Evening star., 1944-05-09
BiddIe Seen as Issue
In Coming Compoign
Law Enforcement Fairness"
May be Decided ut Polls

Law Enforcement "Fairness"
May be Decided at Polls
By David Laurence
Attorney General Biddle may himself
become the principal domestic issue Of
the coming presidential campaign. The
issue may be whether the people, In
electing President Roosevelt TO fourth
term will be continuing In office some
one who has political point Of view
when IL comes to enforcing the laws OF
the United States-whether, in fact.
the Department of Justice Is any longer
fair in its task of law enforcement.
The first count against the Attorney
General Is his speech made in March,
1942 at dinner of New Dealers which
included representatives from both
houses Of Congress and from the Su-
preme Court and from the Presidents
cabinet. The POSTMASTER at that din
ner--a magazine writer-said amid ap-
plause:
The New Deal is more dynamic than
fascism and more revolutionary than
communism"
When Mr.. Biddle's turn to speak
came he urged his hearers to keep I'D
the political fight" for New Dealism
| regardless of our entry into the war.
He said that the success of the New
Deal was due to the fact that 'it was
not just group of theorists or liberals,
but it was political party tied up with
the labor movement under an able polit-
ical leader--a vigorous labor movement
| gave 1t strength"
This address by the Attorney General
did not have the same relevancy then
that 1t has today. Since that speech
was delivered the Attorney General has
been confronted with some concrete
| questions dealing with the labor move
ment and law enforcement.
Representative Howard Smith of vir-
| ginia, Democrat, has written the Attor-
ney General calling his attention to an
alleged violation of the Corrupt Practices
Act relating to compaign contributions
by labor union. but Mr.. Biddle has not
done anything to enforce the law,
though Mr.. Smith has presented evi-
dence of violation.
| When the coal strike occurred and
the miners remained out on strike in
defiance of the Smith -Connally law the
Department of Justice took no action
against the leaders who were respon-
sible for calling the strike. Many in
stances .of seizure of an employers
property-such as Montgomery Ward
have occurred, but 1t is not apparent
that the same drastic action has been
taken at any time against any labor
union officer or organization.
The Attorney General argues that
irrespective of the specific terms of the
Smith -Connally law relating to Gov
ernment seizures of property, the Presi-
dent has a great reserve of constitu-
tional power" which permits him to
take virtually any action that he thinks
may be necessary to prevent interrupt
tions to the war effort or production.
If this be true, then the Department of
Justice could, under that theory, have
taken punitive action against the
miners union. But there is no record
that the department did anything about
the serious interruption to the war
effort when coal production was i'm
paired nor is there any evidence that
any punitive measures have been taken
1 against the many leaders of so-called
unauthorized strikes which have been
such paralyzing factor from time to
time in r-production plants.
/ The Attorney General has been argu-
Ing the Montgomery Ward case in
Chicago before Federal judge. He did
not go into court in the first instance,
but used military force without waiting
for court order This action, which
Is indefensible, was taken against an
employer Unquestionably such a step
pleased the labor unionists who were
glad to see the Federal Government
step in and seize an employer.
But the Attorney Generals action does
not please many persons who see beyond
| the immediate case and who know that
bayonets can be used against labor
unions, too, if the power which the
Attorney General says he has is upheld
by the administration and precedent
Is created for future administra tions
to use.
If any other Attorney General had
taken the step, it would have been less
subject to criticism. But when the At
torney General has, in public address,
boldly proclaimed the party in power
to be tiled up with the labor move
ment under an able political leader" +"
1t raises the question of whether the
American people can expect justice from
the Department of Justice or merely a
prejudiced use of public power to get
votes and maintain political alliance
with the labor movement.
| Reproduction Rights Reserved)