September 19: ON THIS DAY IN HISTORY
ON THIS DAY IN 1945, the Brooklyn Daily Eagle reported, “WASHINGTON (U.P.) — Armed with more authority than any predecessor, Secretary of Labor Lewis B. Schwellenbach today tackled the job of bringing peace to the nation’s troubled labor front. Simultaneously, responsibility for the nation’s stabilization program shifted from William H. Davis, director of the Office of Economic Stabilization, to Reconversion Director John W. Snyder. President Truman transferred OES to Mr. Snyder in a surprise move late yesterday. In his long-awaited reorganization of government labor services, Mr. Truman gave Mr. Schwellenbach authority over the War Labor Board and War Manpower Commission as well as a voice in making the wage stabilization policies under Snyder. With his new powers, Mr. Schwellnbach emerged as probably the strongest labor secretary in U.S. history. He recaptured not only functions that were divorced from the department under stress of war but inherited agencies set up in both peace and war to keep labor-management relations on an even keel.”
***
ON THIS DAY IN 1947, the Eagle reported, “UNITED NATIONS HALL, FLUSHING (U.P.) — Russia’s demand that the U.S. be branded guilty of ‘warmongering’ and that the American press be denied freedom to criticize the U.S.S.R. ‘on pain of criminal punishment’ headed today for overwhelming United Nations rejection. The immediate interpretation of the proposal by the Western powers was that the Soviet Union would impose on them the same kind of controlled press and restraints on freedom of speech existing within the Soviet Union. Soviet Delegate Andrei Y. Vishinsky himself could hardly hope for support from more than five U.N. members within the Soviet sphere … Vishinsky, who was prosecutor of the famous purge trials in Russia which resulted in countless death sentences, minced no words in disclosing what he would do with such ‘warmongers’ of the press and other citizens in the Soviet Union. He said: ‘Should any person in the Soviet Union make a statement even in infinitesimal degree resembling (those by U.S. ‘warmongers’), full of criminal greediness for a new manslaughter, such a statement would meet with a severe rebuff and public disapproval as a socially dangerous act leading to serious harm.’ The general reaction to Vishinsky’s slashing attack was that he overplayed his hand in a shocking manner.”