Ex Parte Thomas

Citation174 S.W.2d 958
Decision Date27 October 1943
Docket NumberNo. 8160.,8160.
PartiesEx parte THOMAS.
CourtSupreme Court of Texas

W. R. Smith, Jr., of Austin, Mandell & Wright, of Houston, and Ernest Goodman, of Detroit, Mich., for appellant.

Bernard A. Golding, of Houston, amicus curiae.

Gerald C. Mann, Atty. Gen., and Jesse Owens and Fagan Dickson, Asst. Attys. Gen., for the State.

Ben Ramsey, of San Augustine, amicus curiae.

ALEXANDER, Chief Justice.

This is an original habeas corpus proceeding filed in this Court by relator, R. J. Thomas, to obtain his release from a judgment in contempt imposed by a trial court. The action involves the validity of Section 5 of House Bill No. 100, Acts 1943, 48th Legislature, Chapter 104, page 180 (Vernon's Annotated Texas Civil Statutes, Art. 5154a), which Act prescribes certain regulations applicable to labor unions.

The provisions of the Act pertinent to the action here under consideration are as follows:

"Section 1. Because of the activities of labor unions affecting the economic conditions of the country and the State, entering as they do into practically every business and industrial enterprise, it is the sense of the Legislature that such organizations affect the public interest and are charged with a public use. The working man, unionist or non-unionist, must be protected. The right to work is the right to live.

"It is here now declared to be the policy of the State, in the exercise of its sovereign constitutional police power, to regulate the activities and affairs of labor unions, their officers, agents, organizers, and other representatives, in the manner, and to the extent hereafter set forth."

Sec. 2. * * * (c) `labor organizer' shall mean any person who for a pecuniary or financial consideration solicits memberships in a labor union or members for a labor union."

"Sec. 5. All labor union organizers operating in the State of Texas shall be required to file with the Secretary of State, before soliciting any members for his organization, a written request by United States mail, or shall apply in person for an organizer's card, stating (a) his name in full; (b) his labor union affiliations, if any; (c) describing his credentials and attaching thereto a copy thereof, which application shall be signed by him. Upon such applications being filed, the Secretary of State shall issue to the applicant a card on which shall appear the following: (1) the applicant's name; (2) his union affiliation; (3) a space for his personal signature; (4) a designation, `labor organizer'; and, (5) the signature of the Secretary of State, dated and attested by his seal of office. Such organizer shall at all times, when soliciting members, carry such card, and shall exhibit the same when requested to do so by a person being so solicited for membership."

"Sec. 11. If any labor union violates any provision of this Act, it shall be penalized civilly in a sum not exceeding One Thousand Dollars ($1,000) for each such violation, the sum recovered as a penalty in a Court of competent jurisdiction, in the name of the State, acting through an enforcement officer herein authorized. Any officer of a labor union and any labor organizer who violates any provision of this Act shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof in a Court of competent jurisdiction, shall be punished by a fine not to exceed Five Hundred Dollars ($500) or by confinement in the county jail not to exceed sixty (60) days, or by both such fine and imprisonment."

"Sec. 12. The District Courts of this State and the Judges thereof shall have full power, authority and jurisdiction, upon the application of the State of Texas, acting through an enforcement officer herein authorized, to issue any and all proper restraining orders, temporary or permanent injunctions, and any other and further writs or processes appropriate to carry out and enforce the provisions of this Act. Such proceedings shall be instituted, prosecuted, tried and heard as other civil proceedings of like nature in said Courts."

"Sec. 14. The provisions of this Act are to be liberally construed so as to effectuate the purposes expressed in the preamble and in such manner as to protect the rights of laboring men to work and/or to organize for their mutual benefit in connection with their work; nor shall anything in this Act be construed to deny the free rights of assembling, bargaining, and petitioning, orally or in writing with respect to all matters affecting labor and employment."

"Sec. 15. If any Section or part whatsoever of this Act shall be held to be invalid, as in contravention of the Constitution, such invalidity shall not affect the remaining portions thereof, it being the express intention of the Legislature to enact such Act without respect to such Section or part so held to be invalid."

The State filed suit in the trial court, alleging that the relator was a labor organizer within the meaning of the Act, who for pecuniary or financial consideration was engaged in soliciting members for a certain labor union; that he had not previously applied to nor obtained from the Secretary of State an organizer's card, as provided for in Section 5 of the Act; and that he was threatening to and would violate the provision of said Section 5 of the above Act by soliciting members for said labor union in Texas, unless he was restrained from so doing. The trial court issued a temporary restraining order and caused notice thereof to be served on the relator. Thereafter the relator, who was a paid representative of the union, violated the terms of the injunction by soliciting members for said union without having first registered with the Secretary of State as provided for in said Section 5. After a hearing he was adjudged to be in contempt of court and his punishment fixed at a fine of $100 and confinement in jail for three days.

There is no question as to the sufficiency of the pleadings or the regularity of the proceedings in the contempt action, nor is there any contention that the facts were insufficient to show a violation of Section 5 of the Act. Relator's counsel in his argument before this Court conceded the existence of the necessary factual basis for the judgment in the contempt proceedings. His only contention is that said Section 5 of the Act violates the provisions of Article I, Section 8, of the State Constitution, Vernon's Ann.St. which prohibits the enactment of any law abridging or curtailing the right of freedom of speech, and Article XIV, Section 1, of the Federal Constitution, which prohibits a state from enacting any law abridging the privileges and immunities of a citizen of the United States or depriving any person of his liberty.

The right of the State under its inherent police power to regulate labor unions in order to protect the public welfare appears to be almost beyond question. In recent years, and particularly during the war, the necessity for and the power of labor unions and the effect of their operation upon the general public welfare have been fully demonstrated. As said in the preamble to the Act here under consideration, labor unions enter into practically every business and industrial enterprise, and greatly affect the economic condition of the country. Under our present social system millions of employees bargain for and secure their rights, such as wages, hours of labor, and other working conditions, through labor organizations. In addition, large sums of money are contributed in the form of dues by the employees for the support of the unions. The manner in which these unions function for the protection of their members greatly affects the economic life of the individual worker. The large membership in a single union, and the limited opportunity of the individual member to personally familiarize himself with the manner in which his union is operated make it impossible for the individual worker to protect himself in his own right against its mismanagement. These circumstances present a field for legislation by the State for the protection of the rights of the laborer as well as the general public.

The government under its police power always has the right to enact any and all legislation that may be reasonably necessary for the protection of the health, saftey, comfort, and welfare of the public. 9 T.J. 503; Halsell v. Ferguson, 109 Tex. 144, 202 S.W. 317, 321; Bradford v. State, 78 Tex.Cr.Rep.285, 180 S.W. 702; Wylie v. Hays, 114 Tex. 46, 263 S.W. 563.

Legislation by the National Congress regulating the relationship between labor unions and employers by the National Labor Relations Act of 1935, 29 U.S.C.A., Sec. 151 et seq., commonly called the Wagner Act, was sustained under the commerce clause of the Federal Constitution. National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U.S. 1, 57 S.Ct. 615, 81 L.Ed. 893, 108 A.L.R. 1352. Similar Acts by State Legislatures have been sustained under the police power of the State. Fenske Bros. v. Upholsterers' International Union, 358 Ill. 239, 193 N.E. 112, 97 A.L.R. 1318; Wisconsin Labor Relation Board v. Fred Rueping Leather Co., 228 Wis. 473, 279 N.W. 673, 117 A.L.R. 398; Allen-Bradley Local No. 1111 v. Wisconsin Employment Relation Board, 237 Wis. 164, 295 N.W. 791; Fansteel Metallurgical Corp. v. Lodge 66, 295 Ill. App. 323, 14 N.E.2d 991; Davega City Radio, Inc. v. State Labor Relations Board, 281 N.Y. 13, 22 N.E.2d 145.

The power to regulate and supervise has been extended to unincorporated associations and societies, such as Ku Klux Klan. The People of the State of New York ex rel. Bryant v. Charles F. Zimmerman, 241 N.Y. 405, 150 N.E. 497, 43 A.L.R. 909, affirmed 278 U.S. 63, 49 S.Ct. 61, 73 L.Ed. 184, 62 A.L.R. 785.

The fact...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Thomas v. Collins
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • January 8, 1945
    ...denied appellant's petition for a writ of habeas corpus and remanded him to the custody of appellee, as sheriff of Travis County. 141 Tex. 591, 174 S.W.2d 958. In so deciding the court upheld, as against constitutional and other objections, appellant's commitment for contempt for violating ......
  • Alabama State Federation of Labor v. McAdory
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • May 25, 1944
    ... ... upon the police power, and this has been generally ... recognized. In the very recent case of Ex parte R. J. Thomas, ... 174 S.W.2d 958, 960, the Texas Supreme Court observed: ... [18 So.2d 821] ... right of the State under its inherent police ... ...
  • Ex parte Tucci
    • United States
    • Texas Supreme Court
    • June 30, 1993
    ...Ex parte Henry, 147 Tex. 315, 215 S.W.2d 588 (1948) (injunction against constitutionally-protected picketing); Ex parte Thomas, 141 Tex. 591, 174 S.W.2d 958 (1943), reversed sub nom. Thomas v. Collins, 323 U.S. 516, 65 S.Ct. 315, 89 L.Ed. 430 (1945) (statute and injunction barring union org......
  • Davenport v. Garcia
    • United States
    • Texas Supreme Court
    • June 17, 1992
    ...237 S.W.2d 589, 592 (1951) (provision mentioned only in defendant's answer with no application or discussion); Ex parte Thomas, 141 Tex. 591, 174 S.W.2d 958, 960-961 (1943), rev'd sub nom. Thomas v. Collins, 323 U.S. 516, 65 S.Ct. 315, 89 L.Ed. 430 (1945) (provision held not violated withou......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT