The Waterbury Democrat., 1942-01-10

oiL OiiC lllSol Ia OL Edson and politicians screaming for more production and faster production, Washington is again full of suggestions that some thing will have to be done ano something will be done to speed up the war manufacturing effort.
 The idea heard most often now is that what this country needs is Ministry of Supply.
 That, also, is not new. The idea has been banded about all year and while men high in the Office of Production Management admit that it would be dandy if all govern ment procurement agencies-Army Navy, treasury agriculture and lease-lend administration were under one boss and under one roof, no less an authority on buying than Douglas c. MacKeachie, director of purchases in OPM, has pointed out that to stop now and try to or ganize a ministry of supply might be fatal.
 HEARD BEFORE
 The problem therefore seems to be one of taking the existing ma chinery and making it work.
 Some of the specific charges now tossed around have a familiar ring to them:
 There is no one boss of produc-
 ton.
 There is no one boss for con-
 tract letting.
 The small business man still
 isn't getting his share
 The separate departments of
 OPM act without consulting each
 other, duplicate each others re-
 .,-.-ch and orders.
 The auto industry has not been
 converted to defense production
 fast enough.
 Labor tops this off with its de-
 mand for voice in management
 to speed the pooling of idle ma-
 chine use.
 And just to add to the confusion there are the contrary claims that conversion of industry to war pro- duction has gone too fast, throwing too many people in civilian goods industries out of employment before war industry jobs were ready for them. Over 100000 auto workers in Michigan, for instance, face the loss of their jobs in January by production cuts.
 Just before Christmas, the Tolan Committee of the House, studying defense migration, held hearings in an effort to determine what was wrong. Testimony was given by Judge Robert ?. Patterson, under secretary of war; William s. Knud- sen, head of OPM; w. H. Harrison, head of the production division Of OPM; Walter H. Wheeler of the Contract Distribution Service in OPM, R. J. Thomas, head of the c. I. O. Auto Workers Union; rep resentatives from four leading auto manufacturers, and others.
 QUESTIONS, BUT NO
 ANSWERS
 When they all got through testi- lying, the committee still didn t have the answer of what was wrong with war production. Everybody ad- mitted that production wasn't as good as they wished it might be. Everybody denied that war produc- tion thus far had failed.
 Judge Patterson, questioned by Committee Counsel Robert K Lamb about too much decentralization agreed that there was too much de- centraliza ton. Patterson pointed to the Industrial Mobilization Plan of 1889, drawn up by the Army, as a good scheme of organization but said that the plan and it's execution had become separated. In any set up, the underSecretary declared, the Army and Nay must be in posi- ton where they cannot be over- ruled by civilian direction, thereby spiking the idea for a civilian wal industry czar.
 Harrison, admitting the need of coordination, then turned around to say that the coordination should come under the Army.
 knudSen provided the committee with one of it's biggest surprises when he told the good congressman there wasn't any difference between OPM and SPAB, the Supply Priori- ties and Alloca ions Board. SPAB made the policies, but after all it was Knudsen and Hillman who made the decisions. SPAB, you may recall, was the rabbit pulled out of the hat in the OPM September re- organization sponsored by Judge Samuel Rosenman, presidential ad- wiser and confidante. SPAB was the outfit that was going to solve every thing, And now Knudsen lifts the veil to disclose that SPAB and OPM are just the same.
 The creation of SPAB followed the usual Washington pattern of trying to do something about a Situa ton when things go wrong, To correct the evils of bureaucracy, give 'em another bureau. It might happen again.