Evening star., 1934-03-18
Lindbergh Testifes.

Lindbergh Testifes.
Col. Charles A. Lindbergh appear
ing before the Senate Committee on
Post Ofices on Friday, maintained his
contention that the Government had
been unjust In It's cancellation Of the
airmail contracts without q trial at
which the commercial aviation COM
panies might be given an opportunity
to be heard. No suggestion that con-
tracts entered into by private corpora
tions and individuals were frequently
broken by one side or the other, and
that such action was, indeed, COM
mon occurrence in the business world
when one party to contract became
convinced that he had been wrongly
treated, could shake Americas premier
flyer In his position. Col Ltndbergh
did not undertake to defend the air.
mail contracts or to pass upon any Of
the questions involved In the making
of these contracts, including collusion
and fraud. He merely stuck to his
point that the contracts had been
Cancelled or annulled without giving
the companies a fair hearing. Col.
Lindbergh's position In this matter is
one that will find sympathy In many
American minds and hearts. The
United States Government should be
scrupulous in its dealings with Amer
ican citizens
The attention of Col. Lindbergh was
called by members of the committee
to the fact that trial of the case of
the annulled contracts could scarcely
take place before the contracts were
annulled. To this it may be replied
that so far the only effort to get the
matter into the courts has been de-
MED, in the United States District
Court in New York, and that appeal
has been made to the United States
Circuit Court of Appeals. The suit
has been brought by Transcontinental
g. Western Air, Inc. against Post
master General James A. Farley and
John J. Kiely to enjoin interference
with its airmail route certificate.
What assurance is there that the
matter will not drag on for months
In the courts? In the meantime the
commercial aviation companies have
no redress. The contention made by
Col. Lindbergh was that the truth or
lack of truth In the charges that
there has been fraud and collusion
in making the airman contracts
should have been threshed out before
the drastic act Of annulnent by the
administration took place, and that
the ends of justice would have been
so served In view of the chaotic
state of the airmails since the an
nulment and the damage which has
been done commercial aviation, it
looks as though Col. Lindbergh might
be correct in this estimate.
The McKellar Black bill, written to
set up a new and permanent law re-
garding airmail contracts by the Gov
ernment, and subject of Col. Lind
bergh's hearing, contains one clause
to which Col. Iindbersh particularly
objected on the ground that it was
discriminatory and un- American.
This clause is to the effect that no
company shall be eligible to bid for
or hold an airmail contract II 1t or its
predecessor is asserting or has any
claims against the United States be-
cause of a prior annulment Of any
contract by the Postmaster General"
Under this language. no company
could bid whether its claim against
the Government be just or not. pro-
vided it did not abandon that claim.
It seems incredible that such an at
tempt to club the companies whose
contracts have been snnulled should
be proposed to be written into a
public law. But there 1t stands. The
companies whose contracts have been
annulled must take it lying down" or
they are to be debarred by law from
any participation in the carrying OF
the mails. Presumably this clause
will be eliminated from the bill. To
permit 1t to stand would be a plain
admission by the administration that
1t feared to stand the test In the
courts on its annulment Of the air
mail contracts.