Evening star., 1953-09-24
An Uqiy Incident


imputation of bad faith to the President, is an
ugly and regrettable incident. This is the more
so because it is impossible to determine what
the facts are from what has been said on
both sides.
Mr.. Durkin now says that there was an
agreement between the President and himself
on the 19 proposed amendments to the Taft
Hartley Act, and that the President subse-
quently refused to live up to that agreement.
But when the former Secretary of Labor says
this, even now, he speaks in general terms.
Thus, in addressing the American Federation of
Labor Tuesday, he declared:
The President and / met alone Gin New
York last August 19) and discussed the leak of
the message on the 19-point agreement to the
Wall Street Journal. We further agreed that
the leak in no way leSsened the need for re-
leasing the agreed-to 10 points, even though
the Congress was no longer in session. He
fully agreed to my position and never at any
time In our conversation raised any questions
on the agreement as whole or on any one
of the 10 agreed-to amendments. He agreed
that we should go right ahead.
Later in his address Mr.. Durkin, telling OF
meeting on September 10 at the White House
with the President added:
We met and he informed me that he had
changed his position since the New York
meeting and that he could no longer 60 alone
with the 19 amendments.
The difficulty with this is that the report
to the AFL is Mr.. Durkins Interpretation or
summarization of his conversations with the
President. At no point did he say specifically
just what it was that the President said which,
in his judgment, constituted an agreement.
Furthermore, Mr.. Durkin's statement to
the AFL is markedly at variance with what he
said in press conference on September 10,
when he announced his resignation from the
cabinet. On that occasion Mr.. Durkin spoke of
an agreement between himself and white
House staff members" He did not say that he
had any agreement with the President per-
sonally. When he was questioned closely on this
point at the press conference-held on the day
he now says the President informed him that
he had changed his position-this exchange
occurred:
Reporter: "You had no personal commit
ment from the President?"
Mr.. Durkin: mot directly, no."
There is one other thing which bears on
this aspect of the matter. Mr.. Durkin now says
he resigned as a matter of principle because an
agreement between himself and the President
was not kept by the latter. He made no such
claim in his formal letter of resignation. There
was not even reference to an agreement or any
issue of principle. On the contrary, he spoke
in laudatory terms of his relationship with the
President.
The effect of all this is to raise strong doubt
as to the accuracy of Mr.. Durkins current ver-
sion of the incident. Was he right on Septem-
ber 10, when he said he had no direct personal
commitment from the President? Or was he
right on September %, when he told the AFL
that the President refused to keep an agreement
with him?
Unfortunately, the Presidents version of the
affair, to the extent that one has been given,
is equally ambiguous. An official White House
statement after the Durkin speech said the
President had made no decision ION any sug-
gestions or detailed recommendations for any
changes in the Taft-Hartley law" And in his
own message to the AFI, the President said the
committee studying Taft-Hartley changes "has
not as yet completed its task and submitted it's
recommendations to me-"
Neither of these comments, however, can
be considered direct answer to Mr.. Durkins
accusation. They do not reveal what the Presi-
dent said to Mr.. Durkin in New York on August
19, and they do not disclose whether the Presi-
dent said anything which Mr.. Durkin could have
reasonably interpreted as an agreement or a
commitment.
Perhaps the truth of the matter is that
neither man remembers exactly what was said
at their private discussion in New York, and
that therefore no explicit statement concerning
the conversation can be made If this is the
case, it is regrettable, for the political parti-
sans are going to seize on Mr.. Durkin's version,
and the alleged breach of faith is going to
become more heinous with each telling