Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1940-09-05
Forced Production

Forced Production
1t is encouraging to note that
members of the House are tackling
the so-called draft of industry"
problem with more elaboration and
logic and realism than their COL
leagues in the Senate employed when
they passed the Russell-Overton
amendment as a laSt-minute rider on
the CONSUMPTION bill The House
Military Affairs Committee, after
careful study of the Senate amend
ment and of criticisms which have
been made of certain of its weak
nesses, has approved a substitute
plan patterned after a 1916 statute,
still on the books, which empowers
the Government to take over and
operate arms plants on a rental basis
if the owners refuse to Cooperate.
Whereas the old law is applicable
only in time of war or when war is
Imminent" the Smith amendment,
adopted by the House committee,
would give the Government authori-
ty to commander plants and to
penalize offending owners during the
present emergency and until eXpira-
ton of the proposed selective service
law in 1945. Chairman VinSon of the
House Naval Affairs Committee is
sponsoring an amendment similar to
the Smith plan, except that fines and
imprisonment would be eliminated
and system of negotiation prereq-
uisite to actual communicating of
private property would be estab-
lished
Both of the amendments original
ing in the House have the advantage
OF being more specific than the
Senate proposal in defining types of
plants which may be taken over by
Federal authorities in the interest of
the national welfare. The right of
the Government to seize and operate
private plants for defense of the
Nation is incontestable, but it is a
drastic right, like the CONSUMPTION of
man power, and should be exercised
as judiciously as CONSUMPTION of man
power. The RusseI-Overton amend
ment, by its wording, would authorize
the condemnation and operation not
only of manufacturing plants
needed for defense work, but of
underlined facilities" which con-
ceivabIy would cover any form of pri-
vate activity. The House versions
narrow the scope Of action to plants
capable of manufacturing imple-
ments of war Whereas the Senate
amendment provides for actual pur-
chase of plants by condemnation,
when necessary, the House amend
mentS would make the Government
a lessee instead of purchaser, with
provision for return of the con1s-
Gated property to its owner when the
emergency has passed. This plan of
temporary occupancy and operation
of plants by the Government is pref
cradle by far to the outright pur-
chase plan embodied in the Russell
Overton amendment, under which
the War and Navy Departments
might be left with useless factories
on their hands after war or upon
completion of the preparedness pro-
gram.
The Navy Department has ex-
pressed its preference for the Vinson
plan because it lacks the criminal
penalty provisions of the Smith
amendment and because it affords a
manufacturer an opportunity to
compose his differences with the
military or the naval establishment
by mediation through the National
Defense Commission. The depart
ment views the taking over of private
property and business of an offender
as severe punishment in itself, and
states that business is guaranteed
certain rights under the Constitution
which should, if ever, be taken away
only when a state of war exists"
There is no good reason why some
reasonable legislation to insure par
ticipation by industry in the defense
program, as required by an emer-
gency, should not be enacted after
thorough consideration, providing
proper safeguards are taken against
unfair and arbitrary exercise of
executive authority in defiance of
democratic traditions.