Evening star., 1944-06-05
COP Seen FoiIinq
TO Guard Civil Rights

iO0uUtu SlvU nights
Congress- Minority Could Act
To Force Issue, Is Belief
By Dapid Laurence
Many people are going to be asked
soon to decide whether the country win
be any better Oh under Republican than
Democratic rule. II the record az .
whole Of the Republican party In Con-
gress, therefore, Is to be taken as q
criterion, maybe the country win decide
to settle down to continuation Of the
Democrats.
For the Republicans have stood idly
by while civil rights have been taken
from the citizen. They have failed to
use their power as minority to secure
the liberties which their campaign
speeches will soon tell the people the
Democrats are taking away.
There Is, for instance, the simple mat
ter of court review Of acts of the exec
uttve agencies. Here is an issue of
transcendent Importance. It's an issue
any child who has studied our form
Of government can understand. The
Democrats, Of course, don't want court
review. They are subservient to the
Executive and wish to give him a free
hand. Their Attorney General has
already defied Congress by saying
that irrespective Of specific statutes
on seizure of industrial plants, there
is an aggregate Of powers" in the
Commander in Chief enabling him to
do as he pleases. Certainly the coun-
try cannot expect the preservation of
civil rights by the Democrats ir Con-
gress especially in an election year
when SO many of the members must
hang OIL to the Presidents coat-tails to
win their own seats.
Could Make 1t an Issue.
There is a majority In both houses
for civil rights II the Republican party
cares to make 1t an issue. There are
enough Democrats from the South who
would vote with the Republicans If the
latter asserted themselves. But it be-
gins to appear that the Republicans,
too, are going to play pussy-foot politics
this year. It Is said they don't want
to offend anybody-and the possibility
Of offending the CIo or the labor vote
is beginning to be considered by some
Republicans.
There's q piece Of legislation pending,
however, to which amendments on
court review can be offered. It's the
bill to extend price sterilization and
wage control The whole system Of
price control comes to an end June 80
unless extended by Congress and If such
amendments imperil the extension Of
this measure there are some who think
the risk Is worth taking. For II civil
rights are abolished. price and wage
control Is OF little avail Arbitrary
edicts and DEGREES can then be added
at will by executive regulations without
a chance for court review. "
What seems most surprising Is that
union labor allows this reactionary trend
to go on without protest. Thus the
other day the United States Circuit
Court Of Appeals rightly decided that
there was no provision in the law for
court review of the War Labor Boards
orders. The fact is court review was
omitted from the Smith -Connally law
by direct pressure from the War Labor
Board chairman and by the administra-
tion. A threat Of a veto is said to have
been sent to Capitol Hill while the
measure was in conference, so court
review was omitted. But the bill was
later vetoed anyhow even with court
review omitted, and was passed over
the veto.
Labor Short Sighted.
For many months the War Labor
Board operated without any legislative
sanction at all and the Smith Connally
bill gave the board It's first real author
ity. The omission of court review was
a deliberate step to put over compulsory
arbitration In America.
Labor unions may be the temporary
benehciaries of administration favor but
they are short-sighted If they oppose
court review. For If the precedent is
once established that no action of the
War Labor Board Is subject to court
review, the way Is opened to the COM
plete control and domination of labor
unions by governmental agencies.
Incidentally, it has been mistakenly
reported in the press that the decision
by the United States Circuit Court Of
Appeals here vindicated the Attorney
Generals claim in the Ward seizure
case in Chicago. The issue settled was
Or1ly that the War labor Board orders
are not renewable. The seizure of
property by the President can still be
passed on by the courts in specific cases
to determine whether any arbitrary act
has been committed. For court review
in seizure cases Is derived from the
Constitution itself which specifically
prohibits Unreasonable searches and
seizures"
Reproduction Rights Reserved)