IS THE BLUE EAGLE DEAD?

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22610, 29 June 1935, Page 2

IS THE BLUE EAGLE DEAD?

N.RA DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL

(From Ot/b Own. Correspondent.) SAN FRANCISCO, June 4.

The people of the United States were surprised when the nine Justices of the United States Supreme Court decided, on May 27, that the National Industrial Recovery Act (known as the N.R.A.) was unconstitutional. A close vote was expected, perhaps the familiar five to four, or possibly six to three. When the justices known to be liberal in their views agreed with their more conservative colleagues the popular reaction wan that the highest tribunal in the nation must have interpreted the Constitution as it should be applied to the law presented for review.

The N.R.A. opinion was based on the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which gives all extra constitutional powers to the States and not to the Federal Government. These are the exact words under the heading "State Rights": "The powerß not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people." Officially, so far as the Supreme Court is concerned, the Blue Eagle has joined General Hugh S. Johnson's Dodo, but actually there is doubt whether the demise is permanent. The general opinion seems to be regretful that the evils of the Codes of Fair Competition could not have been eliminated and the good features retained. It is recognised that ruthless cutting of wages already low and extension of hours will result in labour disturbances, disrupt business generally, and injure the social wellbeing. Apart from the legal questions, it is admitted that there was crowded into a few weeks during the middle of 1033 a task that really should have taken many months or a few years. The codes were prepared, in the first instance, by employers. Sometimes employees participated, but only in those industries that have trade unions of strength. It is fitting to state that only about 10 per cent, of the workers of the United States are organised—a very much lower proportion than prevails in other coun tries. This fact gave the employers, as a group, a distinct advantage. It also resulted in opposition from the Labour forces as it became apparent that many of the more than 600 codes paid little attention to the basic needs of employees. It is a mistake to think that the United States Government initiated the codes.

Perhaps the strongest objection to the new system of industrial supervision was caused by price fixing, and added thereto was the enforcement by code authorities, in many instances. These factors gave rise to deserved criticism, and monopolistic tendencies developed, as well as efforts to crowd out "the little fellow." Assessments were not pleasing to employers as time went on and enforcement became more difficult, and officials were kept busy trying to persuade coin to leave unwilling pockets. Elaborate offices were installed for the main industries, and the staffs were often highly paid. Even admitting the emergency in business and the good intention of the President and his advisers, it soon becamn apparent that the structure was topheavy. Unfriendly newspapers pointed out many defects. Instances of hardships received wide publicity. There was always the legal doubt, especially as to the right of the United States Government to interfere in intrastate affaire. It was on this rock that N.R.A. wan wrecked.

Some of the codes governed Industries of a minor character. People smiled at the fly swatters, the mop makers, and a host of occupations that seemed outside the pale, even though they were entitled to equal consideration with their better-known neighbours. Perhaps the moßt laughable of the series dealt with a manufacturer of " invisible panties" who had a hectic time trying to prove his commodity was entitled to a place under the code of his calling. The advice he received from every corner of the country was mixed and not invisible as to meaning. The codes really contained many admirable clauses. Unfair competition was frowned upon. Eebates were outlawed. Loss leaders to attract customers were prohibited. Selling below cost was denied. The customary "rule of the jungle" methods of the years were cleansed as never before, until the codes lost their power. On the labour side there is general acknowledgment of material gains. Child employment was attacked by the simple process of a minimum wage and a limitation of hours. Empldyers came down from 10 and 12 hours a day, in some industries, to seven or eight hours. The 40-hour week became common. While the minimum wage specified in each Code was stated not to be the maximum, yet even the minimum was a substantial safeguard in those occupations that are without trade unions.

Collective bargaining agreements were provided for in the Code of Fair Competition for the Construction Industry. Such agreements, when approved by the N.R.A. officials, and eigned by .the President, became mandatory in the area covered. Employers not in trade associations and employees outside of organised labour were equally bound by the standards, and it was obligatory on the part of the sponsors to obtain the consent of all concerned before the Federal authorities would give their sanction. It was the hope of many employers and employees that the N.R.A. plan of industrial government, or something like it, purged of known inequalities and simplified, would lead to a better economic day. Certainly there is the need, and the reaction against losing all that has been gained becomes more pronounced each day. Sparring between the political parties is now under way, each or all striving to make capital out of the confusion, later on to be interpreted into votes. There is one clear sign in the turmoil of discussion. The line of demarcation will come on whether the Constitution shall be maintained or amended to fit the social conditions of to-day, and which could not have been foreseen by the sturdy fathers of the earlier years. Herbert Hoover and Franklin D. Roosevelt typify the two schools of thought. The former pleads for initiative and individualism and protests against regimentation. The second man stresses the point that business failures and abject poverty for millions of men, women and children have resulted from the preceding Administration's policies. A newspaper critic of former President Hoover says he is sitting up in his tomb at Palo Alto in California unmindful of the bitter experiences of the past. Another journalistic criticism is to the effect that President Roosevelt is paying no attention to the Constitution, that the Brain Trust is ruining the country, and that individual rights are trodden upon. President Roosevelt has referred to " the horse and buggy age " of the yesteryears. This will be an expression for the historian of the future to muse over, judging from the comments of the past few days. Interesting are the figures just Issued by the United States Government. One person out of each five in the United States lives on Federal aid. Put another way, between 25,000,000 and 80,000,000 men and women out of an estimated population of 127,000,000 draw money *or food, clothing and shelter from the Federal Treasury, either through direct relief or work projects of different kinds. Words cannot depict the misery and suffering prevalent in the country. Tht

processes of industrial recovery need the help of statesmanship at its beet. Congress is now in session, and it is not unlikely that a law will be passed to continue the N.R.A. within the orbit of the Supreme Court's decision, if that is possible. President Roosevelt does not think very much of the suggestion that voluntary codes be substituted for those now displaced. He points out that the complaint most pronounced dealt with lack of enforcement, and he believes a small minority of employers would not adhere to standards that might be agreed to by the majority, and the latter would then be helpless in the competitive field. Conferences are going on in Washington to find a way out of the situation. The President has moved to keep the N.R.A. organisation intact, which indicates that there is a possibility of the work continuing in some form. Employers in their organised capacities have sent out strong pleas for preserving code minima on the labour side, but the continuing reports from all over the land tell stories of wage slashing and of lengthened hours, to say nothing of the reinstatement of practices that are not fair and which are hurtful to legitimate business.