Evening star., 1945-01-31
Issue in Ward Case
clouded, Says Writer

StOO0S0S S0yS VsN~a
Constitution Gives President No
War Powers, He Points Out
BY Dapid laurence
Judging by comments made by legis-
lators, executive officials. labor leaders
and others about the Federal Court de-
Scision in the Montgomery Ward case.
one would suspect that the issue Is man.
agement versus labor unions or the
Government versus those who defy its
orders with respect to strikes in war
time.
One suspects that most Of those who
have commented never read the oppos-
ing briefs filed in the case or took the
trouble to look up the constitutional
history of the controversy.
For the real issue is bigger than
Sewen Avery or his policies or President
Roosevelt and his policies. 1t 3 far
more important than personalities or
even economic feuds. The simple issue
is whether the slogan carved in big
letters on the facade of the 6uilding
which houses the Supreme Court OF
the United States-"Equal Justice Un-
der Law"-shall have as much mean
ing in time of war as in peace. The
issue is whether Government officials,
possessed of vast war powers, shall al
low their rulings to be influenced by
emotions and prejudice and even by
political expediency or only by the man.
date of a written Constitution and q
long series of dispassionately written
decisions by the Supreme Court inter-
preting that Constitution.
Specific Act of Congress.
The facts are that the Constitution
confers no war powers as such on the
President or on the Commander in
Chief of the Army and Navy. He gets,
those powers only by a specific act Of
Congress. Such statute bids him wage
war against the enemy and grants him
authority to raise armies and navies
and spend money. 1t Is statute that
enumerates the presidential powers In
wartime and gives him discretion in
some fields and limits his discretion in
others.
When the war started, Mr.. Roosevelt
summoned representatives of manage
ment and labor to the White House
for a conference. An agreement was
reached to ban strikes and lockouts.
Also it was asserted that neither labor
nor management would use the war as
a means of exploiting its respective posi-
tions. The War Labor Board was
created by executive order to carry out
that policy. But the board soon vio-
lated the pledge by insisting, in effect;
that labor had to be bribed not to strike
and that the price of its willingness TO
refrain from striking was an order
from the board compelling employers
to establish q form of closed shop-the
maintenance of membership" plan.
Nobody in that 1941 conference ever
dreamed that retail plants would be
union membership against his will. Mr..
Roosevelt had chance to apply Equal
Justice Under Law" to labor union.
His own labor board in written opinion
by Chairman Davis on August 4, ls43,
certified the Petrillo case as "one which
might lead to substantial interference
with the war effort"
But Mr.. Roosevelt didn't like that
advice. He said he could not find any
basis in law for acting against the Pc
trillo union So on October 3, 1914, in
the middle of presidential campaign,
he reversed Mr.. Davis and said the
labor dispute by the musicians union
did not unduly impede the war effort.
This was proclaimed in spite of the tesl
timony accepted year before by Chair
man Davis from the heads of the Office
of War Information and the Federal
Communications Commission to the ef-
feet that the unions defiance was an
interference with radio stations vitality
needed in prosecuting the war effort.
It was plainly one kind of ruling for
Mr.. Petrillo and another kind for Mr..
Avery.
Briefs in Ward Case.
Then came the briefs in the Ward In
junction case. The Justice Department
conceded that the Congress had not pro-
vided for enforcement of the War Labor
Boards orders Likewise, in the Ward
brief was quoted the text of Chairman
Davis letter to Congress asking it not
to include any provisions to enforce the
War Labor Disputes Act.
Why was this authority specifically
withheld by Congress at the behest oi
the administration? Because the Presi.
dent didn't want mandatory provision
that would really stop strikes He
wanted to exercise a discretionary
power so he could make one rule for
unions and another for employers. And
the administration. of course, thought
at the time that the War Powers Act
gave adequate power to enforce seiz-
ures or anything else it pleased. -
Now a courageous Federal judge
Philip Sullivan of Chicago-has refused
to allow the war powers statute to be
distorted into vehicle of political ex-
pediency He insists, in effect, that
Congress can, if it wishes. specifically
authorize seizures of retail stores or
union books or facilities or what-not,
But Congress and the President must
face that issue and not pass the buck
to the courts to do their legislating
Reproduction Rights Reserved.) rs