsibility Of the Government to look
after the general welfare of the Nation.
It will be recalled that Judge Rich
mond B. Keech, who issued the strike
restraining order, later acquitted the
United Mine Workers Union Of criminal
and civil contempt, after the miners had
continued their strike in full force. No
appeal can be taken from a criminal
acquittal. The Justice Department.
however, appealed the ruling in the
civil case. in which Judge Keech said
there was failure to prove guilt "by
clear and convincing evidence" Argu-
ments have been completed, and the
case now rests with three Judge panel
of the appellate court, headed by Chief
Justice Harold M. Stephens.
After Judge Keech ordered the UNIV
to end the strike, Mr.. Lewis and the
other top officers on several occasions
directed their district and local officials
to get the men back to work. The Gov
ernment argues that Mr.. Lewis acted
with tongue in cheek; that he really
didn't mean what he said publicly, and
that by some undisclosed means the
word was passed on secretly to the
miners to keep right on striking.
But the interesting part of the case
lies in the Governments main conten-
ton: That the union should be found
guilty and it's members punished for
their refusal to return to work, whether
or not the union officers complied in good
faith with Judge Keech's order. Assistant
Attorney General H. Graham Morrison
said a union is simply group Of indi-
viduals who own its assets and reap the
benefits from its operation. In other
words, the miners as a group, and not
Mr.. Lewis, are the union. Therefore. Mr..
Morrison argued, they should be held re-
sponsible for collective acts performed
in union capacity.
OF course Mr.. Morrison continued in
effect, the miners cannot be punished
for refusing to work if they acted as
individuals. That would violate the 18th
amendment, which forbids involuntary
servitude. Even if they acted in concert,
they cannot be punished as individuals.
The punishment; Mr.. Morrison said.
should come in the form of fines levied
against the union treasury.
rn e,,nnort NJ h;c erc,,roent the Cow
ernment lawyer several times cited the
new doctrine of law" laid down by
Judge T. Alan Gol6sborough in the 1948
contempt conviction of Mr.. Lewis and
the UNIV. Judge Goldsborough held
that "as long as union is functioning
as a union, it must be held responsible
for the mass action of its members"
Mr. Morrison pointed out that the
defense had not pleaded breakdown
of union discipline, and that continua-
ton of the strike after issuance Of the
Keech order was essential to the win
ming of the union goals of higher wages
and better work contract generally. AS
for mass action" or evidence OF con-
certed action. Mr.. Morrison noted that
virtually all of the 10000 miners had
done the same thing at the same time
refused to work-although they were in
dozen different States and in diverse
economic circumstances.
In clearing the UNIV Of contempt,
Judge Keech mentioned the Colds
borough doctrine. But he held evidence
was lacking of wilful contempt of the
court order on the part Of the UNIV
either 'by the action which it has taken
or by the action which it has failed to
take"
OF the Keech decision, the Govern
ment told the appeals court this:
"The decision . completely ignores
reality, substitutes union responsibility
for responsibility in field of vital i'm
portance to the national welfare, and
leaves the Federal judiciary impotent to
make it's orders effective against labor
unions in situations of critical emer-
gency"
UNIV Attorney Welly K. Hopkins ar
gued that since the union mechanism
It's top officers-had needed the back-to-
work order. the union as an entity was
in compliance. He described the Gov
ernment's effort to pin responsibility for
the strike on the union membership as
nothing more than an attempt to cir
cumvent the Constitution and force the
miners to work against their will. Any
fine against the union treasury, since it
Is the property of the individual men,
bers, simply would be in furtherance Of
the unconstitutional aim. he said.
Oddly enough. both sides are relying
on principles laid down by the Supreme
Court in 1922. That case involved the
UNIV and the Coronado Coal Co. Of
Arkansas. During strike at the mines,
q violent ruckus took place and some
men were killed. The international
UNIV was sued for damages.
In that case the Supreme Court held
union could be sued as an entity. In
other words, suit could be brought