The Wilmington morning star., 1946-06-15
The Presidents Veto

foundly disheartening development, which
must add greatly to the gravity OF the present
labor crisis. The veto message is convincing
neither iii relation to the real state of affairs
nor in relation to Mr.. Humans own past rec
ord and statements.
Let US take, for example. the reasons that
Mr.. Truman gives for disapproving of Sec
ton 7 OF the bill, which declares that any per-
son who obstructs commerce by robbery or
extortion, or who commits or threatens physi-
cal violence in connection with such a plan,
shall be guilty of a felony. Mr.. Truman de-
clares that he is Gin full accord with the OBJ
~jectives which Congress here had in mind but
objects that Section 7 ought to declare that is
is not a felony to strike CT picket peacefully.
There is nc more reason why Section 7 ought
to add this complete irrelevancy than why it
ought to add that is not a felony peacefully to
drive ones car or to 60 to a theatre. The fact
is that the Supreme Court has ruled that I'M
der present law it is quite all right for mem
bers of labor unions to do what this section
would forbid. Mr.. Trumar's veto continues a
legal situation which the late Chief Justice
Stone declared would render common law
robbery an innocent pastime.''
Mr.. Truman objects thar Section 9. which
explicitly declares that supervisors are not en-
ployes under the Wagner Act, would ''strip
from supervisory employees the rights of self
organization and collective bargaining now
guaranteed them under the Wagner Act. This
is a strange Interpretation of an Act which
specifically declares that ''the term employ
err includes any person acting in the interest
of an employer, directly or Indirectly Mr..
Truman himself admits in his message, more
over, that supervisory employees, Sin dealing
with the employees under them. act for
management" Section 9 Of the Case Bill was
made rGceSSarV On1v nv the ayfra ordinary
soning by which a majority of the National
Labor Relations board, in spite of this explicit
provision OF the Wagner Act, ruled that it did
give foremen the status Of employees.
Mr.. Truman objects to Section 8. which
would outlaw welfare funds administered
solely by employe representatives. He declares
that at IS inadvisable to remove such a CUES
ton as this from the scope of collective bar
gaining between employer and employee" But
it must be clear that in this Mr.. Truman is
endorsing the private tax on photograph rec
ords levied by Mr.. Petrillo and the private
tax on coal levied in the interest of Mr..
Lewis union; that he is going to let loose a
whole series Of such private taxes, and that
demands for such private taxes are in fact
made possible by the extreme power which
existing Federal legislation places in the hands
of labor leaders.
NAS AtttLJ ROA4ko VII IL liza > ODJSSllOlS u
the Case Bill are in conflict with his own rec
ord. For example, he declares: "President
Roosevelt warned the Congress that the strike
vote provisions of Section 8 of the Smith-Con-
nally Act would not lessen but would promote
industrial strife. That prediction was FULLY
borne out by subsequent e~vents.' Yet Mr.. Tru-
man himself has never called on Congress for
the repeal of the Smith-C onnally Act. On the
contrary, he has repeatedly made use of the
authority Of that Act. and proposes to con-
tinue to do so. to seize strike-bound properties.
Again, Mr.. Truman criticizes the cooling.
off periods for strikes provided in the Case
Bill. Yet in his message to Congress on Dec
3, m urging his own remedy of fact-findine
boards, he recommended the same type of
cooling-oft periods.
Only two arguments are put forward bv
Mr.. Truman to distinguish provisions that he
objects to in the Case Bill from the kind of
measures he has himself recommended or en-
dorsed. He declares that his own drastic pro-
posal was Limited to strikes against the Gov
eminent. 1t did not apply to strikes against
private employers" This is an extremely tech
meal distinction. Nationwide strikes in the coal
mines or on the railroads are Just as disas-
trous to the national welfare whether or NOT
the Government has technically taken over the
properties 1t is a matter of arbitrary deci-
sion whether or not the President elects to
seize a property and make the strike one
against the Government rathern than
against private EMPLOYERS Moreover, when
the President fixes wages for sthe Govern.
ment' to pay on these properties, all he does
IN fact is to saddle .nese wages onto the
private owners and private employers of such
properties.
The Presidents second distinction is that be-
tween temporary" and permanent legisla-
ton, Though his own proposals are incompar-
ably more drastic than those of the Case Bill.
his argument for them is that they are mere
ly Temporary" and that the Case Bill Is
permanent" And though Temporary" legis-
lation can be drafted and passed in a Few
hours even without debate, as were his own
anti-strike recommendations by the House a
few weeks ago. it appears that 'permanent'
legislation should be drafted only after Tong
and careful study "painstaking and exhaus-
tive consideration and with infinite care "
New York Times.