Evening star., 1937-04-06
THE POLITICAL
MILL
BY G, GOULD LINCOLN.

SIIutu III SOllle QudIIeIS. IL Is tluc tIldt
a number of Senators who voted against
the Byrnes amendment prefaced their
votes with statements that they were not
upholding the sit-doWn strike. They
gave as their excuse for SO voting that
they wished the question of the sit
down strike to be considered apart from
the Guffey coal bill.
The defeat of the Byrnes amendment
was a victory for the administration
leaders in the Senate, who rallied to the
call of Majority Leader Robinson. And
there you are! Senator Pittman of
Nevada introduced separate concur
rent" resolution before the vote on the
Byrnes amendment, declaring 1t the
sense of Congress that the sit-down
strike is illegal, and coupling with it a
denunciation of the use of spy systems
on the part of employers. There is also
included in the resolution that Congress
was speaking only of strikes to industries
over which the Federal Government has
some risdiction-presumably those en-
gagged strictly in interstate commerce.
This leaves out almost all Of the In
dustries in the United States.
1lOSe SGIldJOTS WHO lIlSlSG IiLdC lllClC
should be action by the Senate and the
House condemning sit-doWn strikes as
illegal hope to get the Plttman reSolu-
ton up for consideration on Wednesday,
or some other similar resolution. The
Senate is not sitting today. The Pitt
man resolution, being concurrent reso-
luton, will require action also by the
House if it is to be finally disposed OF.
cir t,1rn Of
President Roosevelt. If the Byrnes pro-
posal, denouncing the sit-doWn strike,
had been included in the Guffey coal
bill, the President would have had to
sign or veto the measure, or else to allow
the measure to become law without his
signature. In any event, he would have
been placed on record as for or against
the sit-down strike. The President has
consistently declined to discuss the sit
down strike up to this time.
The Senate vote on the ByrneS amend
ment was preceded by several days de-
bate in which the sit-down strike was
denounced in vehement terms by some
of the Senators, among them johnson OF
California, Bailey of North Carolina and
Byrnes of South Carolina. The burden
of the opposition was largely to the
should be considered separately. Few
expressions were made that would lead
to the opinion that sit-down strikes
were legal or should be condoned. 1t
was clearly developed in the debate, by
Senator Byrnes and by Senator Walsh of
Massachusetts, that a vote for the
amendment would be influential in halt
ing new sit-down strikes, and that a
1rNtn ol11St hn mo
construed as meaning that the Senate
was indifferent.
In addition to the resolution by Sena-
tor Pittman of Nevada, two other resolu-
tions attacking the sit-doWn strike were
offered, one by Senator King of Utah
and another by Senator Davis of Penn
sylvania When the question comes up
for debate in the Senate, these resolu-
tions, as well as the Pittman resolution,
will be considered, and the whole ques-
ton will be open to discussion and the
Pittman resolution to amendment. What
will happen remains to be seen. The
administration has demonstrated its
strengthen the defeat of the Byrnes
amendment. 1t determined that the
amendment should not go through the
Senate and be attached to the Guffey
coal bill With three or four days in
which to work, it succeeded in heading
off the amendment. What would be the
fate of any other declaration against
the sit-doWn strike-if the administra-
ton should determine to kill that OIL,
too, remains in more doubt since the
vote on the ByrneS amendment. OF
course, the administration may not
undertake to head off new proposal,
independent of the Guffey coal bill.
That, too, will have to be developed.
In view of the success of the admin
istration forces in the Senate in their
attack on the ByrneS amendment, there
was speculation today as to what may
be the fate of the Dies resolution call
ing for an investigation of the sit-down
strikes by special committee of the
House. The resolution has been reported
favorably to the House by the Rules
Committee. 1t was fought, however, by
administration leaders at that end OF the
Capitol. 1t has been expected that the
House would have the resolution before
it on Thursday and that it would be
adopted.
President Roosevelts recent assertion
that the Government planned to stop
buying durable goods" on large scale
because the industries which manu-
facture or produce such goods have
showed the prices high-came as some
thing of a shock to a number OF people.
1t was only recently that Senator Wag-
ner of New York introduced his Federal
housing bill, under which four-year
program is planned for the construction
of low-priced housing for persons un-
able to build for themselves. IT the
Federal Government is not to encourage
the purchase of the durable materials
needed for such construction, 1t would
appear that the program would remain
in allegiance for some time at least, even
if the bill is passed. Under program
that avoids as much as possible the
purchase of durable goods, public works
projects do not seem likely to be part
of the Governments immediate future
planning.
The President mentioned the steel
and copper industries, pointing out that
the increases in prices for these materials
seemed to give very large profits; that
copper was selling for II cents pound
when it could be produced profitably for
from cents to II cents, and that the
increases in the prices of steel were two
or three times as great as the increases
in wages which have been announced
for steel workers. 1t looks as though the
administration was attempting to put on
the brakes, to keep prices from sky
rookatjpo op6 n oU0iS nocSih1a imitation