Evening star., 1952-04-29
Mr.. Truman Asks for Facts

Mr.. Truman Asks for Facts
In his letter to Pennsylvania farmer, the
President said that your Government is doing
all in its power to- get the facts (of the steel
dispute) to the people" And he implied that
the newspapers, influenced by paid political ads
OF the steel companies would not fairly present
the Governments side of the case.
That is consistent with the demagogic course
Mr.. Truman has pursued throughout this whole
business. And it is as non-factual as some of
Mr. Truman'S other statements.
This latest Truman letter was dated April
IT, and that date may have some significance.
1t was written to c. S. Jones of Washington
Crossing, Pa, in response to- certain questions
he had submitted to the President.
The first question dealt with Mr.. Humans
comments on steel profits in his report to the
Nation after he had seized the steel industry.
On that occasion the President said the steel
companies were making profit of about $3.50
on every ton of steel they produced, and that
they wanted profit of $26 or $27 ton. This
was stated in such way as to give the impress
sion that these figures were for actual profits
accruing to the steel companies. That was not
factual, since Mr.. Truman neglected to point out
that he was talking about profits before taxes.
The President invited inferences that are equally
false in his letter to Mr.. Jones. He conceded
that, in his speech, he was referring to profits
before taxes. But then he went on to say to Mr..
Jones: IF we allowed the steel companies to get
price increases to cover their higher taxes, we
would simply be shifting the tax burden to those
less able to bear it,"
This implies that the steel companies have
asked for price increase to cover higher taxes.
But that implication is false Why did the Presi-
otto
The President has stated for the record
that the settlement recommendations in the steel
dispute flair to both parties and to the public
interest" This does not seem to square with
statements made by Charles E. Wilson, resigned
Director of Defense Mobilization, in an interview
in the current issue of U. S. News and World
Report.
Mr.. Wilson says that when he talked to the
President in Key West Immediately after the
recommendations were made, the latter author
lied him to negotiate with the steel companies on
the basis of price increase II pointed out"
said Mr.. Wilson, that if we went on wages very
considerably beyond the formula that was laid
down In January, 1851 (the recommendations do
exceed that formula by substantial margin),
we obviously would be in position where we
would have to take similar measures with respect
to prices. He agreed that that was right-we'd
done 1t before and we would have to do it again."
Is Mr. Wilson's recollection of that conver-
sation correct? If so, is it factual for Mr..
Truman to say now that price increase is not
needed because the recommendations are fair
to all concerned?
One more point in the letter to Mr.. Jones is
worth noting. The letter was dated after
Assistant Attorney General Baldridge had stated
in court that the Presidents inherent executive
powers are virtually unlimited. Mr. Truman
apparently wanted to back away from that
extreme claim So he told Mr.. Jones: 1.-THE
powers of the President are derived from the
Constitution, and they are limited, of course, by
the provisions Of the Constitution particularly
those that protect the rights of Individuals
This last phrase is significant The Consti-
tuition says that no person shall be deprived of
life, liberty or property, without due process of
law. The President, however, has deprived the
steel owners of their property. He has done it
without due process of law, and the Government
lawyers contend that the courts are without
power to interfere, even If the seizure was
illegal.
Thus, while the Constitution in the due
process clause makes no distinction between life,
liberty and property, Mr.. Truman evidently does
make a distinction. He seems to think that the
Constitution extends greater protection to indi-
vidual rights than to property rights. But if
one President can trample on property rights, it
will not be long before some other President
will be claiming that he can trample on indi-
yidual rights