Coulee City dispatch. [volume] (Coulee City, Wash.) 19??-19??, 1937-05-13

But this discrimination is of no
value to Canada, merely as Canada,
they insist, but only to Canada as a
part of the British empire.
They admit that the same sort OF
discrimination would be important
if a war can be imagined in which
Mexico is one of the belligerents,
but in which the United States is
neutral. The exemption affecting the
Great Lakes would also affect the
Rio Grande river.
Not Important
But this, the objecting senators
insist, is not important; first, be-
cause it is difficult to imagine a stu
alton in which it could figure, and
second, the width of the Rio Grande
along most of it's course is not really
a problem anyhow.
Defenders of the discrimination in
favor of Great Lakes traffic point
out that after all the object of the
proposed law is to keep the United
States out of entanglements-n OF
primarily to prevent val supplies
being exported from the United
States.
The objection to permitting Amer
lean ships to carry on the high seas
supplies (other than arms, ammu-
milton and implements of war which
are specifically enlarged at the
outbreak of the war anyhow is that
enemy submarines might torpedo
them, or enemy warships capture
them. Either would involve the Unit
ed States in the same sort of diff
Guilty with the belligerent figuring
in the episode that involved it with
Germany during the period of Amer
lean neutrality in the World a
On the Great Lakes, they point
out, there would be no hostile war
vessels. The goods would be bound
from United States ports to Cana
dian ports. Every one might know
that they were bound ultimately for
another destination-perhaps to one
of the belligerents-but there would
be no opportunity for any incident"
to arise which might embroil the
United States in whatever inter-
national conflict was going on at the
time.
On the whole, however, the "com-
promise" seems to have been a
sweeping victory for the senators
who fought and won, in their branch
of congress, the fight for the cash
and carry neutrality program.
Labor Relations Board
Operating almost in a vacuum,
as far as public interest was con-
cerned, until the decision of the SUI
preme court held it constitutional,
the labor relations board actually
has been formulating policy and
setting up something destined now,
apparently, to become one of the
most all pervading branches Of the
federal government.
In the eighteen months of its ex-
istence, during which nearly every
one believed that it was only tenn
porary-would be thrown out the
window by the high court-the board
has decided no less than 1875 cases.
A study of these decisions, as well
as the statements and interviews
and speeches - never given any
prominence because of the convic-
ton of editors as well as business
men that it just wouldn't last-gives
a fair cross section of the men
whose Interpretation and admin
istration of the law is now so i'm
portant.
Following the example of the
courts, the board has adopted the
policy of expressing no opinions in
terpretative of the act until the
particular case that might be in
question should be brought before
it. For that reason j. Warren Mad
den, chairman, and the other mem
bers, Edwin S. Smith and Donald
Wakefield Smith, are not in a posi-
ton to answer many of the inquiries
that have been pouring in since the
constitutionality of the act under
which the board is operating has
been upheld.
One question frequently asked is
whether an employer has the right
under the act to appeal for an cleo
ton to decide with which group of
his employees he should deal. 1t
can be stated that the board feels
that management should not con-
Germ itself in any way with the de-
termination of employee representa-
tives. Its feeling is that such action
would be contrary to the words ''free
choice as used in the act, and
would tend to unrest.
Find Limitations
The board recognizes many limi-
tations in the scope of the act. 1t
recognizes it can intervene only in
disputes which may burden or OBJ
struct commerce. Such of these dis
putes as it may enter, must, in turn,
be confined to those arising out of
an employers denial of the work.
ers' right to organize and bargain
collectively.
It may surprise many to know that
the board does not feel that it can
concern itself with the normal pur-
pose of OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES over
wages. hours, and other terms of