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 nearly 2,700 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 with pricing starting as low as $29.95

Access to this content requires a subscription. Please visit the following page to request a quote or trial:

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?