The Ely miner. [volume] (Ely, Minn.) 1895-1986, 1937-12-23


ly agree that good administration
can make even a
WorR0ote good law better in
Labor Lou it's results and bad
administration can
definitely ruin it. The same is true,
of course, of any law. A bad laws
effect can be doubled or trebled by
irresponsible administration of its
provisions. Of this, I believe there
can be no doubt. Certainly, we
have fresh evidence on the point
over which we can ponder and the
truth of the above statements seems
unacceptable.
have been among those who
have criticized the national labor re-
lations act, and the national labor
relations board created by it. 1t has
always impressed me as being a
half-baked statute. That it has
many weaknesses, there is no doubt.
That it has worked out in biased
form and that it has done grave
damage to the feeling of the gen.
eral public toward labor organiza-
ton, there certainly can be no
doubt. Or, to summarize the situa-
ton, it has been made painfully
evident that Senator Wagner, New
York Democrat, who sponsored the
law, took prejudiced advice when
he drafted the measure. He was
given only one side of the picture.
But suspect the law can be made
workable and 1 entertain no thought
at all that it should be abandoned
entirely. We need a national labor
policy expressed in statute form.
Changes in it's provisions ought to
be made, but to my way of thinking
there is a more urgent circum-
stance. The urgent need is i'm
provement in administration of the
law in order that the benefits of
even weak and biased law will
not be denied to the country's eco
nomic life.
1t is the recent administrative
acts under the law that have
brought it into the spotlight again.
These acts should be reviewed to
bring the whole situation into prop
er focus for examination, and /
shall refer to two of them in this
connection. They will substantiate
my earlier criticisms.
Early in December, we learned of
how the national labor relations
board subpoenaed the editor of a
magazine. It called for the editor
to supply all of the background of
information upon which he based
an article that was critical of the
board. Since the article was criti-
cal of the board and its methods,
officials of the board regarded the
background information as essen
tial" The article in question had
been reprinted and circulated
among workers in several mills, ac-
cording to the board, and this fact
was used by the board as basis
for bringing the editor under the
boards jurisdiction.
Ten days after the first unusual
exercise of power by the board, it
took another unprecedented step.
Rather, one of its attorneys took
the unprecedented step, but since
the attorney was an employee of
the board, it seems clear the action
is chargeable to the board because
it is the responsible, policy-making
head of the agency.
Tho cnonnI rncIrIfnI frnyV, tho
refusal of an editor of small daily
newspaper to tell
Editor trial examiner
Stands Pat for the board who
wrote an editorial
in his newspaper, the St. Mary's
(Pa.) Daily Press. Harry T. O'Bri-
en-, the editor, declined to answer
the question put to him by board
attorney in public hearing. He
stood pat and the trial examiner,
Charles H. Bayly, and the attorney,
Jerome I. Macht, called his atten-
ton to provisions of the Wagner
act requiring him to answer. The
question of freedom of the press as
guaranteed by the Constitution was
mentioned, but according to the
stenographic record of the hearing,
the trial examiner and the attorney
each held to the provision of the
law as being superior to the other
guarantee. Or at least, that is my
impression of the proceedings.
AS far as l am informed, the
board has taken no further action in
the O'Brien case. It has moved,
however, to enforce its subpoena
in the case of Hartley w. Barclay,
the magazine editor. A federal
court has been asked by the board
to enforce the subpoena which Mr..
Barclay ignored. He probably will
be compelled to appear. At least,
he should be compelled to appear in
response to the subpoena. No one
can ignore subpoena. AS for sup
plying the information-that is a
different matter. His refusal to sup
ply confidential information and i'm
peril the freedom of the press is,
indeed, quite a different matter.
As one writer, l hope Mr.. Bar
clay and Mr.. O'Brien stick by their
guns. / hope, too, that the board
will not imperil its existence and
the good points in the law by at
tempting to assert power which !
do not believe it possesses. There
is no excuse, legally or morally, for
crew of officious individuals to
undertake the sort of things dis
closed in these two instances. They
abuse confidence and besm1rch the
titles which they bear.
Further, they have forced an is
sue that ought never to be raised.
1t is sad day in our country
,.rhor, nAGninlc or