◆ SpookStack

wn eg ee ris ‘fie brief quoted ni ita 0 BACKS LEWIS spay Sucsrttiricat ~ ~ views on injunctiona,. notably fs x Ii HIGH COURT PLEA co-suttorsnip of “The Labor Ip- . . Pc tion” end 3 péper written by i, : et entitled “Law and we Do —_ _ | Politics.” ~~ : Argument, Denounces Action jes a airikebronker” ord ‘fo “de : ar eae H that which he may deem fatal to % Taken Against Coal Union the beat intcresta of the organiza- Ne “4, ton which he is charged with _Rpecta te "ee stew Your Thee, ae & ond protecting.” a a2, any type of compulsion ts > ¢ WASHINGTON, Jan. 18—On) ore obnoxious to all that is hela the eve of the argument in the 8u-biear in 9 democratic society we do a préme Cotrt, on the ponent cone ot know what it is,” the brief viction ‘of John L. and theimdde aan aT The brief traced ite ise of the! mjunction in labor disputes from; trations filed today a brief with thelenaraie Act wan sdeates Cr ncet PAauareme Court challenging theleress in the latter year. _ Government's contentions. During the thirty-nine year pe-: Prepared by Lee Preasman, ClO|miod t wes aoe mined that there; , feneral counsel, and his assiatanta,[Wes developed « “pattern” in the _ the brief submitted by the organ- putes injunctions in labor dis- ization as a “friend of the court,” . atressed several cases to prove that the entire history of the Nor- United Mine Workers of America, ’ the Congress of Industrial Organ- r ate “fc. ; Injunctive “Patterns” The brief listed fourteen aspects, . of the “pattern” including “ex Tie- La Guartiia <Anti-Injunction atte” action without notice of ceedings against uniong by the) “arbitrary” uniahment. Government as well as those start-[| Then the brief sald that virtual- ted by employers... ly “every unwholesome aspect of The Government’s view has beeni the injunctive process described ; i +, above was duplicated in the in- _ that it could, in its “sovereign stant proceeding.” : capacity, seek to enjoin an act by od Judge Goldsborough was fur- _& unlon which would mean “irre-[ther criticized on the grounds that “The entire record in this case|® bies which in many respects is. * ” fs pervaded with what can onty be} 80 exaggerated counterpart of the ~ ; called » callous disregard of the:@ttitude displayed by American * procedural and constitutional rights| Judges during the days in which ~ serted. j assumed a pattern to which the AN _ Constitutional “Issues” geen |Guayion and Notris- LaGuardia. i “Proceedings of the type here] “It is our view,” the brief sala, have historically raised grave-con-| “that government activity in com-| atitutional questions, The court be-|nection t low deemed content to foe over)to the Claytan Act and the Nor. ;the problems presen by the/ris-LeGuardia Act was of mich a; ‘Constitution on the basis of its)character as to make inescapable own personal assurance that what-\the conclusion that these acta Were presont in the order werejernment and that the abuse being misconstrued since the court/equity juriadiction which gave ria had no intentibn of giving the in-|to these statutes was an abule junction an undue scope,” which the Attorney-General, tip The restraining ‘orer issued hy Executive, sponsored ant Jildge T, Alan. Goldaborough in| popularized,” , thy Federal District Court, accord- a ‘int to the brief, wovld have com- . Pejied Mr. Lewis “to violste his oath of office’ “4. 12.3 1941 52 Jay EX. 26 ee HOP Becereivet & JAN 16 1947 + This is a clipping fron page of the New York Times for Ae 14> Vb Clirsed at the Seat of Goverment