Evening star., 1952-04-14
Those Inherent Powers


that the President has exceedingly great" in
herent powers is the letter that the then Attor-
ney General Tom Clark wrote to Chairman
Thomas of the Senate Labor Committee on Feb
ruary 2, 1949
But even Mr.. Clark not claiming that the
President had inherent power to seize private
industry. In fact, the thrust of his contention
was in an almost opposite direction, and this is
a difference of great Importance.
In 1949, as now, the administration was play
ing politics. At issue was the question of repeal
or revision of the Taft-Hartley Act to appease
the labor bosses. An administration bill which
made no reference to injunctions Gt was the
injunctve provisions of the Taft-Hartley law to
which labor took strongest exception) was be-
fore the Senate Committee. And Mr.. Clark was
trying to advance some justification for this
omission. If the administration bill should fail
to prevent strike emergency, he said, ''it is my
belief that, in appropriate circumstances, the
United States would have access to the courts
to protect the national health, safety and well
fare I say this because it is my belief that ac-
cess to its own courts is always available to the
United States, in the absence of specific Statu-
tory bar depriving the Government of the right
to seek the aid of the Federal courts in such
critical situations"
In other words, Mr. Clark was saying: Don't
write into the law the injunction provisions that
are so distasteful to labor. If things should get
bad enough, the President has inherent power
to seek the aid of the courts unless Congress
expressly forbds him to do so.
That is quite a different proposition from
the one advanced in the case of the steel seizure.
The Government is not now saying that the
President has inherent power to appeal to the
courts. 1t is saying that the President has in
herent power to seize a private industry and
that the courts have tO interfere The
difference is the difference between q govern
ment of law as determined by the courts and
a government of arbitrary power exercised by
one man-the President.
1t is not enough however, merely to say that
the President lacks the seizure power that is
claimed for him. A ruling to this effect even
tually may be forthcoming from the courts. But
a judicial finding that the President is without
authority to seize a private industry under the
doctrine Of inherent power would not reach the
basic problem which underlies this whole con-
troversy. That is the problem of how the pub
lie interest is to be safeguarded.
If our system is to survive the clash of
economic interests, some substitute for bitter
end strikes in vital industries must be found.
The public interest demands this. The Taft
Hartley Act is not an effective substitute, for
the best that it can do is to postpone a strike
for 80 days. The mith-Connaly Act, which
authorized seizure as wartime device, has ex-
pired. In fact, there is kind of vacuum in the
laws, and as long as that condition prevails
President-any President-will be tempted to
move in in time of emergency and assert claim
to powers which cannot be spelled out and which
can be exercised only at great potential peril
to our free society.
The remedy lies with Congress- Speeches
denouncing the President for usurping power ac-
complish nothing. What is needed is legislation,
carefully worked out, which will provide effec-
tive machinery for settling disputes in essential
industries. It is no answer to say that this en-
tails compulsory arbitration. and that both in
dustry and labor oppose it, Neither is it an
answer to say that it is hard to devise equita-
BILE system The rise of labor monopolies in
vital industries is forcing the country to make
a choice among alternatives. And we will not
be relieved of the necessity of choosing merely
because there is no ideal choice.