Evening star., 1935-12-02
Guffey Coal Measure and
Pending Wagner BM
Hit by Observer.
BY DAVID LAWRENCE.

V&f1ou& COInuOolbleS tuAt u u1Eos u
insisting ON q literal interpretation of
the provisions Of the Guffey law. Thus,
the railroads which carry mail cannot
have contracts unless they agree to
buy coal from companies that have
complied with the coal code prescribed
under the Guffey law. Also, in the
purchase Of automobiles, there must
be certffication by all bidders that
the coal used by auto companies was
mined in accordance with the code m
the Guffey law.
1t In possible, Of course. to construe
the law so that q contractor who
builds o public building can certify
that the coal he alone uses In the
construction job itself was mined by a
company complying with the Guffey
act, or that a dealer who offers auto
mobiles to the Government can certify
. that the coal he himself uses is
Guffey-mined coal. But, If this Is
done, then the plain intent Of the
law passed by Congress Is defeated.
MUST MAKE AmuaVit.
Under the law, every contractor
who buys materials for q public
building must make an affidavit
swearing that the companies from
which he buys materials used Guffey-
mined coal It Is within the power of
the Federal Government thus indi-
rectly to control the labor standards
and the code provisions of all coal
companies. because, even though the
latter might refuse to accept the
high penalty tax imposed on them
and even though they may have gone
to court to restrain the act as being
unconstitutional. the Federal Govern
ment, through the enormous power
directly and indirectly involved in
making purchases, can force coal
companies to comply or face certain
ruin.
Railroads, moreover, cannot afford
to lose Government mail contracts,
and yet they may have been buying
their coal more ci1eaply than would
be the case from companies that now
comply with the Guffey code. It has
been estimated that the total coal
bin Of the railroads win be increased
to somewhere between Sc, ,00o, 900 and
$50, ,000. 900 q year On account Of the
Guffey law. The same win be true
relatively in other businesses that
feel compelled to buy coal from COM
panies which. under the Guffey law,
vryiff fhA rfon4ordr aaf
by the Federal Government.
The ostensible purpose of all this
Is to give labor better treatment.
What 1t means, of course, IL that the
price of coal win go up and the con-
sumer win have to pay more because
the companies that supply coal will
be unably to defy the Government
bureaus. They win not be able to
stand the loss Of customers who re-
fuse to buy from them.
Firms May Refuse to Bid.
As for various supplies, 1t il con-
ceivable that the larger manufac-
turers may refuse to bid on Govern
ment requirements, and, in the end,
the Government will not only get in
ferior quality but will have to pay q
higher price. Thus, the taxpayer
viii be compelled to meet the ex-
pense not Of purchases made at the
lowest cost as heretofore, but at the
price inserted IN the bids by those
who know their low-cost competition
will not bid.
The principle contained In the Guf-
fey act is also contained In the
Walsh bill, which passed the Senate
at the last session and remains on
the House calendar for early action
in January. This measure provides
that the Government shall buy moth
ing from anybody who doesn't meet
certain labor standards. which means
unquestionably the revival of labor
codes such as the N. r. A. set up and
possibly price-hxins provisions rs
we'll.
If the Guffey act Il upheld as to
the constitutionality Of its price-flx-
ing clauses, there will be q series of
price-flxing powers inserted In Federal
statutes that would make the Federal
authority absolutely powerful In con-
trolling what industry shall charge
and what labor's wages shall be.
Some labor leaders foresee the trend
toward Government control Of prices
as well as wages, as under the Mani
government Of Germany. The Walsh
bin 10 o step In that direction and the
actual operation these days Of the
Guffey coal law IN its coercive features
Ii an index Of what may be forthcom-
ing with respect to an industry at
the next session.
Roosevelt Support Seen.
President Roosevelt has wavered
from time to time in his position on
the walsh bin, but It Is doubtful
whether he would veto it because he
expressed no objection to the same
idea when embraced In the Guffey act
that he signed. Coercion by the use
OF the Federal power of purchase was
tried in connection with the Blue
Eagle, but it never was authorized by
Congress, 80 It was never effectively
enforced. Now Congress, through the
Guffey act, has formally embodied the
idea in law.
The Walsh bill b not considered In
valid by constitutional lawyers; In
fact, counsel for the National Asso-
citation Of Manufactures conceded
the validity OF the act In recent hear
hgs, SO this will be one law that can
not be ignored by industry on the
ground that the courts win throw it
out. The Walsh bin and the Wagner
labor relations law, together with the
proposed amendments TO the Federal
trade commission act. cdnstitute all
the power Of coercion the Federal
Government could possibly want to
regulate business and industry In
America when the breathing spell"
- L.