<--PREV Doc #396  |  Memorial Commission Home Page  |  First Term Table of Contents  |  Presidential Papers Home Page  |  Doc#  |  NEXT--> Doc #398 Document #397; August 25, 1953 To William Fife Knowland Series: EM, AWF, Name Series The Papers of Dwight David Eisenhower, Volume XIV - The Presidency: The Middle Way Part II: Settling into "the long pull"; May 1953 to August 1953 Chapter 5: "So much to do in the world"   Dear Bill: The memorandum on the proposed changes in the Taft-Hartley Act was not signed--consequently, I do not know exactly whose views it represents. I agree with you as to its importance, and I am forwarding it to my associates in Washington at once so as to have it thoroughly studied.1 Incidentally, I think you are aware of the fact that Senator Taft was present at several of the conferences at which were discussed proposed changes in the Taft-Hartley Act. He himself told me that he agreed, in general, with all the changes proposed up until the time he departed for the hospital, the last time. He implied that there were only one or two details in which he wanted to make further investigation and in which he had some doubt as to their wisdom.2 The particular item that is discussed at such length in the memorandum is the conflict between State and Federal authority. This item has been the subject of more study, argument, and discussion than any other in the Act. It was my impression that a fairly good compromise had been worked out, but we certainly shall look into it again.3 I do hope that you have a fine time during your trip.4 As ever 1 In a handwritten note of August 23, Knowland asked the President to study an attached memorandum titled "Comments on Proposed Presidential Message on Taft-Hartley Act Changes" (Aug. 21, 1953, WHCF/OF 124-G). The memorandum, addressed to Knowland, concerned the reaction of California industry and agriculture to Eisenhower's published proposals for revisions to the Taft-Hartley Act (see Wall Street Journal, Aug. 3, 1953). Predicting that adoption of the President's proposals would "take the heart out of the Taft-Hartley Act," the drafters of the memorandum wrote that "it strengthens the already great power of labor unions without a consideration of the rights of individual members, employers or the general public." Four major issues were discussed in the paper--states rights, the secondary boycott, union security, and welfare funds. On the first subject, Eisenhower's recommendation that a general rule be established that would recognize "the paramount authority of the Federal law in the interest of uniformity throughout the United States" was scored for depriving business of state court remedies. On secondary boycotts, the President had recommended that the mandatory requirement be eliminated and that no injunction be allowed without notice and opportunity for hearing. According to the memorandum, California was "particularly sensitive to secondary boycott abuse," because a farmer's entire production for a year might spoil if it were not handled expeditiously. "It is imperative," the writers said, "that immediate relief from secondary boycott practices be available." On union security, the memorandum argued against (1) permitting a union to expel a member for disclosure of "confidential information of the union," (2) the return of the hiring hall, (3) job preference based on experience, and (4) the use of prehiring contracts--all proposals introduced by Eisenhower. The paper also rejected the recommendation that unions be allowed to administer welfare funds. 2 Taft's participation in the informal conferences on proposed revisions to the Taft-Hartley Act would be the subject of a September 30 memorandum to Eisenhower from Special Counsel to the President Bernard M. Shanley. Shanley would address the late Senator's attitudes regarding section 14(b), which protected state closed-shop prohibitions from federal intervention (see no. 431). For background on Taft's role in shaping changes to the law see no. 26. 3 On this issue see Eisenhower, Mandate for Change, pp. 291-92, 432. In December the Supreme Court would overrule a Pennsylvania state court injunction against picketing by the Teamsters, arguing that only the National Labor Relations Board and federal courts were vested with such power (New York Times, Dec. 16, 1953). For further developments involving Taft-Hartley see nos. 399 and 604. 4 Knowland had departed on August 23 for the Far East, and Eisenhower's secretary asked Knowland's secretary to hold this reply until his return (Helen Weaver to William P. Jaeger, Jr., Aug. 25, 1953, WHCF/OF 124/G). Bibliographic reference to this document: Eisenhower, Dwight D. To William Fife Knowland, 25 August 1953. In The Papers of Dwight David Eisenhower, ed. L. Galambos and D. van Ee, doc. 397. World Wide Web facsimile by The Dwight D. Eisenhower Memorial Commission of the print edition; Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996, http://www.eisenhowermemorial.org/presidential-papers/first-term/documents/397.cfm <--PREV Doc #396  |  Memorial Commission Home Page  |  First Term Table of Contents  |  Presidential Papers Home Page  |  Doc#  |  NEXT--> Doc #398

Dwight D. Eisenhower Memorial Commission 1629 K Street, NW Suite 801 Washington DC 20006 Phone: 202.296.0004    Fax: 202.296.6464