Evening star., 1934-12-13
ROOSEVELT MOVE
AWAITED IN BREAK
Labor Board Defies Rich
berg in. Dispute Over
News Guild.
BY the Associated Press.


The Capital speculated today as to
whether the White House would take
q hand in the dispute between the
National Labor Relations Board and
Donald Richberg. widely known as the
Presidents No. l adviser.
Flatly rejecting Richberg's plea
that it keep hands OF, the board,
headed by Francis Biddle, ruled last
night for the second time that 1t
could take jurisdiction In newspaper
labor disputes.
It ordered the San Francisco Call
Bulletin to reinstate Dean S. Jen-
nings. a rewrite man who said he
was forced to resign because Of his
activity in the American Newspaper
Guild.
Newspaper Threatened.
Unless the paper hires Jennings
back within 10 days or gives accept
able reason why it shouldn't, the
board said, the paper will be cited for
Blue Eagle removal and legal action.
After the boards original order De-
cember 8, Richberg and Blackwell
Smith, acting N. r. A. general coun-
sci, protested. They said Jennings
complaint should have been heard by
the Newspaper Industrial Board.
The publishers, in agreeing to their
code, had stipulated 1t could not be
amended without their consent. The
Call-Bulletin contended the Labor
Relation Boards taking over the case
was change In the code.
Board Gives Sharp Reply.
The board contended its action had
not amended the code, and that
there Is nothing in the newspaper
code to differentiate 1t, so far as
violations of section Ia are con-
cerned, from any other code" Con-
gress and the President had author
lied the board to deal with any Ia
violation case, the board maintained
Richberg said the wording OF an
order creating the board saying 1t
may decline" to take original turiS-
Shall decline"
To this, the board replied:
1T is unnecessary to torture the
meaning Of plain language"
These Questions Raised.
The case raised these questions in
Capital circles today: If the paper
refused to comply, would the boards
Blue Eagle removal citation be up
held at N. r. A? Would the Justice
Department prosecute the paper If
asked to do so by the board? Would
tht 'Call-Bulletin carry the case to
court?
Richberg has contended it was "the
duty Of this board to maintain the
good faith of the President" in ap-
proving the publishers code with the
no modification without consent
clause. Taking a case from the News
paper Industrial Board. he contended,
would violate at least the spirit of
the code.
The board said yesterday mo new
evidence was presented to US at the
reargument throwing any light on
the meaning OF the code"
Hanson Says Issue Is Clear.
Elisha Hanson, counsel for the CALI
Bulletin, the board pointed out, had
asserted that the code Clearly and
adequately" expressed the substance
Of the entire agreement between Mr..
Roosevelt and the publishers. Han
sons statement, the board continued,
removed any idea that there was an
additional understanding back of the
code.
In conclusion, the board discussed
Smiths argument that the board was
a superior tribunal and should not
assume original Jurisdiction where
an inferior court could do the work
I'VE concur with this statement OF
a general principle" the board said
But where there exists some rea-
son which makes it otherwise fit-
ting for us to act, it is not the part
Of wise administration to decline
jurisdiction merely because our power
is vigorously challenged"
Hanson and Richberg Silent.
Hanson declined to comment on the
decision. Richberg's secretary report
ed him in conference and too busy to
discuss the case.
The guild, meantime, made public
a letter 1t had sent Richberg, request
ing him to outline the circumstances
of his asking the board to reconsider
the original Jennings decision.
"The working newspapermen Of the
Nation will not be satisfied until you
disclose what happened between
Monday evening (when the original
decision was made public and Tues
day evening when the rehearing
was ordered" the guild said.
I'VE ask you, therefore, to state
what happened. Who saw or tele-
phoned you? What was said? What
did you tell the N. L. r. B.?"
Guild leaders walked out of an
N. r. A. hearing on editorial workers
wages and hours after they heard Of
Richberg's action.
Another Hearing Called.
The N. R. A. later announced it
would have another hearing Decem-
ber 10. Concerning this hearing, the
guild letter said:
I'VE must, therefore, decide whether
or not to appear. To make this deci-
sion, we must first decide whether the
tribunal of N. r. A. is impartial and
unbiased against us. We wish
to return to the hearing. We are
confident that Deputy Administrator
Tate. even without examining data
in our possession, prepared for sub
mission to him. cannot sustain the
ridiculously inadequate wage and hour
proposals of the publishers.
I'VE desire, nevertheless, to present
our views and to aid the deputy ad-
ministrator in a fundamentally sound
determination Of wages and hours.
This he cannot do on the publishers
v,raeonfafinv, -