Evening star., 1940-05-28

Americas prop D~Nu As"Iehce.
lem of national defense today is
the disunity brought about by a
partisanly administered government.
To get battleships, airplane engines,
tanks and mechanisms of warfare
into heavy production, the admin
istration must rely on the steel
and automobile industries. In these
industries the c. I. O., backed by
the administration, has produced
strikes and discord.
Although outwardly there is har-
mony-businessmen respond politely
to invitations from the administra-
ton to confer and discuss things
the fact remains that the admins
tration has done nothing persuasive
to assure American industry and
business of square deal. The c. 1.
O. still dominates most every policy
of the Government affecting labor.
Notwithstanding the fact that Will
liam Green, president of the A. F..
of L., has publicly called on the
G. I. O. to rid itself of the Commun-
lists In its ranks in the major indus
tries dealing with defense, nothing
has been done lately to heed the call.
C. I. o. Wins Great Victory.
Coincidentally, the c. I. o. has
won a substantial victory in the
Supreme Court. Its latest decision
in the Apex case exonerates the
c. I. o. from paying damages for
carrying on sit-down strike in
Philadelphia. The opinion of the
majority of the court, written by
Justice Stone and concurred in by
the New Deal justices, is so contra
dictory of existing precedents and
so plainly distorts the meaning of
previous decisions that it is not
surprising to find Chief Justice
Hughes speaking so plainly in his
vigorous dissent.
What the decision of the New
Deal majority really means Is that
the Supreme Court has one set of
harsh rules to apply against indus
try and business and another to
apply leniently against labor unions.
The effort of the New Deal ma
jority on the Supreme Court in the
Apex case to protect labor from the
Sherman antitrust laws, where vio-
lence Is involved, is an epoch max
ing decision. 1t means that the
court will be an important issue in
the coming campaign, for how else
can the people show their disap-
proval Of misguided decisions than to
rebuke the Congress and the ad-
ninistration which approved the
appointment to the highest bench
in the land of men who proclaim
one-sided decisions favoring the
pressure groups with big voting
strength?
The words of Chief Justice Hughes
IN his dissenting opinion tell the
story. He said
1T would indeed be anomalous
II, while employers are bound by
the Labor Act because their unfair
labor practices may lead to con-
duct which would prevent the Ship
ment of their goods in interstate
commerce, at the same time the
direct and intentional obstruction or
prevention OF such shipments by the
employees were not deemed to be a
restraint of commerce under the
broad terms of the Sherman Act.
This court has never heretofore de-
cided that direct and intentional
obstruction or prevention of the
shipment Of goods in interstate
commerce was not a violation of the
Sherman Act. In my opinion it
should not so decide now"
Pointed Warning Visible.
Certainly there is less public conf
dence today in the Supreme Court
than there was before the President
appointed five justices from his own
political family, who now control the
court. Maybe the Chief Justices
speech has no reference to his dis
senting decision in the Apex case,
but many observers will see pointed
warning by Americas most vene-
rated public official, who knows from
. long experience on the bench that
justice cannot be tempered with con-
siderations of political expediency
or subserviency.
The Apex decision has had a