National Affairs: Rip Tide

(3 of 6)

Glumly, after an exhausting hour of debate, the Senate recessed to sleep on its dilemma. Instead of hurrying off about their fun, Senators went into unhappy little huddles. Vice President Garner bounced up to Senator Byrnes, threw an arm around his shoulders, whispered something.

There was no mystery about why Jimmy Byrnes had put his colleagues on a spot. Last week John Lewis' C.I.O. was just getting underway its big push into the weakly unionized South, its goal an organization of 1,250,000 textile workers. No factories are more vulnerable to the Sit-Down than the South's textile mills. Furthermore, by taking the lead in condemning the Sit-Down while Franklin Roosevelt preserved silence, the Senate would be doing the President a good turn —as Texas Jack Garner, stanch backer of the Byrnes proposal, was heard remarking to Majority Leader Robinson.

Soon as the Senate convened next day, Senator Robinson resumed, with every parliamentary trick in his bag, his attempts to get the Byrnes hot potato tossed out to cool in committee. But newshawks noted that gruff Joe Robinson was arguing with unaccustomed joviality. He grinned when, each time he asked for unanimous consent, North Carolina's Bailey boomed: 'T object.''

Senator Vandenberg cried that responsibility for a Federal stand on the Sit-Down extended "straight down Pennsylvania Avenue to the White House." Senator Johnson asserted that the President could have stopped the Sit-Down epidemic with six words—"I will not tolerate Sit-Down strikes"—and recalled an old law which empowers the Government to step in when a State is unable to put down public disorder. Senator Borah, the Senate's greatest constitutional lawyer, reminded his fellows that the Government could do nothing until local officials announced themselves thwarted.

"The Mayor [of Detroit] and the Governor [of Michigan] have not said they could not handle the situation," returned Senator Bailey, "but actions speak louder than words. They have not handled it."

When, after five hours, the Senate recessed for an unhappy weekend, an amazing total of 54 Senators had taken part in the afternoon's debate. Still adamant was Senator Byrnes, having refused to withdraw his amendment in favor of a separate resolution when he heard that Senators Guffey and Neely were planning to amend such a resolution with condemnation of another species of mass lawbreaking: lynching. And of all those who had raised their voices in defense of sit-downers, not one had championed the Sit-Down as admirable or lawful.

When debate resumed this week, Sena tor Byrnes changed his amendment to apply to all Sit-Downs affecting interstate commerce, but many a colleague still objected to having it tacked to the Guffey Bill. Denying assertions that a vote against the amendment would be a tacit endorsement of the Sit-Down. Senator Minton cried: "I'm willing to meet this issue but I am unwilling to have the textile industry compel me to cast a vote that might be construed as the Senators suggest."