Labor Board v. Clothing Co.

"If that doctrine be accepted, it is admittedly the broadest of the doctrines with which I have dealt. We do not contend that it would apply to firms such as have been mentioned by the respondent, that is, retail firms who receive some of their products in interstate commerce or send out some of their goods in interstate commerce. We say it would apply only to those enterprises a substantial part of whose own business is either the receipt of goods in interstate commerce or the shipment of goods in interstate commerce. We do not claim that every one who receives or ships in interstate commerce would fall within the scope of the principle.

"I have one more specific word to say, and that is, as to whether a determination in this case with respect to the right of self-organization, freedom of representation, and freedom of association, forecloses any question with respect to wages, hours or substantive working conditions. Of course, as Your Honors are now well aware, the statute itself has nothing whatsoever to do with wages or hours; but the question may be raised, does the principle apply? It may or it may not, and we suggest that a distinction may be drawn, though we do not necessarily press it. This is the distinction which we suggest: It has been shown by the decisions in this Court that interference with freedom of association and freedom of representation bears a reasonable relation to commerce, because the protection of those rights avoids labor disputes. Now it may be that a fixing of minimum wages or of maximum hours would not in the same way avoid labor disputes, because the fixing of minimum wages and of maximum hours would not settle the field of controversy but would leave a large area of conflict; whereas this settles a large area of conflict and sets up a procedure for the voluntary amicable adjustment of the disputes...."

STATEMENT SHOWING CASES ON DOCKET, CASES DISPOSED OF, AND CASES REMAINING ON DOCKETS FOR THE OCTOBER TERMS 1934, 1935, AND 1936

INDEX

ADMINISTRATIVE BOARDS.

1. Delegation of Power to administrative board by State.
Bourjois v. Chapman, 183.

2. Procedure. Validity of administrative procedure provided
by National Labor Relations Act. National Labor Board v. Jones
& Laughlin Corp., 1.

3. Id. Procedure for refund of "processing" taxes collected
under invalid Agricultural Adjustment Act. Anniston Mfg. Co. v.
Davis, 337.

4. Id. Fair Hearing before regulatory commission in rate case
essential to due process. Ohio Bell Tel. Co. v. Comm'n, 292.

5. Judicial Review of decisions of state administrative board.
Bourjois v. Chapman, 182.

6. Id. Review of findings of National Labor Board. Wash-
ington, V. & M. Co. v. National Labor Board, 142.
ADMIRALTY.

1. Liability of Carrier to Cargo. Insurance. Waiver of exemp-
tions of Harter Act; insurance against liability; construction of
policies; carrier's insurance enures to benefit of shippers; under-
writer's equity of subrogation. Great Lakes Corp. v. Interstate
S. S. Co., 646.

2. Procedure. Appeals. Rule of Circuit Court of Appeals per-
mitting appeal to be taken by filing notice of appeal with clerk
of District Court and serving proctor of adverse party, invalid
because inconsistent with Act of Feb. 13, 1925, § 8 (c). Alaska
Packers Assn. v. Pillsbury, 174.

ADVISORY DECREE. See Jurisdiction, I, 1.

AGENCY. See Constitutional Law, VII, (C), 3.

1. Relationship. Employer was not agent of insurance com-
pany in transactions relating to group insurance. Boseman v.
Connecticut Ins. Co., 196.

2. Liability of Agent of undisclosed principal. Oppenheimer v.
Harriman Bank, 206.

AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT ACT.

Refunds of taxes. Anniston Mfg. Co. v. Davis, 337.