Evening star., 1948-03-07
Murray Indictment Proper
Under Toft-Hortley Clause
Attorney General Required to Enforce
Political Contribution Ban
By Gerard D. Reilly

By Gerard ID. Reilly
Despite misgivings in certain quarters OF the
House and Senate, there can be little doubt
that in obtaining an indictment against Philip
Murray, the titular head of the CIO, for vio-
lation of the political contribution section
of the Taft-Hartley Act, the Department Of
Justice is carrying out the intent of the statute
The use of union funds to publish political
tracts in behalf Of a certain candidate with
out the consent OF the members was an
obvious loophole in the Smith Connally Act.
Closing Of such loophoes was one of the ex.
press purposes of the Ellender bill, which had
the complete support Of the Senate Committee
on Campaign Expenditures, composed Of
both Democrats and Republicans. 1t was from
this measure that the language of Section
3o4 Of the new labor law was borrowed.
This section forbids contributions and ex-
penditures by both corporations and labor
organizations in connection with Federal elec-
tions. 1t was seized upon as target by
union leaders opposing the legislation Yet
1t had equally vigorous behind -the-scene
opposition from industry.
One OF the reasons for current congressional
misgvings is that the test case was apparently
selected by the CIO itself When Representa-
tive Thomas D'Alesandro became Mayor Of
Baltimore last spring, special election was
held to fill the House seat thus vacated.
Although the district is so heavily Democratic
that CIO intervention could hardly have been
factor Mr. Murray Endorsed" the Demo-
cratic candidate, Mr.. Garmatz, and distributed
free copies OF the CIO news featuring this
piece OF propaganda among the voters.
Spokesmen for the CIO publicly Justified
this as an exercise of freedom of the press.
fn aSl>a
instances of violation of the act were subse-
quenty asked to focus their attention upon
this incident, as CIO lawyers believed that
since the offending expenditure was entwined
with the publication of union newspaper a
substantial question of constitutionality might
be raised, If the Government could be pre-.
vailed upon to make this the test case
In this belief they were ENCOURAGED bv an
opinion of the Supreme Judicial Court of
Massachusetts,, which viewed proposed legis-
lative enactment directed at curbing union
expenditures as possibly violative of freedom
OF speech and OF the press. The Massachusetts
court however, rendered It's opinion not in a
Etigated case but in the abstract But Federal
courts pass upon such questions only in actual
cases and controversies
Consequently the Supreme Court of ths
United States might reach quite a different
result IN pending case which was adequately
briefed and argued. 1t is difhcult to conceive
that the founding fathers meant to confer i'm
munity upon union and corporate officers to
spend other peoples money to purchase Federal
eiectlons. Yet that would be the effect of any
holding which permitted the CIO or United
states Steel to use the funds in their treasures
to flood certain congressional districts with
political iply
union or company periodical.
Whether the Department of Justice will pre-
sent the Murray case vigorously has also been
the subject Of debate. This stems from the
delusion OF certain administration advisers that
CIC backing Is more helpful than harmful in a
presidential election year. 1t was in order to
allay any suspicion Of collusion that the At
torney General invited the Joint Committee on
Labor-Management Relations to be represented
by counsel in the proceedings
While this invitation was declined by Senator
Ball on the ground that the committee had
policy against intervening In particular labor
cases, any other course of action by the COM
mittee would have been out of harmony with
constitutional precedents. There have been only
two occasions in recent years when Congress has
appointed special counsel to represent 1t in the
Supreme Court.
One was during the Hoover administration,
when controversy arose over the discharge by
the new Federal Power Commission of two em-
ployes regarded as victims of the power trust.
The commissioners who had done the firing
had just been confirmed and the Senate had
waived the rule which requires an appointees
name to remain on the table for an additional
legislative day. When the Senate sought to re-
oon tha ,Rrr,
had already seen the commissioners sworn in,
refused to resubmit the names. The Senate
then engaged John w. Davis as counsel in q
suit challenging the right of the new commits
sioners to serve.
This litigation was essentially q clash between
the executive and legislative branches over their
constitutional prerogatives. The same element
was present in the Lovett case, involving an
appropriation act forbidding the payment Of
salaries to three employees in the executive
branch of the Government. President Roosevelt
had denounced this proviso as infringing upon
the constitutional powers of the cabinet. Con-
sequently when the employees brought an action
to recover their salaries, the Attorney General
stepped aside and permitted the Government to
be represented by John Gall, a Washington law
yer selected by the House. In the Supreme
Court, the solicitor general filed a brief in
favor of the plaintiffs.
The Murray case, in contrast, presents no
issue Of overlapping powers between the two
departments Of Government. Even though the
President vetoed the Taft-Hartley Act, the At
torney General has sworn duty to defend and
enforce it. He recently assigned one Of his
most able assistants, J. N. Friedman Of the
Claims Division, to private suit, the Colonial
Hardwood case, involving the validity OF pro-
visions making unions suable for breach of con-
tract and secondary boycotts. Because of its
political flavor therefore, intervention in the
Murray case by the Ball committee would have
been tantamount to vote of no confidence.
EIectronic Miracle
From the Arkansas Gazette.
We attempted to repair our radio the other