Evening star., 1949-07-01
Labor Bottle Ends
forever.

From all indications, the emotion
| charged struggle over labor legislation has
ended for this session of Congress.
The result is victory for common sense
and a rebuke to the tactics employed by
| the administration and most Of the pro-
fessional labor leaders.
There are two ways of appraising this
| result. In one sense the Senate action is
! a triumph for Senator Taft, tribute to
| the forcefulness of the arguments and the
persuasiveness of the facts which he
| brought to bear in support of the modif1ca-
tions of the Taft-Hartley Act which he
advocated. In another sense it is rebuff
which the administration fully deserved.
It is entirely possible that bill more
to the liking of the President and his labor
allies could have been put through at this
session. But the men who led the flght
in Congress for the President were not dis
posed to be reasonable. They insisted on
railroading through committees of the
House and Senate so-called labor bill
that was little better than fraud on
the people in the light of recent indus
trial history. And they persisted in their
attempt to impose this bill on the Con-
gress even after it had become apparent
that it would not pass. Adamant against
reasonable compromise, they simply
missed the boat.
The real fight, of course, centered around
the moderate injunctive feature of the
Taft proposal. AS the Senate bill stands,
it gives the President a choice of two
weapons when the public welfare is put
in jeopardy by a strike. In national
emergency situation, he can seize the
struck industry or he can appeal to the
courts in the name of the Government
for an injunction which, if granted, would
have the effect of forbidding a strike for
a period of 90 days.
That is the injunction provision which
AFL President William Green says labor
will never accept. 1t is an injunctive
provision which is not essentially different
from the remedy in which Mr.. Truman has
employed repeatedly in the past to protect
the people, but which he does not want
written into law.
If it be conceded that the rights Of all
the people are superior to the rights of
any union group, and that the Govern
ment must act when necessity arises to
protect the public interest, then this whole
debate over the injunction becomes q
sham. Why should the President protest
against being empowered by law to do
that which, in any event, he must do?
Is it because of the arrogant threats Of
the labor bosses-threats which the Pres
ident tacitly indorses but which would
evoke from him the most vehement de-
nunciations if uttered by any of the 'lobby-
lists" with whom he is so fond Of fitting?
Whatever the reasons for the Presidents
attitude, the conclusion is inescapable that
the Senate, from the standpoint of its
obligation to act in the interests of the
Nation, has measured up to its RESPONSE
bility. 1t may be that the labor unions,
intent upon putting a minority interest
ahead Of the national interest, will make
good their threats to defeat Senator Taft
and some of the others who voted for the
bill. It may also be that the President
will try to help them by vetoing the bill,
if it should be adopted in the House,
although it is clearly an improvement on
the existing law. But in the long run the
stand taken by the Senate will be vindi-
Gated Truth is slow to overtake propa-
ganda. 1t will be found, however, that the
interests of all the people cannot be
permanently subordinated and sacrificed
to the selfish ambitions Of any minority