Evening star., 1949-07-24
President Denounced as
Steel Union Supporter
Industry Held Deprived of Fair Deal
By Truman Intervention
Bv Frank r. Kent

Individually, a steel strike would be dam
aging blow to the general economy of the
country, from which, in one way or another
and to one degree or another, almost every
citizen would suffer Under normal condi-
tions the efforts Of the President, put forth
in the public interest, to avert such strike
should command overwhelming support.
But, under existing conditions, the current
presidential effort very clearly does not do SO.
The reason is that it reeks with false pre-
tense and unfairness. 1t is an obvious fraud
to contend that Mr.. Truman's action and at
titude are solely in the public interest. 1t is
an insult to the intelligence of the American
people to ask them to regard him as impair
tial and open-mnded in this struggle. The
undlSputed facts contradict any such idea.
The plain truth is that before the merits Of
this controversy between the union and the
company have begun to be discussed he has
thrown the full White House weight on the
union side.
This, Of course, is in complete accord with
the Truman record in the second and third
wage-raise drive and with the Roosevelt rec
ord for the last nine years of his incum-
bency The hard and fast political alliance
the former has continued, inevitably made
! both Mr.. Roosevelt and Mr. Truman its
strong partisans on every issue and regard
less of merit. 1t will be recalled that in 1914,
after Mr.. Roosevelt, under CIO pressure, had
retreated from his implied promise to
James F.. Byrnes, he ordered that the Truman
nomination for Vice President be cleared
with Sidney" Sidney" of course. was the
late Mr.. Hillman, head of the CLOS Political
called that, following orders. Mr.. Truman
personally called upon Mr.. Hillman and
Philip Murray, CIO head. at their Chicago
hotel and did clear" his candidacy with
them.
This political alliance is basically degrad-
ing to the White House incumbent. 1t
means that in return for political support
he barters his freedom and his judgment
is poisoned on issues involving the public
safety. 1t also means a personal intimacy
with sometimes unsavory and not always
reputable individuals whose concern is solely
for themselves and the special interest they
represent. Naturally, this situation made
and makes-strong CIO partisans of the
presidential aides and advisers. In Mr..
Roosevelts case, this included Mrs. Roose-
velt, his children and all his intimates, such
as the late Mr.. Hopkins of tax, tax, spend,
| spend, elect and elect" fame. In Mr.. Tru-
mans case, it includes two members of his
| Economic Council National Democratic
Chairman Howard McGrath; his assistant,
| William Boyle, and numerous inherited
| proteges (of whom David Niles, still
| stationed in the White House, is an ex-
ample, to say nothing of the professional
liberal columnists and commentators.
Many would include in this list former
IIlIn Co vol
man has put on his fact finding" board and
who was one of the most potent of the old
| Roosevelt advisers and speech writer's. At
any rate, CIO publicity and CIO favoring
Journalists complacently assert that from
the start Mr.. Truman has worked closely
with Mr. Murray" in this business. All the
CIO leaders are enthusiastic about getting a
board outside the Taft-Hartley Act and par
ticularly are pleased at the White House
pressure which forced the steel companies
to accept it. They also are highly pleased
with the boards personnel, glad to have it
assemble the facts and make recommended
tlons. In brief, there is fine, large conf
dence in higher CIO circles that the board
will perform satisfactorily for them.
This may do its members an injustice and
it is possible they may submit a sound and
judicial report Nevertheless. it must be
admitted that the strong political bond be-
prediction of at least two of his appointees,
the high praise with which the CIO prop
aganda is now drenching Mr.. Truman and
the open pro-CIO character of the admins
| tration political strategists and several men,
bers of the Truman cabinet all combine to
justify the feeling that anything like strict
lmpartiality is extremely unlikely. Certainly,
the setup is one-sided well calculated to
offend the sense of fair play innate in the
mil DC
feeble affair. On the contrary it is big and
strong and rich, fully capable of holding lis
own with the biggest industrial concern. But
to have the sympathetic support of the
President of the United States is an enormous
advantage in any wage controversy. 1t makes
1t extremely difficult for the other side to get
its case before the public. The administration
and C1O publicity. supplemented by the
highly articulate and quite numerous liberal"
spokesmen. drown out the voices of the
opposition.
This is routine union strategy. The Truman
boards report is due in about 40 days. It is
expected to propose compromise acceptable
to the union but very unacceptable to the
industry. The latter will balk, but it isn't
easy to see how, with full administration
support, Mr.. Murray can lose in the end,
Meanwhile, the automobile workers and other
big unions are waiting to see how much of a
victory he gains before launching their drives.
They too, will have presidential support.
OF course. it is all wrong. In any controversy
between labor and industry, the primary con-
Germ of every President should be the public
interest. Mr.. Trumans political alliance with
the CIO and the extent to which the CIO
has penetrated his administration makes this
impossible for him. No one wants the Pres
ident to be anti-union any more than they
want him to be anti-industry. But with every
labor-industry struggle to have the President
wholly on the labor side Is as unwholesome
as it is unjust. So long as the big labor bosses
can count the White House as their basic
asset, this Nation will not regain its economic
health. Unchecked, this White House-CIO
alliance means labor dictatorship Of the