The Waterbury Democrat., 1944-05-02
A Thought for Today
Wartime Powers

Interest of a parallel nature is to be
found in the recent forcible eviction by
presidential edict of the chairman of the
Montgomery Ward & Co., from his juriS-
dictional domain, and the refusal by
these same federal authorities to make
move against John l.. Lewis and COM
pany at the time the latter called the
strike of thousands of the nations
miners. It is of parallel interest because
the issue behind both cases is and was
of the same nature.
Yet inconsistency the eviction of the
War official was carried out as per law"
while this same claw was utterly dis
regarded in the Lewis instance, despite
the fact that the issues involving the
latter were of much broader influence
upon the nations war effort.
In view of this it is only with tongue
in-the-cheek attitude that we can listen
to the rationization being INDUCED in by
federal authorities relative to their ac-
ton and the background involved in the
mail-order concerns affair. Talk of the
reasons for such federal action being
based on the fact that the company was
classified as a producer of articles or
materials which may be required for the
war effort or which may be useful in
connection Herewith" is more than just
questionable.
True we must wait for further elucida-
ton as to the background of the issues
involving the company and the union.
Yet there remains the question, partlc-
ularly in view of the very different treat
ment employed in the Ward case and that
of John L. Lewis & Co., just how much
more weight and pressure is brought
upon the employer than upon labor I'M
der the Presidents wartime powers. II
we could find a measuring rule for de-
terrnining this, perhaps we could discern
a difference. BY superstition, at this
writing, it would be easy to see that I'M
less comparable authority is to be
granted and utilized - to force Labor
to give complete support to the war eff
fort the use of force, such as has been
witnessed in this and other instances,
to obtain compliance from an employer,
is unfair.
The ability, under the War Labor Dis
puteS Act, to classify such concern as
Montgomery Ward & Co., as producer
of ''war required articles" is of such posi-
BILE broad consequence as to be alarming.
Such power as granted under this act,
to be welded by naturalization, would
in peacetime be unbearable. Perhaps it
would behooye Congress to look into the
matter of its being absolutely fully neces-
Sary in wartime.
The matter of business restrictions for
meeting wartime needs plus federal in
fiuence on both management and labor is
a complex one. The fundamental point,
difficult to determine, is just how, when
and why the war effort is affected and
how much interference with the enter
prise of business is justified. In fairness
to the President it must be said that Con-
gress has not itself discovered how to
deal with such problems. Again in fair
ness to the President his was undoubt-
eddy the action, of man taking the bull
by the horns in an instance when the
principles involved seemed to him to be
far outweighed by the weight of the gen.
eral war effort. If such be so, however,
the subsequent classification OF the Ward
company as a producer of wartime ma
terials doesn't jibe. 1t is somewhat com
parable to the old police method OF "hit
'em first and talk to em later"
The entire matter of iorcible confsca-
ton of a private enterprise by federal
directive goes deep to the roots OF our
democratic principles Such usurpation
and its effects, does not involve only large
concerns and business houses. Its very
existence is a heavy foot in the domain OF
any private citizen In Waterbury or any
where else In this nation. Perhaps now
is the time for an orderly review, by the
proper authorities, OF these powers ana