the prompt and effective performance of war production contracts, and to that end authorizes the War and Navy Departments and Martime Commission to enter into contracts with Federal Reserve banks, the Reconstruction Finance Corporation or any other financing institution, guaranteeing them "against loss of principal or interest on loans, discounts or advances, or on commitments in connection therewith

Within the purpose of the Executive Order, thus stated, the Navy Department is presently guaranteeing loans to war contractors. Congress has recognized the soundness of this purpose and procedure by appropriating funds "to carry out the provisions of Executive Order Numbered 9112 of March 26, 1942." Section 202, Sixth Supplemental National Defense Appropriation Act, 1942, April 28, 1942, 56 Stat. 233; section 7, Small Business-Mobilization for War Purposes Act, June 11, 1942, 56 Stat. 355; section 114, Naval Appropriation Act, 1944, June 26, 1943, 57 Stat. 216; section 5, Military Appropriation Act, 1944, July 1, 1943, 57 Stat. 367. Your inquiry is whether present commitments to guarantee future loans to war contractors would equally be within the scope of the order and congressional recognition.

The Under Secretary's request states that the purpose of this form of guarantee is to induce war contractors "to use their own current working capital for performance of war production contracts and not to hold it in reserve against the termination of war production contracts": a purpose which the present type of guarantee does not effect. The legal memorandum which accompanied the request further states that apprehension lest on cancellation of contracts firms be left with assets frozen and without liquid funds for current pay rolls "has led to a reluctance on the part of many manufacturers to maintain inventories and to make commitments necessary for the prompt and effective performance of contracts now outstanding, and a reluctance to enter into new war production contracts."

These statements demonstrate that the objectives of your contemplated guarantee are as clearly to assist the prompt and effective performance of war contracts as is the guaranteeing of present loans. Each has the same purpose regardless of when money thereunder is actually advanced.

Hence, it is my opinion that the type of contracts which you contemplate is within the wording and purpose of Executive Order No. 9112, and of the statutes referred to above. Respectfully,

FRANCIS BIDDLE.

WAR LABOR DISPUTES ACT

The provision in the War Labor Disputes Act and in Executive Order No. 9393 for the return of coal mines taken over by the Government within "sixty days after the restoration of the productive efficiency thereof prevailing prior to the taking of possession thereof" does not contemplate the return of the mines to their owners if, in the light of all the factors involved, the Secretary of the Interior has determined that this would result in a recurrence of strikes or stoppages which would require the Government again to take possession under the statute.

The SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR.

JANUARY 14, 1944.

MY DEAR MR. SECRETARY: In your letter of January 8, 1944, you request my opinion concerning your duty with respect to the return to their owners of coal mines taken over by you pursuant to Executive Order No. 9393 of November 1, 1943. Your specific inquiry is whether the Executive order and the provisions of section 3 of the War Labor Disputes Act (57 Stat. 163) require you to return a mine to its owner not later than the sixtieth day after it has reached its normal volume of production even though such a return to private ownership would in your opinion be likely to result in a work stoppage and further interruption in production with a consequent decline of the present level of production. Your letter states, in part:

"If Congress contemplated that the volume of tonnage produced was to be the only determinant of 'productive efficiency,' it may be argued that the 'productive efficiency' prevailing at the bituminous coal mines in the possession of the Government prior to their taking by the Government was restored during the week of November 15. During that week, the tonnage of bituminous coal produced throughout the Nation was as substantial as during any previous week in 1943. Although this high production record has not been uniformly maintained, it has not fallen be

low the normal seasonal levels. Nevertheless, based on our past experience with the coal mines, I am convinced that, despite the remarkably high production levels achieved at the mines, their restoration to the owners at this time, when the contract negotiations are not completed, might lead to a recurrence of the work stoppages which have meant so great a loss of coal production in the past and which at this time, when the coal shortage is so severe, may well spell disaster.

66* * * My judgment is based upon the totality of my experience in the operation of the mines since I was first directed by Executive order of the President dated May 1, 1943, to assume possession on behalf of the Government, and is fortified by a careful investigation of the present conditions. "Briefly stated, the situation is this:

"1. The position of the miners is, as it has been for some time, that they are unwilling to work without an existing operating contract. That they hold this position was made manifest when negotiations between the mine workers and the owners collapsed in April 1943, again in June, and still again in November. The total loss of the potential production in the four major stoppages occurring during that time is estimated at more than 40,000,000 tons. To the best of my information, and I am satisfied that my information is sufficient, the miners persist in their position. The slogan 'no contract, no work' continues to represent the basic attitude of the miners with respect to the production of coal so long as the mines are in private hands.

"2. The President's Executive Order No. 9393, of November 1, authorized and directed me to offer to the duly constituted representatives of the mine workers, a contract or contracts governing the terms and conditions of employment for the period of Government possession. Pursuant to this direction, the President of the United Mine Workers of America and I, as Secretary of the Interior, executed a memorandum of agreement providing for an extended workday at the bituminous coal and anthracite mines in the Government's possession, heretofore under contract with the union, with payment at the rate of time and one-half for the estimated additional work in each day. The terms and conditions of work proposed in this agreement were approved by the War Labor Board and by the President of the United

States. They constituted a change in the terms and conditions of employment previously applicable at those mines in the possession of the Government which had been operated under contracts with the United Mine Workers of America expiring during 1943. This change contemplated and results in an increase of approximately $1.50 per day in the takehome of the individual bituminous coal miner, as compensation for the additional time spent at work in the mines. The change, however, is effective only so long as the mines are in possession of the Government. Were the mines to be returned to the owners without an effective contract between the owners and the mine workers, continuing the same terms, approved by the War Labor Board, the mines would be authorized, in the absence of further governmental action, to operate thereafter only on the basis of the terms that were in effect at the time the Government took possession. In that case, the mines would revert to the shorter workweek existing before Government possession with a consequent reduction in the take-home of the individual miner. It is apparent, therefore, that what is involved is not merely the unrest that would probably result in the absence of a contract, but also a change in the terms and conditions of employment which the miners would regard as adverse.

"3. During the present period of Government possession and operation, owners of mines producing approximately 663 percent of the coal of the country have agreed with representatives of the mine workers on an operating contract which was submitted to the War Labor Board on December 17 for determination as to whether its terms will be approved. Should the agreement be approved by the War Labor Board, contemplated price increases must be submitted to and approved by the Office of Price Administration before the agreement can become effective. On the other hand, owners of mines producing approximately one-third of the country's coal not only have failed to agree with their workers upon an operating contract but have declined to confer with a view to reaching such an agreement on the basis of the presently effective terms and conditions. Unless the proposed contracts are approved in the former case and until an agreement is reached in the latter case, the previous experience and present attitude make it entirely clear to me that the

mines have not yet reached a stage of productive efficiency. I am satisfied in each case that the present level of production is dependent upon continued Government possession until an operating agreement can be reached and approved. I am satisfied also that, in view of the delay which has already occurred, it is not likely that agreements will be approved and become effective in either case before the expiration of the sixty-day period from that date when the levels of production existing prior to the Government possession of the mines may have been restored."

It is my opinion that you are not required to return the mines under the circumstances outlined.

Executive Order No. 9393 provides:

"Possession and operation of any mine or mines hereunder shall be terminated by the Secretary of the Interior as soon as he determines that possession and operation hereunder are no longer required for the furtherance of the war program, but in no event more than sixty days after the restoration of the productive efficiency thereof prevailing prior to the taking possession thereof."

Similarly, section 3 of the War Labor Disputes Act contains the following proviso:

"Provided, That whenever any such plant, mine, or facility has been or is hereafter so taken by reason of a strike, lock-out, threatened strike, threatened lock-out, work stoppage or other cause, such plant, mine or facility shall be returned to the owners thereof as soon as practicable, but in no event more than sixty days after the restoration of the productive efficiency thereof prevailing prior to the taking of possession thereof

The same standard is prescribed in both the War Labor Disputes Act and Executive Order No. 9393 for the termination of Government custody of the coal mines. Your question, therefore, turns upon a construction of the phrase "restoration of the productive efficiency thereof prevailing prior to the taking possession thereof" as used in both the Executive order and the War Labor Disputes Act.

One of the purposes of the War Labor Disputes Act, as stated in its title, is to prevent "strikes, lock-outs, and stoppages of production." In furtherance of this purpose the act provides that in cases of strikes or threatened strikes