Evening star., 1951-12-01
Mr.. Green Protests


I am confident that quite number
of the readers of The Star were filled
with resentment when they read the
editorial entitled Investigating Senator
Taft" which appeared in the November
27 edition. interpret the editorial re-
ferred to as rejecting the indefensible,
reactionary editorial policy Of The Star.
First of ALL it is made clear in the
editorial that in the editorial opinion OF
The Star no limitation should be placed
upon the amount of money which
candidate for election to the United
States Senate should spend in his cam
paign. I interpret the editorial to mean
that no objection should be offered to
the expenditure of SIS million. or more.
by Senator Taft and his friends during
his campaign in Ohio for election to
the Senate. How long can our democratic
form Of government last under such pro-
cedure? Such a policy would mean that
men who are possessed of unlimited sums
of money could spend it in an election
campaign without violating any law or
committing any offense.
You refer to labor and the repre-
sentatives of labor as evil forces be-
cause they deemed it their duty. under
our free democratic form of govern
ment, to oppose Senator Taft for re-
election to the Senate, and in your
editorial you state the Taft-Hartley
Act is a good law and it serves good
purpose.
The facts are that the Taft-Hartley
law limits the freedom. curtails the
liberty and inf1icts a vicious blow upon
the dignity of labor. Those who spon-
sored the Tatt-Hartley law had this
purpose in mind when 1t was drafted
and introduced into the Senate. 1t was
originally designed to weaken organized
labor, to prevent workers from being
efficient in their efforts to improve liv-
ing standards and to promote human
welfare.
Suppose Congress should pass law
limiting freedom of the press, thus cur
failing the exercise of liberty and
democracy No doubt the editor Of The
Star would join with other editors in
opposing the enactment of such legis-
lation. The owners of newspapers and
their editors would be justified in
putting forth special efforts to bring
about the defeat of member of Con-
gress who introduced such legislation
robbing them of their freedom and their
liberty However, in your editorial you
denounce labor organizations and the
representatives of labor organizations
because they oppose the TaftHartley
Act which robs them of freedom, in
dependence and dignity.
Such legislation as the Taft Hartley
Act will serve to encourage Commu-
nism. It creates resentment against
the author OF the legislation and
against those elected to Congress who
vote for it. 1t is difficult to understand
why an editor would favor the en-
actment of such highly Objectionable
legislation as the Taft-Hartley Act,
which creates widespread resentment
among the masses Of the people and
thus serves to promote the spread Of
Communism.
The membership of the American
Federation Of Labor. numbering eight
million, and its officers stand uncom-
promising and immovable in opposition
to Communism or the communist phi
losphy. They defend free enterprise
and our American form of government.
Because Of the serious days through
which we are passing and because of
the invasion of Communism in all
countries throughout the world, labor in
America should be strengthened and
encouraged in its determination to op-
pose Communism. That would be to the
advantage of the owners Of The Star
and the reactionary newspapers Of
the Nation who are the real benehciaries
of our free enterDriSe system Do yo,l
want the millions of workers in
America to stand and fight Communism
and the invasion of Communism IN
the United States? If so. then do not
drive them from that position through