Newspaper Page Text
With Inin Moraine Edition.
WASHINGTON, D. C. Published by The Evening Star Newspaper Company. FRANK B. NOTES, President. R. M. McKELWAY. Editor. Main Office: 11th 8t. and Pennsrlvanla Ave. New York Offiee: 110 East 42d St. Chicato Office: 435 North Michigan Ave. Delivered by Carrier—Metropolitan Area. The Evening and Sundar Bear. BOc per month: when 5 Sundays In the month, $1.00. The Evening Star Onlr. S5c per month. The Sunday Stir. 10c per copy. Eight Pinal Edition. 10c per month additional. Rates by Mail—Payable in Advance. Anywhere In United States. 1 month. 6 months. 1 veer. Evening and Sunday. $1.25 $6.0«; $12.00 §; Ssatsr 15::::: -.a 1.88 hs Telephone National 5000. Entered at the Post Office Washington. D. C., as second-class mall matter. Member of the Associated Press. The Associated Press is exclusively entitled to the use for republlcation of all nawa dispatches credited to It or not otherwise credited in this paper and also the local news published herein. An rights of publication of special diapatcbas hortln also are reserved. A—* * FRIDAY, March 7, 1947 wrrTf**^~**"—— —a.« in The Lewis Decision John L. Lewis h&s lost his fight to set himself above the law and outside the limits of the. restraints imposed by the public interest. It would be a mistake, however, to sup pose that yesterday’s decision by the Supreme Court supplies the Govern ment with a permanent and effective instrument to deal with strikes which threaten the national welfare. Five of the justices agreed that, in the light of the circumstances of this case, the Norris-La Guardia Act did not serve to prevent the Govern ment from securing an injunction commanding Mr. Lewis to call off last year’s coal strike. Having agreed on that point, the majority of the court then proceeded—although there was a split among them on this —to uphold the contempt convic tions against Mr. Lewis and his union. The $3,500,000 criminal fine against the union was reduced to $700,000—the balance remaining as a penalty only if the union continues in disobedience of the order of the court. That, of course, is an important victory for the Government. But it is at best a narrow and precarious victory. In the first place, the majority decision was based squarely on the proposition that the Government having taken possession of the mines under authority of the Smith Connally Act, the miners thereupon became employes of the Govern ment. In other words, if this em ployer-employe relationship had not been found to exist, the courts would have been closed even to the Government by the stringent pro visions of the Norris-La Guardia Act. The fact is, however, that the Smith Connally Act, out of which grew the legal basis for the Government’s victory, will expire on June 30. After that time, unless there is new legislation, the Government will be without power to deal with another coal strike or any other strike in private industry. a second important point has to do with the narrowness of the ground on which Justices Black and Douglas stood with the justices con stituting the majority. They stated the belief that the Norris-La Guardia Act would prohibit the Government from seeking an Injunction for the benefit of private employers. "But,” they added, "as we read the War Labor Disputes (Smith-Connally) Act and the President’s order taking over the mines against the back ground. of circumstances which prompted both, we think • • * that the Government operates these mines for its own account as a matter of law; and those who work in them, during the period of com plete Government control, are em ployes of the Government.” The italics have been supplied for purposes of emphasis because^ the italicized words seem to be an im portant qualification by the two Justices. They might well mean that against a background of different circumstances, even though the Gov ernment were lawfully in possession of an industry, Justices Black and Douglas wOuld not be willing to agree that the workers were in fact employes of the Government. Still a third point has to do with the power and persuasiveness of the dissenting opinions, particularly those of Justices Frankfurter and Murphy. These members of the court, along with Justice Rutledge and probably Justice Jackson, who dissented on the Norris-La Guardia Act issue without writing an opinion, con tended that even if the miners could be held to be employes of the Gov ernment—a point which they did not concede—the Norris-La Guardia Act would still operate to prevent the Government from securing an Injunction against the workers. And this view was so cogently argued that one can readily believe that the court, in the absence of new legislation, may swing around in time to this minority viewpoint. From all of the foregoing, two conclusions can be drawn. If in the future the Government expects to use the injunctive weapon against strikes which threaten the welfare of the Nation, and if this is to be predicated upon an employer employe relationship, then Congress must enact some legislation to re place the expiring Smith-Connally Act in this respect. Secondly, even if this is done, the Norris-La Guardia 4ct should be ^amended to make it unmistakably clear that, in such a Situation, Congress does not Intend that the restraints of that law should be effective against the Fed eral Government acting in the na tional interest. Mr. Gromyko's Latest Through Mr. Gromyko’s latest speech to the Security Council, the Russians now have made clear that it probably will be years, if ever, be fore they agree to our atomic-con trol plan. They are for “rigid” in ternational supervision—but. They favor a vetpless inspection system— but. They do not dispute that vio lators should be punished—but. As for outlawing the bomb, they insist that that must be done right away. Our plan calls for a powerful world authority; for effective inspec tion unhampered by the veto; for vetoless and swift punishment for violations; and for a timing pro cedure under which we would sur render our present exclusive advan tages only as the control machinery went into effect. Rather than go into the tedious details, suffice it to say that the Russians would extract most of the teeth from the system we have in mind and substitute a completely inadequate alternative. In Mr. Gromyko’s words, "only people who have lost the sense of reality can seriously believe” in the American plan. Mr. Gromyko says this even though all members of the twelve-nation Atomic Energy Commission—with the exception of Russia and satellite Poland—have voted in favor of the plan’s essen tials. Why this illogic? Why this insistence that everybody is out of step but the Russians? Mr. Gromyko’s speech seems frank enough to suggest at least part of the answer. Leaving aside his un warranted bitterness and sarcasm, his arguments strongly indicate that the Soviet Union is afraid that the rest of the world, led by Amer ica, could employ our control pro posals to undermine Soviet inde pendence. Why the fear? If the situation were reversed, If the Russians were in our place and we in theirs, how would we react? Suppose Russia were democratic and had exclusive possession of the A-bomb and pre sented the same plan as ours. Sup pose America were a Communist dictatorship without the bomb. Sup pose great numbers of freedom-lov ing Russians were openly hostile to and fearful of our totalitarian sys tem. Suppose, finally, that they and peoples politically and economically akin to them were consistently and heavily outvoting us in the United Nations. What would be our atti tude then? Would we insist on immediate outlawry of A-weapons? Would we oppose a powerful world atomic authority as a menace to our “sovereignty”? Would we insist on maintaining the veto to offset the majority usually voting against us? Would we be reluctant to permit un limited inspection behind our “iron curtain”? These questions are not cited to make the present Russian position seem less discouraging or ominous than it is. They are cited simply to emphasize what the free world is up against in seeking to control the atom. If we were the Russians, it is not improbable that we would react pretty much as they, out of a sense of fear. We would do so be cause of deep ideological and eco nomic differences. There is a vast gulf between them and us, and we cannot bridge it by beating them over the head for failing to see eye to eye with us. The only construc tive course to follow is to keep on trying to convert them to our view. The alternative is to give up in de spair and let civilization prepare for its suicide in the deadliest arms race of all time. The Not-So-Dark Ages Certain alarmed commentators— possibly too alarmed—are saying that western civilization seems clearly to be falling apart. They may or may not be right; time alone will tell whether they are or not. But when they add that the world is in “danger” of reverting to the "Dark Ages,” they are wide open not merely to challenge but to outright correction as well. It is about time that the so-called “Dark Ages” received a square deal. To begin with, although loosely catalogued as the several centuries between the fall of Rome and the Renaissance, they did not begin and end on such-and-such dates. All one can be sure of is that no period in history has been quite so mis represented and libeled as these early medieval times. Fifty or a hun- ' dred years ago there might have been some excuse for speaking of them in a derogatory sense. But there is no excuse now, the fact being that scholars have uncovered enough evidence to prove that they were in many respects brilliantr-not “dark,” not something to be thought of with a shudder, not a deadly epoch that mankind is in “danger” of reverting to. Actually the “Dark Ages” belong too much to medieval civilization to be classified separately. They were a time that cannot sensibly be belittled. As the Encyclopedia Britannica says, “If we search in history for examples of sheer good ness, or of forms of delicate percep tion, or of intellectual greatness, of legal acumen or of constructive ability, we can find them as readily in the Middle Ages as elsewhere, just as we find, as nowhere else, depths of religious experience.” We can also find in this period—and perhaps to a much lesser degree—persecution, cruelty, decadence and all the other manifestations of evil that can be found now. The encyclopedia, reflecting the findings of scholars, is frankly exasperated with muddled talk about the “Dark Ages.” Remember, it says, that they were times when "Intel leetual work of the highest quality ' was done by exceptional individuals.” Remember, too, that “With the progress of medieval studies in the nineteenth century it became im possible for historians to dismiss one of the great constructive periods in human activity with an epithet im plying contempt for its aAieve ments, and the phrase has now become obsolete.” In short, however right or wrong they may be about the seeming dis solution of our present civilization, certain commentators ought to bring themselves up to date and stop speaking about the “danger” of our reverting to the “Dark Ages.” Worse things could happen to us than that. Our own time is not so wonderful that we can afford to misunderstand the past and look down our noses at it. DST Party Impressed by the siz6 of the House vote against daylight-saving time for the District, Chairman Buck of the Senate District Committee expressed belief that the House action had “settled it.” But developments of the past few days show that the DST question is far from settled, as far as the aroused citizens of Wash ington are concerned. They do not relish having local matters settled for them by farmers who live some where else. So, as the taxed but unrepre sented citizens of Boston did with their tea in 1776, the indignant resi dents of Washington are threaten ing that if worst comes to worst they may take matters in their own hands and toss standard time over board, regardless of the House vote. This would be an unofficial, volun tary adoption of “fast time” in lieu of a legal change. The last-ditch alternative was to be discussed at a mass meeting of business and civic interests today under joint sponsor ship of the Board of Trade and Junior Chamber of Commerce. The voluntary plan should be, in deed, a last-ditch measure. Only an official and legal clock change could hope to achieve complete compli ance, and anything less than unani-. mous adoption of DST in the Dis trict would result in confusion. The mere prospect of a spontaneous DST party here should be enough to con vince Congress of the desirability of giving heed to what Washingtonians want, rather than to what farmers outside of Washington are alleged to want. If Congress listens to those who live here and would be benefited by daylight saving, it will either grant the District the time change out right or, as the McGrath bill pro poses, authorize the Commissioners to grant it if a public hearing shows that the city wants it. This and That By Charles E. Tracewell “Dear Sir: “Since childhood in Virginia I always heard that birds select their mates every year on February 14, but of late when I speak of it I am laughed at. « "Will you please tell me if there is any truth or is this simply a legend. “Respectfully yours, C. A. W.” This is a legend due to the desire of many persons to humanize the birds. The only practical fact in relation to it is that often early February is warm enough to make the birds begin to think spring is really here. They tend at such times to select their mates, if their old ones are missing, but by and large there is no date set, of course. It is only the desire of humanity to make all things human that would allow any one to pretend that the songsters know about our St. Valentine's day! It is a nice enough legend, as far as it goes, just as is the one about the blue jays flying to see their father, the devil, on Fridays. This is based on the indubitable fact that jays do more or less absent them selves from their usual haunts on that day. As to why this is so, is anybody’s guess. But it had been observed by almost every one interested in these birds. The modem idea, as contrasted with the old one, is that jays are more sinned against than sinning. Old plates show the jays with gripping eggs of other birds in their claws. Such pictures portray only occasional jays. They do not truthfully represent these true Americans. One has but to watch them closely at a bird feeding station to admire them, and to see that they do not in any sense pester other species, but to the contrary get along with them very well. The blue jay is an upstanding fellow, beautiful to look at, and interesting to watch. He takes care of himself, and his family. He is one of the few species which lives in small flocks composed of his own. The father, mother and three or four children, sometinfcs a few more, make up these bands. Such bands come to feeding stations, and arev so regular in this habit that their absence, after a time, may be noticed. It will then be realized that they abstent themselves on Friday. At this point the mind of man, seeking an ex planation, turns to religion, and, com bining it with the old idea of the “bad ness” of the jay, comes up with a legend. The month recently ended is often warm. This year nature, after giving snowless months, suddenly surprised us by sending down snow and plenty of it. But bad weather, as we humans call it, is just weather to the birds. They are used to taking fair and foul days as they come. In their stride, as the ex pression has it. Birds do not resent snow and ice. They just hustle the harder for a living. In this they are helped no end by kind hearted admirers. The snowy days set off the birds in a marvelous manner. Addicts of bird watching and feeding must be glad of snow, now and then, if for no other reason than it furnished a fine background for their favorites. Cardinals, Jays and others shine with renewed coloring against the neutral background. And even in the snow, the birds do begin to feel the various urges of spring. Common sparrows often may be seen carrying small sticks for nest building in February. The bluebirds begin to nest about March 5. Soon thereafter the busy Jenny Wrens appear, and following a long list of favorites, at present just beginning to feel the urge to fly north. That is where we come in, and we will be waiting for them. Letters to The Star A Sedition Case Defendant Demands to Be Tried To the Editor of The Star: Your lead editorial “Travesty on Justice” in your March 4 issue is one of the most thought-provoking in the his tory of one of America’s most pro vocative legal cases. Of course the Justice Department is to blame and very much to blame for its flagrant mishandling of the anti sedition case over the years. But are we to be led to believe that the in ferior Federal Court in the District of Columbia itself is blameless? The record will not bear out any such con tention of implication and I know The Star, true to its inherent fair play, will seek to expound all sides of this great controversy. After all, this attitude would but properly climax The Star's own uniformly fair reports of the incompleted court trial itself. It seems only logical a higher court should now be called upon to grapple with this bungled cause. I am sure The Star will not want to countenance the establishment of a narrow-minded legal precldent decreeing that the Government stall or drop all cases it feels it may lose. After all, this case— including its amazing major and minor implications—is going to be tried whether anybody likes it or not. Isn’t it better that it be tried legally, rather than resolved informally for many years to come in the shop, on the farm, in the subway or on the high seas? Defendants ''Impoverished." Indictments in this case were be fore the inferior Federal Court in the District of Columbia from the middle of 1942 to the latter part of November, 1946. If the ‘‘mass trial" was a ‘‘Travesty on Justice” in 1946, wasn’t it equally so in 1942? Surely the court erred in waiting nearly four and one half years—until surviving defendants were utterjy impoverished and ruined in business and personal reputation— to render the pontifical, trial-less verdict you take for the caption on your leading editorial. The record will further show that some of the defendants themselves re peatedly over the years since Chief Justice Eicher’s death pleaded with the court to give them bread in the form of a vindication trial. Finally, at long last, the court replied after the No vember elections. But its reply was to give all the defendants as well as the Government and the public at large the stone of dismissal—dismissal with out court vindication, without the de fendants being allowed one syllable in court to meet the stupendous charges, without any form of restitution either in finances or reputation or even in some cases a climate in which to obtain or retain a job in a conditioned social order successively prejudiced against the defendants by the strange dilatory at titude of prosecutor and court. If this isn't conviction by mere accusation, just what is? Asks for Precedents. Where are the precedents, the cita tions, the authorities allowing such dismissal of such a case? whatever can be said against the appeal of the Justice Department—and plenty can and doubtless will be said—at least it is on the side of due process of law—even if very belatedly so. Court and prosecutor long ago violated the presumption of innocence as well as due process of law. .Thus it would seem but the part of equity to grant the defendants the right to fight for their own American innocence and to recoup what they can in the form of reputation, prestige and business ability. In their trial-less but multiply indicted condition they have long since suffered all the possible disadvantages of a trial without being allowed an op portunity to win the major advantage of any trial—a clean bill of health be fore their friends, neighbors and business associates. It would seem but axiomatic that an American citizen should be granted the right to fight for a clean bill of health when victimized by three next-door-to-treason charges. PRESCOTT DENNETT. , Courses for Shut-ins To the Editor of The Star: I notice that a plea was made re cently before the Association for the Education of Handicapped Shut-in Chil dren of the District fo» an increase in home instruction to five hours a week. The cause of the shut-ins is so excellent j that nobody could desire to speak in any way against the bettering of their op portunities. The proposed increase, however, would mean paying a teacher’s full salary, over $2,000 annually, for the instruction of six children (supposing the teacher worked normal hours, apart from the time spent in traveling). An alternative might be considered. A number of States have correspondence courses foe those children living in re mote areas who cannot attend school. Some of these correspondence courses are so excellent that students who have taken them are found, when they come to attend high school or university, to have a better grounding than ordinary “classroom” students. Why shouldn’t the District invest in correspondence courses for its “shut ins” from one of the better State de partments of education, while, of course, keeping the present one or two hours weekly of personal instruction as tuition to supplement the correspond ence courses, providing help when needed? HELEN B. AKRIGG. Economy Tip for Congress To the Editor ol The Star: With all the furor Congressmen are making over reducing the budget, why does it never occur to them to decrease their own expenditures at the expense of the taxpayers? Every Representative gets $2,500 ex pense* money not liable to taxation. That amounts to more than $8,000,000. Every Representative and Senator gets $1,500 stationery money, which is sel dom used but is partly taken as extra cash in the member’s pocket. That amounts to nearly $7,000,000. The 20 cents per mile allowed for travel, which costs 2 cents a mile, is a clear racket and amounts to another $1,000,000. And when the money earned by relatives of Senators and Representatives on the payroll is added, the amount gets large enough so that Congress should be ashamed not to reduce it in proportion, at least, to the cuts in the Army and Navy budgets. But will they sacrifice anything them selves? TIMOTHY J. WALES. (Not a Government Employe.) America’s 'Umptee’ Army A Mental, Physical and Moral Experiment to Prove the Virtues of Universal Military Training By John Justin Smith ' Fort Knox’s unique school for teen-age soldiers offers, among other things, good music daily. —Photo by U. S. Army Signal Corps. r'UKT K.NOX, Ky.—The "Umptees,” a battalion of 664 teen-age soldiers, today are out to prove that universal military training won’t necessarily make Army bums out of American boys. The Umptees are members of the new universal military training experimental unit and derive their nickname from it. This is the new Army. Imagine! In this Army cussing is taboo. Crap games and other gambling are strictly forbidden. Drinking is out. Top sergeants are firm—but not hard boiled. Instead, the shiny-faced Umptees are going through regular basic training in a collegiate atmosphere. Barracks are painted in cheerful col ors. Some windows even have curtains. The post exchange does a big busi ness in candy bars, but sells no beer. Classical music is served up daily in a big, carpeted room devoted to music alone. There are high school and college classes and social events galore to fill off-duty hours. Discipline is maintained by a court made up of Umptees themselves. The chaplain is just about the most important man in camp. Despite all this, Brig. Gen. John M. Devine, chief guardian of the Umptees, insists that the program “is not revo lutionizing Army training.” From Regular Volunteers. "We’re just adapting training to the needs of 18-year-old boys,” he says. Seven weeks ago, the Umptees were selected from the roster of Army volun teers. To qualify, they had to be under 20 and without previous Army experi ence. Coming from 46 States, they make up a cross-section of the Nation’s youth. They have been formed into a bat talion of four companies with 16 pla toons of 40 ipen. So far, their training program has been worked out to cover a six-month period. Currently, they’re taking regular basic training. All training, according to Gen. Devine, consists of three phases—“mental, phy sical _and moral. And we’re not going to make any bones about moral train ing.” For the first four Sundays of their training, the Umptees were required either to go to church or attend a lec ture on “citizenship.” The first week all but one Umptee went to church. He went the next week. The officers insist that "we’re not try ing to convert anybody.” It’s just that the chaplain is being given a chance to do his job. Discipline is kept among the Umptees by a new system of demerits. In the old days, a soldier who failed to shine his shoes or missed saluting an officer was in for a first-class bawling out. Umptee gets a demerit. He must do an extra hour of duty for every demerit over 20 that he gets in a single month. Five demerits in a week keeps an Umptee from getting a wreek-end pass. Have Own Court. More serious violations of military rule are handled by a court of eight Umptees, including one appointed as a trial judge advocate.. If the court finds a soldier guilty it recommends punish ment to the company commander. Un der a special Umptee code, he must deal out the punishment. Special attention is paid to the Ump tee in his off-duty hours. An entire barracks building is de voted to the information and education sertion. There the Umptee can take high school or college courses through the United States Armed Forces Institute. Seme 120 of the 664 Umptees are work ing for high school diplomas. To keep idle hands busy, another , building has been made fnto a hobby sh°n. Umptees are learning such things as leathercraft, photography and gem cutting. Their own service club, with its two pretty hostesses, is a dream. In addition to the usual service club pool tables and snack bar, this one has a juke box, a dance floor and an outside danc ing patio. Girls from nearby Louisville are brought to the fort as dancing part ners. The entire service club is designed to keep any teen-age kid happy. For the sports-minded Umptees. there are two gyms in the battalion area and a combination basket ball-volley ball court. Week-End Passes. Umptees are given week-end passes. But they’re watched like hawks. Their officers must know exactly where they’re going to spend their time. Bartenders in Louisville have been warned to watch out for the blue and yellow Umptee shoulder patch. The youngsters are turned out of the sa loons. Most Umptees, however, take ad vantage of the planned week end for trips to historical places in Kentucky. Despite all this, officers stoutly claim "we're not coddling anybody around here. We re just trying to prove that we can make something besides cannon fodder.” The Umptees seem to like their job. Primarily, their mission is to prove that universal military training won’t hurt them if it’s done right. But they’re also learning to be soldiers. They make enthusiastic soldiers. As one instructor, a sergeant with wartime experience, puts it: "They al most drive you goofy with the questions they ask. They want to know all about everything.” However, it’s in their barracks life that Umptees are really different from the soldiers. Pinup girls don’t exist. The teen-agers talk about such things as sports, Army training, the news and school work. Pay day crap games are forbidden by a special code of conduct. Instead, the beardless soldiers spend much of their time reading or study ing. In every barracks, the second-floor sergeant's room has been converted into a sort of study with curtained windows and soft chairs. orderly at Mess. Any Army veteran would be shocked at conditions in rvi Umptee mess hall. There’s no mad scramble for food. Hie Umptees march to meals and noboby sits down until all are ready to eat. Officers tactfully point out faulty table manners. And Umptees eat more than other soldiers. ‘‘They’re the eatingest guys I ever saw,” says Lt. Ray May of Panama City, Fla. “They almost eat us out of house and home.” The manager of the post exchange also reports that Umptees “are darned heavy eaters.” “We don’t sell many razor blades,” he says. "But we sure peddle a lot of candy bars and ice cream.” The noncommissioned officers In charge of these teen-agers report that they must stay on their toes. “It’s like having your kid brother around all the time,” said one first sergeant. “You gotta be careful of what you say and Gen- Devine declares he believes that the program “will come out all right.” For, years, he says, chaplains have complained that their role In the Army pass«l over lightly, “in this unt, he points out, “we propose to support the chaplains and to give them every opportunity to improve the moral fiber of the trainees and to emphasize the moral aspect both of military train ing and of human relations” Gen. Devine feels sure a proper pro gram of universal military training will ™er£ way.”UmPteCS ‘ better cltizen* to (Chicago Daily News Service.) On the Record By Dorothy Thompson ricsiaent, uen. Marshall, former Ssr. :.ary of State Byrnes and, apparently, Senator Vandenberg urging Immediate ratification of -the treaties with the Axis satellite states—Italy, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria—it is difficult and may, indeed, seem pre sumptuous to express any doubt, how ever humbly, whether this counsel is altogether wise. None of our statesmen is defending these treaties in principle. They are quite unable to do so. They are defend ing them, as President Roosevelt de fended the Yalta Agreement, with a wry face, as the best we could get. They are defending them as “real politik,” that German concept of politics which has become universalized, as though to prove Emerson's remark that “we tend to become what we hate.” The Secretary of State urged ratifica tion that his hafid should be strength ened in Moscow, whither he has since departed. He argued that the principal provisions of the treaties were based on recommendations of the Conference of Paris adopted by a two-thirds vote, and that “this is the kind of co-operation which we must encourage if we are to build enduring peace.” But the peace treaties of 1919 repre sented just this kind of co-operation, based on struggles of interest among the victors, divorced from any principles in cluding those of Woodrow Wilson. Those treaties did not bring enduring peace. And these, more completely di vorced from the Atlantic Charter than the 1919 treaties were from the Fourteen Points, are worse than the former treaties were—much worse. Former Secretary Byrnes went into the matter farther, describing the situa tion in Venezia Giulia. What he said was more ominous than encouraging. * * * * “We were compelled to choose between internationalizing Trieste or having no agreement at all* * • • Nationals of Yugoslavia were moving into the city. * * • It is probable that there would have been rioting. Then Yugoslavia would declare it necessary to quell the rioting on its border and would send troops to Trieste.” Therefore, Yugo slavia was threatening a repetition of the Hitler tactics in the Sudetenland— —arc v«y« "It is my opinion Yugoslavia will hesitate to take such action as to the international territory under the con trol of the United Nations. She will realize that there is a difference be tween encroaching on the territory of a defeated enemy state that has been disarmed and encroaching upon the free territory of Trieste.” I submit that is a remarkable state- ' ment. It means that the aim of the internationalization of Trieste is not to protect the Yugoslavs against the Ital ians but the Italians against the Yugo slavs. And if there is a "difference" between attacking a disarmed ex-enemy state and any other form of state, what is that difference? Can the one be committed with impunity? If so, disarmament is an invitation to con quest. The tactics of World War in, into which we are already sinking, is not to send armies across the frontiers of an other country in an obvious act of aggression. Instead, it is to give po litical and armed support to factions within a country after it has been weakened to the point where no gov ernment can command authority weakened by measures conducive to economic breakdown, misery, despair and consequent anarchy. * * * * And what Mr. Byrnes said was an admission of being forced to circumvent a threat of aggression. It is a bad way to start an enduring peace. Were the times other than they are; were justice and principle the lodestars; were there such a thing, even, as com mon sense—a common definition of sense—no treaties would be ratified until all could be considered together. The treaties with the Axis satellites will be relatively good or bad only in the light of the German and Austrian treaties. Until one sees the whole pic ture, it is impossible to exercise sound judgment. OteitMad by the BUI Syndicate, Inc.) # Law's Power Uphefd By Lewis Decision Court Action Cited to Show Need To Alter Injunction Act By David Lawrence John L. Lewis and the miners’ union are not above the law. They must obey it. They cannot defy a court order and go unpunished. This 1s the major issue just decided by. the Supreme Court of the United States. But in fairness to Mr. Lewis and the miners’ union, it must be stated that they thought they had a right to disregard a restraining order by tha court, for they believed the court had no valid basis for the issuance of such an order. Under our legal system, #nybody can defy what an individual believes to be an invalid or unconstitutional exercise of power and ask a court to decide the casQ. But if the citizen who does the defying loses out, he pays the penalty. There apparently is no other way to test such ambiguous points of law. Mr. Lewis and his attorneys could have recognized* the temporary re straining order and instructed the miners to discontinue their work stop page until the tangled points of law could be argued and settled in the courts. But, as pointed out in these dispatches at the time, the miners’ chieftain refused and took a long chance. Now he has lost. There were other points of great im portance decided by the Supreme Court in the case. Thus a majority of live to four decided that Congress had not intended by the Norris-La Guardia Act to bar the Government itself from seek ing injunctions where the employes were under Government control. Four Justices Dissented. Four justices took the amazing view that one Congress can, by a broadly written statute, stay the hand of the Government itself indefinitely from pro tecting its interests in a major crisis affecting its own safety. Thus a law which doesn’t even mention the Gov ernment as an exception really applies to governmental action—as the minority see it. The fact that they took this view shows how uncertain is the status of the Norris-La Guardia law today and how much need there is for an amend ment affirmatively outlining the powers of the Federal Government. It cer tainly is a narrow majority—namely one vote in the Supreme Court—on which to rest in future disputes involv ing labor unions. Also it brings sharply into focus how wide-sweeping is the Norris-La Guardia act, for plainly most of the justices agreed that, if the dispute had been between private employers and the unions, there could have been no relief by injunction no matter to what ex treme of hardship the whole nation had been forced by a nationwide coal strike. This means that Congress must amend the law and give the Federal Govern ment power to intervene in any national emergency, when declared by the Presi dent, as a consequence of a paralyzing strike. Certainly if there are four justices who think the laws actually forbid the Federal Government from protecting itself, another justice may turn up some day on the mercurial Supreme Court and decide the issue the other way. Judicial Processes Upheld. What the Court did about the line to not likely to excite too much contro versy, for the case Itself was unprece dented and the extent of the fine to a matter on which opinions may rightly differ. What is important and signifi cant is that the judicial process in a broad sense was upheld. When District Court Justice Goldsborough issued a temporary restraining order to hold things in their unchanged state until the merits of the question could be argued and a determination reached as to whether the temporary order should be confirmed, he was merely following a historic procedure. There could be no trials of complicated legal issues if the delay, while the court tried the case, were to result in damage to either party so that the decision itself, when reached, would be irrelevant. Congress, of course, will take notice of the latest Supreme Court decision and legislate accordingly. The public will applaud the decision, but labor union leaders will be resentful. Also if ths New Deal were in power today, the new dealers probably would favor the passage of a law specifically forbidding evefi temporary restraining orders from be ing issued by the courts in any labor disputes even when the Government in in control of the properties and of the employes. Fortunately, the New Deal isn't in power today and the American people, by the election last fall, indicated what perhaps the present Supreme Court hag • noted—that the people still are sovereign and that labor unions cannot set them selves apart as a separate system of super-government. (Reproduction Rithte Reserved) J. L. Garvin Prom the Montreal Star. J. L. Garvin will be long remembere4 in English journalism, not only for tbg| length of his distinguished services but also for the vigor and power of his writ* lng. He was 79 years old when he died, in service to the last. His recent readers will remember hid! chiefly as the principal journalistic mouthpiece of the "Cliveden set” whoaii activities as the Intellectual front df the prewar appeasement movement in Great Britain came into great prom$4 nence. It is more likely, however, thah Mr, Garvin will be remembered longest for his espousal of the imperial move* ment led by the father of the late Nev* ille Chamberlain, the redoubtable "Joe$ That statesman, after a long career as a radical, with a record inside the British Liberal Party of social reform, caught R vision of empire which involved a change in the long-established free-trade poll* cies of the United Kingdom. In the great crusade that followed at the turn of the century, it was the thuni. dering rhetoric prose of Garvin which popularized the movement in the press as Kipling and others did in other form* of the written word. In due course Gar* vin wrote the formal biography of JoH seph Chamberlain, and this work ra* mains his most enduring monument. !* It Was in March It was in March, a wind-swept day likti this— \l A girl walked in a garden, wondering When woolly buds would loose to silken, leaves And birds, flown back from Egypt, greet the spring. . The wind, she thought—then glinfpeed an angeVs form; i a « Heard Gabriel’s cry, "Hail, Mi of grace!’’— And learned that she would Son of God— , She, merely seeking April in that vlace Jt VIOLET ALLEYN B’TOWBt.M