Evening star., 1945-03-07
Blind Justice

Federal Judge Charles E. Wyzanski,
jr., of Boston, has ruled that direc-
tives of the War Manpower Commits
sion are not renewable in the courts.
If one is content to look only at the
narrow technicalities involved, that
ruling may be defenSible. But If the
courts are to concern themselves
with the substance rather than the
shadow of justice it is difficult to
see how they can close their doors
to controversies of this kind.
The case before Judge Wyzanski
involved the effort by the VINO to
compel textile workers of New Bed
ford, Massachusetts,, to take jobs in
tire factories. This is done by i'm
posing employment ceilings on
employers, which force them to
discharge specified number of
workers. No other employer can
hire these dismissed workers except
on approval of VINO, which means
that they are forced into jobs which
the Government wants them to take
or are denied any employment. AS
a result of this co-called voluntary"
program, scores of people have lost
their regular jobs in New Bedford,
and have now learned that they
cannot obtain hearing in the
Federal courts.
Judge Wyzanski says that the
VINO directive is not, in the legal
sense, an order which deprives any
one of any property, but is only an
official recommendation. No one, he
says, can be imprisoned for refusing
to obey the directive, but he comedies
that noncomplying employers might
find their supplies curtailed or their
prlorities Cancelled. Employers have
been placed in like situations before,
however, notably at the hands of the
War Labor Board. 1t is not their
plight, but that Of the individual
workers, which lends nunadmirable
distinction to the New Bedford affair.
Judge Wyzanski does not deny that
men and women have lost their Jobs
as result of the VINO action. And
he grants that some executive
agency might induce other employers
not to hire" these dismissed workers.
But then he goes on to say that these
are speculative, collateral conse-
quenceS of the directive"-a conten-
ton which ignores the plain fact
that the loss of employment is
neither speculative nor collateral
result, but is the direct and intended
consequence of the directive.
What is the average citizen to
think when he finds himself in a
situation like this? He knows that
some Government official has caused
him to lose his job. When he refuses
to take the job that he is directed
to take, he discovers that this same
official has made it impossible for
him to get any other work. Then he
turns to the courts and finds that
he cannot get hearing there be-
cause the law, as interpreted by the
Judge, holds that this is an entirely
voluntary matter and that if he has
lost his job it is not because of any
compulsion on the part of the
Government.
Certainly, this is not a state OF
affairs that is calculated to inspire
respect for either the Government"
or the courts. 1t is true that the
necessities of the war dictate that
individuals be required to work
where they are most needed. But it
would be infinitely better, as Senator
Byrd has suggested, to abandon the
shabby pretense that this can be
done without compulsion, and to
adopt the May bill or some other
legislation which would deal can
didly with the people and define by
law their obligation to the country.