The potters herald. [volume] (East Liverpool, Ohio) 1899-1982, 1947-04-24


pointed an organizer without con-
sulting the rest of the Board"
Vice President Turner then made
a statement to the effect that
Board members never interferred
with the President in matters of
this kind. The Constitution gives
the Board power to appoint or
ganizers and for quite while they
appointed themselves. Now, it
seems, they have surrendered the
authority given them by the Con-
stitution."
Duffy: Whippler and Finlay
seemingly resent the action of the
delegates in the convention in dis
posing of this matter as they saw
fit. Definitely they opposed your
national president having authority
to appoint organizers. They evil
denced this by word and vote dur
ing the discussion of the question.
They also criticise the Board for
appointing themselves as organiz-
ers. Quite evidently my having the
power to appoint organizers is dis
tasteful to them and they evidence
equal dissatisfaction with the
Board having that power. The
question is, what do they want?
The fact is, after the delegates
in convention heard all arguments
to the question they, by overwhelm-
ing vote, rejected the resolution,
specifically giving me the right to
appoint organizers. In view of the
fact that Board members assured
the delegates that they did not in
terfere with any appoint | might
see fit to make. In other words,
the action of the convention was
equivalent to the adoption Of the
resolution.
Whippler- -Finlay: "Is it demo-
cratic for the President instead of
the Board to name the organiZ->
ers?"
Duffy: It is democratic for the
President instead of the Executive
Board to name the organizers if,
and when the delegates in our Ma
tional Convention by a majority
vote so authorizes.
Whippler-Finlay: '1s it consti-
tutional for the Board to grant the
Duffy: 1t is constitutional for
the Board to grant such power to
the President if the delegates in
convention understand that the
Board intended to pass their au-
thority on to the President and
majority of such delegates SO
voted.
Famous Formulas
Whippler- Finlay: "T h e little
steel of 1912 and the big steal of
1914"
Duffy: Whippler and Finlay as
sert that the action of majority of
delegates in the 1914 Convention
in amending the Constitution per-
mitting national officials salary
increase without requirement of
referendum was a steal. The case
history Is as follows: The resolu-
ton to amend the Constitution
brought about considerable debate
pro and con by the delegates, end
ing in the adoption of the resolu-
tion by large majority. Following
this a recommendation from the
Finance Committee for national
officials salary increase came on
the floor. Debate ON this issue was
INDUCED in by delegates to both
sides of the question without any
particular rancor. Every represen-
tative in the convention was given
every freedom to say what they
wished regarding the proposed ac-
tion. Question finally was called
for. The yeah vote was over
On the nay not single
voice, nor vote was evidenced
against adoption.
1t is brazen for any member Of
a labor organization to assert that |
the majority will of delegates to
their national convention is steal
ing. Whether these errant brothers |
realize it or not they evidence
scant realization Of the serious
ness Of their wreckless statements.
when they react so violently TO ac-
lions of the majority will of dele
gates to our convention.
Certain Resolution In The
Printed Program
Whippler- Finlay: an 1888 GER
.ain resolutions were not allowed
10 appear in the printed program
despite the fact the resolution had