Garner v. Louisiana Supplemental Brief on Behalf of Respondent

    fihtprrmr ( ta r t  of tl|r Unite!* Stairs
October Term, 1961

IN THE

No. 26
J ohn B urrell Garner, et al., P etitioners

v.
S tate of L ouisiana, R espondent

No. 27
Mary B riscoe, et al., P etitioners

v.
S tate of L ouisiana, R espondent

No. 28
JANNETTE HOSTON, ET AL., PETITIONERS

Y.
S tate of L ouisiana, Respondent

On Writs of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Louisiana

Supplemental Brief on Behalf of Respondent 
State of Louisiana

Sargent P itcher, >Jr.
District Attorney 
19th Judicial District 
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 

J ohn  F . W ard, J r .
Assistant District Attorney 
19t,h Judical District 
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 

J ack P . F. Gremillion 
Attorney General 
State of Louisiana 
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 

N. Cleburn D alton
Assistant Attorney General 
State of Louisiana 
Baton Rouge, Louisiana

Attorneys for Respondent

P ress o? B yron S . A d a m s , W ashington , D . C.



l&tprrmp Court of %  l&mUb BtnUs
October Teem, 1961

IN THE

No. 26
J ohn B urrell Garner, et al., P etitionees 

v.
S tate op L ouisiana, R espondent

No. 27
Maby B riscoe, et al., P etitionees 

y .
S tate op L ouisiana, R espondent

No. 28
J annette H oston, et al., P etitionees

Y.
State op L ouisiana, Respondent

On Writs of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Louisiana

Supplemental Brief on Behalf of Respondent 
State of Louisiana

THE ACTION OF THESE DEFENDANTS CONSTITUTED 
AN ILLEGAL SEIZURE OF THE PROPERTY OF 
ANOTHER WHICH THIS COURT HAS LONG HELD 
UNLAWFUL

The action of these defendants in occupying a por­
tion of the premises of the owner and refusing to 
give up possession is comparable to the action of em­
ployees in the “ sit-down strikes” of the late 1930’s 
which “ sit-down strikes” this Court immediately held 
unlawful. The Oakmar, 20 F. Supp. 650 (1937) ; Na-



2

tional Labor Relations Board v. Fansteel Metallurgical 
Corporation, 306 U.S. 240, 59 S. Ct. 490; Korthinos 
et at. v. Niarchos, et al., 175 F. 2d 730, reh. den. 
175 F. 2d 734, cert. den. 70 S. Ct. 241, 338 P. IT. S. 
894.

In those eases, and related cases, the employees, 
contending they were entitled to better wages, etc., 
refused to leave the premises, or “ sat-down” on the 
job in a strike. In other words, they “ sat down” on the 
owner’s property while these defendants “ sat-in” the 
owner’s property. The purpose is the same; that 
is, to coerce the lawful owner of the property, by re­
fusing to give up possession of his property, .into doing 
what the “ sit-downers” or “ sit-inners” wanted him 
to do.

With respect to the legality of such action, the 
Fourth Circuit of Appeals said in the Korthinos case 
at page 732:

“ [1, 2] Little need be said as to the possessory 
libels, since as to them the cases have become en­
tirely moot. Since the right to issue, these libels 
has been discussed at great length, however, we 
think we should say that we entertain no doubt as 
to the power of a court of admiralty to direct that 
persons engaging in a sit down strike on a vessel 
be removed therefrom by the Marshal of the Dis­
trict, to the end that the owners may have the law­
ful possession and use of their property. See 
Ward v. Peck, 18 How. 267, 15 L.Ed. 383; The 
Tilton, 5 Mason 465, Fed.CasJSTo. 14,054, opinion 
bv Mr. Justice Storey; The ISTavemar, 303 U.S. 68, 
58 S.Ct. 432, 82 L.Ed. 667. 
* * * * * * * * *
The right to strike does not carry with it the right 
to deprive another person of the possession of his



3

property. See The Oakmar, D. 0., 20 F.Supp. 
650; The Losma/r, I). C., 20 F. Supp. 650; 887, 
. . . ” (emphasis added)
* * * * * * * * *

Furthermore, the reasoning of the Federal District 
Court in the Oakmar case, the landmark decision in 
this field, is particularly applicable to the instant 
cases and we wrould quote therefrom at some length as 
follows:

“ Everything disclosed at this hearing proves con­
clusively that these so-called strikers do not have 
the slightest legal right to do what they are doing. 
They are, by their own statements, by their own 
admissions, trespassers of a most willful sort, - 
members of a union whose directions have appar­
ently been blindly followed. The vessel’s owner 
owes them nothing that has not been fully paid 
or tendered. Their contracts of employment have 
otherwise been fully performed on the part of the 
vessel’s owner, and are at an end. What, then is 
it that these men want to accomplish % To compel 
the vessel’s owner to pay them and other members 
of the union higher future wages, and to do other 
things on their behalf which they claim they are 
entitled to, and which will redound to their benefit 
during any future employment.
[3-5] How do they seek to do this? By taking 
possession of the vessel and saying to her owner, 
“ We wont’ let you use her unless and until you 
meet our demands.” In  short, instead of resort­
ing to legal methods in an effort to obtain what 
they claim they are entitled to, they seek to take 
away the property rights of the vessel’s owner, 
and by so doing to coerce, yes, in effect, to club 
such owner into submission. * * * 
* * * * * * * * *



4

* * * But these men say in the present case, in 
effect, that “ our status of having been employees 
upon the property of another puts us in a pre­
ferred class, entitles us to an interest in such prop­
erty, which we can appropriate, or at least hold as 
security, as it were, for the more complete guaran­
tee, or the fruition, of those rights which are 
fundamentally ours under the law. ’ ’ But the mere 
statement of such a theory is its own and best 
refutation. I t  is but another and less shocking 
way of saying, “I f  the law does not give us what 
we want, we will make the law over.” Such 
theories are the handmaid of crime and anarchy. 
They emanate from those persons who lack that 
self-control which enables men to abide the slower 
processes of orderly government instead of yield­
ing to that impatience which, if not restrained, 
will ultimately destroy the fundamental rules for 
human freedom upon which our form of govern­
ment is based. The law is of course, progressive. 
I t must be, because the law represents rules of 
human conduct—of life, and life is progress. The 
child progresses, grows into manhood or worn an - 
hool, but not into an animal, with attributes of the 
beast, displacing human ones. Similarly, our law 
must always keep inviolate certain basic rights in­
herent in any free people, and one of these rights 
is the right to use one’s property without moles­
tation from mere trespassers. Such right will be 
protected by this court as long as it sits, without 
fear or favor. * * *” (Emphasis added)

And it would appear that the employees in the “ sit- 
down strike” cases had a closer relationship with the 
owner, and because of it an even greater right to do 
what they did, than these defendants have to the owner 
of the property which they invaded.

We respectfully submit that the reasoning of the 
Court in the “ sit-down” strike cases, and particularly



5

as stated by Judge Coleman in the Oakmar ease, is 
exactly applicable to the present cases.

CONCLUSION

We respectfully submit that the convictions should 
be affirmed.

Sargent P itcher, J r.
District Attorney 
19th Judicial District 
Baton Rouge, Louisiana

J ohn F. W ard, J r.
Assistant District Attorney 
19th Judical District 
Baton Rouge, Louisiana

J ack P . F. Gremillion 
Attorney General 
State of Louisiana 
Baton Rouge, Louisiana

N. Cleburn D alton 
Assistant Attorney General 
State of Louisiana 
Baton Rouge, Louisiana,

Attorneys for Respondent

FROOF OF SERVICE

I, John F. Ward, Jr., one of the Attorneys for the 
State of Louisiana, respondent herein, and a member 
of this bar, certify that on the 19th day of October, 
1961, I  served copies of the foregoing Supplemental 
Brief of the State of Louisiana on Counsel of Record 
for Petitioners, Jack Greenberg of 10 Columbus Circle, 
New York 19, Yew York; and the Solicitor General, 
Department of Justice, Washington 25, D. C., by 
personally delivering same to them.

J ohn  F . W ard, J r .
Counsel of Record 

for Respondent



&‘i
'Jr -