This basic purpose of § 301 is epitomized in the Senate Report: "It is apparent that until all jurisdictions, and particularly the Federal Government, authorize actions against labor unions as legal entities, there will not be the mutual responsibility necessary to vitalize collectivebargaining agreements." S. Rep. No. 105, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 17. It is obvious that Congress did not intend this remedial measure to destroy the foundation upon which it was built.

This Court, in holding that the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 operates to withdraw from the jurisdiction of the States controversies arguably subject to the jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board, has delineated the specific considerations which led to that conclusion:

"Congress did not merely lay down a substantive rule of law to be enforced by any tribunal competent to apply law generally to the parties. It went on to confide primary interpretation and application of its rules to a specific and specially constituted tribunal and prescribed a particular procedure for investigation, complaint and notice, and hearing and decision, including judicial relief pending a final administrative order. Congress evidently considered that centralized administration of specially designed procedures was necessary to obtain uniform application of its substantive rules and to avoid these diversities and conflicts likely to result from a variety of local procedures and attitudes toward labor controversies." Garner v. Teamsters Union, 346 U. S. 485, 490.

By contrast, Congress expressly rejected that policy with respect to violations of collective bargaining agreements by rejecting the proposal that such violations be made unfair labor practices. Instead, Congress deliberately chose to leave the enforcement of collective agreements "to the usual processes of the law."

Opinion of the Court.

368 U.S.

It is implicit in the choice Congress made that "diversities and conflicts" may occur, no less among the courts of the eleven federal circuits, than among the courts of the several States, as there evolves in this field of labor management relations that body of federal common law of which Lincoln Mills spoke. But this not necessarily unhealthy prospect is no more than the usual consequence of the historic acceptance of concurrent state and federal jurisdiction over cases arising under federal law. To resolve and accommodate such diversities and conflicts is one of the traditional functions of this Court.

MR. JUSTICE BLACK Concurs in the result.

Affirmed.

In the course of argument at the Bar two questions were discussed which are not involved in this case, and upon which we expressly refrain from intimating any view-whether the Norris-LaGuardia Act might be applicable to a suit brought in a state court for violation of a contract made by a labor organization, and whether there might be impediments to the free removal to a federal court of such a suit. The relation of the Norris-LaGuardia Act to state courts applying federal labor law has never been decided by this Court. See McCarroll v. Los Angeles County Dist. Council of Carpenters, 49 Cal. 2d 45, 315 P. 2d 322. For that matter, we have not yet ruled on the effect of Norris-LaGuardia upon the jurisdiction of federal courts in this area. Compare Local 795, Teamsters Union v. Yellow Transit Freight Lines, Inc., 282 F. 2d 345, certiorari granted, 364 U. S. 931, with Sinclair Ref. Co. v. Atkinson, 290 F. 2d 312, certiorari granted, 368 U. S. 937. And quite obviously we have not yet considered the various problems concerning removal under 28 U. S. C. § 1441. See Swift & Co. v. United Packinghouse Workers, 177 F. Supp. 511; Fay v. American Cystoscope Makers, Inc., 98 F. Supp. 278.

ST. HELENA PARISH SCHOOL BOARD ET AL. v. HALL ET AL.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA.

No. 586. Decided February 19, 1962.

197 F. Supp. 649, affirmed.

Jack P. F. Gremillion, Attorney General of Louisiana, W. Scott Wilkinson and Victor A. Sachse, Special Assistant Attorneys General, Carroll Buck, M. E. Culligan, George M. Ponder, John E. Jackson, Jr., William P. Schuler, Dorothy Wolbrette, L. K. Clement, Jr. and Harry J. Kron, Jr., Assistant Attorneys General, Albin P. Lassiter and Thompson L. Clarke for appellants.

Jack Greenberg, James M. Nabrit III and A. P. Tureaud for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

The motion to affirm is granted and the judgment is affirmed.

JOHNSON v. HORTON.

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI.

No. 700, Misc. Decided February 19, 1962.

Appeal dismissed and certiorari denied.

Reported below: See 343 S. W. 2d 653.

PER CURIAM.

The appeal is dismissed. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari is denied.

368 U.S.

Per Curiam.

KAVANAGH v. STENHOUSE.

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF RHODE ISLAND.

No. 615. Decided February 19, 1962.

Appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.

Reported below:

R. I. ——, 174 A. 2d 560.

Aram K. Berberian for appellant.

J. Joseph Nugent, Attorney General of Rhode Island, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS is of the opinion that further consideration of the question of jurisdiction should be postponed to a hearing of the case on the merits.

RAINSBERGER v. LEYPOLDT, SHERIFF.

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA.

No. 835, Misc. Decided February 19, 1962.

Appeal dismissed and certiorari denied.

Reported below: 77 Nev. 399, 365 P. 2d 489.

Samuel S. Lionel for appellant.

John F. Mendoza and Charles L. Garner for appellee. PER CURIAM.

The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari is denied.

368 U.S.

February 19, 1962.

IN RE KELLEY.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA.

No. 733, Misc. Decided February 19, 1962.

PER CURIAM.

The appeal is dismissed.

QUINTON ET AL. v. MATTHEWS ET AL.

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA.

No. 762, Misc. Decided February 19, 1962.

The appeal is dismissed. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari is denied.

SHAPIRO v. JOSEPHSON ET AL.

APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK.

No. 805, Misc. Decided February 19, 1962.

Appeal dismissed and certiorari denied.

PER CURIAM.

The appeal is dismissed. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari is denied.