the petition requirement violated the Act because it "was not uniformly imposed since only anti-administration candidates were obliged personally to secure the forms and endorsements"
How later courts described this case
- the petition requirement violated the Act because it "was not uniformly imposed since only anti-administration candidates were obliged personally to secure the forms and endorsements"
- petition requirement held unreasonable where many members served in ships at sea even though fewer than 100 needed to endorse candidate for national office
- “It must be left to the judgment of each member to determine in particular instances how much weight to give to prior experience”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
HAYS, Circuit Judge
(dissenting):
I dissent with respect to the requirement of electing patrolmen.
I fear that, in trying to keep the courts from taking over lock, stock and barrel the internal operation of labor unions, I am fighting a fairly hopeless rearguard action. But, I am not yet compelled by any Supreme Court decision on the issue to accept the position that a union cannot provide for the appointment rather than the election of what are here called patrolmen, and are usually called business representatives.