[164] Cases disposing of the contention that restraints on picketing amount to a denial of freedom of speech and constitute therefore a deprivation of liberty without due process of law have been set forth under Amendment I.
[165] 326 U.S. 88 (1945).
[166] Ibid. 94. Justice Frankfurter, concurring, declared that "the insistence by individuals on their private prejudices * * *, in relations like those now before us, ought not to have a higher constitutional sanction than the determination of a State to extend the area of nondiscrimination beyond that which the Constitution itself exacts." Ibid. 98.
[167] 335 U.S. 525 (1949).
[168] 335 U.S. 538 (1949).
[169] 335 U.S. 525, 534, 537. In a lengthy opinion, in which he registered his concurrence with both decisions, Justice Frankfurter set forth extensive statistical data calculated to prove that labor unions not only were possessed of considerable economic power but by virtue of such power were no longer dependent on the closed shop for survival. He would therefore leave to the legislatures the determination "whether it is preferable in the public interest that trade unions should be subjected to State intervention or left to the free play of social forces, whether experience has disclosed 'union unfair labor practices,' and, if so, whether legislative correction is more appropriate than self-discipline and pressure of public opinion—* * *." 335 U.S. 538, 549-550.
[170] 336 U.S. 245 (1949).
[171] Ibid. 253.
[172] 336 U.S. 490 (1949). Other recent cases regulating picketing are treated under Amendment I, see p. [781].