The claim of La Follette that the decisions of the Supreme Court are dictated by narrow class interest to the prejudice of the poorer economic groups is effectively confuted by Monday's decision on the constitutionality of the sections of the Clayton Act dealing with the trial of strikers held for contempt of court in violating injunctions.

In two cases appealed to the Court, one from the seething state of Wisconsin and one from Kentucky, the plaintiffs were charged with contempt of court for making threats to loyal shop-men in the strike of 1922. The accused contended that the question of fact in the contempt charge must be tried by a jury, and appealed through the circuit course to the Supreme Court. The judges of the lower courts believed that they were given sole jurisdiction over such cases, but their judgment has been conclusively set aside. Henceforth, picketing, threatening and similar strike procedure, when carried on in defiance of an in junction, will be checked only by a jury trial, to establish beyond reasonable doubt the violation of the decree. Trial by jury is extended from trial of cases under indictment to trial of cases under alleged violation of a court decree.

Perhaps more important to the worker is the recognition of a striker as an employee. Under the former interpretation of common law, a man abandoned all claims to that status upon leaving his employment. Under the Clayton Act thus upheld, Justice Sutherland declares that it is not necessary for the old status of employer and employee to exist at the time the alleged contempt was committed. This meaning of the law gives to the worker the lien on his job which the feels when the leaves work with the intention of returning to it under more favorable conditions. It gives legal solidity to the worker's contention that continued possession of a job gives him an inalienable interest in it.