Saturday, May 25, 1946

The Charlotte News

Saturday, May 25, 1946

THREE EDITORIALS

Site Ed. Note: Rendering moot much of the news on the front page, it was reported in a late dispatch that the rail strike had been settled on the President's proposal of May 22, which included an 18.5 cents per hour wage hike in exchange for dropping demands for changes in work rules.

At the same time, the President requested to address a joint session of Congress, scheduled to occur at 4:00 p.m. this date, to urge passage of emergency strike legislation.

He would reportedly ask the Congress to make it a Federal offense to strike against Government-run operations of an industry and to permit drafting of men to work in such industries. The penalty provisions for violation appeared to carry only loss of seniority and retirement benefits, not other punitive sanctions such as jail. The proposed bill was said to be one which would be directed only at the coal and rail industries and would be temporary to deal with the present crisis.

Speaker of the House Sam Rayburn stated that the House would be prepared to act within 40 minutes of the President's speech, following a Rules Committee vote to give the Speaker almost unprecedented power to call for consideration on the floor only of the Administration's proposed legislation, barring all amendments, thus streamlining the process of debate and passage. House Majority Leader John McCormack and Minority Leader Joe Martin, both of Massachusetts, had conferred and given their assent to the process, indicating bipartisan support for the emergency legislation.

At 10:00 p.m. the previous night, the President had delivered to the nation via radio a message indicating a policy of new toughness toward the railroads, a decision only reached the previous afternoon, with tough language inserted only minutes before the broadcast.

Despite the President's demand that the railroad employees return to work under Government operation of the railroads, by the morning of this date only sporadic operation of the railroads was reported. New York rail stations were said to be standing virtually empty.

David Robertson, head of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen, accused A.F. Whitney, head of the Trainmen's union, of grasping for power in calling the strike together with the Locomotive Engineers. The eighteen other railroad unions, including the Firemen, had not struck and earlier this date had agreed to a new contract on the President's May 22 terms. The Firemen had agreed to go back to work, running the trains for the Government, prior to the announcement of settlement of the dispute.

Mr. Whitney, in a letter to the President, the text of which is presented on the page, had offered to go back to work provided the President accepted a temporary contract agreement to include a 16-cents per hour wage hike, retroactive to January 1, plus seven rules changes, with the ability to negotiate for further changes. This proposal was consistent with a previous Government mediation board proposal. There was no indication that the President responded to this offer prior to the final settlement.

Secretary of Interior J. A. Krug communicated the Government's offer of settlement of the coal strike to John L. Lewis, the terms of which were not made available, but presumably included a wage hike of no more than 18.5 cents per hour, that of the steel settlement, and establishment of some form of welfare fund for the miners. The deadline for the two-week truce in the strike was at midnight this date. Mr. Lewis had not responded.

The Senate voted overwhelmingly to impose a 60-day cooling off period before a strike could be called and for creation of fact-finding boards, as proposed months earlier by the President.

The Senate Banking Committee voted to eliminate price controls on meat, poultry, and milk, effective June 30. It included elimination of controls on feed products manufactured from milk. Whether it included bull's milk, and would also apply in the Intercourse triangle in Pennsylvania, was not reported.

On the editorial page, "Sequel to Persuasion" finds that the President's address the night before on the railroad strike had exceeded expectations. He had condemned A. F. Whitney of the Trainmen's union and Alvanley Johnston of the Locomotive Engineers, and urged the members of the unions to return to work.

Yet, the piece found the speech inadequate to the gravity of the situation created by the strikes, not only of the railroads, but also the coal miners and the threatened strike of the maritime unions, as well as the previous strikes besetting the nation since V-J Day the previous August. The President did not indicate any plan of action to prevent the strikes, resting instead on strong rhetoric.

The piece again advocates legislation to deny unemployment compensation to strikers, setting forth the responsibilities of unions, transferring administration of the laws from partisan mediation boards to the courts, and compelling unions to obey the law, making them subject to antitrust legislation.

"A Poor Way to Boost Revenue" reports of a proposal before the City Council to have salesmen in the city assessed a $25 licensing fee to operate. It would apply only to Charlotte salesmen operating within the city with authority to close deals without resort to out-of-state offices, and would not apply to on-the-premises sales personnel in stores.

The piece questions the wisdom of the tax for the tedious method it inevitably conjured for its enforcement and collection. The Council needed to find $100,000 of additional revenue and this proposal did not appear to be a practical method by which to accomplish it.

The better way, it suggests, to raise the revenue, and substantially more, would be through legalization of ABC stores for controlled sale of liquor.

"The Road to Strike Was Paved" recaps the ground which led to the strike of the Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen, and concludes that the Railway Labor Act under which the President had sought for a year to prevent such a strike, was only good to delay a catastrophe. While eighteen of the twenty unions had not participated in the strike, it only took the two major unions to halt the nation's railroads.

Drew Pearson reports of a conference Monday between John L. Lewis and Secretary of Labor Lewis Schwellenbach at which Mr. Lewis stated that the miners would remain on the job after Government seizure of the mines. Mr. Schwellenbach explained that negotiations would begin regarding terms of a new contract once the Government took over the mines.

Mr. Pearson adds that had President Truman threatened to build the long delayed pet project of both his predecessor and President Hoover, the St. Lawrence Seaway, and also enabled the prospect of pumping natural gas to the East Coast via the two Government-owned pipelines, the Big Inch and the Little Inch, used during the war to pump oil, then Mr. Schwellenbach could have exercised some real leverage over Mr. Lewis. For he worried more than anything else of cheap electricity and natural gas competing with his coal industry.

Until the Seaway could be constructed, coal provided the fuel for the industry and heat of New England and New York. But there had been resistance in Congress to approval of the project by the fact that New Orleans wished to have the Great Lakes sea traffic. Two companies had already agreed to put up 40 million dollars each to pump natural gas through the two pipelines to New York, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey.

He next briefly discusses the already settled rail strike.

The United Nations was experiencing headaches associated with its locus in New York, from lack of courtesy extended to delegates. New Yorkers appeared more hospitable to the steam-fitters convention. There was in consequence a move to change the site to another nation, but the State Department and most diplomats opposed the idea as constituting a slap against the United States. The State Department was now actively aiding the U.N. in trying to find a permanent home within the country and a strong movement had developed to transfer it to San Francisco.

Marquis Childs discusses a proposal of William Benton, Assistant Secretary of State for public and cultural relations, regarding the Voice of America. Economic Stabilizer Chester Bowles had once been his partner in an advertising firm. Mr. Benton was proposing to put that experience to good use via shortwave broadcasts to inform Eastern Europe of America, with men sent to the embassies as information assistants. He disavowed any intent to use the medium for propaganda.

Through a wartime arrangement, the State Department had used the United Press and Associated Press free of charge to disseminate news via shortwave. After the war, Mr. Benton had sought to purchase the news reports for the same purpose, but the request was refused by the wire services, based on the notion that it could suggest their lack of objectivity. Yet, the Hearst news service was providing information to the State Department, and so the wire services' view seemed to Mr. Childs short-sighted.

The House Appropriations Committee had slashed the skimpy twenty million dollar budget which Mr. Benton had proposed for this agency in half and the result was that the shortwave broadcasts could not be carried into effect. As a result, the Voice of America would not be heard in the Balkans or Eastern Europe where Russian and British shortwave would thus continue to dominate.

Surveys showed that Russian propaganda had dramatically increased since the end of the war.

Objective news was in short supply in Eastern Europe and if no one else would provide it, then the Government ought be in a position to do so.

Samuel Grafton continues his observations of Ilya Ehrenburg, the visiting Soviet journalist, now in the town of Livingston, Alabama. Mr. Ehrenburg observed that the little town retained some of the national flavor of the past. He spoke of Gone With the Wind and Uncle Tom's Cabin. He found the former an artificial cake, but not badly made. He then discussed the novels of William Faulkner and Ellen Glasgow, Mr. Grafton finding himself ashamed to be surprised by the Russian's acquaintance with American literature. For he was not very much different from any intellectual the world over, save that his mind was more acutely attuned to political subtleties and would not accept half values or technical justifications for political errors.

He was challenged by Mr. Grafton's explanation of a strong racist feeling extant in the minds of many Americans, while institutionalization of such a mentality was largely absent from the Federal law and policy. Mr. Ehrenburg explained that under the Czars, Jews had been confined to the ghettoes, but not on the basis of anti-Semitism, anathema to the Russian intelligentsia. Mr. Ehrenburg found it far worse to have racism in the minds of the people than in the law and official policy.

By way of explaining how the Russians helped the Jews, he imparted to Mr. Grafton a story as they rode along the back roads of Alabama, looking for Moscow. During the war, a peasant woman married to a Jew hid her husband underneath the floor of the house, beneath the stove. She told her children that the eye peering out from the stove was a rat.

They continued to hunt for Moscow, but the road signs seemed to change every time they got close, and still had not found the way. They might, he says, have to go on to Mississippi rather than Moscow.

A letter from a veteran complains of the lack of help being given by the people to veterans in their attempt to readjust their lives, especially complicated by John L. Lewis, who he compares to the Devil.

A letter from another veteran, who had served 31 months overseas, praises the strides made by organized labor and the good conditions which unions had wrought, eliminating long hours and sweatshop conditions of the past.

He responds to the veteran who had written May 22, reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, while condemning John L. Lewis, and says that he also recited the Pledge, and would return for another tour of duty if called upon to do so.

A letter writer responds to the Atlanta Constitution editorial reprinted May 21, titled "A Week to Try Men's Souls", in reference to the coal and rail strikes. It bemoans the fact that the newspaper had misspelled Thomas Paine's name with a "y" and finds it equally disturbing that The News had continued the error.

He quotes Benjamin Franklin as saying, "The pen of Thomas Paine made the sword of Washington possible."

It urges honoring Mr. Paine by at least remembering how to spell his name.

The editors note that it was not the error of The Constitution, but rather that of Etaoin Shrdlu, a notorious staff member in the type-setting department who, on occasion, had his way with words. They offer apologies.

We ourselves caught the "error" but, thinking it merely an alternative spelling, common in the days of the Revolution and earlier, the use of the English "y" for "i", left it as Mr. Shrdlu had it. We prefer it and offer no apologies whatsoever—just as Mr. Payne did not.

It is a matter of common sense that no idiot struck with the true spirit of the Revolution would give a good tinker's dam about an innocent misspelling of a name which nevertheless communicated proper identity. If there had been in the Revolution some prominent person named Thomas Payne, then there would be ground for such querulousness.

Put another way, the orthographical representation receives instruction, without violence performed to the dialectic enthusiasm posed by the revolting letter writer, from the variations, for instance, between Champaign, Champlain, campaign, and champagne. Context will restrict the imagination, properly constrained in the first instance by reason, to ascribe the proper meaning even to the malapropian garish in florid prose, as in sparkling nectars of Champagne, Ill., or winning the confused camplaign spoken against the opponent, or, yet again, the staked tension within the cramped campaign causes them to shade their tents in the present sense.

As Mr. Smrdlu's sister, Ettu Brute, has said, with rapier insight of God wot and probity anent the matter, "Chum nca eb neraled, ro tno, fmro progahaiclypt sorrer, neev pinal sliplegnisms."

A letter writer advises freezing the bank accounts of the unions participating in strikes—never minding that the Government had no such authority with respect to American citizens.

Framed Edition
[Return to Links
Page by Subject] [Return to Links-Page by Date] [Return to News<i><i><i>--</i></i></i>Framed Edition]
Links-Date -- Links-Subj.