Evening star., 1952-06-03
SteeI's Day in Court

Steers Day in Court
The Supreme Courts 6-to-s ruling that the
President had no power to seize the steel indus
try will stand as one of the momentous land
marks in the evolution of constitutional govern
ment in this country.
It checks and presumably reverses a dan
gerouS trend. One Of the arguments advanced
by counsel for the administration in this case
was that other Presidents, relying on their
alleged constitutional powers, had seized private
industries, and that no court had held those
actions to be unlawful II that is correct, 1t is
all the more important to have this ruling now.
For the steel case illustrates the insidious man
ner in which one unlawful act tends to serve as
basis for another. A single usurpation Of author
ity may not seem to threaten our liberties But
as one usurpation feeds upon another, and as the
pressures Of our modern society grow, there
emerges that pattern Of expedient action which,
If permitted to expand with the years, could rob
us Of our traditional freedoms. It is against this
trend that the Supreme Court takes It's stand,
and as time brings fuller understanding Of the
implications of its decision it will be recognized
as an opinion which serves the best interests Of
true liberalism.
Justice Black, speaking for court which
acted with admirable dispatch In this constitu-
tional crisis, hewed strictly to the line. He said
no more than the circumstances of the case
required him to say. But what he did say was set
forth in language that is clear and firm. A
President has no inherent authority, either as
Commander in Chief or as Chief Executive, to
take possession of private property in order to
keep labor disputes from stopping production"
This is job for Congress. OF course, the legisa-
tors could authorize the President to take this
action, or they could authorize 1t to be done in
some other way. But unless and until Congress
enacts the necessary legislation, President, in
the circumstances Of this case, has no power to
do what Mr.. Truman sought to accomplish
This in word, is what the opinion comes
down to- There were five concurring opinions
from the justices who Joined in the majority
ruling. No one of them disagreed with Justice
Blacks application of the law to the steel case.
Their main purpose was to spell out their own
views and, in some instances, to set forth the
philosophical considerations underlying those
views. Thus, one finds Justice Douglas warning
that tomorrow another President might use the
same power to prevent wage increase, to curb
trade unionists, to regiment labor as oppressivey
as industry thinks it has been regimented by this
seizure" Or, as Justice Jackson put it, "such
power tas claimed by Mr.. Truman) either has no
beginning or it has no end IL 1t exists, 1t need
submit to no legal restraint. am not alarmed
that it would plunge us straightaway into dicta-
torship, but it is at least step In that wrong
direction
The concurring opinions also make 1t clear,
If clarifcation was needed, that the majority
ruling does not disarm President in any and
all circumstances The situations in which
President might act on the basis of his implied
powers, without express congressional authorize
ton, not set out in detail. But these judicial
expressions, taken together, cannot be read as
be poweress to act in all situations If the life of
the Nation were hanging in the balance They
merely say that the President exceeded his au-
thority in the circumstances Of this case.
The dissenting opinion was written by Chief
Justice Vinson, with the concurrence of Justices
Reed and Minton. It is not at all persuasive In
fact, it reads more like political document than
a judicial opinion. To illustrate this, one need
not go beyond its allusion to the majority ruling
as embracing messenger boy concept" of the
presidential Office The majority opinion, Of
course, does nothing Of the sort, and dissent
which has to resort to such exaggeration carries
little conviction.
Meanwhile the steelworkers have struck, as
they had legal right to do once the Government
seizure Of the mills had been voided. But it is
strike which cannot be allowed to run its course.
The President having proclaimed that steel
shutdown would endanger the lives of our men
fighting abroad and that it would also have
disastrous impact on the country, is duty bound
to put aside his partisan attitude in this matter.
He should use every means at his command, in
cluding the Taft-Hartley Act, to get the strikers
back to work.
If these measures fail, as conceivably they
might, he should go back to Congress, not with
a meaningless report Of what has happened or
of what he has done, but with q specific recon-
mendation for new legislation. Congress will not
be eager to take the action that should be taken
It is easier, and perhaps more profitable polit-
ically. to denounce the President for usurpng
powers than 1t is to write q law which would
confer upon President the powers needed in
such an emergency as this But the response
bility rests with Congress and the legislators
cannot indefinitely evade their duty. What this
country needs is legislation which will forbid
strikes in really essential industries and which,
at the same time, will provide machinery for
settling the inevitable disputes on basis that
is fair to all concerned. As the steel decision
holds, Congress and Congress alone can enact
that legislation. The longer 1t delays the longer
1t will be derelict In its duty.
As 1t menaces life in the great city an atom
blast on faraway Yucca Flats Is not to he