Evening star., 1949-01-31
Elections 10 Congress
Seen indicating Nation
Backs Taft-HartIey Act
Truman Might Have Lost
Election on Labor Law
Issue, Writer Declares
Bv David Laurence

issue, Writer DectoreS
By David Laurence
II the Taft. Hartley Act had been
The sole issue in the last campaign
and electoral votes had been cast
on the basis of how the people
voted for or against members of
Congress on the basis of their rec
ord on this one piece of legislation.
President Truman probably would
have lost the election.
This conclusion can be reached
bv anyone who examines the elec-
ton returns on a congressional
basis.
For the official election balloting
shows that 66 electoral votes were
put in the Truman column from
Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Texas
and Virginia, out if the voting Of
congressman on the Taft-Eartley
Act alone had been considered,
these Sc electoral votes would have
had to be subtracted from Fru-
mans 304,. and this would have
left him only 238, which is less
than the necessary 2s6.
The five Democratic States which
east 66 electoral votes for Mr.. Tru-
man also reelected representatives
who voted for the Taft Hartley Act
during the 80th Congress as fol-
lows: Six out of seven in Arkansas,
nine out of 10 in Georgia. 13 out
Of q in Texas, and six out of nine
IN Virginia.
One Went to Senate.
This was a majority in each of
the FOUR States. AS for Kentucky,
with nine representatives, four OF
the six who voted for the law and
went before the people were elect
ed-one of them being elevated to
the Senate.
II the mandate" idea is followed
strictly, the SO electoral votes that
went to Gov. Thurmond, the States
Rights candidate, also would not
be counted for President Truman
either, because in each of the four
Thurmond States. the members Of
Congress who voted for the Taft
Hartley Act were returned to ONCE
in the elections.
In all four States, the entire con-
zressional delegations which had
voted for the Taft-Hartley Act were
reelected.
AS for senatorial races, the Demo-
cratic nominees who were victors
In Texas, Virginia, Kentucky,
Georgia and Arkansas all had
voted for the Taft-Hartley law and
were reelected.
Figuring the election solely on
the basis Of the Taft-Hartley Act,
the results would indicate that, If
all these votes had been cast against
Mr.. Truman's position, the result
would have shown a total OF 23S
votes for Mr.. Truman and 1e3 for
the opposition.
Breakdown Of support.
Even II the Thurmond votes had
been cast independently so as to
throw the election into the House
of Representatives, the s1st Con-
gress. voting by State-delegation
majorities as required Under the
Constitution, would have cast Is
votes against Mr.. Truman whereas
majority Of IS votes is neces-
sary 70 decide when an election is
conducted by the House.
This means that today IN the
31st Congress there are Is State
delegations in which o majority
have already recorded themselves
in favor of the Taft-Hartley law.
In seven more States one-half of
the delegation has already been
recorded in favor Of the Tett-Hart-
ley Act. Thus in only 16 States of
the Union do the majority Of the
members of the House of Represen-
tatives from those States appear to
have voted against the Taft. Hart
ley Act.
The above breakdown Of the
election returns assumes, moreover,
that all new members of the House
would vote against the Taft-Hart-
ley law, when, as matter Of fact,
many were elected from farm dis
tricts whele a vote for restoration
of the one-sided Wagner law will
be regarded as out of harmony
with the expressed wishes Of the
people heretofore.
New Members Not Recorded.
In stating that there appears to
be a majority against the Taft
Hartley law in is States, 1t must
be pointed out that the new men,
bers have not expressed themselves
or recorded their votes. Thus in
California II out Of % House men,
bers are recorded in favor Of the
law but only seven are actually
recorded against it. In Pennsyl-
vania is out of 80 are on record
in favor of, but only five actually
recorded against the law.
South Dakota would be tied on
the basis of one of its two Repre-
sentaJives recorded in favor. but
the other Representative is a Re-
publican elected to succeed Karl
Mundt, who. went to the Senate
and who had voted for the Taft
Hartley Act.
There is no basis. for the claim,
therefore, that the election IL Mr..
Truman means a mandate for the
repeal of the Taft-Hartley Act. This
law was due for amendment, any
way. and public sentiment favors
q balanced labor management stat
ute. The argument that Mr. Tru-
man was instructed by the elec-
torate, to recommend a one-sided
Wagner Act with minor amend
ments cannot be sustained by any
examination of the referendum that
was held in connection with the
election Of members of the House
and Senate who put their respec-
tive -ecords on this piece of legis-
lation before the people.
Reproduction Rights Reserved.)