| OCR Text |
Show Labor Law Crippled by A Blunder Washington, D. C, Oct. 11. A blunder by tho Domocratlc Congress has crippled ono of its most important import-ant labor laws. Tho last Congress passed n provision provi-sion Intended to prohibit tho use of government plants under the War Department of certain customs opposed op-posed by labor organizations. That provision is practically inoperatlvo today. A vital link In the chain of legislation was omitted. Tho labor provision roforred to was tho centor of one of tho blttor-pBt blttor-pBt fights of tho session. It was Intended In-tended to provent tho use of army impropriations for making tlmo study 01 employees or to pay any premium, premi-um, bonus or cash roward to anv employe In nddltlon to his reguht.- wages, and was enacted as an amend-ment amend-ment to the army appropriation bill. Iho struggle over this nmendment nil but caiiFCd tbo falluro of tho army ar-my bill. First adopted by tho Houo it was rejected Ly tho Senato after a long drawn out tnntrovcrsy. When tho bill wont back to tho House, thoy refused to ratify tho Senate's action . Tho moasuro then went to a conference con-ference commltteo of tho two branches. branch-es. They tried in vain to harmon-lzo harmon-lzo tho differences with tho labor bono of contention. Scores of other clause and tho House to support it. Threo times conference committee reports .wero rejected becauso of the labor regulation alone. Not until senators realized thoy must voto for U or defeat tho entire appropriation did they glvo up. Tho passago of tho army bill containing tho labor regulation speedily follow- ed. ' On tho same day Congress passed an act authorizing tho War Department Depart-ment to expend more than six mil- Hon dollars for fortifications and ' other defenses. To mako tho labor clauso effective, It was as essential to tho fortifications bill as to tho ar- 'my bill. There Is not ono lino or word of tho labor regulation In tho fortifications fortifica-tions act. It was not proposed as a part of this law in either Houso or Senato, although to lncludo It In the army act and not In tho fortifications fortifica-tions law was a mere farce. Tho days and weeks of fierce conflict that had worn tho strength nnd tempers tem-pers of tho contestants to shreds proved to bo a sham battlo. , This is not nn Isolated blunder. It is but ono bf hundreds that havo been woven into tho entlro fabric of Democratic legislation another evidence evi-dence of Democratic incompetency and inefficiency. |
