Evening star., 1952-05-02
Suits
Continued From First Page,

Constitution must be construed as
a grant of power sufficient to per-
NIT emergency action in protec-
ton of the national interest.
I'VE do not urge that the Presi-
dent could take action in nom
Federal fields or in violation of
the specific commands, for ex-
ample, contained in the first and
fourth amendments"
Industry Stand Explained.
Bruce Bromley, a Bethlehem
Steel Co. attorney, speaking for
his associates in the legal battle,
outlined the industry's action this
way:
| I'm spite of the fact that the
steel companies involved in the
wage dispute litigation won a COM
plete victory before Judge Pine,
they have asked the Supreme
Court promptly to review the cor
rectnesS of Judge Pines decision.
The companies feel that Judge
Pines decision is clearly correct,
but that it is to the vital interest
of every citizen of the Nation that
the Supreme Court promptly and
finally settle the question as to
whether the President possesses
unlimited power.
Acting Attorney General PERL
man refused to give any assurance
to the Court of Appeals yesterday
that a change in the terms and
conditions of employment would
not be imposed after 4::30 pm.
today. The companies view that
refusal as a grave threat of an
unfair and improper imposition
by the Administration upon them,
and their employees as we'll, of
changes in terms in conditions of
employment not agreed to by
either Of them as a result of COL
lective bargaining.
Decide Against Waiting.
"The companies have decided
not to wait for the Government
to appeal the case because delay
might afford an opening for &C
ton to be taken changing employ
ment conditions.
sTherefore the steel companies
have asked the Supreme Court to
do what the Court of Appeals, by
a 5-4 vote, refused on Thursday to
do-namely, to maintain the status
quo at least by prohibiting Secre-
'tary of Commerce Sawyer from
making any changes in the terms
and conditions of employment,
even though otherwise permitting
him to remain in possession of the
seized properties until the Supreme
Court shall have finally deter
mined the vital and fundamental
question of the extent of the Pres
|ident's asserted power.
'It is to be hoped that the Su-
preme Court will grant our re-
quest at least to keep the existing
situation unchanged and will hear
the cast at the earliest possible
date"
The 15-page petition submitted
three specific requests and pre-
sented three basic questions it
hopes the court will decide.
Three Basic Questions.
The three requests were: /.
That review be granted. 2. That
the case be set down for oral
argument if possible during the
latter part. of next week. 3. That
"an order should be issued which
will preserve the status quo and
protect the petitioners from ir-
reparable injury pending final
decision by this court"
The three questions presented
for possible decision were:
81. Whether Secretary Sawyer
had any lawful right to seize the
property of the petitioners on
April 8, 1852. to retain possession
of those properties, and, as an
incident of that possession, to
impose on petitioners, by execu-
tive fiat, new wage scales and
terms of employment.
y. Whether the Executive has
inherent power under the Con-
IStitution to authorize seizure of
private. property on the claim of
a national emergency when Con-
gress has provided a different
remedy, specifically excluding seiz-
ure for just such a national emer-
gency.
"3. Whether petitioners faced
with irreparable injury and lack
ing any adequate remedy at law,
are entitled to equitable relief in