The Wilmington morning star. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1909-1990, 1945-03-09

views Of Mr. Pegler, and often disagree
with them as much as many OF his read
ers. His articles serve the good purpose
of making people Think
BY WEsTBROOK PEGLER
Copyright, 1915, By King Features Syndicate)
In the light of Judge Phillip L. Sullivan's
decision that the seizure of Montgomery Wards
property was a lawless act, let us refer to a
gratuitous statement by Frank P. Graham,
ostensibly public or impartial member
of the War Labor board, Dec. IT,
The very designation public member re-
veals serious fault in the spirit of govern
ment these days for all government officials
should be public officials. That is to say
they should be impartial and just Yet we
have labor senators and congressman and
Mr.. Biddle, the Attorney General, has an
nounced, in effect, that the Roosevelt govern
ment is a 'labor'' government, that means
that the Roosevelt government is partial to
unions which are subordinate groups of his
political party and in just that degree, is
unfair to the rest of the nation.
To be sure that is democracy majority rule.
But it is not equal justice under law.
Mr.. Graham denounced Montgomery Ward,
a private citizen, so to speak, and taxpayer,
for "blasting at the foundations Of maximum
production and spoke of the mo strike
agreement Of patriotic labor"
An impartial member of this board, it he
felt called on to make any statement at all,
might have felt that fairness required him to
recall that the mo strike" agreement of pa
triotic labor had been violated by thousands
of strikes, which had blasted Eat the founda-
tons of production in works vitality essential
to the war. On the other hand, Wards actual
connection with such production is slight, if
not wholly imaginary.
Mr.. Graham then described the mainte-
nance of membership shop and said that
man already in the union had IS days in which
to resign. Having resigned he still could keep
his job. An impartial and wel-informed per.
son here might have observed, however, that
even in some vital war plants unions have
been guilty of outrageous frauds in their cleo
tons. 1t is within their power to throw in the
Waste-basket designations offered in good faith
and then to insist on the discharge of those
workers by denying that their designations
were received and accusing them Of delin-
quency.
Mr.. Graham said Ward would make para
mount with the global war descriptive internal
conflict between capital and labor. That makes
the companys management look unpatriotic
when it is not and the charge is made by
an agent Of the government. The fact was how
ever, as the court later agreed, that the con-
flict was not between capital and labor but
-.
ment was acting in a lawless manner and
Ward was insisting on its rights under law
James Byrnes, the director of war mobiliza-
ton, also attacked Ward in an affidavit and
the army moved in by order Of President
Roosevelt, executed by the Secretary of War.
The army seized the company's private
property, including its receipts, and made
disbursements, including wages, according to
the decisions of the War Labor board. 1t has
:~Lk l.1x- ~.
of your pockets.
BY now we have the President, the War
Labor board the Director of War Mobiliza-
a citizen defending his rights. He may not
be a popular citizen but neither was Captain
Dreyfuss.
The army, Of course, is not public in the
sense of impartality. The President is COM
chief and all the officers are oblg-
ed to obey his orders and uphold him in his
contentious An officer might have some vague
and theoretical legal right to publicly criticize
an order given to him by authority of his
commander-in-chief, but this simply is not
done. If Ward, in such notorious case, could
be so abused, mere army officer, even a
general, OF whom we now have hundreds,
would stand chance in guardhouse ar
gument about his rights.
Examining the situation now, we find the
army enforcing illegal order to uphold a |
policy Of a government which is admitted
ly partial to Wards opponent in case at law |
The army, too, has propaganda services whose
duty is to justify the armys position which
in this case violates citizens rights The
army is, in practical effect, the client of it's |
own propaganda specialists and obviously will
suffer no criticism at their hands It is theirs |
not to reason why but to do their stuff just
as resolutely as though they were attacking
Germans Japs instead of unoffendng fell
low citizen at home. The army being no longer
in a public impartial position, neither
is its propaganda service. 1t is all arrayed,
by orders. on the side of a litigant which
happens to be a political ally of the com
chief
Meanwhile, officers have been accepted and
promoted, who are sincerely partial to t h
President as a politician, to his party and
TO unions Men of such sympathies would not
as civilians, even offer to serve in the pub I
lc' or impartial capacity in an issue between
a big employer and a union. With most of
them Labor ''unionism' is cause, and
they cannot be asked to renounce their deepest
The most that can be asked is
that they do not let their convictions influence
their conduct as officers. But in the present
situation they are in the pleasant position of
men whose convictions agree with their duty
All this is abuse of the Presidents mill
tary authority and dangerous misuse of the
army. It is an evil precedent which, in
future case, could be invoked to mistreat with
military force and tremendous firenouor