Evening star., 1952-04-22
Futile Gesture

The Senates fund-ban vote serves as
rebuke to the President for seizing the steel
industry under his so-called inherent powers
Except for such moral effect as it may have,
however the legislative action is futile thing.
1t will not prevent the President from going
ahead with his seizure program, for he can draw
on other funds for that purpose. And it con-
tributes precisely nothing toward a solution of
the problem which lies at the heart of this
business
In his letter to Vice President Barley, the
President said he would welcome affirmative
legislation to provide "a constructive course of
action looking toward solution of this matter
which will be in the public interest" That may
be taken with grain of salt, for Mr.. Trumans
idea OF constructive solution that would be in
the public interest is a solution that will give
the union what it wants. And what the steel
union and other unions want is by no means
necessarily in the public interest
Furthermore, the President, in the Barkley
letter, reveals himself as blind partisan. He
says that a substantial shutdown in the steel
industry may well mean that our troops in Korea
could not successfully resist another Communist
offensive. He also says that it would be unfair"
to invoke the Taft-Hartley Act now, since it
would compel the workers to say on the job for
another 80 days. They have already remained
at work voluntarily for 100 days, MIR. Truman
says, and to compel them to keep working for
another 80 days at their old wages would be
deeply and properly resented by the workers."
This casts revealing light on Mr.. Truman's
thinking. He believes that a steel shutdown
would endanger our troops in Korea. But he also
believes it would be unfair to require the steel
workers to stay on the job for another 80 days at
their present good wages, and he thinks they
would be justifiaby resentful if compelled by
law to do so. This is enough to indicate what
MIR. Truman has in mind when he speaks of
constructive solution in the public interest.
Nevertheless, it is true that Congress has
duty to take more than purely negative action.
The fund-ban vote smacks of partisan politics.
It does not serve in this situation to protect the
public interest. And, in fact, it could operate to
damage the public interest.
The public interest requires that some
method be established by law for settling dis
putes in essential industries without strikes, and
without infationary pay increases or price in
creases This requirement is not met by the wage
recommendations in the steel case. 1t is not
met by the seizure of the industry, with the
accompanying threat that pay increase will be
put into effect. And it is not met by legislation
which merely denies funds for seizure purposes.
The President is right in saying that this last
procedure, if successful, would merely paralyze
the Government in an emergency.
The public interest can be served only by
equitable legislation providing the machinery for
binding solutions of these disputes Such legis-
lation will be opposed, of course, by unions, by
management and by the politicians. But that is
neither here nor there. If an equitable method
can be found, then the public interest will be
truly served and it is in this direction that
Congress should be moving.