Evening star., 1937-03-26
THE POLITICAL
MILL
BY G. GOULD LINCOLN.

by the multiplicity of sit-down strikes
which led them to communicate directly
with the President and ask for a con-
ference and that something be done.
The conference will be held this week end
when the President returns from Georgia
Administration leaders have been silent
about the sit-down strike until very
recently. And when they spoke, their
effort was to place the blame on the Su-
preme Court, because the court had not
passed upon the constitutionality of the
Wagner labor relations act.
Members of Congress- however, have
been under heavy pressure from their
constituents to do something about the
sit-doWn strike and the clear refusal of
the strikers to pay any attention to court
orders. The time, many of them believe,
has come to do something. What will be
the attitude of the President remains to
be seen. He has refrained for several
months from commenting upon the sit
down strike as weapon, and as to its
legality. Attorney General Cummings,
the chief legal officer of the United States,
likewise has made no comment. He
would not say at press conference two
days ago whether he considered the Sit
down strike illegal or nol.
X X \
The argument that the blame for the
sit-down strikes rests upon the Supreme
Court is bit far fetched, to say the least.
There are State laws against the seizure
OF property and against trespass. There
is no good reason to believe that If the
Wagner labor relations act was held to
be constitutional the sit-down strike
WI hn oil inn tod AID tk1
should hold, as many believe it will hold,
that the act is not constitutional, there is
every reason to believe that there would
be no abandonment of this kind of strike.
The argument, therefore, seems to be
merely in line with other arguments ad-
vanced by the administration to beat
down the Supreme Court as it is now con-
stituted and to force the passage of the
Presidents bill to enable him to add
maximum Of six new justices to the court
There are few who defend the sit-down
strike as legal measure, outside of the
strikers. But there are many who wonder
today what will be the outcome if the sit
down strikes are permitted to continue,
particularly If the administration should
condone this seizure of property. 1t is
argued that the men and women who en-
gage in these strikes have an interest in
their jobs, even property right, by those
who support the Sit-down strike They
may have overlooked the fact that their
jobs were not taken away from them
when they quit work They had their
jobs. They quit them voluntarily and
then took over property which did not
belong to them.
Handing treSpaSS cases comes as
suredly under the State and local govern
ments. Certainly in the first instance.
However, the State governments have
come In recent years to look to the Fed
eral Government to do their jobs for
them They have been and are being en-
couraged to do so. In this case, how
ever the Federal Government has backed
away-other than to use its good offices
through officials of the Department of
Labor to seek settlement of some of
these strikes. Much might be accom-
plished II the administration would take
fortnight stand on the issue of the
legality OF the Sit-doWn strike And that
Is what many members of Congress are
urging the administration to do.
Young B. Smith, dean of Columbia
University Law School, one of the largest
schools in the country, does not believe
in the Presidents bill to put half dozen
new justices on the Supreme Court. He
advanced. however, a novel proposition
as he explained (which might well ac-
complish the results desired by the Presi-
dent. He proposed to the Senate Judiciary
Committee an amendment to the Con-
stitution which would compel justices of
the Supreme Court to retire when they
reached the age of 10 or rs years.
1t happens that six Of the present judges
are over 10, four of them are IS
years old, and within a short time, the
Chief Justice Is to attain that age.
Whichever year is picked for the age Of
compulsory retirement, provided such an
amendment was adopted, would bring an
early change In the make up of the court.
The Columbia Law School dean COM
mented at some length on the argument
used by the President and other admins
tration supporters that the general well
fare clause of the Constitution could
readily be construed to give the Federal
Government powers to do what the New
Dealers want done. Mr.. Smith denied
that this was the case, and his statement
to the committee was about as clear as
anything that has been advanced. He
said in this connection:
GAS quoted by the President, the power
to levy taxes and the power to provide
for the general welfare appear to be
separate and independent powers. II the
exact and full text of the clause, as 1t is
written, be examined, the power to lay
and collect taxes and the power to pro-
vide for the general welfare do not appear
to be separate anC independent powers.
The exact language of the clause is as
follows:
"'The Congress shall have power to
lay and collect taxes duties, imposts and
excises, to pay the debts and provide for
the common defense and general welfare
of the United States; but all duties, I'M
posts and excises shall be uniform
throughout the United States
"This clause is followed by seventeen
other paragraphs enumerating specific
powers conferred upon Congress. Fur
thermore, it must be remembered that
among the first amendments to the Con-
stitution we're the provisions of Article x,
which provides: The powers not dele
gated to the United States by the Con-
stitution, nor prohibited by it to the
States, are reserved to the States respec-
lively, or to the people
1.-The Interpretation of the general well
fare clause by the President is not new.
It has been repeatedly advanced and
tenaciously held by some. But 1t has