White House Statement About Signing a Bill To Limit the Use of Injunctions in Labor Disputes.

THE PRESIDENT, in signing the bill limiting the use of injunction in labor disputes, made public the following letter he received from the Attorney General:

Sir:

Under date of March twenty-first you transmitted to me H.R. 5315, an act to amend the Judicial Code and to define and limit the jurisdiction of courts sitting in equity and for other purposes, with the request that I advise you whether there is any objection to its approval. This bill is the one commonly known as the anti-injunction bill.

Objections have been made to this measure because of the alleged unconstitutionality of some of its provisions, among which are those relating to contracts between employers and employees by which the latter agree not to be members of labor organizations and which are commonly called yellow dog contracts.

One of the major purposes of the bill is to prevent the issuance of injunctions to restrain third parties from persuading employees to violate such contracts, the theory of the bill being that such contracts are exacted from employees not with the idea that they will be treated by the employees as binding obligations but as a basis for invoking the old common law rule against malicious interference with contracts by third persons, and in this way to enable employers to secure injunctions against peaceful persuasion directed at their employees.

There are various other aspects of the bill, the unconstitutionality of which has been debated. It seems to me futile to enter into a discussion of these questions. They are of such a controversial nature that they are not susceptible of final decision by the executive branch of the government, and no executive or administrative ruling for or against the validity of any provisions of this measure could be accepted as final. These questions are of such a nature that they can only be set at rest by judicial decision.

Many objections have been made to the supposed effect of various provisions of this bill. In a number of respects it is not as clear as it might be, and its interpretation may involve differences of opinion, but many of these objections are based on extreme interpretations which are not warranted by the text of the bill as it was readjusted in conference.

It is inconceivable that Congress could have intended to protect racketeering and extortion under the guise of labor organization activity, and the anti-trust division of this Department, having carefully considered the measure, has concluded that it does not prevent injunctions in such cases and that it does not prevent the maintenance by the United States of suits to enjoin unlawful conspiracies or combinations under the anti-trust laws to outlaw legitimate articles of interstate commerce. It does not purport to permit interference by violence with workmen who wish to maintain their employment, and, fairly construed, it does not protect such interference by threats of violence or that sort of intimidation which creates fear of violence.

With due regard for all the arguments for and against the measure, and considering its legislative history, I recommend that it receive your approval.

Respectfully yours,

WILLIAM D. MITCHELL,

Attorney General

[The President, The White House]