Evening star., 1934-09-09
BY WILLIAM HARD.


n amply sustained by any even cursory
4 examination of recent developments
in the administration of the N. R. A.
A codes.
On the surface things look all rosy
IL is true, for union labor and for
unionization. This is primarily of
course. because of the famous section
Ia Of the industrial recovery act
guaranteeing to labor the legal right
Ot collective bargaining In fair
hess it must be remembered that
secLIon Ia is not without Republican
party precedent. 1t is no off hand
spontaneous invention of the New
Deal. 1t is based upon former legis-
lation signed by that certainly un-
revolutionary President Calvin Cool
idge.
Signed Railway Labor Act"
In 1926 Mr. Coolidge affixed his
name to a railway labor act" This
act stated that every railway shall
have the duty" of trying to settle
all disputes arising between itself and
its employees. 1t further stated that
every dispute on a railway should
be settled by conference between rep
reSentativeS Of the railway and rep
resentativeS of the employees. 1t
finally stated that the representatives
of the employees should be selected
by the employees without interference,
influence, or coercion" by the railway
managements
That was the egg of section Ia of
the national recovery act of 1888. In
tereStingly enough, this egg was de-
posted in the Republican nest of
1926 by the very Donald Richberg
who is now chief counsel of the
National Recovery Administration.
He was then attorney for the railway
trade unions. In 1888 he merely
Matched out for all American indus
tries in the national industrial re-
covery act the idea which he had
initiated for one industry in the
railway labor act seven years previ-
ously.
Not Bound to Accept.
In any case it is not of record that
any profound shock was caused to the
country in 1926 by the legal sanctif1-
cation of collective bargaining" on
railways. When that precedent, how
ever, was once established, the sugges-
tion of logic certainly was that it
should be extended to the rest of
American economic life l.
1t is, nevertheless, to be noted that
guarantee of collective bargaining"
does not in any way bind an employer
to accept the bargains" proposed to
him by his employees. He is at liberty,
under section Ia, to discuss bargains"
all day long with the freely elected
representatives of his employees and
then at sunset utter decisive mo" to
every idea that they have laid before
him. Section Ia obliges the employer
to meet with the representatives of his
employees. 1t does not oblige him to
agree with them.
1t follows that section Ia does moth
ing legally basically to impair free
dom of contract" Conference, it is
true, becomes compulsory. The con-
tracts to arise out of the conference
remain, however, uncontrolled. Sec
ton Ia is, therefore, consistent with
an extremely large amount of eco
nonlic liberty.
President Has Authority.
This is the case with all of section
Ia that is customarily quoted. The
actual invasion of economic liberty
both for capital and for labor-occurs
at the tail of section Ia in a passage
which is almost never quoted. 1t is as
follows:
Employers shall comply with the
maximum hours of labor, minimum
rates of pay, and ether conditions of
employment approved or prescribed
by the President"
!
the President is fortihed-later on in
the national industrial recovery act
by section lob. That section en-
powers the President to change the
terms of codes at will. 1t states:
The President may from time to
time cancel or modify any order, ap-
proval, rule or regulation issued under
this act; and each agreement or code
of fair competition approved. pre-
scribed or issued under this act shall
contain an express provision to that
effect"
Publishers Have "Out."
Virtually all codes do in fact con-
tain an express provision to that ef-
feet. An almost unique exception is
the code of the daily newspaper pub
fishing business. The ingenious law
yer representing that business, Mr.
Elisha Hanson, contrived to insert
4 into the newspaper code the follow
ing subtle "alibi" and out:
Those submitting this code recog-
Il nize that the President may modify
any order approving this code; but,
in submitting or subscribing to this
f code, the publishers do not thereby
consent to any modification thereof.
X except as each may thereto subSe-
N Quently agree"
In this way Mr.. Hanson strove to
\ dart through the meshes of section
4 lob and also of the last part of sec
4 ton Ia. Those meshes, nevertheless,
inclose the vast mass of the employers
and employees of America
The President was consequently
able the other day to issue a presi-
dental mandate to the cotton gar
ment industry drastically changing
the hours and wages set forth in its
existing code. The change happened
a to be favorable to labor 1t would
have been equally legal if it had been
unfavorable to labor 1t reduced hours
and increased hourly wages. 1t could
n equally readily and arbitrarily have
II ordained an expansion of hours and
q diminishment of hourly wages.
What Could Happen to Labor.
Let us see, then. what could hap
pen to labor under a President of
a different political and economic
color from that which characterizes
q the present incumbent of the presi-
dental Office. That such President |
sooner or later will emerge is not |
to be doubted. The pendulum of pub
lie affairs is always swinging After
II the revolutionary Oliver Crom-
4 we'll in England there was the re
dictionary" Charles IL After many
republican" governments in France
there was the dictator" Napoleon |
III. After the progressive" Wood
rnur NVilsnn in the IInited StataS u,nn