Evening star., 1947-03-09
Counsel of Despair

NounSeI or DeSpoif
If it be assumed that the, position
taken by John L. Lewis in his ap-
pearance before the Senate Labor
Committee is correct, the ineScapa-
BILE conclusion is that the outlook for
the future of our free society is all
but hopeless. Happily, however,
there is no reason to assume that
Mr.. Lewis is right. On the contrary,
it is more reasonable to believe that
he is merely echoing the same coun-
sci of despair, the same prophecy
of the destruction of our free enter
prise system, that has always been
heard whenever the Government has
moved to curb special privileges en-
joyed by favored groups.
Mr.. Lewis had been asked what
could be done to stop strikes which
paralyze the country. He replied:
Until we change our form of Gov
ernment, we can't do anything about
it. II you want totalitarian form
OF government you can do all of
those things" In other words, as
Mr.. Lewis sees the picture, we are
restricted to choice between white
and black. There is no gray area,
no middle ground, in it. We must
either grant an absolute freedom to
strike, and take the chance that our
economy will not be destroyed by
strikes which deprive the people of
the essentials Of life, or we must
restrict the right to strike and lose
our free society In consequence of
that restriction.
Very few people except those in
the position of special pleaders will
agree with this analysis, for the
teaching of experience is to the
contrary. This Government has re-
peatedly curbed the rights" of in
dividuals or groups of individuals,
yet enactment of the laws imposing
these restraints has not resulted in a
totalitarian state in this country.
The National Labor Relations Act,
for instance, deprived employers of
many rights" which they previously
had enjoyed. And some of these en-
ployers loudly asserted that freedom
was gone in this country; that per-
sonal liberty was dead But Mr..
Lewis was very much in favor of
this law when it was passed some
twelve years ago, and he says now
that it must not be changed in any
particular. From all of which the
inference arises that Mr.. Lewis sees
a threat of totalitarianism only in
laws or proposed laws which are
designed to curb his absolute free
dom to do as he pleases, regardless
of the consequences to society.
On this point there is a"passage a
worth noting In the Supreme Courts
decision that Mr.. Lewis and his
miners could not defy the law with
impunity. The court was consider
ing whether the members of the
United Mine Workers, having merely
followed the example set by Mr..
Lewis, should escape punishment.
1--WE cannot ignore the effect of their
action Tin striking) upon the rights
of other citizens" said the court,
cor the effect of their action upon
our system Of Government. The
gains, social and economic, which
the miners and other citizens have
realized in the past are ultimately
due to the fact that they enjoy the
rights of free men under our system
of Government. Upon the mainte-
nance of that system depends all
future progress to which they may
justly aspire. In our complex So
ciety there is great variety of lim-
tied loyalities, but the overriding
loyalty of all is to our country and
to the institutions under which a
particular interest may be enjoyed"
This is another way of saying that
if our free society is to survive the
interests of the whole must come
ahead of the interests of any part.
The right of 100000 miners to strike
is not an absolute, but a qualified,
right. And the essential qualif1ca-
ton is that it must not be exercised
in such way as to destroy the
right of 140,O00,o00 Americans to
have the necessities of life. It is
because Mr.. Lewis and some other
labor leaders refuse to recognize this
that we must have laws curbing the
right to strike. And the result of
these laws will not be a totalitarian
government, but the continuance of
a democratic government capable of
governing in a free society.