Evening star., 1948-10-05

Murroy's Stand on Union
Leaders Loyalty Could
Couse Defiance Of Low
By David Laurence
The CIO, through its president
Philip Murray, has chosen to criti-
cize the Atomic Energy Commission
for its attempts to protect the
atomic bomb and the secrets OF
atomic energy in those operations
where officers Of unions employed
ON atomic-energy projects are re-
fusng to sign sworn statements
declaring they are not members of
the Communist Party.
Mr.. Murray makes the surprising
charge that since the Taft-Hart-
ley Acts constitutionality has not
yet been passed on by the Supreme
Court of the United States it is
not the law of the land and need
not be followed by the Atomic
Energy commission,
If that doctrine Is to be accepted
1t would mean a widespread def
ance of law in America and par
ticularly a disregard Of law by gov
ernmental agencies whose members
are sworn to uphold the laws as
written by Congress.
True of Scores Of Laws.
While the lower courts have up
held the constitutionality Of those
provisions of the Taft-Hartley Act
which require the officers of unions
to sign affidavits declaring they
are not Communists, the issue has
not yet been passed on finally. But
this Is true of scores OF laws on
the statute books. Many, Of course,
have never been tested because no
one has sought to challenge them.
The theory that because a law has
not been passed on by the highest
court, It may be defied Is a disre-
yard of law which cannot but
undermine the whole constitutional
system.
Individual citizens in rare IN
stances may refuse to obey q law
hut they do so at their own peril II
the law is finally upheld. Govern
mental agencies like the Atomic
Energy Commission, which is charged
by law with the duty OF keeping
atomic secrets, must be the
fudge themselves of what consti-
tutes national security and If they
find union officers refusing to sign
the non-Communist afhdavits they
have the right and duty to question.
whether such unions may be given
official recognition as bona flde
unions entitled to collective-bargain
ing rights.
Mr.. Murray questions the Atomic
Energy Commissions position in his
letter which reads in part as follows:
THE CIO cannot accept the
principle that 1t is either within the
power of the commission or the pub
lie interest for the commission to
deny unions bargaining rights on
the basis of a unilateral determine
ton by the commission OF the
loyalty of union officers.
Furthermore, the commission
bases its action in large measure
upon the failure of the unions In
volved to comply with the section
of the Labor Management Act which
provides for filing of non-Commun-
list afidavits. The Constitutionality
of this section of the Taft-Hartley
law is now being litigated and will
probably be passed on by the Su-
preme Court of the United States
at its october term.
"It would seem to me that the
commission is usurping its functions
in prejudging the merits OF this
case"
One of Campaign Results.
This is one Of the results of the
regrettable campaign carried on by
President Truman to undermine
not only the prestige of the Con-
gress which passes the laws but
also the respect Of individuals for
the laws themselves.
If the Supreme Court should hold
that Congress has no power to
regulate labor-management rela-
tions to the extent Of compelling
union officers to state whether they
are identified with organizations
seeking the overthrow of the Gov
eminent of the United States by
force, then 1t must some day rule
that Congress also has no consti-
tutional power to compel an en-
ployer and representatives of
union to sit down together to dis
cuss grievances. This is far more
an infringement on the freedom Of
action of citizen than Is involved
in the signing of non-Communist
AFFIDAVIT.
II the Atomic Energy Commission
Is to be criticized for seeking to
prevent anyone with the slightest
taint of Communist connection
from exercising union authority
over persons employed on atomic
energy projects, then 1t must be
inferred that the Congress, in pass
ing the atomic-energy statute and
vesting in the commission the job
of protecting the atomic bomb, was
doing something that the CIO now
cannot accept as in the public in
terest." Surely, the CIO president
has made a blunder in the writing
of this letter, for it places him on
the side of those who are apologiz-
ing for the strange behavior of Of
ficers in various unions who refuse
to swear they are not connected
with Communist organizations.
Reproduction Rights Reserved)
-