European Stars and Stripes (Newspaper) - November 17, 1973, Darmstadt, Hesse                              Saturday november 17, 1973 the stars and stripes Page 13 editor s note the following statement is printed at the request of the most Rev. Leo c. Byrne archbishop coadjutor of St. Paul and Minneapolis. The column he refers to was printed in the stars and stripes on nov. 8. By the most Rev. Leo c. Byrne in a column appearing in this newspaper Early in november or. William Buckley a nation ally syndicated columnist takes Issue with a number of american Catholic Bishops myself among them for supporting the con Sumer Boycott of Farah Slacks and jeans. I have asked for this Opportunity to respond. It is a Long time since i have been classified among the rest Lessly indignant but i Welcome the Label. Obviously a Bishop cannot speak out on every Issue of social injustice but some issues Are of such magnitude that action becomes necessary. Such an involvement is not another Post Vatican ii innovation Amos Isiah and Jeremiah prophets of old spoke out against the social and secular injustices of their Day and i suspect they too were told to limit their con Cerns to the purely religious. Or. Buckley makes the argument that the Farah workers some 9,000, mostly mexican americans and mostly women in factories located in the South West do not want to be represented by a Union. In that assertion he echoes the argument of their employer or. Willie Farah and a publication written by or. Paul Newton Poling entitled for the defense of Farah  in that assertion or. Buckley also ignores the fact that or. Farah still refuses to abide by a nation Al labor relations Board s order to bargain with the Amalga mated clothing workers of America As the result of an elec Tion in 1970 won by the Union. The company has consistently ignored Many other orders . Last october Bishop Sidney Metzger of Elpaso wrote to All Catholic Bishops of the country sharing the results of an a Latke rate and careful interview study of nearly two thousand Farah workers and strikers. For Over thirty years he has lived and worked in the diocese of Elpaso and he knows the problems Well. His study documented the work ers complaints drastic production demands no Job Security no negotiated production standards no negotiated wage increases according to a definite schedule in adequate maternity insurance and negotiated leaves for illness. Average take Home pay at Farah manufacturing company is $69 per week $3,588 per year com pared to $102 per week for the same work in a Union Plant in Elpaso $5,304 per year. Grievances such As these can be reme died by collective bargaining. In March Bishop Metzger wrote a second letter to the Bish Ops rendering a Progress report on the strike. He reaffirmed the grievances of the workers. They Are insufficient Assurance of Job Security reasonable and negotiated production quotas and a fair wage scale. Without these three Basic requirements there is no social Justice he wrote. I agree. The one tool that can bring about fair representation and As sure collective bargaining is a massive consumer Boycott of Farah products. To this end i wrote in june to the management of Dayton a Donaldson a and Powers three Large retail clothing stores in the min Neapolis St. Paul area asking them not to re order Farah products until that company recognizes its employees right to organize for collective bargain  i did not As or. Buckley claims urge the Boycott of local  the Boycott of Farah Slacks is having its effects. The com Pany s quarterly report for fiscal 1973 shows a $9.1 million drop in sales Over the previous year s comparable period. On novem Ber 1 the company announced the closing of two plants because the Boycott is hurting one in Texas and the other in new Mexico. But i do reiterate my support of the consumer Boycott of Farah Slacks produced by Farah under this and Many other labels. The Church has a Long and respected tradition espousing the right of the worker to organize in a Union and to enjoy the Protection of collective bargaining. Its mounting concern Over secular problems to quote or. Buck Ley is not new. In 1891 Pope Leo Xiii in serum Nova rum the condition of labor espoused the right of workers to join in associations to protect their interests. In 1931 Pope Pius i in Quad Anesimo Anno forty years after repeated that right. So also did Pope John Xxiii and Pope Paul i in More recent times not to mention the second Vatican Council. Amer Ica s own James Cardinal Gib Bons defended the rights of this nation s working persons to join the knights of labor the fore runner of today s great labor organizations demonstrating for Ever the deep concern of the Church for economic Justice for the worker. I can do no less today. The workers at Farah manufacturing company have been on strike for sixteen months for the right to bargain collectively. With Bishop Metzger i stand with them in their just demands. With him i consider it both a duty and a privilege to act on behalf of jus Tice for the poor and the oppressed. John p. Roche president s War Powers Resolution from the time it was introduced there was an air of in reality about the War Powers Resolution which the House and Senate have successfully passed Over president Nixon s veto. A number of my friends notably professor Eugene v. Rostow of Yale got quite distressed by the legislation which they saw As curbing the inherent Powers of the president in International affairs. Regrettably i dislike Dis agreeing with friends unless one delves into motives and assumes it is an act of penance for Viet Nam i found nothing particularly disturbing about sen. Javits proposal. One could argue i sup pose that it was a retroactive slap at president Johnson. But by my close Reading All the Reso Lution does is require a Tonkin Gulf Resolution. I have alluded Here before to the Congress devious efforts to demonstrate that the War in Viet Nam was conducted behind its Back that a sneaky president who never communicated with Congress went wandering off into the world with half a million troops and no authorization. The spectacle of senators and representatives portraying them selves As dupes and dummies is a bit amusing but in fact Lyndon Johnson went to inordinate lengths to keep key members of Congress informed. Just about every time a major administration figure went to Vietnam for the ritualized inspection trips he was on return shipped off to the Hill to Brief the Senate foreign relations committee. The hearings involving such men As Secretary Mcnamara general Maxwell Taylor ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge assistant Secretary of state Wil Liam Bundy were held in executive that is secret session. If the hearings were declassified the record would clearly indicate that the distinguished members William f. Buckley or. Gasoline rationing not necessary it is both sad and amusing to read the Public speculation Over just How we Are to save fuel. The Challenge is a Delight to bureaucratic ingenuity there is a Breed of men which is never so Happy As when sitting Down to regulate the habits of other men. Rationing with thousands of. Boards before which each one of us would appear importunate pleading our special Little exigencies. The kind of thing that used to Delight the new Deal bureaucrats who at the height of their enthusiasm for that kind of thing wanted to regulate wages profits and prices and never quite forgave the supreme court for saying it was unconstitutional. The Nixon administration has in it enough sensible people to resist or so we hear the lobby that turns instinctively to rationing As the Way to handle the problem. There is talk instead of a huge tax. But As often is the Case one form of government interference introduces the need for a derivative interference. It is feared that a tax a Large enough substantially to reduce the use of gasoline would b substantially reduce consumer spending Power thus c causing deflation so that d it is proposed that the tax having been taken from the Motorist it be returned posing the problem e when if the Fol lowing year the temporary de crease in purchasing Power might trigger the recession. If right away then the taking away of the Money and the returning of it blur in the consumer s mind and the effect on the con sumption of gasoline would be nugatory. A few observations 1 you Are much better off reducing the amount of Gas spent by raising the Price of gasoline than by setting up a Gigantic bureaucracy charged with the impossible Job of adjudicating everyone s claim to gasoline. Whereas it is obvious that the doctor or the plumber needs Gas in order to do his business it is not obvious that the old retired couple do not need Gas when in fact their principal pleasure maybe their afternoon drive together. 2 when there is True Scarcity Basic needs must be protected. It is not yet known whether the Scarcity that looms is on that order. It is conceivable How Ever that it might be. In that event the government would be entitled to protect the Basic needs of individual Drivers by let us say stipulating that every monday Drivers can fill up their tanks with government priced gasoline. But then on the following six Days gasoline vendors should quite simply Peg their prices according to Supply. As gasoline be comes scarcer the Price of it should Rise. As it becomes less scarce Competition would drive Down the Price. Individual stations would accordingly decide How Many hours to stay open. What i am stressing 3 is that there is no need to do away with the Market mechanism merely because of Scarcity. On the contrary that is when the Market mechanism particularly pays off. And the notion that the government needs to intervene with a tax is utterly fanciful. If it were the objective to Cut Down on driving in order to control pollution then the uniform tax would make sense but not when it is the objective merely to Cut Down on the use of a scarce commodity. Or. Nixon has a Fine Chance Here to adapt conservative principles to a social emergency. Let us Hope he will not Muff it. C Washington Star Syndicate of that committee were hardly kept in the dark about our prob lems. Since that would destroy the myth carefully cultivated by senator Fulbright among others that the Senate was tricked trapped and bamboozled the hearings have not been declassified. Instead we have a War Powers Resolution which after a certain amount of turgid prose requires that in every possible instance the president shall consult with Congress before he introduces . Forces and shall consult regularly so Long As our forces Are involved. Then we get to the nub of the matter within 48 hours after he has introduced troops or otherwise involved the United states in military action the president must submit to the speaker of the House and the president pro tempore of the Senate a report in writing setting out the justification for his decision. Then after a lot of Mickey mouse stuff about How things shall be handled if Congress is not in session All founded on the premise that the president of the United states is either a scoundrel or a nit wit we get to the procedure the president shall cease his armed forays after 60 Days 90 in limited circumstances unless Congress has declared War or has extended by Law the 60-Day period or is physically unable to  if Congress later changes its mind it can by concurrent Resolution not subject to veto Tell the president to bring the boys  Basic proposition that led me to endorse the javits propos Al was not Legal but political. The War Power is constitutionally shared by the president and con Gress and i see no reason Why a president who commits the armed forces should not be required to justify his action. I cannot conceive of Congress rejecting a proposal congressmen in times of crises tend in my experience to make the president look like a pacifist. What this proposal does is make it impossible for Congress in the future to take a furtive dive if the going gets rough a splendid notion. C King features Syndicate the opinions expressed in the columns and cartoons on this Page represent those of the authors and Are in no Way to be considered As representing the views of the stars and stripes itself or of the United states government