Evening star., 1952-05-11

arguments by Justice Department
and industry attorneys. John w.
Davis, renowned constitutional
lawyer who was the 1924 Demo-
cratic nominee for President, will
lead the industry attack. Solici-
tor General Philip B. Perlman will
speak in behalf of constitutional
ity and legality of the seizure.
The industry's 100-page brief
denounced the April 8 seizure or
der as contrary to the Constitu-
tion, lacking support in law, and
hy-paSSing the Taft-Hartley Act
as a remedy to avert a strike.
Suit Is Against Sawyer.
1t charged that the Presidents
order attempted to settle labor
dispute by executive fiat and COM
pulSory arbitration. 1t said this
was a suit, not against the Presi-
dent, but to prevent Commerce
Secretary Sawyer from carrying
out the order and changing wages
and working conditions. 1t warned
nevertheless, that the President S
order, if upheld. would open the
way to arbitrary power grabs by
future Presidents.
The United Steelworkers (CIO)
is not direct party to the suit
that reached the Supreme Court
on appeal from a ruling two
weeks ago by District Court Judge
David A. Pine. AS a vitally inter-
ested party, however, it put in a
bristling brief of it's own.
1t did not challenge validity of
the seizure as such. Nor did it
say much in favor of that action.
1t asserted that the real battle
centered on prices instead of
wages.
Wage Talks Called SHAM"
The union protested that it's
wage talks with the companies
were a sham" The seizure was
brought about because the COM
panies would make no wage con-
cessions unless assured of Govern
ment permission to raise prices.
the union charged.
LAS long as the wage raise ban
is in effect there is. in fact, no
possibility that the steel dispute
can be settled by negotiation" |"
the union stated.
The union said that use of the
Taft Hartley Act by the President
under the circumstances would
have been absurd" 1t noted that
steelworkers postponed a strike
call several times and voluntarily
observed a cooling-off period OF
almost 100 days before April 8.
The Governments 175-page
brief defended the Presidents or
der as having been we'll within
his constitutional powers, despite
the lack of a specific law allowing
seizure.
1T has never been supposed
that the limit of Presidents
duties are marked by the litera'
terms of statutes" it declared.
Pine Accused of Haste.
The Government said it woulC
welcome a Supreme Court deci.
sion on the constitutional issue oi
the scope of presidential author
ity. It suggested. however, thai
the court dispose Of the matter or
non- constitutional grounds.
1t accused Judge Pine of haste
in deciding that the President!
order was unconstitutional ant
illegal. It contended that he pu
a legal cart before the horse b!
using procedure contrary to es.
tablished court custom in weigh.
ing injunction petitions.
Government and industry brief!
amplif1ed most of the argument.
made before Judge Pine and tn.
United States Court of Appeal!
last month. Both bulged with
scores Of case citations.
The Government brief traced 6
century and a half of executive
actions in United States history
The industry brief went back init
more than three centuries of Ang'
lo-Saxon legal history in attacking
"unbridled and unchecked execu'
tive power"