denounced as "economic royalists". As E. J. Hopkins wrote in PM, Aug. 18:
"The National Defense Advisory Commission has at last apparently persuaded the 'striking' industries to go ahead", by permitting them to do as they please,-- that is, to strike later if, insured against loss, they are not satisfied with their profits. Moreover, those who control industry hold a club over future legislation, for 'Industry' has "permission to quit work midway if it doesn't like what Congress does".
"Infinitely 'More Liberal' Excess Profits Tax Than During World War Now Assuming Shape" was the headline of an article by Henry Ehrlich in the Boston Herald, July 30.
"Sugar coating to get the people to swallow amortization", Senator Bennett C. Clark, Aug. 10, called the proposed bill for tax on war profits, -- whittled down to yield a paltry 190 millions the first year,-- only about twice the amount of the single loan to the Curtiss-Wright Co.
Rear Admiral W. R. Furlong, chief of the Navy's Bureau of Ordnance, testified Aug. 20 (AP), "'Progress has stopped on the procurement of materials that go into ships'. . . because industry has found business with the British more profitable". The condition had not much improved on August 21 when Pearson and Allen wrote, "A sit-down strike far worse than anything pulled by the C.I.O. in the automobile plants of Michigan is now being staged by some American industrial leaders. It is a sit-down strike against the production of war and navy orders until industry sees what kind of a tax bill will be written by Congress."
"Billions for Defense -- But Not 1% Less for Profit." August 23, 1940