OCR Text |
Show knal Topics Interpreted i. by William Bruckarf ifflSlTO? ' N,tlonal Prwt J)ulMlng Washington, P. C. 5jgrrffe Washington. Congress lately has ed and President Roosevelt has - just signed the j Coal Will GufTey-Vinson coal . , Be Higher & And ipresently. as a result of the pas-,,ase pas-,,ase of this legislation, you and I Ind every other person who uses soft coal will be paying higher ; prices. The increase in price that will re-i re-i aH however, is not the only phase 1 1 ;o( the Guffey-Vinson law that seems I to be open to criticism. There are i any who believe that in passing J 1 .he Guffey-Vinson bill (and it was 1 1 done under the lash of administra-ll'ltion administra-ll'ltion leaders) our government has it, taken a step which is very close to, y leven actually a step toward, fas-1 fas-1 cism in America. It is an action so near to the policies of fascism in ' taly that close students of the Mus-3 Mus-3 i0Uni plan say they can hardly dis-JL. dis-JL. :ern any distinction, i i Let us see what the GufTey-Vinson r!Caw does. It permits all soft coal aifojroducers in the United States to ld .organize as in a monopoly under Wernment control. True, the gov- rnment is supposed under the law Vuo Ox the price of soft coal but actually actu-ally the law is going to work out so hat the producers and the mine un-"ons un-"ons will establish the prices, sub-ect sub-ect to the approval of a govern-nent govern-nent commission. It will work ,ut this way because the law has dually legalized the right of the .reducers to agree on the prices hey will charge by virtue of the act that those prices are based on x ' he production costs in regional reas. It is provided in the law that the fmted States shall be divided into 3 regions or sections. The United tates coal commission is empow-" empow-" red to prescribe the prices, both unimum and maximum, to which oal from each of these areas or re-ions re-ions may be sold. In that man-sr, man-sr, the law guarantees that the soft Dal producers shall gain an accept-?; accept-?; ble rate on their investments. Since bor costs enter directly into pro-lction pro-lction costs indeed, they consti-te consti-te a major factor it becomes am that whatever wages labor de-ands de-ands and obtains influences the vel of the production costs and the suit is a change in the selling 'v ice to the consuming public. ius, when John L. Lewis, presi-nt presi-nt of the United Mine Workers of nerica and head of the C. I. O., .'.termines that the mine workers e not being paid sufficiently high ig leaj.iges, he demands an increase , shor.im the mine owners. The mine he withers or producers, now that the iftey-Vinson monopoly law has ssed, simply submit the new costs ythe coal commission and it has no ;ernative but to approve an in-ase in-ase in the selling price. In conse-ence, conse-ence, therefore, every bucketful - - - coal going into your stove and r sry shovelful that goes into the ;i mace of a home or the fire box a factory carries an additional -' 1 which has been legalized by 3o, we see the bulk of the coal in- I stry pass from the field of free 5 mpetition into the form of a mo- 1 poly under government control. that can be described otherwise ! m as fascism, I am ignorant of i at constitutes fascism. $ , Tiere remains the question 2 t ether the law promoted by ' 4 n Senator Guffey of t yueff0" Pennsylvania and Validity Eepre sentative . Vinson of Ken- r ky is constitutional I t will be remembered that the 3reme court once threw out the g!!!al GufEey-Vinsn law. It threw J that law because it held that the . B'nal legislation attempted to fix g to trac irs and wages for workers and t. m accordance with the unani- --"s decision of the court when it validated the NRA, was an illegal 3t W congress. The labor pro-ions pro-ions alone were discussed in the 5tlon at that time. But in the antS p,uffey-Vinson law, those ob-22- lloniible factor, have been omit-venty-oti, ?u6 1S no way t0 discover , select'"" ,he Supreme court will find most pfPoUstic practice authorized I m0 current legislation to be im-Per im-Per except the hunch that such a V Tn 01 policy the con-. con-. is not in conflict with the con- directiy- fc "?embers of the congress M the Guffey-Vinson bill be-n. be-n. '"7 beved it to be uncon-tCT1 uncon-tCT1 There wer so few of f; ' L::Ter' that the house of - J 7l TlWes debated the bill (i h7.nd half and the sen- bated t only a few hours. sections of the soft coal in-;m-, Ejected to the bill but they s Backed were 3uick,y re" ; t signed to the in- ( ' Lewis tangible fact that f h.., it would become a I wi, f thG P0Wer that John Iw'shi Ver con2ressional "'vision JhC Chiet reas0n for Urni f sentiment among the moerf IT? Was ,hat thcre is a 'TImVm V 0sts amo"5 the pro-hei'R pro-hei'R are ny 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 sec-tion of the mining industry where production costs are high and in consequence that section of the industry in-dustry was barely able to scrape out a living return. Under the new law, the high cost mines will be assured of a reasonable return and that means that the low cost mines will gain exorbitant profit. On the face of things, it would seem that the low cost mines would be all for this law because of the heavy returns they can make. Such, however, is not the case. Thus mine owners pretty generally, would prefer pre-fer taking their chances in open competition because they can make a larger profit through a heavy volume vol-ume of sales at lower prices than under the new scheme whereby the high cost mines are bound to get a share of the business. Proponents of the law contend that there is an obligation to the owners of the high cost mine or to the workers they employ. But what, I ask, is the user of coal going to do about it? What has he to say and how can he say it? Again, sponsors of the legislation explain that the interests of the consuming con-suming public are to be protected through the office of a consumers' counsel. That is, there is a government govern-ment official who is supposed to look after and protect your rights and mine against excessive prices. It may work out satisfactorily. I believe, be-lieve, however, that the odds are heavy against any of us receiving any benefits in this direction. A few days after President Roosevelt Roose-velt signed the Guffey-Vinson law. Attorney General btrike Cummings came at Trusts forth with a letter urging congress to revise and tighten the anti-trust law. He said that monopoly was growing grow-ing in the United States and that small businesses were being driven to the wall by the inroads of great masses of capital. There is evidence that capital is massing. We need not look any further fur-ther for proof of this than the Guffey-Vinson law itself which permits capital to work together the only hindrance being that which is subjected sub-jected somewhat to the influence of organized labor under the Guffey-Vinson Guffey-Vinson law. The result is exactly the same whether the massing of capital takes place under private arrangement or under government supervision such as is legalized in the Guffey-Vinson law. This situation impresses me as being a bit incongruous. It seems to be a circumstance 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 the rapid increase in retail prices. Yet, besides raising wages for labor, the only tangible result that I can see under the GufTey-Vinson law is higher high-er prices for all of us to pay. Surely, monopoly has a tendency always to increase prices. It has been the chief subject of harrangue against monopoly and the Attorney General adverted to this fact in his recent appeal for legislation to prevent pre-vent monopoly. But why is it bad for monopoly, privately arranged, to force higher prices and good for monopoly, legalized by congress, to force higher prices? President Roosevelt has sent word around through all government departments de-partments to the No Stock effect that no gov-G gov-G ambling eminent worker may engage in stock market speculation. He has told the civil service commission that "among the matters to be considered" con-sidered" when passing upon an employee's em-ployee's qualifications for retention or advancement, the commission may consider whether that employee em-ployee has engaged in speculation in securities or commodities. At first blush, this did seem to be a sound order. I have heard much discussion of the matter, however, how-ever, that gives rise to other thoughts about it. I 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 for stock speculation. On 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 fide investments" in-vestments" are all right but the question for which I have not been able to find an answer is "how can it be determined whether the purchase pur-chase of a few shares of stock is speculation or bona fide investment?" invest-ment?" That brings up of necessity the difficulties of enforcement. It also brings to the forefront a real danger. dan-ger. That danger is not as remote as it seems. I refer to the use of power in the hands of the Chief Executive Ex-ecutive to take away individual lib erty of action. fcl Western Newspaper Union. |