Garner v. Louisiana Supplemental Brief on Behalf of Respondent
Public Court Documents
October 19, 1961

Cite this item
-
Brief Collection, LDF Court Filings. Garner v. Louisiana Supplemental Brief on Behalf of Respondent, 1961. 1304e2cd-b29a-ee11-be36-6045bdeb8873. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/90d36ffe-159b-4671-86fc-d13f34aaeb49/garner-v-louisiana-supplemental-brief-on-behalf-of-respondent. Accessed July 16, 2025.
Copied!
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 -