Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1952-09-23
Fine-but Empty-Words

There is nothing in Governor StevenSon'S
address to the American Federation of Labor
which encourages one to believe that he has a
labor program worthy of the name.
He repeated his Labor Day declaration in
favor of repeal of the Taft-Hartley Act. But If
the Governor knows what he would substitute for
the really essential features of the existing law,
that is an item of information which, despite his
exceptional gift of articulation, he Is keeping
strictly to himself
The ALL speech was filled with fine words
It's key paragraph, however, would seem to be the
following
1t has been the basic belief of the Demo-
cratic Party that only human freedoms are
basic. and that economic power must be
exercised so as not to curtail them. We hold.
too. that the power of government must be
restricted to the point that government stands
never as master, always as servant.
That language will mean different things
to different people. To others, perhaps great
many others, 1t will mean nothing at all. Read in
conjunction with preceding paragraphs, how
ever, it seems to say that economic power,
whether enjoyed by labor or industry, must not
be exercised to the detriment of human free
doms. But it also seems to say that the
Government should not have powers that would
enable it to compel unions to do, or refrain from
doing, as they wish.
If one assumes as Mr.. Stevenson evidently
does, that labor unions will not abuse their
enormous economic power, it would be an ideal
thing to have government that would function
as servant, never as master. Unfortunately, the
record does not support this assumption.
One need only think back to May Of 1916.
A railroad strike had brought this country to the
edge of economic collapse. Something more than
loI ond n p TrI.
man supplied it. He went before Congress with
a demand for legislation that would permit him
to draft the strikers into the armed services and
provide criminal penalties for any interference
with the Governments operation of the railroads.
While the President was in the midst of his
message to Congress the strike was called of.
It was called off, not because Mr.. Truman
thought the Government should function as
servant, never as master, but because he meant
business and the heads of the striking rail unions
knew it. Actually, although the legislation
wanted by the President passed the House by
S06-to-13 VOTE it never got through the Senate.
The Republicans blocked it there, but they
would not have blocked it If the strike had
continued.
Mr.. Truman's handling of that situation has
come in for some after-the-event criticism,
General Eisenhower being among these critics.
1t was at the opposite pole from Governor
Stevenson's no-compulsion doctrine. But these
gentlemen should ask themselves what they
would have done had they been in Mr.. Truman's
shoes in May of 1916. Would they have sat by
and watched an unjustifed strike wreck the
economy of the country? Or would they have
acted, as Mr.. Truman acted, to break the strike?
Mr.. Stevenson, although apparently quite
reconciled to the use of compulsion against other
elements in the national community, seems to
think it should never be used against unions.
That is noble in theory The trouble is that ex-
perience shows it will not work.