The Daily Alaska empire., 1933-11-13

l needs to be considered first. That
 is, whether the administration of
 the N. R. A. is in accordance with
 the spirit of the law that Con-
 gress voted in June. I say the spirit of the law, because, not be- ing lawyer, I am not qualified
 to speak about legality. The question raised here is whether the policy of the N. R. A., as devel- oped in practice can be squared with the policy of the law as en- acted by Congress.
 Let us pass by the general dec laration in Section 1 and proceed at once to the sections of the act
 which discribe the new powers dsaling with codes We find that under Section 3-A that Upon ap- plication to the President by one or more industrial or trade asso- citations or groups the President may approve a code of fair com petition" under certain conditions. Note that the language of the sec tion seems to say that an industry may apply for a code and that it's application may be granted if the code meets certain specifi- cations. Thus the trade associa- tion must be representative. The code must safeguard the interests of the consumers, competitors, em- ployees. Furthermore, under Sec ton "A, before the code can be approved it must privide for col lective bargaining by the employ ees through representatives of there own choosing" If all these conditions are met, the industry is to be granted the privilege Of exemption under the antitrust laws until 1885 unless the Presi- 1 dent or Congress declare before that date that the emergency has ended.
 Now to layman all of this l means just one thing, that Con gress meant to allow industries to | combine for two years, to enjoy i the benefits of exemption from the antitrust laws provided they lived up to certain conditions. The initiative was to come from indus try. Certain privileges were to be granted to industries if they made certain concessions and submitted to certain standards. I do not see how any other interpretation can be put upon this, the central part of the act. It seems to me clear that for most industries. Congresst meant that codes should, under certain conditions, be permitted | and not that codes should univer- sally be imposed.
 Let us look now to the rest of the act to see whether this view of it, that the intention of Con- gress was in the main to write permissive law, is borne out by those sections which give the President power to coerce. Under Section SD the President either upon his own motion or if com plaint is made" that abuses in imical to the public interest and contrary to the policy of Con gress" are prevalent in an indus try may impose a code. Now to layman this would seem to mean that code may be imposed only after definite proof that great abuses exist. There is nothing here which suggests that codes may be imposed on every industry and without definite proof that they are required for that industry.
 We come next to Section 4, which gives the President power to li- cense members of an industry and therefore the power to destroy a business by refusing a license. The act says clearly that he may do this only when he finds and pub licly proves that there are de structive wage or price cutting or other activities contrary to the policy" of the act.
 To layman this would seem to mean that Congress intended to authorize a policy of this sort; for most industries codes are per mitted under certain conditions; for industries, publicly demonstrat- ed to be full of abuses, such as sweating or cut-throat competition, codes may be imposed by the Pres ident. I do not see how the act as whole can be read so as to make it mean that codes may be impos- ed on all industries.
 It seems to me that when the Administration adopted the meth cd of moral coercion by means of the blue eagle and the boycott, when it attempted to force all in dustry under a blanket code and when it set out to impose special codes immediately on all indus tries, it departed from the spirit and intention of the National Re- covery Act. The resort to moral coercion was tantamount to con- fession that the legal power to carry out this policy did not ex- ist.