Evening star., 1940-03-16

drawing his at
tention to the <SS f'>'>'
fact that Chair David Lawrence.
man Madden of the National La
Dor Relations Board had confessed
to the use of Government machinery
to lobby for appropriations. The
letter was written by Representa-
tive Howard Smith, chairman of
the House committee investigating
the labor board, and 1t discreetly
referred to the testimony and asked
the head of the Justice Department
for his opinion.
The first move was to ignore the
facts about the violation and to take
refuge In a technical answer. The
Attorney General said he was not
obliged to give opinions to congress
sional committees. The answer was
correct and in accordance with
precedents. Again Representative
Smith wrote to the Attorney Cen
eral and in effect called on him to
take whatever action was necessary
or appropriate.
"Vagueness" Seen in Statutes.
After some delay, the Attorney
General has written that the stat
utes are somewhat vague, that he
thinks study might be made OF
them. that the letter from Repre-
sentative Smith in the first instance
asked for an opinion from the JUS
tice Department and that this in
itself indicated that doubt sur
rounded the statute itself.
Here we have the Attorney Cen
eral apparently unwilling to prose-
cute prominent members of the New
Deal administration and writing a
letter endeavoring to imply that
the statute is at fault and that
"test case" might possibly be brought
but that it would be better to re-
wise the law itself.
Here plainly the Attorney General
would prefer to have Congress un-
dertake some sort of study rather
than prosecute violators of the law.
Other attempts have been made to
minimize the importance of the
statute by various published reports
referring to it as IAN old law or
a 19-year-old law or else some
what forgotten law. The obvious
desire is to protect the labor board
members from prosecution.
The labor board members ad-
mitted under oath that they had
engaged in long-distance telephone
conversations and participated in a
campaign to influence members OF
Congress both with respect to main
tenance of appropriations apd to
build up sentiment outside of Wash
ington against legislative changes.
Anybody who can read can tell in
a moment whether or not the statute
Is vague on this point.
How the Law Reads.
Here is the exact text of United
States Criminal Code, section 201:
mo part of the money appropri-
ated by any act shall, in the absence
of express authorization of Con-
eress, be used directly or indirectly
to pay for any personal service,
advertisement, telegram. telephone,
letter, printed or written matter,
Or other device, intended or designed
TO influence In any manner a mem
ber of Congress, to favor or oppose,
by vote or otherwise, any legislation
or appropriation by Congress,
whether before or after the intro
duction of any bill or resolution
proposing such legislation or appro-
priation, but this shall not prevent
officers and employees of the United
States from communicating to men,
bers of Congress on the request Of
any member or to Congress, through
the proper official channel requests
for legislation or appropriations
which they deem necessary for the
efficient conduct of the public busi-
ness.
ANY officer or employe of the
United States who after notice and
hearing by the superior officer vested
with the power of removing him, is
found to have violated or attempted
to violate this section, shall be re-
moved by such superior officer from
office or employment.
ANY officer or employe of the
United States who violates or at
tempts to violate this section shall
also be guilty of a misdemeanor
and on conviction thereof shall be
punished by q fine of not more
than $500 or by Imprisonment for
not more than one year, or BOTH y
Aimed at Bureaucrats.
The law just quoted is one of the
most important in the entire list
of Federal statutes. 1t was enacted
TO prevent bureaucrats from invok-
Ing influence growing out OF their
bureaus so as to favor or oppose
appropriations. 1t was piece of
legislation originally passed so as to
protect the office of the Director OF
the Budget Bureau from attempts
by agencies of the Government by
the use of political or other in
huence to keep appropriations from
being cut. The Labor Board men,
bers actually sought help from or
ganizations and persons who had
benefited by decisions of the board.
If Attorney General Jackson does
not think the statute is strong
enough to use in prosecutions, then
It is hardly because the words Of
the law are inexplicit. Woe to any
employer who ever has a case be-
fore the Labor Board hinging on
language as plain as that quoted
above. The Labor Board itself does
not even conflne itself to the words
Of the Labor Act, but frankly admits
inventing remedies and supplying
"verbiage" which the board chair
man, for instance, thinks Congress
should have included originally but
left out by accident"
If the Justice Department under
the New Deal makes a dead letter
Of the statute referred to in this
dispatch, it will not be because the
"a ie ~