Evening star., 1934-03-25
BY ]. A. FOX.
N IMPORTANT test of the ma

IlOlldI 1CIONCiy dNO 10 LII Vic
~ ofing, with the Judgment seat
4 a occupied by Controller Gen.
eral j. r. McCarl. the ever
lasting opponent of anything that
smacks of the slightest deviation from
the law as written.
The showdown, in the opinion of
Capital observers, will be the ines
capable result of,the order Just issued
by President Roosevelt prescribing
written declaration of adherence to
code practice as prerequisite for any
bidder on a contract involving use
of Government funds. This applies
whether the money is to be spent di-
rectly by the Government or dis
tributed through any one Of the null
titudinous channels in which Federal
allotments are being made in this
new construction era. Therefore, the
issue is one of far-reaching conse-
quenceS.
In the celebrated controversy with
Henry Ford, in which Gen. Hugh S.
johnson. head of the N R. A., sought
to "crack down on the Detroit auto
mobile magnate for refusal to sign up
under the motor code. McCarl said
that 1t was unnecessary to affirm ad-
herence to any code. or to the Presi-
dents unemployment agreement, in
order to get Government business.
However. McCarl backed up the pur-
poses of the N. r. A to the extent
OF holding that any person taking a
Government contract must adhere to
code practice or lose the award and
be subject to penalty. At the same
time, however, he placed the burden
OF proving noncompliance upon the
Government.
McCarl's Problem.
The question now seen in the max
ing, as the result of McCarls stand,
Is what will happen when some
prospective bidder, who is a non-
signatory seeks to share In Govern
ment work, and the problem is placed
on the controller generals doorstep.
On the one hand, that ever -vigilant
guardian of Uncle Sans exchequer,
whose 13 years in Office have been
marked by clashes with the high and
low over questions of spending, will
be faced with the knowledge that
President Roosevelt's latest order was
designed purely and simply to get
more teeth in the N. R. A. On the
other will be his own Interpretation
of the law and, what is more to the
point. the substantive legislation un-
der which Government business has
been awarded for years, and which
throws open the field to all and then
provides that contracts must be
hn ~
bidder complying with specifications. :"
Under the Roosevelt order, the N.
r. A. requirement will be written into
all specifications, and no bid will even
be considered unless it is accompanied
by a certificate of compliance. Cost,
hitherto paramount, would become a
subordinate factor.
McCarFs Statement.
But-here is what McCarl said on
that point, in the Ford case:
There appears nothing in the code
for the automobile manufacturing in
dustry, nor in the act of June l6, 1893,
pursuant to which said code was
adopted and approved, to require that
persons or firms engaged in the in
dustry sign or otherwise affirmatively
signify their assent to the approved
code. On the contrary, it seems
clear, from the plain terms of said
act and the procedure under which
codes are prepared and approved that
no such signing or affirmative assent
Is necessary"
This seems to define the issue very
sharply, for the concluding phrase
here sets down a principle applicable
not to the automobile code alone, but
to any and all codes drawn under
the N. r. A.
Another decision that MoCarl has
handed down is also interpreted as
spelling defeat for any effort to set
up the contention that the emergency
Justifles waving regular procedure, or
that the new N. r. A. legislation-
in the absence of specific provision
legltlmizes any move which has as
Its aim the accomplishment of some
feature of the recovery program.
Issue in February.
This point was treated in February
when the Secretary of the Interior
authorized purchase of an $845 auto
mobile for the Division of Investiga-
tion, in New York. proposing 70 pay
for it out Of N. r. A. funds allotted
to cover the expense Of oil regulation