Show au national topics interpreted by william bruckart national press building washington wahington wa hington D C washington congress lately has passed and president roosevilt roosevelt ha has just signed the coat coal will guff guffey ey vinson coal be higher bill it is therefore a law and presently as a result of the passage of this legislation you and I 1 and every other person who uses soft coal will be paying higher prices the increase in price that will result however is not the only phase of the guffry vinson law that seems to be open to criticism there are many who believe that in passing the guffey vinson bill and it was done under the lash of tron leaders our government has taken a step which is very close to even actually a step toward fascism in america tt tl s an action so near to the pol cies of fascism in italy that clos clop students of the mussolini plan say they can hardly discern ar ds distinction let ui u ee what the guffey vinson law does it permits all soft coal producers in the united states to organize as in a monopoly under government control true the government is supposed under the law to fix the price of soft coal but actually the law is going to work out so that the producers and the mine unions will establish the prices subject to the approval of a government commission it will work out this way because the law has actually legalized the right of the producers to agree on the prices they will charge by virtue of the fact that those prices are based on the production costs in regional areas it is provided in the law that the united states shall be divided into 23 regions or sections the united states coal commission is empowered to prescribe the prices both minimum and maximum to which coal from each of these areas or regions may be sold in that manner the law guarantees that the soft coal producers shall gain an acceptable rate on their investments since labor costs enter directly into production costs indeed they constitute a major factor it becomes plain that whatever wages labor demands and obtains influences the level of the production costs and the result is a change in the selling price to the consuming public thus when john L lewis president of the united mine workers of america and head of the C 1 I 0 determines that the mine workers are not being paid sufficiently high wages lie he demands an increase from the mine owners the mine owners or producers now that the guffey vinson monopoly law has passed simply submit the new costs to the coal commission and it has no alternative but to approve e an in increase in the selling price in consequence therefore every bucketful of coal going into your stove and every that goes into the furnace of a home or the fire box of a factory carries an additional tax that has been legalized by law so we see the bulb bulk of the coal in industry pass from the field of free competition into the form of a monopoly under government control if that can be described otherwise than as fascism I 1 am ignorant of what constitutes fascism 0 0 there r remains e m a I 1 n the question whether the law promoted by senator guffey of question pennsylvania and validity R e p r e tentative senta tive vinson of ken tucky is constitutional it will be remembered that the supreme court once threw out the original guffey vinson law it threw out that law because it held that the original legislation attempted to fix hours and wages for workers and that in accordance with the unanimous decision of the court when it invalidated the was an illegal act by congress the labor provisions alone were discussed in the litigation at that time but in the current cuff duhey ey vinson law those objectionable factors have been omitted there is no way to discover whether the supreme court will find the monopolistic practice authorized in the current legislation to be im improper except the hunch that such a deci declaration of policy icy by the congress is not in conflict with the constitution ution directly some members of the congress opposed the guffey vinson bill because they believed it to be unconstitutional there were so few of those however that the house of representatives debated the bill only a day and a half and the senate debated it only a few hours some sections of the soft coal industry d objected to the bill but they were quickly re backed signed to the lewis tangible fact that it would become a law because of the power that john L lewis wielded over congressional leadership the chief reason for the division of sentiment among the coal producers was that there is is a wide range of costs among the producers there are many mines which have low production costs and consequently they are able or were able under open competition to sell at lower prices than many of their competitors there is another section of the mining industry where production costs are high and in consequence that ati at of the industry was barely baiely able to scraper scrape out a living return under unde r the new law the high cost mines will be ba assured of a reasonable return and that means that the low cost minet mine will gain exorbitant profit on the face of things it would seem that the low cost mines would be all for s law because of the heavy returns they can unmake make such however er is not the carethus cas eThus mine owners pretty generally would pre ier fer taking their chances in open competition because they can make a larger profit through a heavy beavy volume of sales at lower prices than und under erthe the new scheme whereby the high cost mines ai are bound to ao get a share of the business proponents of the law i c contend ostend that there is an obligation to the owners of 0 the high cost mina dr to the worker they employ but what chat I 1 asko ask is the user of coal going to do da about it what has hat he to say and how can li he say it again apo sponsors of the tee 16 legislation explain th that at interests of the con suming public are to be protected through the office of a consumers ers council that is th there re ls is a government official vho mhd is id SU supposed to lo 10 look ok after and a nd protect project your rights and mine against excessive prices it may work out satisfactorily I 1 believe however that the odds arl are heavy aga against insi any ank of us ps receiving any benefits in this direction t A few days jays after president roosevelt signed the buffe guffey vinson law attorney general strike cummans came of at trusts forch forth with letier aletter a j urging congress toi to revise and tighten the antitrust law lair i ile he said that monopoly was grow ing in the united states arid and that small businesses were being driven to the wall by the inroads of of great masses of capital there is evidence that iea ca pital is massing We need not look jook an any fur ther tor for proof of this s hart th anthe the atif fey vinson law itself which armi permits ts capital to work together ane the only hindrance being that which is sub ejected somewhat t 0 the influence leffe oi of organized labor und under er the buffe guffey i vinson law the result result is exactly the same whether the massing ot of capital takes place tinder linder private arrangement or under government supervision such as is legalized in the guffey vinson ia law w this situation impresses imp me as being a bit incongruous it seems to be a circum circumstance stance where the administration is trying to run in two directions at one and the same time it is further exaggerated by the fact that the president lately has spoken with emphasis about aboaf the rapid increase in retail prices yet wt besides raising wages for labor the only tangible result that I 1 can see under the cuff guffey ey vinson baits law ishiah agh er prices for all of us to pay surely monopoly has a tendency always to increase prices athas II 11 has r been the chief subject against monopoly and the attorney general adverted to this fact in his recent appeal for legislation to pre vent monopoly but why is it bad for monopoly privately arranged to force higher prices and goodlor good for tor monopoly legalized by congress to force higher prices president roosevelt has tent sent word around through all government de part ments ment to the tha no stock effect thelno that no gov gambling ernnie nt worker may engage in stock market speculation he has told the civil service corA commission mission that among the matters to b be considered si when passing upon an employees plo qualifications for retention or advancement the commission may consider whether that employee has engaged in speculation in securities or commodities at first blush this did seem to be a sound order I 1 have heard much discussion of the matter however that gives rise to other thoughts about it I 1 think there can be nothing more reprehensible than for a public official or employee to use the confidential information which he obtains officially as the basis forstock for stock speculation on we the other hand is it not questionable whether a government should try to tell any of its employees that they cannot invest their surplus earnings in securities as a means of increasing their income the president said that bona ride fide investments are all right but the question for which I 1 hal have ye not been able to find an answer is how con can it be determined whether the purchase of a few shares of stock is speculation or bona fide investment that brings up of necessity the difficulties of enforcement it also brings to the forefront a real danger that danger is not as remote as it seems I 1 refer to the use or of power in the hands of the chief executive to take away individual liberty of action 0 western newspaper union |