Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

R

NAMES.-Red D Line, 58; Roosevelt Steamship Co., 47, 56; Royal Mail Steam-

ship Co., 38; Robert Dollar interests, (2), (29), (31) ; see also Dollar Steam-

ship Co.; Admiral Oriental Line; Rio Janeiro, Brazil, (7), (12).
SUBJECTS.--Reply by author of Senate Document 210 to criticisms by Commis-

sioner Plummer, 17; see also ch. 2, IV, Digest-Contents; reference to annual
reports of United States Shipping Board, 18, 21, 48, 49; references to laws,
see 21 and 22, ix, Digest-Contents; reserver powers in the contracts, see 1 (c),
1, also 14, VII, Digest-Contents; Remedy: What is the remedy? (37); reason-
able time for bidding, etc., not given, 5 (4), see also 17 (d), VIII, Digest-Con-
tents; reply to tabulation entitled Contracts let under merchant marine
act, 1928, 53, see also ch. 6, v, Digest-Contents.

[ocr errors]

NAMES.--South Atlantic Steamship Co., 24, 26, 33, 47, (48), see also 19, IX,

Digest-Contents; States Steamship Co., 14, 47, (49), (15); Steers Terminal
Co., (26); Steamship Schenectady, (6); Steamship Stockholm, (6); Steam-
ship Southern Cross, 13 (13); San Domingo, (27), (39); San Francisco, 21,
29, 31 ; Seattle, (29), (30); Shanghai, (29, (30); Savannah, Ga., see 19, ix,

Digest-Contents; Senator Swanson, (34).
SUBJECTS.-Subsidies to ships, see 10, VI, Digest-Contents; subsidies very ex-

cessive, 21, 6, (8); subsidy in sales prices of vessels sold, 13, 19, (13); see
also 13, VII, Digest-Contents; subsidy in the postal contracts, 12 (12); south-
ern ports, discrimination against, 25, 30; southern commercial bodies, action
by, re Savannah contracts, 30.

T

NAMEB.--Tacoma Oriental Steamship Co., 47 (49); Todd Dry Docks Co., 59.
SUBJECTS.—Tests for determining proper subsidies, see 10, vi, Digest-Contents;

transportation contracts or subsidies 2 (1); transportation of mails, 16, 18,
(1), (29), see also 16, VIII, Digest-Contents; tabulation of sales prices and
cost of construction, 14 (15); tabulation of new vessels: (a) List introduced
by Senator Fletcher, 46; (b) letter alleging inaccuracies in it, 53; (c) see also
ch. 6. 5, and also 11, VII, Digest-Contents; titles of Senate Document 210,
see ch. 1, 1, Digest-Contents; trend of trade requirements, 20, 49 (17) ;
transportation requirements not duly considered, 5 (3), see also 17 (b), vin,
Digest-Contents.

NAMES.--United States Lines, 47, 55, 63; United Fruit Co., 47; Union Iron

Works, 59; Uruguay (12).

NAMES.-Steamship Virginia (22), 54; steamship Valkyrie, 37; steamship Van

Dyke, 37; the Virgin Islands (39); Senator Vandenberg, 8, 52.
SUBJECTS.-Voyage expenses, see 11 (a), VII, Digest-Contents; voluntary con-

struction, 23, see also 11 (e), VII, Digest-Contents.

NAMES.-Steamship Western World, 13 (13) ; Representative Welch, 57, 58.
SUBJECTS.--" What is the remedy?” (37); “West coast can build ships."

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors]

INJUNCTIONS IN LABOR

DISPUTES

STATEMENT

BY THE

HON. HENRIK SHIPSTEAD A SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA ON THE BILL (S. 2497) TO AMEND THE JUDICIAL CODE AND TO DEFINE AND LIMIT THE JURISDICTION OF COURTS SITTING IN EQUITY, AND

FOR OTHER PURPOSES

TOGETHER WITH
A MEMORANDUM ON THE SUBSTITUTE BILL

BY WINTER S. MARTIN

[graphic][merged small]

FEBRUARY 17 (calendar day, MARCH 4), 1931.-Ordered

to be printed

UNITED STATES
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 1931

INJUNCTIONS IN LABOR DISPUTES

The question of the injunction in labor disputes is of nation-wide interest. It is now in the Senate in the form of a bill reported from the Judiciary Committee adversely with a majority and minority report.

A subcommittee of that committee, consisting of Senators Norris, Blaine, and Walsh of Montana, have during the last three years conducted extensive hearings, have amended the original bill and made the minority report. The gratitude of the Senate is due these Senators for the diligent and earnest work done on this very complicated subject.

In view, however, of the differences of opinion developed, and the radical changes effected in the original S. 2479, a further independent study has been prosecuted at my request, the results of which are presented herewith. After analysis of both majority and minority reports, Mr. Martin and his associates propose an alternative and carefully drawn measure. This proposal is so fundamental and yet from an angle so new, with an apparent probable effect so eminently fair and desirable, that it is commended to the serious consideration of those in Congress and in private life who are interested in an effective remedy for the acknowledged evils accumulating from the continued abuse of the writ of injunction in labor disputes.

HENRIK SHIPSTEAD.

1

PART 1

A MEMORANDUM ON THE SUBSTITUTE BILL S. 2497

By WINTER S. MARTIN, Attorney at Law, Seattle, Wash. The subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee rejected Senator Shipstead's antiinjunction bill, which was introduced in the Seventieth Congress. It was the opinion of the committee that the bill would deny to property in many cases the protection properly afforded by injunction, and that it would not do to pass the bill in its original form.

The subcommittee then introduced a bill widely different its terms and construction, but which had for its purpose and object a drastic curtailment of the powers of Federal equity courts in issuing injunctions in labor disputes.

More than 700 pages of testimony taken during the hearings convinced the subcommittee of the necessity for corrective legislation against the highly oppressive and drastic labor injunction of the present day. It only remains to determine whether the substitute measure will accomplish what those who drew it claim for it. In connection with the substitute bill as originally introduced by the subcommittee in lieu of the original Shipstead bill, we shall call attention also to the amendments made by the committee after the substitute was offered. We thus have in effect a third measure, quite different from the two earlier ones.

This amended substitute bill will come before the Senate for final action some time during the present session. On this amended substitute, viz, the second committee print, bearing date of May 19, 1930—the majority of the committee are against passing the bill. They say:

Whatever there may be of merit in the contention of those who believe that the situation in part of the field of labor demands remedial legislation, the majority of the committee, all of whose members are most friendly to labor and to labor unions, are forced to the conclusion that this substitute bill would give rise to problems much more grievous than those which it seeks to solve. (See p. 15, Report of Judiciary Committee of the Senate.)

We fully agree with this statement, as applied to the substitute bill in its amended form (amended by the committee after its submission by the subcommittee).

In this final amended form drastic changes have been wrought in the text, and much of the merit of the substitute bill as first offered, before the committee amended it, has been by insertion and deletion taken out of the bill. But before discussing the effect of the amendments, let us consider the substitute bill as originally offered by the subcommittee. We believe that the bill was drafted for the bona fide purpose of correcting the evils which, in the judgment of many, had been constantly accumulating in the judicial decisions justifying the use of the injunction in labor disputes.

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »