Show 0 national topics interpreted by william bruckart J national press building washington D C washington congress lately has passed and president roosevelt has just signed stica the f ali coal will guffey vinson coal be higher bill it is therefore a law and presently as a result of the pas j sage 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 guffey vinson law that seems to be open to criticism there are arc many who believe that in passing the guffey vinson bill and it was done under the lash of administration leaders our government has taken a step which is very close to even ev e n actually a step toward fascism in america tt it is an action so near to the polie policies ies of fascism in italy that close students of the mussolini plan say they can hardly discern adv distinction let us see 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 th that a t 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 tile 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 09 determines that the mine workers are not being paid sufficiently high wages w ages he demands an increase from the mine owners the mine owners or now that the guffey hinsun monopoly law has passed simply submit the new costs to the coal commission and it has no alternative but to approve 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 bo box x of a factory carries an additional tax that has been legalized by law so we see the bulk of the coal industry pass from tile the field of tree free competition into the form of a monopoly under government co control atrol it if that can be de described ascribed scribed otherwise than as fa fascism I 1 am ignorant of what constitutes fascism there remains the question whether the law promoted by senator guffey of of question pennsylvania and validity R e p r e tentative senta tive vinson of kentucky 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 guff guffey 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 improper except the hunch that such a declaration of policy by the congress is not in conflict with the constitution ution directly some members of the congress appos opposed ed 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 halt half and the senate debated it only a few hours some sections of the sort soft coal industry objected to the bill but they were yere quickly re backed signed to the lewis tangible tact fact that it would become a law a w bec because a use 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 seu sell at lower prices than many of their competitors there is another sec i tion of the mining industry where production costs are high and in consequence that section of the industry was barely able to scrape out a living return under the new law the high cost mines will be ba 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 fur for this law because of the tha heavy returns they can make such however is not the case thus mine mina owners pretty generally would prefer taking their chances in open competition because they a larger profit through a heavy volume 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 1 r 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 interests of 0 the consuming public are arc to be protected through the office of a consumers council that is there is a government official who is supposed to look after and protect your rights and mine against excessive prices it may work out satisfactorily I 1 believe however that the odds are heavy against any of us receiving any benefits in this direction 0 0 A few days after president roosevelt signed tile the guffey vinson law attorney general strike cummings came at trusts forth with a letter urging congress to revise and tighten the antitrust anti trust law he said that monopoly was growing 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 for proof of this than the guf fey vinson law itself which permits capital to work together the only hindrance being that which is subjected somewhat to the influence of organized labor under the guffey vinson law the result is exactly the same whether the massing ot 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 1 can see se under the guffey vinson law is higher prices for all of us to pay surely monopoly has a tendency always to increase prices it has been the chief subject of harr angue against dinst monopoly and the attorney general adverted to this fact in his recent appeal for legislation to prevent monopoly but why is it bad f for or monopoly privately arranged to force hi higher her prices and good for monopoly y legalized by congress to force higher prices president roosevelt has sent word around through all government departments part ments to the no stock effect that no gov gambl gambling mg eminent worker may engage in stock market mark et speculation he has told the civil service commission that among the matters to be considered si when passing upon an employees plo qualifications for retention ipri 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 lo other thoughts about it I 1 think there can be nothing more reprehensible than for a 2 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 ride fide in vestments are all right but the question for which I 1 have not been able to find an answer is how can it be determined whether the pur chase 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 of power in the hands of the chief executive to take away individual lib erty of action 0 western union 1 |