Evening star. [volume], April 06, 1937, Page A-11, Image 11

About Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972

Image provided by: Library of Congress, Washington, DC

                
Fight on Labor
Act Is Laid |
To Wagner
Defeat of Amendment
' to Outlaw Coercion
Blamed for Attack.
BY DAVID LAWRENCE.
SENATOR WAGNER of New York,
Democrat, has been busy ex
plaining to his constituents just
what he meant when he said
the “sit-down” strikes were provoked
by the attitude of employers who had
been obtaining court injunctions
against tne wag
ner labor rela
tions act.
Wagner insists
that he is not
condoning "sit
down” strikes,
but he places the
m a jor responsi
bility for them on
the backs of em
ployers. An ex
amination of the
record, however
will reveal that
the attitude o f
employers in
lighting the Wag
David Lawrence.
ner labor relations act is due almost
entirely to the fact that Senator Wag
ner himself backed down on his prom
ise, publicly given at the hearings, to
make the natioaal labor relations act
two-sided and persuaded the United
States Senate to asccept his change
of heart.
Indeed, there would be no need
today for a discussion in the Senate
of the Byrnes amendment or the Pitt
man resolution, or any of the other
proposals to denounce “sit-down"
strikes when arising in business en
gaged in interstate commerce if the
Senate had acted on a proposal made
in May, 1935, by Senator Tydings of
Maryland to prohibit “coercion or in
timidation from any source.”
Wagner’s 1934 View.
On March 26. 1934. Senator Wagner
at the public hearings responded to
comment from a witness who wanted
“coercion from any source” prohibited.
Wagner said:
"So far as your proposition is con
cerned, I think the bill ought to be
amended so as to include the intimi
dation or coercion from any source,
if there is any question as to whether
the courts have not already ruled time
and again that they will restrain any
such acts when the worker exercises
them. I want to have that there.
“Now I think the act ought to be
amended just as you suggested; that
is. intimidation, when it comes from
any source, either a trade organiza
tion, or a company union, or an em
ployer, or to be made an unfair labor
practice, so that we are in agreement
on that.”
The witness happened to be some
cme who is an important figure so far
as employers are concerned, James
A. Emery, general counsel of the Na
tional Association of Manufacturers.
In the same hearings the point was
subsequently made even more spe
cific in the following, which appears
In the official record:
“Senator Wagner: Mr. Emery, if
we amend the act as suggested, it
should be amended so that any intim
idation, coercion or anything of that
kind is an improper labor practice—
“Mr. Emery: ‘Unfair labor prac
tice.’
Power to Restrain.
“Senator Wagner: ‘Unfair labor
practice’ from whatever source it may
come, then this power would go to
labor organizations, too, would it not,
the power to restrain coercion, intimi
dation, or these other unfair labor
practices. With that amendment, of
cource, your criticism, etc.”
What Emery sought at the time was
the inclusion of language used by
President Roosevelt in the settlement
of the automobile dispute in March,
1934, when the President in a public
atatement said:
"The Government makes clear that
It favors no particular union or par
ticular form of employe organization
or representation. The Government’s
only duty is to secure absolute and un
influenced freedom of choice, without
coercion, restraint or intimidation
from any source.”
Believing that the President had ex
pressed the principle correctly and that
Senator Wagner himself had accepted
it at the hearings during the same
month, the employers sought a year
later when the Wagner bill was up for
passage the inclusion of an amendment
embodying those views. Senator
Tydings proposed it on May 16. 1935,
and his amendment would have pro
hibited "coercion or intimidation from
any source.”
Unions Voice Opposition.
But labor unions opposed it and
administration leaders, including Sen
ator Wagner, combined to defeat the
proposal. The argument used was that
the courts already had sufficient power
to restrain coercion. The late Senator
Couzens of Michigan was amazed at
Senator Wagner’s refusal to stick by
his original pledge. Mr. Couzens is
quoted in the official record as follows:
“Of course, the Senator from Mary
land knows, as does the Senator from
New York—and that is the reason
why I am astonished by the objection
of the Senator from New York to this
amendment—that in every big indus
trial community there is competition
between one union and another. There
is just as much fight, there is just as
much effort, there is just as much
salesmanship, there is just as much
force used in many cases to induce
workmen to join one union as to Join
another. For the life of me I do not
understand why a union should be
enabled to coerce a worker into an
organization which he does not choose
to join.
"What the Senator from New York
is trying to do is to support the con
tention of the Senator from Mary
land that coercion between union and
union should be prohibited. It is
not enough to say that in 48 juris
dictions there is sufficient remedy.
If there is sufficient remedy, as the
Senator from New York contends,
let us put it in the act.”
Amendment Defeated.
Senator Couzens was a friend of
labor and one of the “liberals” in the
Senate. But the Tydings amendment
was defeated and thus the matter was
turned over to State courts on the
assumption that they could deal with
eoercion of workmen by fellow work
men. Today as a result of the failure
of Senator Wagner and the Roosevelt
administration to permit his own law
to be amended there is no Federal
prohibition of coercion by workers of
fellow workers and the State of Mich
igan has found itself powerless to
enforce the laws that Wagner had in
sisted were the real remedy for the
A
News Behind the News
Both Sides Agree Roosevelt Has Senate Votes to Pass
Court Plan If He Dares.
BY PAUL MALLON.
POSTMASTER GENERAL PARLEY was just about right when he said
“we” have enough votes to put the Supreme Court packing plan over
in Congress.
Considerable bluffing and bragging is going on. Neither side is
saying all it knows nor all it intends to do. Nevertheless, the inside check
* ing within the last few days indicates President Roosevelt can force his bill
through with anywhere from 51 to 57 votes, if h? chooses and if he can
get it to a vote.
The opposition leaders are accommodatingly saying off the
record they do not intend to filibuster. In fact, they privately agree
Mr. Roosevelt has, or can get, the votes.
These twin developments, however, may not be as important as they
sound. The truth is Mr. Roosevelt will leave the Senate floor strewn with
bitterness and strife, which may conceivably injure his political party for
years to come, if he exerts the force which is in his power. Furthermore,
the opposition Senators will certainly change their minds about not fili
bustering, unless they get some kind of inside agreement on new court
appointees or satisfactory concessions. (Senators always talk differently
from the way they act whenever filibusters are concerned. They have been
known to deny publicly that they
were filibustering while openly en- MAKE^HIM DRINK P
gaged m it.)
Consequently, while Mr. Roose
velt theoretically has the votes,
and his opponents are rolling over
on their backs as if to be run over,
voluntarily, the situation is far
from being fixed.
* * * *
If newspapers were guilty of
I TttEVOTE
an tne sms ascnoea to tnem, no • •
editor could aspire to any higher future than stoker in the lowest hole of
Hades. Latest transgression officially attributed to them 1s the series of
yarns about a world peace or disarmament move.
Messrs. Roosevelt and Hull have announced it grieves them very
much to say it, but there is not one particle, iota, or particle o) an
iota of truth in the inference that something may be attempted for
disarmament or peace. The suggestion has been stamped officially
as “pure newspaper-inspired stories.’’
The infinitestimal particle-iota in their announcement is that the
press of London and Paris, whence all these latest stories come, is an
official press. It is the kind of press which suppresses a Simpson affair until
the government wants it printed, or flays the hide of Mussolini when the
foreign office wants it flayed, or soothes him with balm next day upon orders.
This is another way of saying that both Messrs. Roosevelt and Hull
have an excellent idea where the disarmament conference stories are
coming from, but do not care to say. Their purposes are better served by
blaming it on the press.
* jk * *
The detectable facts seem to be these: Messrs. Roosevelt, Hull, Norman
Davis, Bullitt et al. are actively trying to promote a disarmament or peace
move, but And themselves in an extremely difficult situation. As every
one now knows, disarmament conferences are not the open-hearted, idealistic
gatherings they were supposed to be prior to 1921. Peace moves involve
barter and trade of a particularly crafty nature because national safety is
involved.
London and Paris could desire nothing better than to have Mr.
Roosevelt call a disarmament conference and take the responsibility
for its success. If he did it without getting any advance assurances
from the other nations as to what would be agreed upon, he would
just now assume the responsibility for working out a solution of the
European situation, which European statesmen have not been
able to solve.
Of course, what Britain wants primarily from such a conference (or
seems to) is access to our raw materials in case of war. What France wants
V
r | w»NT
tmatpmE
<g>
/2~ and ZEES r'f
V
is what she has been trying un
successfully to get for the last 20
years—security. Mr. Roosevelt is
not in a position to give either
Britain or France its requirements,
and therefore finds his task compli
cated.
Note—Several very important
segments of the visionary press
have not been heard from. No
dispatches are coming from Rome.
Berlin or Moscow suggesting a
j disarmament conterence. The press or those nations is equally as imagina
tive as that of London or Paris That is, it always imagines with uncanny
accuracy whatever happens to be the desire of Mussolini, Hitler or Stalin.
* * * *
But the really important world problem to many Congressmen is how
they are going to get their cars in the special Capitol garage. The House has
decided to legislate on the subject.
A Representative arose to the floor the other day and proposed an
amendment to the legislative appropriation bill. He protested that the
i Capitol architect and congressional secretaries were filling available garage
space so that he and some others were unable to park their cars. His
amendment would write into law the prior rights of legislators to the garage.
It was adopted.
(Copyright, 1937.)
CTHE opinions of the writers on this page are their own, not
necessarily The Star’s. Such opinions are presented in
The Star’s effort to give all sides of questions of interest to its
readers, although such opinions may be contradictory among
themselves and directly opposed to The Star’s.
Dictator: American Style
If Form Arises Here It Will Be Because People
"Want a Papa.” Observer Says.
BY MARK SULLIVAN.
AMONG witnesses before the
Senate committee in opposi
tion to the President’s court
proposal, one of the most
effective has been Miss Dorothy
Thompson. She was effective because
of her native clarity of mind, but
also because of
the concrete ex
perience she was
able to tell. She
has been present
at the death beds
of free govern
ments in Europe,
and she recog
nizes the fatal
symptoms in
America. She was
effective for the
further reason
that she has been
sympathetic t o
many of Mr.
Roosevelt’s h u
Mark Sullivan.
manitarian objectives, and to Mr.
Roosevelt personally.
Even when Miss Thompson clearly
foresees the consequences of Mr.
Roosevelt's attempt to change the
court, even when she realizes that
it is a step toward dictatorship, she
still absolves Mr. Roosevelt personally.
"I have never suggested,” Miss Thomp
son told the committee, “that Presi
dent Roosevelt is trying to establish
a dictatorship.” And in a radio ad
dress she added “that would be patent
nonsense.” Yet in the same sentence
and in many other places. Miss
Thompson declares a dictatorship is
being brought about in America, and
that the President's court proposal is
a step in the process. She told the
committee: ‘If any President wanted
to establish a dictatorship, and do
so with all the appearance of legality,
this is the way he would take.”
Many besides Miss Thompson, who
see clearly the inevitable consequences
of Mr. Roosevelt's action, nevertheless
exculpate Mr. Roosevelt from con
scious intent. This exculpation weak
ens the arguments of all who claim
America is being taken toward dicta
torship. It gives the argument away.
It is like saying a man drives an
automobile every day, but he is not
an automobile driver. Miss Thomp
son. unjustly to herself, seems to make
herself illogical—and most decidedly
Miss Thompson is not an illogical
person. One feels like asking Miss
Thompson: “Is Mr. Roosevelt walking
in his sleep or something?" The aver
age man is apt to say: “How come?
If Mr. Roosevelt is not trying to
establish a dictatorship, what’s all
the shouting about? No one else is
in a position to establish a dictator
ship. This talk about diotatorship
must be all hooev.”
Now what is the answer to this?
How shall Miss Thompson and others
explain that even though Mr. Roose
velt is not consciously trying to estab
lish a dictatorship, nevertheless a
dictatorship fs being established. How
can the public be made to see just
what the danger is?
we are beginning to fear in America.'
We fear we may have a head of state
who will ruthlessly crush minorities,
who will deny any rights to minorities
or Individuals.
The masses of Germans do not call
Hitler a dictator or think of him as
one. The masses of Italians do not
call Mussolini one. What the Ger
mans call Hitler Is “Fuerher." And
what the Italians call Mussolini is
“Duce.” The two words, I Imagine,
mean much the same to the respec
tive peoples. They mean leader,
leader in the sense of a benevolent
leader. The term as used in Ger
many and Italy includes an implica
tion of fatherhood.
“Okay, Chief” Is Americanism.
If America had a Mussolini or a
Hitler, and if we had an American
word for him, I should not wonder
if we would call him by some Ameri
can equivalent of "Fuerher” or
“Duce.” Possibly we might call him
“chief.” Instead of “Heil Hitler," we
will say “Okay, chief.” Some of us
already use the term "Santa Claus.”
If this point Is seen, it will help
toward clear-mindedness about our
American situation. It is not merely
what Mr. Roosevelt is doing; it is what
the American people are doing. A very
large number of Americans, probably
a majority in the last two elections,
want a papa. They want some one to
lean on, some one who will take care
of them. Provided they think he will
take care of them, they refuse to
inquire into what else he does. Pro
vided they think he will use his power
to give them largesse and otherwise
help them, they don’t care how he gets
his power or keeps it or increases it.
So far as they are concerned, the more
power he has the better. Their attitude
toward Mr. Roosevelt is one which says
“Okay, Chief, go as far as you like.”
And when Mr. Roosevelt makes violent
attacks on those who criticize him,
the papa-minded part of the public
says “Attaboy, go to it, pop, be tough
with ’em." As respects the proposal
to change the Supreme Court, all the
papa-minded type of person knows
about it is that Mr. Roosevelt wants
it, and "whatever Roosevelt wants is
okay with me.”
The kina or dictator America gets
will not be. In his first phase, the
sword-in-hand, foot-on-the-people’s
necks kind. He will become that later,
or his successor will. But at first he
will be a head of state who solicits the
papa-minded part of the people, flat
ters them, incites by violent attack
upon his opponents and critics.
Whether America is now getting that
kind of dictator is for any observer of
the contemporary scene to see for
himself.
I should not want this dispatch to
leave a wrong impression in the
reader’s mind. X agree fully with Miss
Thompson and others that in America
the first steps are now being taken
toward the type of Government and
society that has been set up in several
European countries and which Is called
I •’dictatorship.”
(Copyrtgftt. 1937.)
We, the People
Southern Congressmen Seen Responding to Pressure
From Home to Support President on Court Plan.
BY JAY FRANKLIN.
HE history of the South since Appomattox is the old, sad story of
the substitution of an economic for a military conquest. It was the
Supreme Court which, through the Dred Scott decision, placed the
South in the false position which made secession seem the only
course when Lincoln was elected in 1860. It was the Supreme Court’s
flexible interpretations of “property” and “due process,” under the four
teenth amendment, which completed the alienation of their sovereignty
and resources from the people of the Southern States to a handful of
Northern banks and corporations.
So complete was this process that many Southern statesmen—
individuals like Senator Carter Glass of Virginia and the big land
owners on the House Agriculture Committee who have just tried
to prevent the Government from helping their less fortunate fellow
Southerners through the farm tenancy bill—became in effect mere
overseers for absentee Northern control of Southern wealth and
Southern opportunities.
So complete was this process that when the Supreme Court made
the gesture on Easter Monday of ruling that State legislation constituted
“due process of law,” nearly everything that could be profitably exploited
in Dixie—railways, mines, oil wells, power sites, sulphur deposits, banks, in
surance and even the land—had passed under the control of Wall Street.
Yankee millionaires bought up the old houses, Southern girls were given in
marriage to the economic conquerors, and the South became an economic
and social adjunct of Northern money.
The New Deal’s plan for
rejuvenating the Supreme Court
by six simultaneous Voronoff oper
ations is the first chance the South
has had in 72 years to call a
halt on this process of strangula
lation and to shape its own destiny
within the Nation without first
asking permission from the money
lenders.
* « * *
The South Is also on guard
against possible amendments to the Constitution which might allow some
future Northern majority tn Congress to ignore essential Southern interests.
This fact alone explains why President Roosevelt has chosen the ‘ packing”
method and not the amendment route to judicial reform. The South will
find greater protection in a sympathetic court than in a more powerful
central Government. This was the method of Jefferson and Jackson
For this reason, Southern leaders in Congress frankly prefer
to let the debate on the Roosevelt plan be conducted mainly by
Northerners and Westerners. The Democratic party of the solid.
South is splitting into money-made Republicans ("Jeffersonian Dem
ocrats” fool nobody but themselves) and New Dealers, and Southern
politicians are naturally anxious to preserve the appearance iand
the rewards) of solidarity as long as possible. So Representative
Sam Rayburn of Texas, majority leader in the House, deftly sug
gested to the White House that the judiciary reform bill be sent
to the Senate first.
Thus he avoided another personal fight like the battle over the public
utilities holding company act and the struggle with Representative John J.'
O’Connor of Tammany for the leadership, and side-stepped the need for an
attack upon his fellow Texan, Chairman Hatton Sumners of the House
Judiciary Committee.
* * * *
Despite isolated opposition—more vocal than important—the Southern
delegations in Congress are responding to heavy pressure from their
constituents to go along with the President. For example, the day after the
Roosevelt plan was announced only three out of 21 Texas Representatives
were for the reform bill. Today only four are firmly against it. Conserva
tives like John Rankin of Mississippi and C A. Woodrum of Virginia are in
favor of the plan, and the news from Dixie shows that from Texas to
Virginia the Bourbons have little power to resist the President. The esti
mate is that out of 120 Southern Representatives in Congress only 20 to 25
will vote against the Roosevelt plan,
while Southern senatorial opposi
tion to reform is largely confined
to the generally acknowledged
agents of corporate exploitation
and expropriation on the Atlantic
seaboard.
This is leading to a grow
ing movement in Southern politics
to read these men out of the
Democratic party and to drive
them out of public life. Carter
Glass is on the skids and his prestige in the South has never been lo
The big landowners, their relatives and legal stooges who packed
the House Agriculture Committee and made,common cause with the
Republicans to perpetuate the evils of share-cropping are being
marked down for retirement, while primaries in Richmond. Va . and
Austin, Tex., to fill congressional vacancies are expected to result in
victories for liberal Democrats.
So the Southern picture is far from simple. The wealth of the South
Is still largely in Northern hands, with the aid of synthetic Southern
Yankees. (Copyrisht, 1837.>
An American
You Should
Know
Miss Mary Dewson Aids
Farley in Democratic
Leadership.
BY DELIA PYNCHON.
THE New Deal donkey has seen
"things’’ and looks to be still
"going places." He champs
and stamps about his lush
pasturage with a roving eye toward
continuing enjoyment.
The team of "Molly and Jim” have
placed him where he is. Mary Dew
son, or "Molly,” as she is affectionately
called, is vice chairman of the Na
tional Demoiratic
Committee. “Jim''
Farley Is chair
man.
Recently at
"Jim’’ Far ley's
glorification din
ner occurred the
"kiss that was
heard 'round the
world.” Letters of
c o n g r a tulation
clog Miss Dew -
son’s mail. One
from California
says, in part. “We
Mary Dewson.
iollow everythin::
you do and say.
and we listened to the kiss you planted
on that kind old face of ‘Jim’ Farley."
“Molly” Dewson won her spurs
politically when she persuaded up
town New York to vote for Gov.
Roosevelt.
Headed Democratic Women.
With characteristic energy and
humor, she plunged into the 1936
campaign as director of the Demo
cratic women's division. Her flair
for terse and witty statements were
printed in a million “rainbow flyer"
pamphlets that informed 50.000 pre
cinct workers on New Deal aims
claims. Her so-called "joke book ”
dedicated to "Mrs. County Leader."
refuted the idea that "you mustn't
make jokes in politics." A quarter
million edition caught the voters’
fancy.
"Molly” Dewson ha? "found the
right woman for the right place'' in
executive positions throughout the
New Deal. Aggressively, she has
set up a remarkable party organiza
tion in which women are to have a
50-50 representation with men.
Her “brain-child. ' the "reporter
plan.” distributes authoritative in
formation on the New Deal activities
through a State "organization as uni
versal in coverage of homes as the
well-known brush man makes.”
You cannot stop such a woman.
She has the brains, initiative and abil
ity to carry through what she starts.
She had only one setback, in 1922.
when she attempted to win a Dis
trict of Columbia minimum wage case
before the Supreme Court. She lost
by a 5-3 decision.
Miss Dewson has consistently avoid
ed lines of least resistance. Born In
Quincy, Mass., she Summers in Maine
and votes in New York, her home
She started being a Democrat in a
Republican family at 17.
"Because my mind ached and need
ed something to chew on.” Miss Dew -
son stated, "I went to Wellesley »nd
' graduated in 1897.”
situation complained of by the em
ployers.
If the reasoning used by Senator
Wagner in his speech in Senate last
week were to be followed, then the
refusal of the employers to accept
the Wagner labor relations act and
their insistence on getting court in
junctions was in itself provoked by
Wagner and his colleagues who re
fused to make the national labor rela
tions act two-sided, in which case the
“sit-down” strike would have been a
violation of the labor relations act.
Then union labor could have like
wise applied for injunctions restrain
ing the courts and until the legality
of the issue had been determined in
an orderly way in the courts sit-down
strikes would have been held in abey
ance. For the courts usually grant
injunctions whenever destruction of
property is threatened and the loss
by failure to restrain the complained
of act is likely to involve irreparable
losses while the subject is being ad
judicated.
(Copyright, 1937.)
MOTHER OF D.C. WOMAN
DIES IN MASSACHUSETTS
Funeral Bites Today for Mother
of Mrs. George C.
Duncan.
Mrs. Henry C. Wood in, 86, mother
of Mrs. Florence W. Duncan, 2900
Seventh street northeast, died Sat
urday after a short illness at her home
in Great Barrington, Mass., according
to word received here. Funeral serv
ices are being held today in Great
Barrington.
Mrs. Duncan is the wife of Re\ Dr.
George S. Duncan, retired Presbyterian
minister and professor of Oriental
history and literature at American
University. Her mother had visited
her and had a number of friends here.
She also leaves another daughter,
Mrs. Charles Platt of Great Barring
ton, and a son, Kay P. Woodtn, Rush
ing, Long Island.
One source of confusion lies in use
of the word “dictator.” The Ameri
can public thinks of dictators pri
marily in terms of the ancient ones,
especially the Roman ones. They
think of a dictator as a tyrant with a
sword in his hand and his foot on the
neck of a prostrate people. A dicta
tor, they think, is a man who holds
his power against the wdll of the
people, who crushes them and keeps
them down by means of armed force.
That is the classic meaning of dic
tatorship. It does not fit the modern
persons to whom we apply the term.
Hitler and Mussolini are called dic
tators by Americans—but they are not
called that by their own peoples. Hit
ler and Mussolini do not hold their
positions against the will of the masses
of the people. They do not keep the
masses crushed down by means of
force.
The distinction between the con
ventional dictator and a Hitler or
Mussolini is plain. 'A dictator is a
man who represents a minority—gnd
by force crushes the majority. A Hit
ler or a Mussolini does the opqpsite.
He represents a majority—and crushes
the minority. That is precisely what
“Remember, if I win this het I get
an extra cup of Wilkins Coffee. ’*
‘The word "Kcglintd" is At
registered trade-mark of At
American Can Company, used
to indicate its special tan for
beer and ala.
Two years old! Yet he goes everywhere, knows everybody. That is the
amazing biography of KEGLINED*, the can for beer and ale. So
swiftly have beer lovers adopted this new and convenient method for
protecting the taste of their favorite brews, it is hard to realize that the
FIRST can of beer ever sold tumbled its golden contents into a glass
early in 1935. Today, more than a hundred brands of beer and ale are
sold in cans. Truly, "The Baby Is Singing Bass”, and the beer and ale
lovers of America are joining in on the chorus.
Why has this lusty "packaging infant” so rapidly changed the methods
of an ancient industry? Because people like a package that is easier to
carry, easier to stack on a refrigerator shelf. They like the modem look
of a beer can and the Easy-opener that goes with it. Above all, they
like the better taste that comes from keeping beer or ale in absolute
darkness until the moment of pouring.
If you drink beer or ale, drink it the modem way—protected from light
and air by a can trade-marked
I
AMERICAN CAN COMPANY
230 Park A.rru. New York City
TONIGHT: Hear Ben Bernie, the Lads and Frank Parker, Station WMAL—
. 9:00 P.M., N. B. C. Blue Network