Evening star., 1947-09-15
Lewis Seen Arousinq
Little Support in Stand
On Loyalty Pledge
U. S. Employees Required
To Sign Affidavit Since al
When Hatch Act Passed
Bv David Laurence

Wnen 1otCn ACT FdSSed
By David Laurence
All of the 2,oS8,966 Federal en-
ployess including everyone from the
President, the members of the cabi-
net and justices of the Supreme
Court down to the janitors and
scrubwomen, have had to sign an
affidavit testifytng that they do not
belong to any political party or or
ganization which advocates the
overthrow of our constitutional form
OF government.
Yet John L. Lewis does not want
to sign such an affidavit and he now
has put the Executive Council Of the
American Federation of Labor on
the spot and jeopardized the oppor-
tunity of all AFL unions throughout
the country to utilize the facilities Of
the National Labor Relations Board.
This is the agency charged by law
with the protection of the collective
bargaining process, function hailed
by labor as it's magma charta"
1t is a well-settled principle Of
constitutional law that the Federal
Government may prescribe condi-
tions to govern the use of any Of its
facilities. Thus, at the insistence OF
labor itself. the Walsh-Healey Act
was passed denying the right to
work on Government contracts to
any employer who does not conform
to certain labor standards prescribed
by the Government itself.
Mr.. Lewis may be trying to give
the impression that the requirement
that union officers sign an affidavit
stating they are not members of
party advocating the overthrow Of
our Government by violence Is
something new and merely a part
Of the Taft-Hartley law which he
dislikes. but the truth is the pro-
vision relating to Government en-
pioyes has been in all appropriation
bills since July 1, 1941.
Democrats Passed Hatch Act.
1t was a Democratic Congress and
a Democratic President who enacted
the Hatch law of August 2, 1889,
which contains this provision: 1T
shall be unlawful for any person
employed In any capacity by any
agency of the Federal Government,
whose compensation or any part
thereof is paid from funds au-
= thorized or appropriated by any act
of Congress, to have membership In
any political party or organization
which advocates the overthrow OF
our constitutional form of govern
ment in the United States.
Amy person violating the pro-
visions Of this section shall be I'm"
mediately removed from the posi-
ton or Office held by him, and there
after no part of the funds appro-
priated by any act Of Congress for
such position or Office shall be used
to pay the compensation OF such
person"
Every application form, therefore
for a Government position carries
this question: do yoa advocate or
have you ever advocated, or are you
now or have you ever been q mem
Der of any organization that advo-
Gates the overthrow Of the Govern
ment of the United States by force
or violence?"
False statements are punishable
by law and In addition all Govern
ment employees take an oath to de-
fend the Constitution
If any labor union, Leaders think
they are going to get much gym
pathy from the public for refusing
to sign aff1davits such as thousands
Of Government employees sign as
a matter of routine, they are much
mistaken. If, also, the rank and
file of labor unions discover that
they have officers who think more
OF the right to be Communist or
to share Communist doctrines than
they think Of the protection to col
1ective bargaining afforded by the
National Labor Relations Act, may
be they will select other officers.
Further Curbs Encouraged. .
AS q piece Of bad public relations,
the attitude of Mr.. Lewis and others
who refuse to sign antiC Communist
afRdavits is. likely to strengthen
rather than weaken any sentiment
in Congress for further curbs on
arrogant labor leaders. The anti
Communist amendment to the Taft
Hartley law was inserted in the
Senate on the insistence of Senator
Mcclellan, Democrat, Of Arkansas,
and while it was not discussed very
much at the time, the position as
sumed by some labor leaders re-
Gently has served to focus attention
: on 1t to the point where It's retention
In the law would now appear to be
doubly assured.
What Is the objection to signing
an anti Communist affidavit? The
answer may be a theoretical matter
of principle" since 1t impairs the
right of revolution; also, the pretext
la that 1t does not apply to en-
ployers. This, however, will be
promptly corrected
There is not any reason why en-
ployers should not voluntarily sup
ply such aff1davits to the National
Labor Relations Board until the
law is amended to require 1t. No
body who wants to use the facilities
of free government should be i'm
mune from the requirement.
AS for the constitutionality Of a
one-sided provision, the right of
Congress to regulate labor relations
has been affirmed and even the right
to make one-sided labor law
giving one group a lot of privileges
and denying them to another group
has also been affirmed in the Su-
preme Court cases upholding the
one-sided Wagner Act. There is not
a single valid reason why any labor
union officer should refuse to sign
an anti-Communist affidavit.
Reproduction Rights Reserved
! Eavaua nnnrs