About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

8 Monthly Bull. Int'l Jurid. Ass'n 1 (1939-1940)

handle is hein.journals/injasmb8 and id is 1 raw text is: INTERNATIONAL JURIDICAL ASSOCIATION MONTHLY BULLETIN Vol. 8, No. 1 JULY, 1939 oeo357 Price $2 a year THE HAGUE CASE IN THE SUPREME COURT With a galaxy of five opinions which obscure the tremendous significance of the decision in a cloud of legal- istic stardust, the Supreme Court has decided the Hague case.I The actual decision is a sweeping victory for the C.I.O. and for the defenders of civil rights who brought the action to enjoin Mayor Hague and other Jersey City officials from interfering with the C.I.O.'s organization drive in that city by deporting union sympathizers, arresting them with- out bringing them to trial, and (under certain municipal ordinances, now held void) preventing the distribution of leaflets, display of placards and holding of meetings in the streets and public parks. But the scattering of opinions handed down by the seven-judge Court is devoted, for the most part, to the discussion of a technical jurisdictional question and a highly theoretical issue as to whether the majority decision should rest upon the due process clause, or upon the privileges or immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Not half a dozen paragraphs are devoted to a discussion of the scope of the civil rights involved and their significance in our scheme of government. The Court has failed to carry on that work so nobly begun in the early minority opinions of Justices Holmes and Brandeis,2 and so nobly advanced by the recent De Jonge, Herndon and Lovell opinions.3 On the jurisdictional question, the Court held that the case was properly before the District Court under Section 24(14) of the Judicial Code. On the merits, the only con- stitutional question decided was that the ordinance pro. hibiting street meetings without a permit was invalid on its face. The other points of substance were waived by the city authorities in their Supreme Court brief; subject to their objection to the jurisdiction of the Court, they con- ceded the unconstitutionality of the ordinances prohibiting handbill distribution and the display of placards; the im- propriety of the deportation of C.I.O. organizers; and the illegality of molestations and arrests without subsequent arraignments. The Court held, however, that the decree below was er- roneous in two respects. First, the constitutional protec- tion was held to inure to the benefit of natural persons only; the bill was therefore dismissed as to all but the individual plaintiffs.4 Second, the decree was held to go (Continued on page 4) 1. Hague v. Committee for Industrial Organization, U. S. L. Week, June 6, 1939, p. 1475 (decided June 5, 1939). 2. See, e.g., Gitlow v. New York, 268 U. S. 252 (1925); Whitney v. California, 274 U. S. 357 (1927). 3. De Yonge v. Oregon, 299 U. S. 353 (1937); Herndon v. Lowry, 301 U. S. 242 (1937); Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U. S. 444 (1938). 4. The opinions mention only the American Civil Liberties Union, which is a corporation, as a plaintiff without standing to sue. They are not clear about the position of the plaintiffs C.I.O., S.W.O.C., United Rubber Workers, and United Electrical Radio and Machine Workers, which are unincorporated associations. However, they do say that the suit may be maintained only by the individual respondents; and all the majority judges ap- parently concurred in Justice Roberts' conclusion that the bill should be dismissed as to all save the individual plaintiffs. RECENT ITEMS OF INTEREST Bridges Hearings Scheduled. The opening of hearings in the case of Harry Bridges on July 10, in San Francisco, brings to trial a case which has been a political storm center for more than a year. An amended warrant of arrest was issued June 12, charging that after Bridges entered the United States he became and now is a member of and is affiliated with an organization that believes in and ad- vocates the overthrow by force and violence of the govern- ment of the United States, and that he became and is a member of and is affiliated with an organization circula- ting and distributing proscribed literature. It will be re- called that his case was stayed pending the decision in the Strecker case.1 The Labor Department has agreed to per- mit coverage of the hearings by the press and to issue passes to the capacity of the hearing room to persons having legitimate reasons for attending. The Department has likewise agreed that a transcript of the record may be purchased by the attorneys for Bridges.2 It should be noted that hitherto the public has been excluded from Depart- ment proceedings and that the Department has a fixed policy of not permitting attorneys for aliens to purchase a transcript of the hearings. Bridges' attorneys claim that a public hearing is essential to due process of law.3 STRIKES AND PICKETING Donnelly Company Obtains Injunction. It will be of interest to readers of the Bulletin who have followed the various phases of the attempt by Donnelly Garment Com- pany to obtain an injunction in the federal court4 against the I.L.G.W.U., to know that an injunction was granted after trial upon the latest remand of the case. In the earlier history of the case an injunction was granted by a three-judge Federal District Court on the grounds that no labor dispute was involved and that the Norris-LaGuardia Act did not apply. An appeal was taken directly to the Supreme Court. The latter determined that a three-judge court had not properly been invoked in the case since no attempt was even made to enjoin enforcement, operation or execution of or setting aside any act of Congress within the meaning of the Judiciary Act of August 24, 1937. The decree granted by the three-judge court was therefore vacated and the cause remanded to the District Court for further proceedings. The question of the presence of a labor dispute having in the meantime been settled by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Lauf v. Shinner,5 the District Court held that the plaintiff failed to allege compliance with the Norris-LaGuardia Act in that there was no indication of reasonable effort to settle the dispute. This determination was reversed by the Circuit Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit (Judge Thomas dis- senting). The Circuit Court remanded the case for further proceedings on the basis of its own determination, apparent- 1. 83 L. ed. (Adv.) 637, see also 7 I. J. A. Bull. 125. 2. Information from the attorneys for the alien. 3. Morgan v. U. S., 304 U. S. 1. 4. See, 6 I. J. A. Bull. 135, 7 I. J. A. Bull. 25 and 62. 5. 303 U. S. 323 (1938). 1

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most