Evening star., 1949-08-28
Judge Rosenmon's S Demand!
For an Apology Decried
Steel Spokesman Held Justified in
Criticism of Fact.Finding Board
By Frank r. Kent

Criticism of Fact.Finding Board
By Frank r. Kent
The recent demand Of Judge Samuel J.
Rosenman. best-known member OF the
Presidents "fact-finding" board to examine
into the controversy between the C1O ana
the United States Steel Co., for an apology
from A. B. Homer. president of the Bethle-
hem Steel Co., is not without its comic
aspect.
For these questions arise-wherein was
Mr.. Rosenman. famed as speech writer
and handy literary man for the late Mr..
Roosevelt, insulted? What did Mr.. Homer
say about him and his two New Deal pro-
CIO colleagues that was not true? First.
Mr.. Homer charged that the appointment
of the board was irregular" There Is no
possible denial to that. Quite clearly, Mr..
Truman named the board in order to bypass
the perfectly simple provisions for exactly
this sort of crisis contained in the Taft
Hartley Act which both Mr.. Truman and
his violent friend, Philip Murray of the CIO.
denounce as slave law" Second, Mr..
Homer asserted that the "fact-fnding
board" is vehicle to force important con-
ceSsions to the labor union Well, certainly
a similar board in 1916 recommended an
1872 per cent increase for the steel union.
which was exactly in line with Mr.. Truman's
attitude and the CLOS demand.
x y
The third assertion of Mr.. Homer was
that this board had been named by Mr..
Truman after conference with Mr.. Murray,
with whom he is politically linked. Precisely
which of these allegations caused Mr.. Rosen-
man to feel insulted, no one has revealed.
ALI of them have been repeatedly printed
in the newspapers of the country and PRIDE
fully set forth in CIO propaganda. The
White House has not disputed them. Nor.
so far as known, has any one save Judge
Rosenman and the violent Mr.. Murray taken
umbrage at them. That in naming the
board Mr.. Truman deliberately evaded the
Taft-Hartley law to please the CIO; that
the 1916 "fact-finding" board had the same
political motivation and that he had con-
suited Mr.. Murray about the personnel OF
the present board has been SO widely ac-
cepted as to be practically unanimous.
AS a matter of fact, Mr.. Homers charges
were couched in moderate language and.
under the circumstances, he exhibited con-
siderable restraint. There are number Of
persons who feel-and some have said in
print-that the board is a joke and fraud
as far as "fact-f1nding" is concerned; that
it is padded with administration stooges and
CIO partisans; that it Is rigged to play the
CIO-administration game; that no unpreju-
diced report can be expected from it. II
Judge Rosenman felt insulted by the con-
servative assertions of Mr.. Homer it would
be interesting to know what would have been
his reaction had Mr.. Homer expressed the
more extreme views given above and which
are held by great majority of the industrial
lists of the country. If he demanded an
apology for what Mr.. Homer said, what would
he have demanded had Mr.. Homer let him
self go and given an unabridged expression
of the industry's feelings? One shudders to
think. He might have demanded the death
sentence.
Being unable to think of anything he had
said that was untrue, unfair or insulting.
Mr.. Homer did not apologize. He just left
Judge Rosenmans demand hanging In the
air-where it still is OF course, situation
conceivably might arise that would make it
seem Mr.. Homer owed the Judge an apology
and in such situation, doubtless, Mr.. Homer
would be glad to apologize. For example, it
is possible-not probable, of course, but
possible-that Judge Rosenman'S board. dis
regarding the CLOS paid-for Nathan report
and Mr.. Truman's known attitude, should
make report so clearly unbiased that there
would be no room for charges of political
subserviency and preconceived opinions.
To repeat, this is not likely, but it is pos
sible. For example. Judge Rosenman is an
able and upright man. For years he has
been accustomed to taking dictation from
men who certainly were not his intellectual
equals. writing their speeches, accepting their
views, making his language conform to their
personal and political slants. Sometimes it
must have been strain on an intelligent
man such as he. He must, sometimes, have
seen the falseness in their positions and the
flaws in their reasoning. Conceivably, Judge
Rosenman might f1nd-and welcome-in his
present situation an opportunity to make
report that would be completely his own,
reflect only his personal views, promote the
interests of the Nation as whole without
thought of politics or special groups 1t is
not likely he will do that but there is a
chance here for Judge Rosenman to make q
reputation so good that no one would re-
member him as ghost writer.