Evening star., 1944-05-03


the Roosevelt record in labor matters
But it has now been made so plail
that the conviction which informed
men have had over period of year!
seems likely to become much more
widely held-so widely, In fact, thai
the political reaction may be i'm.
portant.
For this time there has been ne
pretense Of equality of treatment"
no show of "even-handed justice.
This time, with the President ap.
proving from his vacation retreat
and with no national crisis threat
ened, the full weight of the Govern
ment was thrown on the side of the
unions. The Attorney General, Mr.
Francis Biddle, flying from Wash
ington, personally directed the SOL
diers who took over the property
and physically elected the protest
ing head of the firm from his build
ing.
Not Intent of Congress.
It is contended by the authors
OF the law under which this action
was taken that the seizure is in
violation of the intent of Congress
And, it is asserted by others that
it is without moral or legal justi-
fication; that if this kind of thing
can be done to one business it can
be done to any business; that this
is an instance of Federal strong
clNo ~1xT NJ nr.to Il
any conception of freedom.
But aside from the merits of these
contentious, and centering upon the
conflicting administration attitudes
In dealing with controversies be-
tween businessmen and labor lead
ers, the facts as presented by Sena-
tor Byrd in notable speech and
by Mr.. Mark Sullivan in recent
articles leave little room for de-
tense.
They point out that the Ward
case parallels almost exactly that oi
Mr.. John L. Lewis and the coal
miners last year. The same con-
tract issue was involved with the
same Government board which ap-
pealed to the President when Mr.
Lewis refused to sign.
The Lewis refusal differed only
from the Ward refusal in that il
was fiagrantly defiant and denun-
ciatory, whereas the Ward refusal
while firm. was neither arrogant
nor bellicose. Another difference
of course, was that the Ward re-
fusal did not threaten to tie up q
basic industry upon which the con-
duct of the war and the life of the
Nation depend.
Mr.. Roosevelt's method of meet
ing the appeal of the War Labor
Board over the Lewis refusal was
to do nothing. Nothing happened
to Mr.. Lewis. He was not COM
PEELED to sign. He was not even
denounced from the White House.
He was not proceeded against
under the Smith-C -Connally War
Labor Disputes Act, though Sena-
tor Byrd appealed to the Attorney
General for action under that act.
Nothing was done to Mr.. Lewis and
in the end he got more for his
union than he had asked.
The contrast to the Ward case is
complete. In that case, acting with
great speed the Government took
over the plant, elected its head and
gave the union a victory.
Political Alliance.
In considering these things. Il
is impossible not to recall % that
this Is election year and the Presi-
dent (unless all signs faiD will seek
a fourth term; (2) that the CIO
which is the organization concerned
In the Ward case, is the chief
earliest and most ardent grour
urging q fourth term; that Mr.
Sydney Hillman, head of the CIC
Political Action Committee, has an
admitted campaign fund of $700 0O(
and Is vociferously demanding the
Roosevelt reelection: that Attorney
General Biddle is the official who
in March, 1912, urged a gathering
OF radicals to hold the political
trench" declaring that "the New
Deal Is a political party tied I'D with
the labor movement under an able
political leader"
1t may be. as his friends contend