Evening star., 1950-03-03
Mr.. Lewis and the Courts

At the outset of any appraisal OF Judge
Keechs ruling in the coal case, one thing should
be stressed This is decision which preserves
the integrity OF the Federal courts.
Many people will be disappointed by the
Judgment that the United Mine Workers are
not guilty either Of criminal or civil contempt
The coal strike has worked the gravest injury TO
this country. In hundreds OF communities IL
has produced suffering and want. A situation
of this kind always inflames public sentiment,
and when passions are aroused the temptauon
to stretch the law is strong.
Our courts have no higher duty, however,
than to stand firm against this sort OF thing.
Technically, the union and not John L. Lewis
was the defendant in this But In the
broad sense it was Mr.. Lewis who was on trial,
and when he is brought into court he is as
much entitled as any other man to the full
protection Of the laws.
The issue before Judge Keech was simple
one Did the union, acting through Mr. Lewis,
obey or disobey the courts order to take all
appropriate action to get the miners back 10
work? The Department of Justice contended
that the order had not been obeyed but 1t
failed to produce the requisite measure of proof
in support of that contention So Judge keecn
ruled in favor of the union
In the circumstances 1t was the only thing
strike and the consequent suffering will con-
tinue for while But these transient
things They are of little consequence as COM
pared to the enduring injury which would nave
been done if the power OF the Federal judiciary
had been perverted to punish John L. Lewis and
his union when proof OF guilt was lacking. To
have done this would have been to impair
public confidence in the integrity OF the courts,
and the evil consequences OF that would have
&~xo 1xoIh hanv on
What is the next move? Senator Douglas
says the decision shows that the Ta1t-Har1ley
law is ineffective. Assuming that the Govern
mont made every effort to prove its case-an
assumption which Senator Taft challenges-Mr
DonpIas NAV be right. In any event, In TINS
case Mr. Lewis has been able to Illustrate the
intent and purpose OF the law
He has been ably assisted in this by the
intemperate and unwarranted attacks on tne
law by members of the Democratic Party from
the President on down. They have RESPONSE
bility here which they should not be permitted
to evade 1t should also be remembered that
the law is not intended to outlaw strikes. Even
If the miners had needed the order to return
to work, they would have been entirely free, 81
days later, to strike again. And there woulo
have been nothing in any law to prevent 1t.
If the people are to have protection against
the ruthless tactics of men like Mr.. Lewis, thai
protection must come from Congress. 1t tht
Taft-Hartley law is ineffective, the remedy Il
not simply to repeal 1t and strip away ever
the limited protection which it affords. ina
would be absurd. The only real remedy lies II
new and tougher legislation. AS stopgal
measure, designed to cope with last-ditcl
emergency, it may be necessary to empowe
the President to seize the mines. But that is no
q real solution, for it would simply invite MI
Lewis to subject the country to the same ordea
year after year. If there is to be any rea
remedy Congress must face up to the facts an
enact effective legislation to curb the absolut
power which monopoly unions hold over tn
economic life of the country.