Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "122660107",
    "label": "Memorandum, Seizure Authority in Section 18 of the Universal Military Training and Service Act",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/122660107"
}

{
    "id": "122660107",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/122660107",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Memorandum, Seizure Authority in Section 18 of the Universal Military Training and Service Act",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/122660107",
    "collections": [
        "David H. Stowe Papers",
        "Subject Files"
    ],
    "subjects": [
        "Labor disputes"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/truman/201193/5664985/5664985-21-01.jpg",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/truman/201193/5664985/5664985-21-01.jpg",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/truman/201193/5664985/5664985-21-01.jpg",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/122660107",
    "naId": 122660107,
    "levelOfDescription": "item",
    "productionDates": [
        {
            "logicalDate": "1952-01-01",
            "year": 1952
        }
    ],
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}

{
    "seq": 1,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "photo",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/truman/201193/5664985/5664985-21-01.jpg",
    "mediaId": "5f40d84cb16358cd",
    "ocrText": "start\nSeizure Authority in Section 18 of the Universal\nMilitary Training and Service Act\nfite\nUnder the Act the President may provide for the placing of so-called\n\"mandatory orders\" for defense material with plant operators. If the operators\n\"refuse or fail\" to fill these specific orders, he may take possession of and\noperate the plants to produce the needed material. The operators are guaranteed\nfair and just compensation \"as rental.\"\nReasons for not using this authority in the Steel Case\n1.\nAdministrative difficulties. The Act applies to direct Government pur-\nchases while the bulk of steel for defense needs is bought by \"prime\" and \"sub\"\ncontractors working on defense contracts. Much time would be required to switch\norders to a direct Government purchase basis and to notify each plant of the new\norders. Furthermore, thousands of military contracts for many thousands of defense-\nend items are involved in the mobilization program. Orders for defense production\nwere deliberately placed with a view to spreading the contracts throughout the\nentire steel industry on the broadest basis possible. It would take weeks to\nidentify each contract and the specific steel companies involved. In many cases\ninvolving items used in both military and civilian production - such as electric\nmotors - it is practically impossible to determine the producers of the steel\ncomponents of these items. All of these factors rendered it impossible to use\nSection 18 authority on the eve of April 8 to prevent an actual shutdown of steel\nproduction the next day. They make resort to this authority now in the steel case\nequally unsatisfactory in view of the time delays involved. This seizure authority\nmight work well in certain cases but not in the circumstances of the current steel\ndispute.\n2.\nLegal\ndifficulties. The provision sets forth a number of specific con-\nditions which must be met if the authority is to be used. It is questionable\nwhether there could be seizure prior to an actual shutdown in production. It\nis\nquestionable whether the Government would be justified in utilizing the entire\ncapacity of a steel mill to meet defense needs which were a small portion of the\ntotal output of the mill On the other hand, in view of the requirement of just\ncompensation the Government may become liable for tremendous sums in failing to\nutilize the facilities to the fullest extent possible. Furthermore, if only part\nof the industry were seized, difficult questions would arise concerning the dis-\nposition by the Government of the steel products which are in excess of defense\nneeds, should complete utilization be made of plant capacity. Finally, resort to\n'short-cuts\" or fictitious devices to get around the specific requirements of the\nAct would only invite complicated court actions tying up the whole operation.\n3. Questionable availability of the authority for use in the steel case.\nMany people have contended (including Senator Taft in debate in the Senate during\nthis steel dispute) that the seizure authority in the Universal Military Training\nand Service Act was not available for use in a labor dispute but was meant to be\nused in the case of a recalcitrant operator who refused to fill defense contracts.\nThe legislative history is far from clear on this point, and resort to this author-\nity in the steel case would certainly be subject to challenge in the courts on\nthis ground. Furthermore, the majority opinions in the recent Supreme Court decision\nin the steel case have thrown serious doubt on the availability of this authority\nto seize the entire steel industry under the current circumstances."
}