Newspapers / The Charlotte Herald (Charlotte, … / Feb. 22, 1924, edition 1 / Page 7
Part of The Charlotte Herald (Charlotte, N.C.) / About this page
This page has errors
The date, title, or page description is wrong
This page has harmful content
This page contains sensitive or offensive material
Legal Information Bureau FOR LABOR ORGANIZATIONS ' gY THE ACTION of the Cincinnati and Portland Conventions of the American Federation ©f/Labor, a Legal Information Bureau was organ* island its fwbctidiiif|jn»|ilimitation* set forth. This bulletin is the first step to be taken in. tbe dissemihation of legal informfrntion, and it is hoped it will be a source of guidance and of interest to aril labor organizations. This Bulletin will be issued, not at any stated time, but as circumstances permit or occasion demands. -• . ijp*- - .. - ... • '■ v. - It is our hope that, with Che growth of the Bureiau, lire mSy he able to reprint or mimeograph ail the eztraordinswy decision# affecting labor and labor organizations with such opinions and guidance as may be helpful. Where cownant on a decision is made it wilTbe so stated, otherwise, the language quoted or briefed is that of the court rendering the decision. MATTHEW WOLL, Director. ************* * * * The Herald will publish all * * these decisions and comments, * ff * to the end that the workers * * of the South may have lull * * advantage of this great ser- * * vice. Please keep these arti- * * cles. If you do not care to * * keep the' entire paper, then * * clip these articles, paste them * * together, and at the end of * * the series you will have the * * full information' on all legal * " phases,.—Editor. * V . * ***** ******* SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS THE VALIDITY OF THE CALIFOR, NIA ALIEN LAND LAW IN TWO DECISIONS RENDERED NOVEMBER 19, 1923. N. 44 SUPREME COURT REPORTER AG^S 112-115. Webb Attorney-General of Cali fornia et al„ vs. O’Brien et al. Frick et al, vs. Webb Attorney General of California et al. In the first case O’Brien sought to enter into a contract with one Inouye. By the proposed contract Inouye gas given the right for four (4) years to plant, cultivate and harvest crops on the land and O’Brien undertook to protect him during the term from interference by any other person. He was to be entitled 'to a half of all the crops grown in the land during the term, to be divided after harvest and be fore removed from the land. This share of the crops is his only return ■ A A. D. LAJOIE Initructur of VIO LI N Studio: 6 Davidson Building Phone 13I8-W AUSTIN’S MARKET The up-to-date market, with a full line of all kinds of Meats, Fish and . Other Good Things to Eat Prices reasonable and service Complete AUSTIN’S MARKET 30S WEST TRADE ST. Queen City Chinese Hand Laundry We do all First Class Work at the right prices. Prompt service, too, is a boast of ours and a pleasure to our pat rons. 14 South Popular Street FRESH Gathered EGGS Fancy Fresh Creamery Butter Churned in our plant every day. Prices are always right. Carolina Butter Co. 4 N. Brevard St. Phttin 8497. from the undertaking. The court held that this was more than a con tract of employment and if executed would give td Inouye the right to use and to have or share in the profit of the /land for agricultural purposes. The court points out that the treaty between the United States and Japan does not confer upon the citizens or subjects of. either in the territory of the other, the right to acquire or enjoy lands for agricul tural purposes, but does grant lib erty to own or lease houses and shops and to lease lands for residen tial and commercial purposes. Section two of the California Alien Land Act extends the privi lege to acquire and enjoy real prop erty only in the manner and to the extent, and for the purposes pre scribed in the treaty. By the terms of Inc proposed contract and the obligation to accept one half of the crops as his only Teturn the con tract is clearly distinguished from one of mere employment. The right to make and carry out such a contract as this is not safeguard ed to ineligible aliens by the con stitution, and a denial of it does not deny the ordinary means of earning a livelihood or the right to work for a living. By the use of such con tracts, the population living on and cultivating the farms might come to be made up largely of ineligible aliens and the eourt ruled out that the allegiance of the farmers to the state directly affects its srength and Safety. “The privilege to make and carry oiit the proposed cropping contract or to have the right to the possession and enjoyment and benefit of land for agricultural purposes as contem plated and provided for therein is not given to •Japanese subjects by the treaty. No Constitutional right of the alien is infringed, it there fore follows that the injunction should have been denied.” The injunction which the lower Court had granted to restrain the Attorney-General from instituting any proceedings to enforce the alien land Jaw was ordered dissolved. In Prick vs. Webb the law was sought to be avoided by selling shares of stock in a farm company. The court held that indirect as well as direct ownership and control of agricultural lands by alien citizens may be forbidden. SANDEFUR V. CANOE CREEK COAL CO. 293 N. 3, FEDERAL REPORTER, PAGE )79. The Circuit Court of Appeals <5f the 6th circuit certified to the Su preme Court of the United States, the,question that a court of equity must not purtish for contempt in any class of cases which Congress might except as such punishment might follow conviction by a jury as upon a criminal trial. From infor mation received from the clerk of the Supreme Court it has been as certained that this case is Njo. 679 and will not be considered by the Supreme Court until the latter part of next fall unless for some reason it should be advanced. DENNISON, Circuit Judge. Upon the claim that the plaintiff in error had violated some of the provisions of this injunction, proceedings for contempt were brought against him. H5s demand for jury trial was over ruled. The court heard the issues and found him guilty, held the pro ceeding to be punitive, and imposed upon him a fine to be paid into court, for the use and’benefit of the United States. Upon this writ of error, ..the sole question presented Prised upon the refusal of the de mand ofr a jury trial. This demand was made in pur ported pursuance of sections 21 mid 22 of the Clayton Act. 38 Stat. ^30 (Comp. St. 1245 a, 1245b). The i tsi. i fc t *m*m»m»mtnm»»«t»»»mn»mn»»»»n»»t»n»:»wtttnt»m»mwtffl8m| i YOU CAN’T DO IT, FELLLERS, you can’t go to Hieaven Savp by the saw-dust trail. You can’t feed :j ;• your babies, you can’t educate your brats, you can’t pay your bills, : you can’t hold up your shaggy head, you can’t be worth a darn to II yourself or any body else unless you save, and keep on saving. PVE SEEN ’EM TRIED OUT iji . ; /. - j I know what I'm talking about, and I know the best savings system ill on Earth is the Building & Loan, and the Mutual isn’t 42 years old ::: with five and one-half millions of assets without a positive and ::: eloquent reason. " ; Ijj JNO. R, PHARR, E. L. KEESLER, President. ^ Secretary-Treasurer. ,j acts which Were charged to consti tute'contempt were also criminal of fenses under the of Kentucky, and hence the situation contemplat ed by section 21 Came into exist ence. The demand for a jury was refused by the trial judge upon! the ground that the case was not one of these “within the purview of this act,* as specified in section 22. This view of the act has also been taken, but without discussion, by the Circuit Court of Appeals of. the Seventh Circuit, Michaelson v. U. S. 291, Fed. 940. We cannot accept this construc tion of that phase. The act, Con sidered as a whole, covers several more or less distinct subjects. It is . entitled “An act to supplement ex isting laws against unlawful re straints and monopolies, and for other purposes.” The first eight sections pertain directly to the sub ject of trust and monopolies (Comp. St. 883a 883h); section 9 (Comp. St. 8602) concerns interstate com merce; section 10 (Comp. St., 8885i) combinations among common car riers; section 11 (Comp. St. 8885$); proceedings to enforce certain pro visions of the act; sections 12-16' (Comp. St. 8835 k-8835o) anti-trUst procedure and remedies; sections 17-19 (Comp. St. 1243a-1243c), regulations of injunction and re straining roders in all cases; section 20 (Comp. St. 1243d) limits the power of an equity court to issue any injunction in a certain elates of cases, viz., between employer and the employe; and sections 21-24 (Comp. St. 1245a-1245d) pertain to procedure in any District Court, punishing contemptious disregard ot any order of such coui£, providing the act constituting contempt is also a criminal offense. Observing this relation of the various parts of the act to each other, we think “within the purview of this act” must refer to that portion of the act which most broadly covers the sub ject-matter to which section 22 is devoted, and this portion is section 21, which reaches all cases where the act of contempt is also a criih inal offense. We know of nothing in the legislative history of the act, or within the common knowledge as to the then existing situation, which justifies us in thinking that “within the purview of this act,” in section 22, meant to limit its effect to the employer-employe’ provisions of section 20, or even to the anti trust scope of some of the earlier sections. Thus we find ourselves unable to sustain the order upon the ground on which it was based below and are compelled to come directly to the question whether it was within the power of Congress to say that a court of equity must not punish for contempt, in any class of cases which Congress might select, except as such punishment might follow conviction by a jury-a£ upon a crim inal trial. This question has hot been passed upon, as far as we learn, ex cept by the District Court for the Southern District of Florida (In re Atchi^on, 284, Fed. 604) and the Circuit Coutt tof Appeals of the Seventh Circuit (MIchaelson v. U. S. supra). Both these decisions have denied the power; but, for reasons which need not be stated, we have thought the question is one appro priate tb certify to the Supreme Court, and have done so. Pending decision of this question, we file this memorandum in order to dispose of the other question Jin vPlved. TEXTILE WORKERS COMPARE WAGES Several weeks ago the Joint Council, of textile workers began the task of securing information con cerning'the wages paid the mill workers in the various cities of the Carolinas. This report is about complete and will soon be published. It is an interesting statement, too, for it shows the big difference in wages paid workers even in different mills owned by the same people ahd located in different towns. Take a chain of mills, for example, all own-' ed by the same company, with mills in different towns, and as much as $4 a week is found to exist in wages for identical! work performed in the different mills. Sometimes these mills are but a few miles apart, yet this difference in wages exist just the same. Blanks were sent workers in ali mills in securing this information. These reports were then verified by gathering pay envelopes from the mills, so there can be no doubt of the accuracy of the statement. Just why this difference in pay is allowed to exist is dwelt upon in the report, which wall make interest ing reading for a great many people. PRIVATE COMPENSATION URGED BV BUSINESS MEN Washington, -Feb. 20.—Business interests in 'his city and throughout • he nation ere urging congressmen to oppose the Fitzgera’d 'compensa tion bill, which prch hit-* private co corns fro .1 .writing coiepensftH-Ui to injured w'S-ejs i.t «oc f->.strict of Columbia. Business men favor the Under hill 1)111, which permits private con cerns writing this insurance. These advocates declera that congress has no t ight to injure a private business —th_e business of living off the in juries and misers of helpless work ers. - • v. ; HISTORY OF > TEAPOT DOlffi Because of the fact that all Wash ington is agog with investigations of deals involving Teapot Dome,- & might not be amiss to give a few facts concerning this much-talked of place. Teapot Dome' is a supposedly rich oil-fiield ip Wyoming. It was set apart in 1915 as a reserve to supply future need's of the United1 States Navy, fwo areas in Califor nia were set aside for the same pur-, pose in 1912. During the Wilson administration there was consider able agitation in Congress for the withdrawal of these Helds from public control. In June, 1920, a law was approved giving the Sec retary of the Npvy exclusive power to conserve and develop the reserves by lease, contract, or otherwise, and to use, store, exchange or self the ofl issuing from them or the prod ucts therof. But in Slay, 1921, President Harding turned over the admitttsfation of the reserves to the Department of the Interior, then headed by Albert B1. Pall. In 1922 the interior department signed a .lease conveying the Teapot Dome oil on a royalty basis to a company organized by Harry F. Sinclair. The act was criticized, but was defend ed by the Department of the Inter ior on the ground that the Teapot Dome field was being tapped and drained by Wells in the adjacent privately owned Salt Creek fields, and that the government was mak ing a good bargain by arranging for the prompt pumping and storing of the oil. One California oil reserve was leased to a company headed by] E. L. Doheny in % 921, and the other in 1922. Until recently, contro versy has centered about the advis ability of the Teapot Dome lease from the standpoint of profit to government and over the question whether navy oil should be left, ip the ground or stored in tanks. . But last year there were rumors which gave a new turn to the dis cussion-. It was remembered that private sources gave out the news of the Teapot Dome lease before’ the. government departments did. Then, according to The New York Times, “neighbors of Mr. Fall in New Mexico told the Senate investi gating committee that there wef e sudden signs of prosperity at the Fall ranch in Three Rivers. Mr. Pall replied that the reported costly im provements to his ranch were paid for out of $109,000 lent him by Edward B. McLCan, publisher of the Washington Post. Mr. McLean thereupon informed the committee that he had lent? Mr. Fall a sqm of money, but that' the loan “was in the form of checks which were re turned to him uncashed.” Ex-Sec retary Fall testified that he has never aproached Mr. Doheny or Mr. Sinclair or any ,one connected with any of his corporations, nor had he “received from either of sard parties one cent on account of any oil lease or upon any account what soever. • That at the end of last month came a succession of the sensational statements. Archibald D. Roosevelt, son of President Roosevele, appear ed voluntarily to testify to , the transfer -of cash from Sinclair to a Fall employe. Col. J. W. Zevely— the Sinclair attorney after whom the famous race-horse Zev is nam ed—testified in Washington, as The New York Evening Post notes, “that in June, 1923, Sinclair lent $25,000 in Liberty bonds to Fall, in addition to $10,000 in cash given to him “to enable him to go to Russia with Sin clair.” E. L. Doheny told the com mittee that it was he who had lent Mr. Fall in 1922 as an accommodfi ! tion to an old friend. BRADFORD BRAGS ON CARPENTERS 1764 Growing Rapidly—Boll Weevil Mechanics No Longer In the Demand Here. J. L. Bradford, general organizer for the Brotherhood of Carpenter? and Joiners, was in the city last week, and visited Local 1764 at the regular meeting Friday night. An unusually large crowd Was present, and much business was transacted. Mr. Bradford was highly elated at the progress that the carpenters have made here, and was -very com plimentary in his remarks tor the union. Union carpenters of the city are now appjroaching that plane they have long sought. For some time it was necessary to persuade earpenr ters to. join the union. New the carpenters are applying to the union for membership. This condition has been brought about because of the fact that hundreds of men came to Charlotte during the past two years, claiming to be carpenters, and knowing juslt about as much of the carpenter’s trade - as Vanderlip knew) about the charges he made against President Harding. The contractors and builders of Char iots hired these counterfeit carpen ters because of their low wages, and now that whiter weather has had * chance to Sat the work done, the builders have discovered their mis take. So the One best way they now know for protection against boll weevil carpenters* is to employ iftem - ■ ’ ' . Charlotte, March * • -.—. bers of the union. So the carpen ters who have been able to secure work in the past are now finding employers asking them if they be long to the union. If they do not, then there's nothing doing. Truly things are looking better. NO LABOR WANTED. Berkeley, Cab, Feb. 20.^-Build irtg craftsmen in this city appeal to workers elsewhere not to believe statements ‘that there is a labor scarcity in this city. Last Septem ber a fire destroyed 900 nomes, which havfe since been rebuilt. An ti-union employers are attempting to capitalize this incident by flood ing Berkeley with penniless Work ers. ‘ ■ 0 • FOOD PRICES Gg> UF. Washington, Feb, 16.—-During the year period, January 15, 1923, • to January 15, '1924^ food prices in creased in the following cities, ac — - - .- . m. J cording to the bureau of labor sta tistics: Springfield, 111., 8 per cant; Peoiia, 7 per cent; Cincinnati, Co lumbus, Milwaukee and Omaha, 6 per cent; Denver and Louisville, 5 per cent; Indianapolis and Jackson ville, 4 per cent; Bridgeport, Detroit and Manchester, 3 per cent; Poston, Butte, Charleston, New Have», New Orleans, Norfolk and- Washington, D. C., 2 per cent; Fall River ,► Frovi deivr e and S-i?*ntoftr 1 per cent; Fetch mond and Bocheste*;; lc» than fi/r-’cfith of ,one pef cent, j' “Ho-mestic” “Prim-Prest” Yoiir Health is your great est asset. It needs to be guarded. Send youf fam ily bundle to ati up-to-date laundry. Everything is washed clean and thor oughly sterilized there. Otl# of These Services Will —Fit Your Pocketbook— 4 , " , ^ • ;tf ! - ‘. .. ...-■ ' . .. i “Wet-Wash” Mi Float-Ironed” - THE CHARLOTTE LAUNDRY MODEL STEAM LAUNDRY SANITARY STEAM LAUNDRY ■ -.—
The Charlotte Herald (Charlotte, N.C.)
Standardized title groups preceding, succeeding, and alternate titles together.
Feb. 22, 1924, edition 1
7
Click "Submit" to request a review of this page. NCDHC staff will check .
0 / 75