Evening star., 1944-12-29
The New Word Seizure

The thing that stands out like
sore thumb in the Governments
latest clash with Montgomery Ward
is the contrast between its methods
in dealing with Sewell Avery and its
handling of recalcitrant labor lead
ers like James c. Petrillo.
When Mr.. Petrillo, head of the
American Federation Of Musicians,
defied the War Labor Board few
weeks ago the President first ad-
dressed personal appeal to him to
desist from such tactics. When Mr..
Petrillo refused, the President then
said something about having some
body look up the law to see what
could be done But nothing was
done Mr.. Petrillo defied the board
and got away with it.
Mr.. Avery, however, is not being
permitted to defy the board with
impunity The business establish
ments of Montgomery Ward, which
he heads, have been taken over by
the War Department at the direction
OF the President, and Mr.. Roosevelt
has said very firmly that 1--WE cannot
allow Montgomery Ward and Com
pany to set aside the wartime policies
of the United States Government
just because Mr.. Sewell Avery does
not approve of the Governments
procedure for handling labor dis
puteS." There was no word of con-
demnation in the Presidents state
ment for the Ward employees who
went on strike to force seizure of
the firms stores and who have re-
sorted in some instances to riotous
conduct in support of their strike.
The denunciatory phases of the
statement were reserved exclusively
for Mr.. Avery.
So far as the seizure itself is
concerned, the evidence supports the
contention that the Government
had no feasible alternative. Mr..
Avery'S defiance of the board was
deliberate. In all probability he
wanted the Government to seize
his business. At the very least, for
the Government to have done moth
ing in the face of his defiance
would have been to discriminate
against other employers who have
complied with the boards orders,
however distasteful. But the JUS
tif1cation for the seizure in Mr..
Avery's case does not soften the fact
that the Government has one policy
for employers, another for unions.
Mr.. Petrillo's defiance was Just as
wlllful and just as open, yet the
President did virtually nothing to
bring him into line, and the memory
of his methods in dealing with Mr..
Petrillo will surely tend to lessen
public support for his firmness in
dealing with Mr.. Avery. The admin
istration has not dealt equally with
the two cases, and no denunciation
OF Mr.. Avery can conceal that fact.
There is one gratifying aspect of
the latest Ward seizure, however,
and that Is the Governments move
to test the legality of its act in the
courts. For two years the Ward
concern has tried to get court rul-
ing on the legality of WLB proce-
dure. To avoid such a test, the
board has contended that its deci-
sions are not orders, but amount
only to advice as to what should be
done-advice which no one is under
any legal obligation to follow. Last
May, it appeared that Federal
court would rule on the legality Of
the seizure of the firms Chicago
store, but that test, too, was side
stepped when the Government re-
control of the store a few
hours before the decision was to be
handed down. In view of that rec
ord, the Governments present in
tention of seeking a court test of
the Presidents seizure powers will
be welcomed.