We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.
Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.
12/4/46
Helnl Radio News Service
PETRILLO DECISION PUTS IT UP TO NEW REPUBLICAN CONGRESS
Another baby which the new Republican Congress will find on its doorstep when it convenes next month will be James C. Petrillo, the problem of just what, if anything, can be done to him for defying Congress, and what, if anything, can be done to prevent his further thumbing his nose at that august body.
Representative Lea, of California, author of the Lea Act for the violation of which Petrillo was acquitted, criticized the U. S. Court decisions in recent years "which by hypercritical and superficial reasoning have thrown an amazing number of protective shields around certain labor union practices. "
Representative Lea, who though a Democrat has also been re-elected as the nominee of the Republicans every terra since 1938, further termed the Petrillo decision "a challenge to the incoming Congress which I hope it will accept".
The Chicago Court’s ruling naturally pleased Petrillo,
who said:
"Thank God for the Federal courts, where they preach and practice democracy, where they say that the Constitution applies to musicians as well as to the National Association of Broadcasters, and where they say Congress cannot discriminate against 200,000 musicians. "
The Lea Act was passed by Congress to prohibit compelling or attempting to compel broadcasters to hire more employees than are needed to perform actual service.
In an eight-page opinion, Judge LaBuy said:
"The court holds that the statute involved in the appli¬ cation here sought to be made violates the fifth amendment because of indefiniteness and uncertainty in the definition of a criminal offense; violates the first amendment by its restriction upon free¬ dom of speech by peaceful picketing; violates the fifth and thir¬ teenth amendments by its restriction upon employment of labor, and violates the fifth amendment by an arbitrary classification as be¬ tween employers and employees and as to other communication indus¬ tries. "
Commenting upon the Chicago decision and at the same time taking a fling at Judge Walter J. La Buy who ruled the Lea Act un¬ constitutional, Arthur Krock, Washington correspondent of the New York Times, writes:
"The chief argument made by the defendant, Mr. petrillo, and sustained by Judge La Buy was offered against the measure when it was being debated in Congress: That it singles out this labor leader and union by outlawing activities which are not legally
5