Evening star., 1940-11-19


administration has taken the posi-
ton that changes in the law itself
were not needed and that change
in personnel would meet public
criticism.
Although the American Fedora
ton of Labor has again and again
asked for certain amendments to
the law, the c. I. O. has taken the
position that the law ought not to
be changed This, too, has been the
attitude of certain members of the
labor board
With new personnel, it is quite
possible that recommendations may
come from the board itself asking
for certain definitions by Congress
on points now ambiguous and on
which the board finds itself bitterly
criticised no matter what way it
decides an issue. Thus, the craft
versus industrial union issue comes
up again and again and the board
has to bear the brunt of criticism
If the effect of its ruling is to give
lCNOSil4l4oll W al "a L VI Il. vi ~
I. o. unit, as the case may be.
Sponsors Fight Changes.
There are other antiquities in the
law Many of these can be met by
amendment and some can be han
died by rulings if Congress will de-
fine more explicitly the board S
powers. There are pending in the
courts several issues which never
would have arisen if Congress had
not been careless in writing the
original law. The sponsors of the
act. of course, never have admitted
that there were any defects in the
law. They have consistently refused
to accept any amendments except
Of minor nature.
The cause of collective bargaining
has been hurt by the tactics of the
friends of the law as much as by
the opponents. With the appoint
ment of a new personnel, attention
will begin to center once more on
substantive provisions of the law
which really have the effect of pro-
ducing labor disputes and strikes
instead of curing them. Time and
again the evidence submitted to
House Investigating Committee
shows that there are some funda-
mental misconceptions in the eX-
listing decisions of the board which
deprive the citizen of basic rights.
Congress might persuasively offer as
an excuse for inaction the fact that
the law had not been sufficiently
tested or that the board had not
had an opportunity to rule on con-
troversial points, but that is not
the case today.
The argument that a new board
can make new rulings and reverse
the previous board is not conducive
to stability. When government de-
pends on bureaus and boards to re-
write laws there is bound to be con-
fusion If not a lack of confidence in
such boards, each side striving to
get personnel appointed or removed
depending on the point of view of
the board members.
A Duty for Congress.
The rulings thus far clearly indi-
cate that too much discretionary
power has been delegated to the
Labor Board and that the Congress
should pass on many of the ques-
tions which now are left to the
board to decide. AS for the belief
that the courts would correct any
abuses of power, this is mistaken
doctrine-the majority of the Su-
preme Court now is of the same
political and economic prediction
and the famous comment of Justice
Stone, made in his A. A. A. minority
opinion concerning the economic
predictions" of the justices, has
come true on the left wing side, just
as the opposite was held with respect
to the judges who sought to protect
the American constitutional system
Congress alone, therefore, has the
duty of correcting unWise legislation
and preventing injustices that relate
to constitutional rights, for the
check of the Supreme Court against
excesses by governmental boards
and agencies can no longer be de-
pended on.
1t is not generally realized. how
far the Wagner law, as interpreted
bv the Labor Board, has lnterfered