The Wilmington morning star., 1947-07-08
As Pegler Sees 1t
Copyright by King Features Syndicate Ii
BY WEsTBROOK PEGLER

BY WESTBROOK PEGLEk
Copyright by King Features Syndicate, Incl
NEW YORK. July THE Pattern Makers
League 2 small union of the AFT. of L., has
challenged that part of the new laoor'rela-
tons law which forbids unions to spend their
money for campaign literature and other po-
litical propaganda.
Apparently there is a crambl afoot among
he boss unioneers to achieve a painless mar
tvrdom in defense of the freedom OF the
press The assumption is that this part OF
the law will be condemned OF constitutional
erounts by the Supreme court or that even
if it should be upheld, the punishment would
be glorious and luxurious. The announcement
of this defiance is political propaganda, pub
lished in the July issue of the Pattern Makers
Journal. and the cost of tte Journal is paid
oy the members through their dues.
This is a very good union, as unions go,
composed of aristocrats OF a skilled trade
and conducted generally in their interests
rather than for the sole personal benefit OF
any boss. For their money, the men coulo
hire a better writer than the author OF the
challenge which resounds with the dull, dumb
clango, of a rusty bucket and completely falls
10 state the issue.
For rapier thrusts, we see the editor falling
On his face as he refers to Senator Taft as
'Bobbie' and Congressman Hartley as
''Freddie'' and he is over-dramatlc when he
ccies, after Patrick Henry, Give me liberty
OF give me DEATH No issue OF life Or death
exists here. Capital punishment is not pro-
vided even in the most fragrant cases. The
members of the Pattern Makers League, be-
ing rather superior, are likely to curl a lip
at the heroics of a brave prcpagandlst IN ahe
national office who says ne Is wiling TO ole
that freedom may Live when he is threatened,
at worst, with a slap in the face.
AS to the issue, lie. us see.
Does the law impair the freedom OF the
press in forbidding union publications, sup
ported out of the members dues, to publish
campaign literature or support candidates? 1t
is a borderline case but decision in such cases
can't straddle the border. l sey freedom OF
The press is not involved.
The forbiddance is against the use Of GER
tain money for certain purposes. The union
has a right to pass resolutions and support
ca ndidates in print provided that such publ
cation is not supported by the dues and other
treasury funds exacted from the members.
The union NAV lend it's name to a publ1ca-
ton which is financed by voluntary stock IN
vestors, and therefore have a voice in print,
if it wants one.
We have a parallel verboten in the income
tax law which provides that the income of
immune Institutions, including religious organ
%izations, shall be exempt provided that none
of it is used for the purpose OF influencing
legislation. If you concede the political n.y.
giene and justice of the income tax at ALL,
you can find no constitutional fault with this
provision. We don't have to give a church
or educational institution any exemption. This
exemption is a special privilege and its terms
have been violated d~efiantly by men of the
cloth and political takers who run espionage
rackets in the guise of educational concerns.
Several years ago l pointed out a case TO
Henry Morgenthau in which a clergyman,
whose authority covered a large number Of
had interfered in a strictly political
issue and asked him what he intended to do
about it. Henry said he wasn't going to do
anything. He wasn't going to pick any trouble
with any church, guilty or not. That is just
what he said and, of course, that was a cor
ruption of government because he admitted
that there had been a fragrant violation.
l mention this because the Pattern Makers
League gets heroic in defense of religious
freedom too when it says some resentment
was expressed by the politicians on Capitol
Hill because religious leaders voiced opinions
Of the Taft-Hartley bill"
I think the Pattern Makers Journal has
got that a little wrong. These politicians, or
statesmen. did not resent the expression Of
these religious leaders, although some indi-
vidual members of one religious group GER
tainly were sore as the devil at being told
what 10 tn11lk. lIeSe pOlllCldIlS, OF StdteSIIIeE,
merely pointed out that these religious lead
ers had forfeited the tax immunity which the
law grants to their congregations under Ger
tain definite restrictions which these clergy
men thoroughly understood. I do not dispute
their right to interfere in politics But they
should be the last to evade or disobey the
law and should pay their taxes now without
argument. The tax is the price they are sup
posed to pay for the privilege of political ac-
tivity.
The Pattern Makers Journal asks whether
religious communities are tc be muzzled
next? There you have on example of the sort
of thing that Congress had in mind in decid-
ing to forbid the financial support of publ
cations through union dues. They are notori-
ously devious in their Misrepresentation of is
sues to their members, consistently in the
interest of the bosses who run the unions and
edit the papers. There has not been the
vaguest suggestion that any clergyman be
muzzled. All that has heen proposed is that
religious organizatiore with enormous in
Games be compelled to obey the law and pay
their incore tayee Ike all he rest Of rs.
including the irre1igious and the atheists,
when they violate the clause which qualities
tn Fir immunity.
Ito Be Centinued)