Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1947-09-10

around the Capitol. Thus, scattered indiscrim-
inately Is almost anything from q puny crab
apple to what seems to be Canadian banana
tree.
There are a few trees of historical Sig
nif1cance, few others of ancient age and
beautiful growth.
All trees, other than these, could well be up
rooted forthwith and carted OF. An entirely
new planting scheme should then be inaugu-
rated which would make the Capitol grounds
and building the appropriately predominant
motif of the Mall. Old photographs indicate
that the Mall too, was once as unpleasantly
planted.
While the overgrowth Of trees is being de-
stroyed, the Virginia creeper, which envelopes
the terraces and hides some very attractive
architectural details, should be similarly re-
duced.
Then-with nice bare Capitol some archi-
tect especially skilled In landscape design
such as that consummate artist and crafts
man who produced Meridian HILL should be
turned loose upon it. Then would the Capitol
Building and Capitol grounds come into right
full perspective. Then it would be properly
viewed from North Capitol street, East Capt.
tol street and the Mall. Approximately planted
in formal and symmetrical manner, the
architectural shortcomings would be submerged
and the virtues enhanced. The Capitol would
come into its own.
Incidentally, signs might well be posted
suggesting that those who use the grounds for
picnics and revelry should stay sober enough
to pick up empty bottles and trash when they
leave. ILEWELLYN PRICE.
Says lawrence Erred on NLRB Case
To thai Ell Tta q
The August 10 article by David Lawrence,
entitled Labor Law Written by New Dealer,
Once Aide of Roosevelt" requires comment.
Whether Gerald D. Reilly, credited in the
article with being the real author of the Taft
Hartley Act, is correctly described by Mr.. Law
renee as a New Deal labor lawyer" or by the
CLIO in its 1947 Voting Guide as "Washing-
ton corporation representative" is q matter Of
opinion. What Is pertinent, however, Is that
Mr.. Lawrence misstates the position of the
NLRB on an important labor case Cat the
same time implying that Mr.. Reilly, then a
board member. dissenteD impugns the in
tegrity of the Supreme Court by stating that 1t
resorted to "a loophole" to sustain the board,
and finally m1srepresents the plain language of
the Taft-Hartley Act
While Mr.. Lawrence does not Identify the
case he discusses 1t Is obvious that he refers
to the Wallace Corporation decision Stated
shortly. that case held that the employer
violated the law If he discharged employees
pursuant to a closed shop contract entered
into with an independent union that had won
an election conducted on terms requiring the
employer to grant q closed shop to the victor,
when he did so with the knowledge that the
Independent intended to use the contract to
effect the discharge Of employees who had
previously been active on behalf Of the rival
CLIO union.
Ordered Employees Reinstated.
In its first decision, issued February n, 1913
al NLRB 1169) the board (only Messrs.
Mills and Reilly participating invalidated the
independents contract and ordered the en-
ployer to reinstate the discharged employees
with back pay. Chairman Mills indicated he
would have based the ruling in part on the
grounds supplementing the finding that the
employer had knowledge of the independents
objective. Mr.. Reilly, however, wrote a concur
ring opinion in which he relied exclusively on
the employers knowledge as warranting upset.
ting the contract. He said that the election
agreement did not bind the employer ito
acquiesce in scheme to penalize those en-
ployes whose choice was not that OF the
majority; nor can the proviso in Section 800
be thought to countenance such a result"
Two months later, after Mr.. Houston had
been appointed, the board vacated this de-
cision, heard reargument, and entered new
opinion on June 7, 1913 $50 NLRB 1881. In the
revised ruling, Mr. Reilly's view was adopted
as the board opinion.
The Fourth Circuit Court Of Appeals unanI-
nously affirmed the boards Interpretation Of
the law. And the Supreme Court majority
likewise said that the closed-shop clause could
-. L, SS~
company - to penalize minority groups
While four justices took the position that the
majority's construction of the law was very
unfair . = to the employer and one not war
ranted by anything Congress has directed or
authorized it is questionable whether Con-
gress had any express or discernible intent on
this specific point when 1t enacted the Wagner
Act In 1885. But if we accept Mr.. Lawrences
Interpretation of what Congress has done in
the Taft-Hartley Act, albeit IL years later, 1t
may be doubted that the court minority cor
rectly appraised the intent Of Congress. At
the most, the question was one about which
reasonable men could differ, and it hardly Is
In the interest Of a dispassionate weighing Of
the evidence to say that Justice Black found
loophole" when he agreed with the boards
reading of the law.
Let us now examine the accuracy of Mr..
Lawrence's contention that the Taft-Hartley
Act requires unions ito open their membership
to all applicants who pay the regular dues"
thereby remedying the boards supposed
usurpation of authority and the Wagner Acts
failure ito protect workers against arbitrary
action by closed shop unions working with
employer help"
Unions Rights Defined
The law provides that unions right ito
prescribe its own rules with respect to the
acquisition or retention Of membership" shall
not be impaired Another clause states that If,
but only If, the union has u valid union-shop
contract must it refrain from charging mem
bership fees lin an amount which the board
finds excessive or discriminatory under all the
circumstances" And an employer cannot rely
on a union shop contract to justify a discharge
if he has reasonable grounds" for believing