Evening star., 1945-01-01
Double Tulk


spokesmen to justify the unequal
handling of the Montgomery Ward
and Petrillo cases have evoked sur
prising amount of that double
talk" which the President &orn-
fully accused his opponent OF using
during the recent political campaign.
Chairman Davis of the War Labor
Board and Attorney General Biddle
have both argued that a distinction
can be made between the respective
refusals of Sewell Avery, head of
Montgomery Ward, and James c..
Petrillo, head of the American Fed
Grafton of Musicians, to obey WLB
directives. There are differences, of
course. Mr.. Avery is an employer,
directing the operation of a chain
of retail stores, some of which are
in important war centers. Mr..
Petrillo is a union official, who had
been directing boycott of record
manufacturers and strike against
a radio station in Minneapolis. But
these differences are of small con-
sequence and should not serve to
disguise the fact that the two cases
are fundamentally alike.
1t could not be contended that
the strike at Wards Detroit store,
which had not closed the establish
ment, was actually interfering with
war production. The real conten-
ton, as made clear by Mr.. Biddle,
was that to permit Wards to defy
the WLB with impunity might en-
courage other employers to do like
wise, resulting eventually in break
down of the machinery set up to
handle employer employe disputes.
1t was also contended that the strike
at Wards Detroit store might spread
to other establishments, and that
this was risk which ought not to
be taken. 1t may be conceded that
both of these contentious are sound,
but if SO, it is difficult to see wherein
they do not apply with equal force
to Mr.. Petrillo.
The WLB took jurisdiction of the
Petrillo case on the assumption that
his boycott and strike threatened a
substantial interference with the
war effort. In certifying the case to
Sterilization Director Vinson for en-
forcement of its order against
Petrillo the board presumably acted
on the same assumption, for other
wise 1t had no right to ask for en-
forcement. Up to this point iden-
tical procedures had been followed
in each case.
Mr.. VinSon, however, held that Mr..
Petrillo'S noncompliance was not
unduly impeding the war effort, and
1t Is worth noting in this connection
that it is not claimed that Wards
noncompliance has as yet unduly
impeded the war effort. The fear
is that it may do so if permitted
to continue. In view of this, it
should not be forgotten that the
President, in appealing personally to
Petrillo to obey the boards order,
said that the union leaders nom
compliance may encourage other
instances of noncompliance which
will impede the war effort" That
obviously is true-just as true of Mr..
Petrillo as it is of Mr.. Avery, and it
is precisely on this Fundamental
point that the arguments to the
contrary by Mr.. Biddle and Mr..
Davis fell down.
Senator Bail, who bolted the Re-
publican party to support Mr.. Roose-
velt last November, sums the matter
up in these words: "A fundamental
principle of democracy is that its
rules and laws apply equally to all.
l do not believe that it is true at
present as regards enforcement of
WLB directives" That is a state
ment with which the vast majority
of Americans will be in full agree
ment