Evening star., 1937-04-05
Sit.DOwn Strikes and the
Property Rights Question

To tbs Editor Of The Star:
Various reasons have been suggested
concerning the legality Of sit-d0wn
strikes. Mr.. Homer Martins contentious
about their legality and the acquired and
vested rights Of the workers to protect
their Jobs are well known, and 1t ap-
pears Mr.. John L. Lewis acquieses by
his acts, although have not read any
direct statement he is supposed to have
made on this particular point at issue.
Justice Pecora and Mr.. Lands seem
to agree, as well as some prominent per-
sons connected with the present ad-
ministration.
Let us assume that the workers have
acquired property right" and author
tiles, or the courts, declare and define
those property rights" which would in
clude the legal right to take over the
Offices and plants of a corporation, such
as happened in the Chrysler St-down
strikes. And, the next automobile plants
which the automobile unions take charge
OF shall be Ford's. 1t is understood that
Mr.. Ford and his family own all, or
practically all, OF the Ford plants. Mr..
Ford and his family have acquired and
hold lot OF money, or property, or
wealth. Mr.. Ford is getting old. He has
worked hard and well. Suppose he takes
the position that he has done a good
job; he had an idea, developed it, put
it into practice, furnished work for thou
sands, helped create demand for auto
mobiles, a greater demand for good
roads, a greater use Of gasoline and
oil, but is now old, tired and wishes to
avoid further grueling work and strife.
,,tf hA MI q n
automobiles entirely.
In such an event, and the automobile
union workers have acquired property
right" as defined by Mr.. Martin, would
Mr.. Ford be permitted to quit? Could
he sell, or dismantle his plants, or turn
them into other use than the manu-
facture of automobiles? For the pro-
lection OF their property rights and
their Jobs could not the workers seize
the plants and operate themselves? 1t
seems to me that If such claims OF prop
erty rights" upon the part of the workers
should be sustained, the same reasoning
for keeping control of the plants and
operating them would be as logical and
legal OF course, the question OF f1nanc-
ing the operation and the purchase OF
materials would arise. However, that
would be easy. Mr.. IckeS, or Mr.. Hop
kins, could be assigned to attend to this
feature OF the case. All those thou
sands of workmen and their families
could not starve, so the humane thing to
do, the logical thing to do, would be for
the Government to furnish the neces-
sary money and directing talent to keep
the plants producing. Why put good
automobile worker to digging ditch or
to any other kind of work to which he
is not accustomed?
It seems to me all OF the above
troubles could be avoided by abolishing
the Supreme Court, doing away with
Congress and establishing committee
to take over all industry and all agricul-
ture, eliminate lot of expense, wheels
within Wheels" and then We would have
a country of no strife, no suffering, no
poor and life would be one long, sweet
song, the same as in Russia.
Mr. Editor, am for property rights"
I have no property but want some in
some form. l should like to have the
Government assign my property right"
in the United States Treasury. AS long
as we choose, and perhaps can seize,
why grab property right" in fac
tory, when one in the United States
Treasury would be lot closer to easy
money. C. J. ANDERSON.