Evening star., 1952-04-30

the PRESIDENTS seizure OF the
steel industry tDdS illegal:
by Executive Order 10340, pro.
mulgated April 8, 1852, the Presi.
dent of the United States directed
defendant to take possession ol
such plants Of companies named
in a list attached thereto as he
deemed necessary in the interests
of national defense, to operate
them or arrange for their opera
ton, and to prescribe the terms
and conditions Of employment
under which they should be op-
Grated. The plaintiffs are among
those named in the list.
In the recitals of the Executive
Order, the President stated that
a controversy had arisen between
certain companies producing and
fabricating steel and certain OF
their workers represented by the
United Steel Workers of America
(CIO), regarding terms and con-
ditions of employment; that the
controversy had not been settled
through the processes of collective
bargaining or through the efforts
OF the Government, and a strike
had been called for April 9, 1852;
that a work Stoppage would i'm
mediately jeopardize and imperil
our national defense and the de-
tense of those joined with us in
resisting aggression; and that in
order to insure the continued
availability of steel it was neces-
sary that the United States take
possession Of and operate the
plants.
By virtue of this Executive
Order. defendant issued his Order
No. l bearing the same date, stat
ing that he deemed it necessary
in the interest Of national defense
that possession be taken of the
plants Of the companies named in
q list attached to his order, in
cluding the plants of plaintiffs,
and that therefore he did take
possession of the same, effective
April 8, 1852. BY the same order,
he designated the president of
each company as operating man
ager for the United States until
further notice and directed him to
operate the plants of such COM
pany, subject to defendants SUI
pervision. Telegraphic notification
to this effect was given to the
president of each company.
Plaintiffs thereupon brought
these actions praying for declara-
tory judgments and injunctive
relief, and there are now before
me for decision motions for tenn
porary injunctionS seeking to re-
strain the defendant from taking
any action under the authority of
the Executive Order. These mo-
tionS were combined for hearing
and have been fully heard. Volu-
minous briefs have been filed and
considered. At the hearing, plain
tiff United States Steel limited it's
motion to a preservation of the
status quo in respect of terms and
conditions of employment.
Plant Selling Termed
without Authority of Law z
Plaintiffs contend that defend
ants acts under the Executive
Order resulting in the seizure of
their plants are without authority
of law and constitute an illegal
invasion of their property and
rights, and that they are entitled
to preliminary injunctions to re-
strain defendant from acting
therefore, particularly in the light
of his threat to make changes in
terms and conditions of employ
ment. The basis of plaintiffs con-
tention is that there is no con-
Stitutional or statutory right in
the President to issue the Execu-
tive Order, and there being none,
defendant acting hereunder is
acting without legal authority and
his acts are illegal and contrary
to law. Plaintiff Lavino, E. j.
Lavino and Co. has urged an ad-
ditional reason, namely. that it
has been improperly included
among the plants seized. =
Defendant contends, in his op-
position to the motions, that the
breakdown of collective bargain
ing negotiations created an i'm
mediately impending national
emergency because interruption
of steel manufacture for even a
brief period would seriously en-
danger the well-being and safety
of the United States in a critical
situation; that the President has
inherent power In such situa-
tion to take possession of the steel
companies in the manner and to
the extent which he did by his
Executive Order; that the courts
are without power to negate
Executive action of the President
by enjoining it; that the courts
will not interfere in advance of
a full hearing on the merits ex-
cept upon a showing that the
damage to flow from a refusal of
a temporary Injunction is ir-
reparable and outweighs the harm
which would result from its issu-
ance: and that, since the right of
the companies to recover all dam
ages resulting from the taking
has been recognized by Supreme
Court decisions, there is no show
ing that the companies legal rem
edy is inadequate or that their
injury is irreparable.
Merits Of Controversy
Are Not Issue Of Court.
Before proceeding to a dis
cussion of the points of law in
volved herein, it should be said