Evening star., 1945-03-05
The RoyoIty Issue

Inc NOyoity issue
There is doubt in the minds of
some that John L. Lewis is wholly
serious in his attempt to levy what
is in effect private tax of ten cents
on each ton of coal mined, the pro-
ceeds to be paid into a union fund
which unquestionably would be con-
trolled by him. Mr.. Lewis seems to
be serious enough. He has served
notice that the coal operators must
"accede" the miners the right to
live"-which in his estimation
means yielding to his demands. "If
you don't accede it," he says, I'VE
will take it anyhow" Furthermore,
MIR. Lewis has a perfectly valid prec-
edent in the Governments weak
surrender to James c. Petrillo, head
of the American Federation of Mu-
sicians, who demanded and secured
the right to levy union tax on the
manufacture of phonograph records.
If the consuming public can be taxed
for the benefit Of the musicians, Mr..
Lewis might ask. why cannot the
consumers be taxed for the benefit
of the miners?
Events will show whether the mine
union head intends to make tight
on this point. But the fact that he
has made the demand, coupled with
Mr.. Petrillo's ea1lier success In the
same field, should be sufficient to
impress any one with the seriousness
of the issue which has been raised.
There is distinction to be made
between the Lewis methods and his
stated objectives. Mr.. Lewis says
that the 100000, 900 a year which
would be raised by the ten cent
royalty would be used to provide the
miners with such things as medical
service, disqualification and health
insurance, and for their economic
protection" That the miners, not
to mention millions of other workers,
need better health facilities is hardly
debatable. And they will get them,
in one way or another. But 1t does
not follow that the public should
submit to private tax by Mr.. Lewis
to that end.
His inclusion Of the economic
protection" objective raises imme-
diate doubts. That could mean any,
thing he wanted it to mean, includ-
ing, in peacetime, political contri-
buttons. But this is an issue which
goes deeper than doubt as to the
validity of one of Mr.. Lewis OBJ
jectives. 1t involves q principle of
primary Importance.
II a union has the right to levy a
private tax for a desirable purpose,
1t has the right to levy tax for any
purpose not specifically forbidden
by law. And, except in wartime, the
law puts virtually no restraint on
unions in this respect. Further
more, if it is right to levy ten-cent
tax on the production of a ton of
coal, what assurance is there that
the tax will not be boosted to a
dollar few years hence? And if it
is right for unions to tax the pro-
duction or sale of coal and phono-
graph records, there is not the
slightest reason why they should not
levy similar taxes on the production
of automobiles or washing machines
or clothing or even loaf of bread.
Since these taxes ultimately would
be paid to the unions by the con-
suming public, and since the public
would have no effective control over
the union officials levying the taxes,
1T seems obvious that serious cues
tion of public policy is involved. In
that sense, this is not a dispute be-
tween Mr.. Lewis and the coal oper-
ators, but rather dispute to which
the consumers of every union made
product are actual or potential
parties.