Evening star., 1949-02-04
Power of the President

IL fTeSlQelI O1 Clle OulteQ states mas
inherent power, as Mr.. Truman and his
Attorney General believe, to obtain Federal
Court injunctions against strikes which
threaten the Nation, that is fact which
should be of considerable interest to the
labor leaders who are demanding repeal
of the Taft-Hartley Act.
Mr.. Truman, in his press conference
statement, appears to go much further
in his assertion of presidential power than
did the Attorney General in his letter to
the Senate committee which Is holding
hearings on the administrators labor bill.
But there is no reason to assume that their
views are well founded.
The President spoke only in general
terms. But Mr. Clark cited two authorities
for his more cautious and more limited
estimate of presidential power. .
One of these was an opinion by Justice
Murphy when he was Attorney General.
The other was the Supreme Courts ruling
in 1947 in the contempt proceeding against
John L. Lewis
It is true that divided court, with
Justice Murphy among those dissenting,
upheld the validity of an Injunction issued
against the coal strike in late 1946 But
that decision did not rest on any real
or assumed inherent powers of the Presi-
dent It rested squarely on the finding,
with four Justices dissenting, that the
miners were employees of the Government
because the Government had seized the
mines under the terms of the Smith
Connally Act, which has since expired.
Nor is there much room for doubt in view
of the language used that, except for the
power given by the Smith -Connally Act,
a majority Of the Justices would have held
the injunction void under the terms Of the
Norris-La Guardia Act.
But there Is no Smith -Connally Act
today and no other authority for Govern
ment seizure of struck plants. Further
more, the administrations labor bill says
that the Norris-La Guardia Act is revived
in full force and effect. In view of this
1t would be interesting to hear the
Attorney General defend his citation of
the Supreme Courts coal decision as
authority for his view of the Presidents
power.
1t may well be, however, that the correct
less important than the inferences which
may be drawn from the fact that he
submitted 1t.
One Of these differences is that the
administration is not being very candid
in its attacks on the Taft-Hartley law and
in its defense of its own bill.
Secretary of Labor Tobin says he is
100 per cent opposed to strikes by Govern
ment employees, but he does not want a
provision in the labor law forbidding such
strikes And why not? Because they can
be forbidden by riders to appropriation
bills among the most undesirable and
unsatisfactory of all legislative devices.
The burden of Mr.. Tobin's testimony is
that the Government ought not to have
power to obtain injunctions against unions.
But Mr.. Clark says that the Government,
with or without legislation, has the power.
And the only reasonable inference Is that
both the Attorney General and the Presi-
dent think that this injunctive power can
and should be used against paralyzing
strikes
If this is so, why the opposition to
statute which would set out define and
properly limit the power? Why the pref
erence for reliance on some underlined and
uncertain presidential power which, If it
exists, could be subject to dangerous abuse?
Is the administration trying to make labor
believe it is safe from injunctions, while
simultaneously trying to make the rest
Of the people believe that injunctions can
and will be used If necessary? Or-and
this Seems most 1ike1v-has fhs admin
istration become so begged down in its
futile attempt to discredit the Taft
Hartley Act that 1t does not know what
to say or in which direction to turn?