is based on statements in several cases that § 1983 does not protect property rights.38

37

We need not determine the extent to which "property" rights are outside of § 1983 recourse since the essence of the claim here is the denial of rights of an essentially personal nature, and touching such intimate things as living and eating conditions, freedom from the marks of modern peonage, work at starvation wage levels in degrading poverty.

[5] The aims of the Plaintiffs, through appropriate judicial remedies, is to secure for themselves the fundamentals of human dignity. They seek to protect their right to decent housing and sanitary living conditions so they and their children may be free of disease. They seek to protect their ability to work for the wages which Congress has in effect determined to be the minimum to which they are entitled. They seek sanctions for having been deprived of some of those few protections designed by Congress to lift them out of economic-sociologic peonage. Such fundamental human, highly personalized rights are just the stuff from which & 1983 claims are to be made.

[6, 7] In addition to the argument that Plaintiffs have stated no claim for which relief may be granted, Defendants argue that the Trial Court was correct in holding that it had no jurisdiction to hear the claims, even if such claims were stated, since the requisite jurisdictional amount is not claimed, 28 U.S.C.A. § 1331.38

But that is not the end of the matter since 28 U.S.C.A., § 1343 and its interplav with 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 adequately supply jurisdiction. Additionally, jurisdic

39

36 Hague v. C.I.O., 1939, 307 U.S. 496, 50 S.Ct. 954, 83 L.Ed. 1423; Holt v. Indiana Mƒ:1. Co., 1899, 176 U.S. 68, 20 S.Ct. 272, 44 L.Ed. 374; City of Boulder v. Snyder, 10 Cir., 1968, 396 F.2d 853; Howard v. Higgins, 10 Cir., 1967, 379 F.2d 227; Ream v. Handley, 7 Cir., 1966, 359 F.2d 728; Fuller v. Volk, 3 Cir., 1965, 351 F.2d 323; Booth v. General Dynamics Corp., N.D.Ill., 1967, 264 F.Supp. 465; Pudlik v. Public Service Co., D.C.Colo.1958, 166 F.Supp. 921.

37 See Bussie v. Long, 5 Cir., 1967, 383 F.2d 766, 769. See also Atlanta Bowling Center, Inc. v. Allen, 5 Cir., 1968, 389 F.2d 713.

Without intimating our position on it, the "property" limitation on § 1983 first articulated in Justice Stone's concurring opinion in Hague v. C.I.O., 1939, 307 U.S. 496, at 529– 532, 59 S.Ct. 954, 83 L.Ed. 1423, at 1444-1445, may be giving away to changing concepts of "property". See Reich, The New Property, 73 Yale L.J. 733 (1964). For examples of what some consider to be an erosion see Damico v. California, 1968, 389 U.S. 416, 88 S.Ct. 526, 19 L.Ed.2d 647 (aid to families with dependent children); Pred v. Board of Public Inst., 5 Cir., 1969, 415 F.2d 851 (job as a school teacher); Mansell v. Saunders, 5 Cir., 1967, 372 F.2d 573 (garbage district franchise).

38 "(a) The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions wherein the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $10,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and arises under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

(b) Except when express provision therefor is otherwise made in a statute of the United States, where the plaintiff is finally adjudged to be entitled to recover less than the sum or value of $10,000, computed without regard to any setoff or counterclaim to which the defendant may be adjudged to be entitled, and exclusive of interests and costs, the district court may deny costs to the plaintiff and, in addition, may impose costs on the plaintiff.” 28 U.S.C.A. § 1331(a), (b).

30 28 U.S.C.A. § 1343 provides:

"The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action authorized by law to be commenced by any person:

(1) To recover damages for injury to his person or property, or because of the deprivation of any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, by any act done in furtherance of any conspiracy mentioned in section 1985 of Title 42;

(2) To recover damages from any person who fails to prevent or to aid in preventing any wrongs mentioned in section 1985 of title 42 which he had knowledge were about to occur and power to prevent;

(3) To redress the deprivation, under color of any State law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage, of any right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution of the United States or by any Act of Congress providing for equal rights of citizens or of all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States;

(4) To recover damages or to secure equitable or other relief under any Act of Congress providing for the protection of civil rights, including the right to vote." 28 U.S.C.A. § 1343. This section has traditionally been the basis for jurisdiction of claims arising under the Civil Rights Act including § 1983-it was enacted specifically to provide Federal jurisdietion in cases arising under these statutes. See note. Federal Judicial Review of State Welfare Practices, 67 Colum. L. Rev. 84, 111-115 (1967). Section (3) tracks the language of § 1983 except for the variation that gives the district courts jurisdiction of suits to redress only deprivations of rights secured by laws "providing for equal rights." We do not here determine whether the claim based on violation of the regulations of the Secretary would come within the proviso of "equal rights", nor consider the significance of the Supreme Court's reservations on the point in King v. Smith, 1968, 392 U.S. 309, at 313 n. 3, 88 S.Ct. 2128, 2131, n. 3, L.Ed. 2d 1118, 1123, n. 3. See cover, Establishing Federal Jurisdiction in Actions brought to Vindicate Statutory (Federal) Rights when no Violation of Constitutional Rights are Alleged. (Unpublished paper submitted to Columbia Center on Social Wel(See remainder of footnote at bottom of next page.)

tion is established by 28 U.S.C.A. § 1337. which provides that the District Court has original jurisdiction of any cause of action arising under a statute regulating interstate commerce. There is no requirement for any jurisdictional amount. Almost every conceivable test of "arising under" is met. The claim is a direct assertion of federal statutory (regulatory) rights. Also, construction one way or the other will have a direct bearing on recovery or non-recovery. Florida East Coast Ry. Co. v. Jacksonville Terminal Co., 5 Cir., 1964, 328 F.2d 720, cert. denied, 379 U.S. 830, 85 S.Ct. 59, 13 L.Ed.2d 38; cf. Mungin v. Florida East Coast Ry., 5 Cir., 1969, 416 F.2d 1169. The complaint both directly invokes the regualtions as a basis for relief and brings the construction of the Wagner-Peyser Act and the regulations into direct question. The whole structure is to regulate the interstate flow of workers to places of need from places of surplus. This is interstate commerce in its plainest form."

Thus we hold that the complaint does state claims for which relief may be given and that on the basis of this complaint the District Court has jurisdiction to hear these claims. Now the real facts-not just what the lawyers say the facts are must be ascertained. And, after these facts are determined the remedies to be given, if-and the if may be substantial-Plaintiffs can prove their case, must be determined. These remedies may be, and probably will be, different for the various Defendants. Thus, when the real facts are determined, it may be that money damages, which are appropriate against the private defendants may not be appropriate for all defendants. But, we leave this case to the superintendence of the Trial Judge without even a murmur of how it should come out either on the intrinsic merits or the relief to be granted." Rehearing Denied Sept. 19, 1969.

(See text p. 52.)

MIDMONTH ESTIMATE OF AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYMENT, BY TYPES OF WORKER

Source: Farm Labor Sources Division, Department of Human Resources Development, State of California

(See text p. 85.)

TURMOIL IS WITHIN UNION AS GRAPE HARVEST BEGINS

(by Ron Hosie, Press Enterprise Staff Writer)

COACHELLA.-"Huelga"-The strike chant of Cesar Chavez' farm workers' union-is not being shouted this year in the green vineyards south of here, as

fare Policy and Law): Note, Federal Judicial Review of State Welfare Practices, 67 Colum. L. Rev. 84, 111-115 (1967).

We need not do this since § 1343 (4) does provide jurisdiction for all claims stated under § 1983, although operating as a conduit through which other statutory rights are protected, Is itself an "Act of Congress providing for the protection of civil rights."

40"The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action or proceeding arising under any Act of Congress regulating commerce or protecting trade and commerce against restraints and monopolies." 28 U.S.C.A. § 1337.

41 Programs administered by the Department of Labor have uniformly been claimed to arise under Acts of Congress regulating interstate commerce. See e.g., Felter v. Southern Pac. Co., 1959, 359 U.S. 326, 79 S.Ct. 847, 3 L.Ed. 2d 854; Serio v. Liss, 3 Cir., 1961, 300 F.2d 386.

42 A party should be granted all relief to which he is entitled even if the relief has not been demanded. See F.R. Civ.P. 54 (c); Mungin v. Florida E C. Ry. Co., 5 Cir., 1969, 416 F.2d 1169, 1178; Equity Capital Co. v. Sponder, 5 Cir., 1969, 414 F.2d 317, 319 n. 1; Molnar v. Gulfcoast Transit Co., 5 Cir., 1967, 371 F.2d 639.

America's 1971 table grape harvest gets under way in the Coachella Valley desert.

All but one of the valley's estimated 60 grape growers now are under contract to Chavez' United Farm Workers Organizing Committee (AFL-CIO), foliowing the union victory last year over the table grape industry of California, where most of America's table grapes are grown.

But, ironically, now that the strike is over, the first open threats of violence are being heard here where the door to victory opened last year with the signing of a major contract.

The threats to shut down the union hiring hall here come from an apparently small fraction of formerly loyal union supporters, led by Jose Ramirez. The dissident faction which claims wide support among members, publicly turned against the union six weeks ago because allegedly it has failed to keep promises to workers and is insensitive to members' problems.

Ramirez, referring to the union, said during an interview, “These local people, they know how to catch your (union dues) money. But they don't know how to fix your problems."

On the other hand, Marshall Ganz, a high-level union spokesman, contends that the dissidents merely are troublemakers who are financed by anti-union forces includuing the National Right to Work Committee.

Ray Huerta, the newly appointed manager of the union's Coachella office contended during an interview that the dissidents want to control the valley union operation themselves.

"They're not sincere and we know that . . . We know they are being paid by outside union busters . . . They're against anything they can't control and we don't think their complaints are legitimate (although) we do make some mistakes," he said.

Interviews with a number of the dissidents resulted in denials that they are anti-union. "We want the union, but we want to fix the problems, too," one of them said. They deny any connection with the right to work committee.

In connection with the campaign of the dissidents, which includes picketing and a vigil in Coachella city park, across the street from the union hiring hall, union attorney Charles Farnsworth last week filed a $1.5 million suit in Indio Superior Court against the right to work committee.

Because of the dissidence, the county Sheriff's Department, through the efforts of Capt. Del Fountain and Sgt. Shelby Worley, has attempted to arrange mediation of the dispute.

Fountain and Worley have met with the dissidents, with Huerta, and have arranged at least one meeting between Huerta and the dissidents.

In the lawsuit, the union alleges that some dissidents beat three union members. So far, the dissidents have not carried out threats they've made to the Sheriff's Department and the union; that the hiring hall would be shut down if the union fails to make allegedly necessary improvements.

A survey of a half-dozen grape growers and shippers indicates that the union's internal problems apparently have not affected the grape harvest, which began Wednesday, when Harry Carian, the one non-union grower-shipper began picking grapes.

The grapes are bringing the best opening price ever this year, said Max Cook, vice president of Heggblade-Marguleas Co., one of the largest grape growershippers. The price was $12.50 per 22-pound lug. The last two years the opening price was $10 per lug.

Last year, in the Coachella Valley where about 10 per cent of the statewide grape crop is grown, table grapes were valued at nearly $14.5 million, to be Riverside County's single most valuable crop once again.

But costs again are up this year for the growers. The basic wage for the pickers, for example, is $1.90 cents per hour, as agreed in the union contract. Two years ago the rate was $1.65 per hour.

Lionel Steinberg, who noted that prices will drop considerably once the picking hits a high volume a few days from now, said growers are "hopeful that the increased cost that our union contract calls for . . . can be compensated for with the consumer's willingness to pay higher prices or else we'll be caught again in a serious cost-price squeeze."

Henry Reider, of Coachella-Imperial Distributors, seemed to sum up the sentiment at this point concerning grower-union relations. He said there are "minor problems" which the parties will have to get used to.

Huerta also agreed that relations between growers and the union are good. "The war is over, the boycott's off, the picket lines are down. We're running this like a business and we find the growers quite cooperative," he said.

Don Roberts, president of the Desert Grape Growers League, was asked to evaluate the quality of this year's grape crop. “Generally, I think it's a real fine crop," he said.

Subject: The number of migrant workers.

Several times during the seminars which opened the Subcommittee's activities this year, the question of the number of "migrants" was raised, and vigorously discussed. On June 10, you directed the staff to prepare a memorandum on the various estimates of the size of the migrant segment of the work force. The following summary and the attached documents represent an effort to arrive at some sort of informed guess as to the magnitude of that group. What your staff has done is to seek to isolate and comment on the figures utilized by each of the agencies which are involved with farm workers.

I. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

The Department estimated that, in 1969, there were 2.6 million people 14 years of age or older working in agriculture for wages. 257,000 of these were domestic migratory workers. Of the total number, 1,500,000 workers were "non-casual", defined as performing 25 days or more of farm wage labor during the year. 172,000 of the domestic migratory workers came within this category. Of the 1,100,000 casual workers, 85,000 were defined as migratory. A "domestic migratory worker" is one who some farm wage work outside his own home county, regardless of whether or not he actually moved to do so. At the time of the survey, however, 74% of the workers counted lived in a non-farm residence. The survey was taken in December, 1969. (Source: USDA, Agricultural Economic Report 180, The Hired Farm Working Force of 1969).

The Department estimated that, in 1970, there were 2.5 million hired farm workers 14 years or over. Of the total, 196,000 were defined as migratory (a drop both in actual figures and in percentage from 1969). Non-casual workers in 1970 numbered 1.4 million. Non-casual migratory workers totalled 135,000, casuals 61,000. 73% of farm workers resided in nonfarm residences at the time of the survey in December, 1970. (Source: USDA, Agricultural Economic Report 201, The Hired Farm Working Force of 1970).

These reports expressly exclude workers under the age of 14, farmworkers who entered the Armed Services, died or otherwise "left the civilian noninstitutional population" during the year covered, or foreign workers. A check with the U.S. Department of Agriculture revealed that the reports also exclude Puerto Rico residents who form part of the migrant stream.

A telephone inquiry to the U.S. Labor Department indicates that 21,660 Puerto Ricans came to the mainland under contract in 1969, and 18,897 in 1970. They estimate that approximately the same number come to the mainland not under contract.

With regard to foreign workers, the USDA study says that 15,830 foreign nationals were admitted in 1969, and 17,474 in 1970. In this connection, it should be noted that in the year ending June 30, 1969, over 190,000 Mexican nationals were required to leave the United States either for having entered illegally or for having violated the conditions of their admission. In the year ending June 30, 1970, this figure exceeded 270,000. (Source: 1969 and 1970 Annual Reports, Immigration and Naturalization Service.) While this number covers more than agricultural workers, the Subcommittee may legitimately take notice of the proposition that a substantial portion of these "illegals"-and of those not apprehended by the Immigration Service-were found in the ranks of the agricultural working force for at least part of the years in question. Judging by a study of border crossers by David North of TransCentury Corporation, approximately 40% of illegal border crossers who are apprehended are apprehended before their presence can cause any significant impact on the U.S. economy. This leaves, in

1970, a pool of 160,000 (plus the illegals not apprehended) available for work in the United States, including agricultural labor.

II. U.S. LABOR DEPARTMENT

The President's Manpower Report for 1971, in its chapter on Rural Manpower Dilemmas, utilizes the 1969 figures from the Agriculture Department studies cited above. The Manpower Report also contained the following relevant passage commenting on a Manpower Administration-financed study of migratory farm worker families based in South Texas:

"Most of the families were large, averaging six members, and wives and children were expected to work in the fields."

While this sentence suggests a weakness in the USDA exclusion of children below 14 from its count, the multiplier factor is not a simple one. There are significantly different family travel patterns in different parts of the migrant stream, and among different ethnic groups even within a given stream.

III. OFFICE OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY

The OEO Title III-B programs are designed for both migrant and seasonal farm workers, and, of course, for family members dependent on them. The mobility test utilized by OEO involves movement in any given year "to one or more work locations beyond normal commuting distance from a place he calls 'home' ", as compared to the USDA test which involves movement across State or county lines.

OEO migrant programs in 1970 reached 256,000 eligible participants, and OEO estimates that an additional 250,000 family members were directly affected by these programs. Approximately 790,000 households, with a total population of almost 3.9 million members were included in the III-B eligibility definition. OEO estimates that in the present Fiscal Year, there should be about 350,000 actual migrants and family members traveling with them. (Source: FY 1972 OEO Budget Justification.)

IV. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION AND WELFARE

A. Office of Education. For purposes of migrant education programs under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the term "migrant child" is interpreted to mean a child of a migratory worker who has migrated with his parents, but who resides in the area served by a State educational agency carrying out a Title I program. A child cannot be counted as a migrant for more than five years under this definition. The Office of Education estimates that they have records of 220,000 migrant children between the ages of 5 and 17 served under this Act. (Source: 45 CFR 116.1 (cc).)

B. Public Health Service. For service under the Migrant Health Program, a person must be employed in agriculture on a seasonal basis, and have been so employed within the past 24 months. PHS distinguishes between "migrant" workers, who must establish for their agricultural employment a temporary place of abode, and "seasonal" workers who do not establish a temporary residence.

Both categories of workers (and their families) may receive service under the Migrant Health Program, but seasonal workers are eligible only where the project is located in an area where migrants reside, and the provision of the services will contribute to the improvement of health conditions for the migrants and their families. (Source: Proposed PHS Regulations, Revised as of 8/18/71.)

According to PHS estimates, 1,000,000 workers are eligible for, and 116,000 have actually received services.

Staff Summary

The documents and other sources quoted or summarized above, and printed at length below, show a pronounced degree of ambiguity, not so much as to the size of the "migrant" population, but as to what precisely is involved in the word "migrant."

The figures utilized by the Department of Agriculture, corrected by their own careful statistical analysis, and limited to the definition they use, are probably more accurate than the estimates by the other agencies. But the definitions are so limited as to result in a very substantial undercount of the number of migrants.