Toledo union journal. [volume] (Toledo, Ohio) 1942-current, 1948-02-20
Behind The
Scenes In
Politics
BY
Clayton
Rusch
Toledo
Go

torial "feud" that has gone on
the last few days between the
Toledo Blade and the Toledo
Times. The "clash" of con-
flicting editorial opinions was
occasioned by the govern
m n t's indictment of C1O
president Philip Murray over
an alleged violation of a pro-
vision of the Taft-Hartley Act.
The affected clause in the
Taft Hartley Act provides that
a labor union cannot expend
its funds to promote the cleo
ton of a candidate to public
office. This particular pro-
vision has been variously in
terpreted. T h e opinion of
Senator Robert Taft is that
unions can express them
selves in print on political
issues in regularly published
union newspapers, but they
may not run off extra copies
for wider than usual distribu-
ton of the editions dealing
with political issues"
The Toledo Blade editorially
expresses the view that in
their opinion the Toledo Times
had editorially concurred in
the opinion of Senator Taft.
The Blade editorially stated
that, "Under this definition the
rights, privileges and immuni-
ties of the press become the
exclusive perogatives of the
established publishers. 1t was
not so intended by the men
who launched the fight for a
free press long ago. To them,
a press was an instrument for
printing, a free press was one
which permitted any man to
communicate his j d e a S to
others through the printed
word. And they didn't restrict
the opportunity for anyone
to express his own views
through the printed word -.
If freedom of the press is to
be accorded only to regularly
established newspapers :.
none of us is going to enjoy it
very long"
REBUTTAL
The Toledo Times in its
editorial "rebuttal" quoted
from Section 304 of the Taft
Hartley Act, ''It is unlawful
for any labor organization to
make a contribution or ex-
penditure in connection with
any (FederaD election
primary election or political
convention or caucus"
The Times commented that
"This does not mean, as the
Blade says, that freedom of
the press, if it is involved in
this case, is confined to those
copies of newspapers sold to
subscribers and not to other
printed matter" The CIO
could have printed pamphlets
or dodgers or books or car
toons if it had desired. The
only thing it could not do
underline law was print and
distribute them at the unions
expense.
In other words, the CIO
according to the Times can
order printing done but can't
legally pay the bill. Quick,
the smelling salts. Such tor
tured logic is a bit nauseating.
Unquestionably the Toledo
Blade wins the editorial bat
tie" if that is what is was.
The Blade, however, owes
its readers an explanation for
a somewhat confusing posi-
tion. Section 304, dealing
with freedom of the labor
press is an integral part of the
Taft Hartley Act.
When the Taft Hartley Act
was under consideration by
Congress, the Blade militantly
supported its passage.
The Blades editorial policy
on civil liberties has been os-
tensibly quite liberal, Yet the
Blade clamored for the pass
age Of a law which makes a
farce of the very rights the
Blade contends are essential
in a democracy.
If the Toledo Blade is sin
cere in its presentation of edi-
torials which champion human
rights, it has a definite obliga-
tion to the public to disavow
its former support of the Taft
Hartley Act and to publicly
pledge its efforts, resources
and facilities in support of an
all out campaign for its aboli-
tion.
Restaurant prices in the ma.
tion's capital are still on the
rise. One fashionable eating
place raised the price of its
meat dishes and then adver-
tised in all the daily newspa-