RIGHT TO STRIKE

Grey River Argus, 29 November 1946, Page 5

RIGHT TO STRIKE

AMERICAN MINERS issue Before the Court NO SETTLEMENT MOVE YET (Rec. 9.50). NEW YORK, Nov. 27. The Herald Tribune’s Washington correspondent reports: Although Government officials have discussed, informally, with the coal mine owners, the question of a direct settlement of the coal dispute, no formal steps have .been taken, and none are planned. Fifty thousand public school pupils in Denver, Colorado, reported to the unheated classrooms only long enough to be given homework tasks, which will be augmented by radio lessons. WASHINGTON, Nov. 27. The trial of Mr John L. Lewis, President of the United Mine Workers of America, on a charge of contempt of Court, began in the Federal Court to-day. The charge arose from, Lewis’ failure to obey an order issued by Judge Goldsborough, restraining him from calling on the members of the U.M.W.A. to end their contract with the Government. Lewis was accompanied by Mr Joseph Padway, general counsel for the American Federation of Labour. Judge Goldsborough presided, assisted by an “advisory jury”, which ordinarily brings in a “verdict of recommendation”, which the judge can accept or reject at will. The jury, which is rarely used, is generally composed of 12 men, lawyers, laymen or both, and is designed “to inform the conscience of the judge”. Judge Goldsborough announced at the outset that he was considering giving the jury full power to acquit or convict Lewis on the contempt charge. Mr Padway contended that the restiaining order was tantamount to “involuntary servitude” for the 400,000 miners' affected. It had long been established that men have the right to work or not to work. The Judge agreed, and Mr Sonnett likewise agreed. Mr Fadway asked: “What then are we here for?” He added that the restraining order was directed against every individual miner. Judge Goldsborough said the order was intended only to keep the mines operating until the legal issues could be settled.

Mr Padway declared that the injunction denied the right to exercise the constitutional rights of freedom of speech, press, and assembly. Therefore the miners could not picket the mines.

The Judge ■ remarked that “no body’s comfort”' would be disturbed, whatever the outcome. The Union had filed a motion for dismissal of the proceedings, and that would be considered first. The question was whether the Norris-La Guardia Act, which forbids injunctions in labour disputes, applies to a Government injunction. Lewis was entitled to a jury trial if the Norris-La Guardia Act was held applicable. The Assistant-Attorney General (Mr Sonnett) argued that the Act did not apply to the Government, and, therefore, Lewis was not entitled to a jury trial. Mr Padway, asking for dism ssal of the case, argued that the injunction could not be exercised against the strikers . He quoted a section of the Clayton Anti-Trust Act, which provide;' that workmen shall not be compelled by an injunction to return to work. He said: “If ever there was a command to go back to work, this order commands that very thing”. Mr Padway, attacking the principle of Government by injunction, recalled that Judge Goldsborough when a Democratic Congressman, had voted for the Norris-La Guardia Act. Mr Padway cited Judge Goldsborough’s own comment in Congress denouncing the powers assumed by the courts. He (Mr Padway) contended that the Government was directly responsible icr the coal strike, and declared that there need not have been any cessation if the Government had complied with the contract terms. Mr Padway said there was no exception in favour of the Government. Its contention that the Government was exempt, from the injunction law was an attempt to pervert the law. The judge asked what about the Smith-Connelly Act, which forbids anyone to instigate strikes in properties seized by the Government. Mr Padway replied that that Act was unconstitutional.

Judge Goldsborough: What you are saying is that when society tries to protect itself from cold, hunger, misery and economic disintegration, it is involved in a labour dispute. Calling it a labour dispute does not make it one. Mr Pad way: To say there is no labour dispute denies the elementary facts. Judge Goldsborough said: No one can disobey a restraining order, otherwise we would have anarchy. If defendants disregard the restraining order, they are guilty of contempt of court, regardless of whether the Norris-La Guardia Act applies or not. That in this court’s opinion is the law. Mr Fadway said Lewis had been advised by his attorneys that he was within his rights' in disregarding the court’s order to withdraw the contract cancellation notice to the Government. The judge replied: Cemeteries' are full of people who took the doctor’s advice. The court feels that the mine workers’ action in not waiting for judicial determination of the legal issues of the contract dispute was a very great mistake. Disagreeing with the judge’s statement that the contempt action was begun by “the sovereign power—by society itself”, Mr Padway pointed out that private operators were running the mines under Government direction, which was th? utilisation of private instrumentalities in what was allegedly a sovereign function. Actually, the Government regarded itself only as the temporary custodian of the coal mines, and told Lewis to bargain with private coal employers instead of with the Government. , Mr Sonnett interrupted the argument to ask for a 10-day extension of the restraining order, which otherwise would have expired at 3 p.m. today. The judge granted the extension. [The original restraining order instructed Lewie to withdraw his notice terminating the United M>ne Workers of America’s contract with the Government], Legal observers said the - trial was likely to develop into an historic legal battle affecting the broad principles of labour policy. Observers interpreted Judge Goldsborough’s refer-

ence to “comfort" as meaning that the court does not intend imposing a prison sentence on Lewis. Industries Stopping FALL IN REVENUE (Rec. 7.40). NEW YORK, Nov. 28. The court adjourned the contempt hearing against Lewis until to-mor-row. A survey showed that ninety thousand have already been rendered idle in the coal consuming industries. Industrial spokesmen predicted that this number would be more than doubled Within a week if the stoppage continued. The Civilian Production Administration chief, Mr John Small, reported that industrial output at the end of October was 81 per cent, above the average of the late 1930’5, but t/.at the coal strike was now threatening to “shove production back down the ladder”. He said “A prolonged shut-down of the mines will hit industry faster and harder than it did last cpr’rig”. Mr Small added that steel mills are already banking their furnaces. and they might be forced to reduce their operations by fifty per cent, within a fortnight. The automobile industry, although hot hit seriously so far, will close down for Thanksgiving holiday today, and will not resume until December 2, so as to conserve coal. The production of 25,000 units will thus be lost. The production rate of 3,400,000 cars per year before the strike was only nine per cent, below that of 1941. The Secretary of the Treasury, Mr Snyder, expressed fears for the national revenues if the stoppage .is prolonged. He added that the Treasury was studying the situation carefully. Just before the stoppage began, the revenue was holding well to the record of the peace-time years’ collection of 396 hundred thousand dollars.

Laboudte Senators AGAINST CAPITULATION (Rec. 8.15) NEW YORK, Nov. 27 The New York Times correspondent at Washington says:—A group of Democratic Senators with a long and consistent pro-Labour record have warned President Truman and the Attorney-General Mr Tom Clark, that the Government must not appease the miners’ leader, J. L. Lewis regardless of the cost and the suffering which a sta‘nd-up fight might cause. This message was conveyed to tfie White House by an emissary who was chosen because of White House’s trust in him, and also because of his ability to deliver the messge as plainly and as bluntly as the Senators intended’ that it should be given. It was disclosed that the reason for sending the message was that the Senators feared that at. some time, during the present showdown, the Government iwould yield. A leading Republican, Senator Joseph Ball, told the National Press Club: “This is more like an insurrection than a labour dispute. I would like to see the President and the Secretady for the Interior, Mr Krug, go on the radio and go into press to make it clear to the miners that this is the issue. Lewis’ is building up pressure for new labour laws every day”. A study by lawyers of the official transcript of the hearing of the Lewis contempt case shows that the Judge did not imply that Lewis would not be imprisoned whatever lhe outcome, but that, if he found that the NorrisLa Guardia Act applied a gaol sentence, it was not to be expected that, if he held the Act did. not apply, the possibility of gaol as well as a fine would remain.