1949 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 7213 By Mr. KEE: 990. By Mr. SMITH of Wisconsin: Petition lege, Tenn., requesting that Congress do not H. Res. 237. Resolution providing for ex of sundry citizens of Racine, Wis., opposing pass the Kefauver bill, S. 1415, or the Farring penses of conducting studies and investiga House bills 4238 and 4239, relating to turn ton bill, H. R. 53, or any legislation providing tions authorized by House Rflsolution 206; to ing over animals in the District of Columbia for a blank-day calendar; to the Committee the Committee on House Administration. Dog Pound for vivisection; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. By Mr. WALTER: on the District of Columbia. 1005. Also petition of the Associated Gen H. Res. 238. Resolution to authorize the 991. By Mr. WHITE ·of California: Peti eral Contractors of America, Inc., Portland, Committee on the Judiciary to undertake a tion signed by 43 members of the Veterans of Oreg., urging the Congress to oppose and study of immigration problems; to the Com Foreign Wars and members of the auxiliary reject any substitute plans for the develop mittee on Rules. of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, residents of ment of the Columbia River Basin such as the Ninth California Congressional District, contained in the various CV A measures be MEMORIALS opposing the test of unemployability clause fore the Congress for consideration, particu in H. R. 4617; to the Committee on Veterans' larly S. 1645 and H. R. 4286; to the Commit Under clause 3 of rule XXII, memorials Affairs. tee on Public Works. were presented and referred as follows: 992. ·By the SPEAKER: Petition of St. 1006. Also petition of the American By the SPEAKER: Memorial of the Legisla Luke's Hospital, San Francisco, Calif., ex Psychoanalytic Association, New York, N. Y., ture of the State of Alabama, memorializing pressing emphatic opposition to compulsory requesting the Congress to give its full sup the President and the Congress of the United health insurance; to the Committee on Inter port to the program of the World Health state and Foreign Commerce. Organization proposed for the year 1950; to States to extend the rights and privileges of 993. Also, petitition of College of Medical veterans of World War II under title V of the the Committee on Foreign Affairs. Evangelists, Loma Linda and Los Angeles, 1007. Also, petition of United States Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944; to Calif., expressing emphatic opposition to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. Mexico Public Health Association, El Paso, compulsory health insurance; to the Com Tex., requesting that cooperative enter mittee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. prises in health and sanitation between the PRIVATE BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS 994. Also, petition of Illinois State Dental United States and individual Latin-American Society, Peoria, Ill., requesting that CongresEt countries be continued, based on achieve Under clause 1 of rule XXII, private do not enact any legislation such as em ments to date, and recommending that the bills and resolutions were introduced and bodied in S. 1679, H. R. 4312, or H. R. 4313, program of the Institute of Inter-American severally referred as follows: which will in any way interfere with the Affairs be extended beyond June 30, 1950; existing system of private, competitive prac to the Commitfoe on Foreign Affairs. By Mr. DA VIS of Georgia : tice in American dentistry; to the Commit H. R. 4987. A bill to provide for the ex tee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. 1008. Also, petition of Grace Doyle and tension ·of patent No. 1,928,175, issued Sep 995. Also, petition of Kansas State Dental others, Lake Worth, Fla., requesting passage tember 26, 1933, to William Howard Hailey, Hygienists Association, Wichita, Kans., re of H. R. 2135 and 2136, known as the Town relating to receptacles for urine; to the Com questing that Congress do not enact any send plan; to the Committee on Ways and mittee vn the Judiciary. legislation which will hamper freedom, such Means. By Mr. DINGELL: as the current proposals for compulsory 1009. Also, petition of Mrs. L. Z. Carroll H. R. 4988. A bill to admit Janina Wojcicka health insurance; to the Committee on and others, Miami, Fla., requesting passage and her two minor sons ·vojciech Andrzej Interstate and Foreign Commerce. · of H. R. 2135 and 2136, known as the Town Wojcicki and Stanislaw Wojcicki to the 996. Also, petition of Massachusetts Dental send plan; to the Committee on Ways and United States for permanent residence; to Society, Boston, Mass., requesting Congress Means. the Committee on the Judiciary. not to enact any legislation containing the 1010. Also, petition of Mrs. A. C. Starke By Mr.. FARRINGTON: principles of compulsory health insurance; and others, Sanford, Fla., requesting passage H. R. 4989. A bill to provide for the pay to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign of H. R. 2135 and 2136, known as the Town ment of just compensation to John Ii Estate, Commerce. send plan; to the Committee on Ways and Ltd., a Hawaiian corporation, for the taking 997. Also, petition of Omaha-Douglas Means. by the united States Of private fishery rights County Medical Society, Omaha, Nebr., stat 1011. Also, petition of Josie B. Gardner and in Pearl Harbor, island of Oahu, T. H.; to the ing opposition to any form of compulsory others, St. Petersburg, Fla., requesting Committee on the Judiciary. health insurance or any system of medical passage of H. R. 2135 and 2136, known as the By Mr. FERNOS-ISERN: care designed for national bureaucratic con Townsend plan; to the Committee on Ways H. R. 4990. A bill for the relief of the estat& trol; to the Committee on Interstate and and Means. of the late Juan Eduardo O'Ferral; to the Foreign Commerce. Committee on the Judiciary. 998. Also, petition of the Dental Society of By Mr. HINSHAW: the State of New York, New York, N. Y., re H. R. 4991. 1~ bill for the relief of the questing Congress not to enact any legisla estate of William Walter See; to the Commit tion containing the principles of compulsory SENATE tee on the Judiciary. health insurance; to the Committee on Inter MONDAY, JUNE By Mr. JAVITS: state and Fo~eign Commerce. 6, 1949 H. R. 4992. A bill for the relief of Anny 999. Also, petition of Lake George Parent Scher; to the Committee on the Judiciary. Teacher Association, Lake George, N. Y., ex
1949 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 7231 The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The may repeat this at other points in the I hope to state, why the Taft-Hartley amendment will be stated. discussion. The platform declared in Act, as it is called, should be repealed. The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. On page 12, words that cannot be questioned: This is not all of the political nature, following line 21, it is proposed to insert We advocate the repeal of the Taft-Hartley Mr. President. I have already mentioned a new paragraph (3), reading as follows: Act. It was enacted by the Republican the fact that in every hamlet of the (3) to refuse to bargain collectively with Eightieth Congress over the President's veto. United States, wherever there were labor an employer, subject to the provisions of That act was proposed with the promise ing men, wherever an appeal could be section 9 (a). that it would secure the legitimate rights made to the interests of the people who of both employees and employers in their were listening, such an appeal was always Mr. HILL. Mr. President, a parlia relations affecting commerce. It has failed. mentary inquiry. The number of labor-management disputes made on the basis of a promise that the The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The has increased. The number of cases before Taft-Hartley Act would be repealed. It Senator will state it. the National Labor Relations Board has is written so completely in the language Mr. HILL. Am I correct in my under-: more than doubled since the act was passed, of the orators who went from coast to standing that the amendment which I and efficient and prompt administration is coast, so completely in the language of have just offered is now the pending becoming more and more difficult. It has the President of the United States, so encouraged litigation in labor disputes and completely implied and written in the question? undermined the established American policy The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The of collective bargaining. Recent decisions platform of the D3mocratie Party, that question is on agreeing to the amend by the courts prove that the act was so I, for one, want to live up to the promises ment offered by the Senator from poorly drawn- that its application is · uncer made, and want to respect them. I re Alabama. tain, and that it is probably, in some pro peat, that there is justification enough Mr. THOMAS of Utah. Mr. Presi visions, unconstitutional. We advocate such for what we are proposing to do, because dent, because of the extremely complex legislation as is desirable to establish a just the promises were made. body of rules to assure free and effective col I know it will be said that all voters nature of the pending bHl, and because lective bargaining, to deterII).ine, in the pub of the fact that we may at any time be lic interest, the rights of employees and vote their own individual convictions; discussing the rulings of f.dministrative employers, to reduce to a minimum their that no voter can express himself par boards and judicial reviews, I ask unani- conflict of interests: and to enable unions to ticularly from the platform; that all . mous consent that during the debate I keep their membership free from commu vo~ers are more or less emotional. But in may have sit with me on the floor of the nistic influences. the whole history of political campaigns Senate Mr. Kenneth Mieklejohn, Assist Mr. President, there is another part of in America there has never been a time ant Solicitor of the Labor Department. the platform which has a bearlng upon when a candidate went before the people The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is the pending bill, and I want to read that, with such explicit promises as did Presi there objection to the request of the too. I refer to the following statement: dent Truman last fall. He did not talk generalities at all. As a politician, I Senator from Utah! The Chair hears We urge that the Department of Labor be none, and it is so ordered. rebuilt and strengthened, restoring to it the sometimes felt-and I know all of my Mr. THOMAS of Utah. Mr. Presi units, including the Federal Mediation and colleagues so felt-that it would be better dent, in presenting to the Senate a state Conciliation Service and the United States to talk about the development of justice, ment in rezard to the bill, I shall not only Employment Service, which pi·operly belong orderly procedures, standing by the Con be talk~ng upon the pending amendment to it, and which the Republican Eightieth stitution, and matters of that kind. But Congress stripped from it over the veto of offered by ·the Senator from A~abama, President Truman flatly said, "I stand for but I shall also be talking upon the bill President Truman. We urge that the De the repeal of the Taft-Hartley law." No partment's facilities for collecting and dis one could misunderstand what he said, in general, and since it is a long bill, and seminating economic information be ex since my discussion m'ay be lengthy, and panded, and th·at a Labor Education Exten and no one could misunderstand what also since undoubtedly it will be the basis sion Service be established in the Department he meant. Everyone who voted for him on which future amendments wrn be of Labor. knew that the repeal of the Taft-Hartley law would be a part of his program. offered, and on which much of the dis In relation to the last paragraph read, cussion will be based, I ask unanimous I cannot but remind the Senate that such Therefore, Mr. President, I think we can consent that I may proceed to discuss a bill is on the calendar at the present not in any degree forget that situation, no the amendment without being inter time, so that so far as the party declara matter how we may argue. I myself shall rupted. I make that request now, for tion is concerned, so far as the aim of argue and point out that it was only an the information of Senators. For the those who feel that a party declaration indirect promise in the way in which it further information of Senators, who is something that should be respected, we has been interpreted. may wish to allot their time, I may say have in the pending bill both the intent, When the President came to deliver to that I shall take at least 2 hours. the purpose, and the fulfillment of those the Congress the state of the Union The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is promises; plus, of course, in the bill message, after he had been elected, he there objection? The Chair ,hears none, which is already on the calendar, the said: and it is so ordered. last provision included in that promise. If we want to keep our economy running in Mr. THOMAS of Utah. Mr. President, Mr. President~ I for one realize that high gear, we must be sure that every group we are not here setting the stage for the we c~n never have popular government has the incentive to mal::e its full contribu consideration of Senate bill 249. The in the United States, we can never have tion to the national welfare. At present, the stage has already been set for us. It was working men and women of the Nation are popular sovereignty, we can never have unfairly discriminated against by a statute set by others outside the Senate. In the honest political parties, unless political first place, an idea of the pending bill that abridges their rights, curtails their con- parties take seriously the declarations . structive efforts, and hampers our system of reached the ears of all the people of the which they make. I realize that our free ·collective bargaining. That statute is United States in one particular, during country got along for a long time after the Labor-Management Relations Act of 1947, the Presidential campaign, when the. the Constitution was established before sometimes called the Taft-Hartley Act. President of the United States promised there was such a thing as a party decla That act should be repealed. the people that if elected he would do ration. But since 1828 political parties The Wagner Act should be reenacted. his best to bring about the repeal of have made declarations to the people of However, certain improvements, which I the Taft-Hartley Act. So that question recommended to the Congress 2 years ago, the United States; and while it is ordi are needed. Jurisdictional strikes and un became a campaign issue, giving rise to narily said that a platform is something justifiable secondary boycotts should be pro conditions under which anyone who to get in on" and is not necessarily to be hibited. The use of economic force to decide speaks on the bill may discuss promises taken seriously, I, for one, have never issues arising out of the interpretation of made, promises lived up to, and promises · accepted that thesis. The committee existing contracts should be prevented. not lived up to, in a political way. There has never accepted it.. The committee Without endangering our democratic free fore, the setting of the stage is not en feels that in the pending bill it is living doms, means should be provided for settling tirely legislative; it is political. I grant up to the promise in the platform, and it or preventing strilces in vital industries which that from the very beginning. · affect the public interest. wants its action to be so interpreted. The Department of Labor should be rebuilt I should like to show how political it The promise, in and of itself, Mr. Presi and strengthened, and those units properly is· by reading what the Democratic na dent, is to me, justification enough ·for belonging within that Department should be tional platform said on the subject. I the bill besides the other reasons, which placed in it. •
7232 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE JUNE 6 That is the President of the United the act, that there would be tremendous not study for themselves. They follow States speaking to the Congress. In opposition to it., and that there would be second raters and the advice of second that speech, as everyone knows, he did a test case carried to the Supreme Court raters. They follow the advice of em the very best he could to stand by his of the United States the results of which ployer organizations. They fallow the political promises and the party's prom would be momentous to the country be advice of men who live by their wits, ises. I do not know what the other cause of its effect upon the passage of men who advise them to do certain things Members of the Congress thought about future labor laws. on the premise that the only way to beat the President's speech; I do not know It should be pointed out also-and I ask labor is to swat it down, because there how the people of the United States, in Senators to remember this point during exists an inevitable clash between in general, thought about whether the the discussion we shall have on the bill dustry and labor. That I deny, Mr. President was living up to his platform; that the dictum which controlled the President. That the National Labor Re but I do know that an analysis of the thinking of the Supreme Court of the lations Act denies. There is none of that votes in the House of Representatives United States before it passed on the theory in it. There was ·none of that of the 88 freshmen Representatives who National Labor Relations Act, was a dic theory in the· minds of those who wrote came to Congress for the first time on tum which said in so many words that the Taft-Hartley Act, although they did the platform on which the President manufacturing, mining, and agriculture return to the philosophy before they got stood, indicates that they understood were of purely local concern. The bill through with it. that a pledge had been made, and they was adopted on the basis of a new inter · Mr. President, the presentation of the did their best to carry out that pledge. pretation of the interstate commerce National Labor Relations Act to the Eighty-eight freshmen Representatives clause of the Constitution. The Supreme country, its review by the Court, and the voted against the Wood bill which sub Court made its interpretation of the act. decision made by the Court, brought the stantially reaffirmed the Taft-Hartley It was because of the-shall I say-rev Federal Government into the labor field. Act, and only 28 voted for it. The House, olutionary approach of the constitutional That was the big thing that happened. as it will be remembered, passed that force of the act that something like 69 It got into the labor field in a general bill by a vote of 217 to 203, and sub of the country's greatest constitutional way. It had, of course, always been in sequently recommitted it by a vote of lawyers advised their clients that the act the labor field in respect to interstate 212 to 209. was patently unconstitutional, and ad commerce, and the operation of rail Listen to this,. Mr. President. Of the vised them not to obey it, not to respect roads, and such things. freshmen Members voting on the bill, 81 it, because it would shortly be cut down We ran right into a conflict which is reversed the stand of their predecessors by the Supreme Court, and there was no going to remain with us so long as the who had voted for the Taft-Hartley Act. need of their obeying it. That advice, American people accept the thesis of Only one, a Representative from North and the fact that industry in the United Karl Marx that there is a natural clash Carolina, switched the other way: He States followed the advice, caused our between the man who works and the voted for the Wood bill, while his pred committee, which was then the Commit man who does the hiring, and that the ecessor, former Representative Folger, tee on Education and Labor, to set up a only way to win is to achieve the ultimate was against the Taft-Hartley Act. substitute committee which was known supremacy of a proletariat of some kind, I wonder, Mr. President, if there ls as the Civil Liberties Committee, and as Karl Marx called it. Never in the any more conclusive judgment in the which carried on as a committee in being whole history of the making and the minds of the men who voted in the way for several years. It was then that we framing of words did anyone do a greater in which they did vote that they were had before us some of the greatest in injustice to the Latin language and that standing by the party platform, standing dustrialists in the United States. We had portion of it which became incorporated by their President, and standing by all before us some of the . greatest labor into the English language than when that had been promised. leaders in the United States. They Karl Marx talked about the dictatorship Mr. President, on the Committee on gave us pictures of both sides of the situa of the proletariat, because that is not Labor and Public Welfare there are three tion. But the one thing that remains in what he meant. When Cicero talked members who have been Ghairmen of the my mind more than anything else is the about a ''proletarian," to use an English committee during the past 15 or 16 years. fact that these 69 great constitutional word, he spoke of a man who did nothing Those three members have handled all lawyers had given their advice honestly for his country but breed men for future labor legislation excepting the Smith upon the basis of a dictum pronounced Roman legions. That is the origin of Connally Act and the amendments to the by the Supreme Court, and rules which the word. It is unfortunate that the Portal-to-Portal Pay Act, which were they had followed down to that time. word got into our language in the way handled by the Committee on the Judi Mr. President, during the course of it did. It h as nothing to do with labor ciary. One was an amendment to the the discussion of the pending legislation relations and when we hear the expres Selective Service Act, and the other was we will almost inevitably swing into de sion "the dictatorship of the proletariat" an amendment to the Fair Labor Stand bate on labor versus industry, or some we hear something which has a meaning ards Act. These members are not in thing of that kind. Labor leaders will different from what it was originally. experienced in labor matters, the history be condemned, labor organizations will I know the American people are not of labor laws, and the changes which be condemned, and some manufacturers' going to stand for that kind of eternal have been made. The committee, there associations will be condemned, and so and everlasting clash, and are not going fore, is one which should be commended on. Employers' associations are like to believe in what is said to be a natural in every way, both the majority and labor associations; they are advocates law which makes it impossible for men minority members, for the seriousness for their class. The distressing thing who are employed to be real men, and with which they undertook the task be we learned from listening to testimony makes it impossible for the men who fore them. Every member of the com day after day was that even in its most employ them to treat their employees as mittee understands the significance of men. If they should ev€r stand for such what we are doing today. Practically liberal decisions the Supreme Court honestly and actually accepted the con a thing democracy would be destroyed, every man in the United States realizes and all we have tried to do in the last its significance. clusion which Karl Marx accepts so com pletely, that there is a natural clash be one hundred and fifty-odd years would Mr. President, I am going fo take just come to an end. It would result in all a minute or two to talk about our com tween employer and employee; that it is persons adhering to a theory in regard mittee. But before doing so I want to essential that they throw the weight of to labor which is as fallacious as any call attention to the fact that the.present one class against the other. No such thing can be, but which is adhered to by committee, and its predecessors, some of theory exists in connection with the many industrial employer organizations the members of which are on the present philosophy or the thinking of the Ameri to this very day: First, the theory that committee, flew in the face of the Su can people in regard to their Constitu labor is in reality a commodity and, sec preme Court in the adoption of the Na tion, or in regard to the evolution of our ond, that it should be considered on the tional Labor Relations Act. They won industry-labor relations. None of the basis of cost production, thus losing sight dered whether that act was wholly con presidents of the great corporations of of. the fact that living men and women stitutional when they adopted it. They the United States that came before us constitute labor. had received expert advice in regard to were small men. The only criticism I Members of our present committee, the matter and knew, when they adopted have for those great men is that they do and of its predecessor, are responsible 1949 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 7233 for the change in the theory of national .Staff, and came before the Military Af three or four million persons to nearly economy. We have to stand by that fairs Committee for the first time, I was fifteen million. Entire industries began change. The Supreme Court has stood a little afraid that he had the same ideas to recognize organized labor-industries by it. The National L~bor Relations of Congress and congressional commit that did not recognize it at all at Act, plus the Fair Labor Standards Act, tees that many of our people get from the time the act of 1934 was passed. actually have given to the American reading the newspapers. The present There has been a complete change in laborer for the first time what he calls chairman of the committee was at the sentiment in the country, but no change his magna carta. committee meeting when I asked Gen of sentiment at all so far as the em When we passed the Fair Labor Stand eral Eisenhower if I could not introduce ployer associations are concerned. ards Act we flew in the face of the Su the committee to him. We went through I am not afraid of industry. The men preme Court again. The Supreme Court the entire list of 23 members, and gave who own or manage our great industries in 1918, in the Hammer versus Dagen their background. After we had finished are loyal Americans, and they under hart case, decided that Congress had no General Eisenhower said, "This is no stand the worth of their employees. But power-listen to this, Mr. President place for me." A mutuality of apprecia today I stand as much afraid of em that Congress had no power to regulate tion developed as a result of that simple ployer organizations, their judgment, the production of goods for commerce introduction. The general understood their selfish approach, and what they are where the goods themselves were harm the committee, and the committee un t rying to do, as I did in 1934, when we less. They did recognize that if goods derstood the general. The administra brought about this change. They are were of such a nature that they should tion of General Eisenhower was un where they were; and they accept so not be in commerce the Congress could doubtedly too short. There has never completely the fundamental thesis of the stop their production and stop their get been a time when relations were quite so inevitable clash between the employer ting into commerce, but if the goods good. and the employee that they cannot get themselves were harmless Congress had I a.m quite sure that if the American it out of their system. no power to act with respect to them. people were acquainted with the mem Mr. President, in that statement I have It then struck down a child-labor law bership of the committee they, too, probably said something I ought to prove. which made necessary the discussion of would realize that that which we are. I could never prove it to the satisfaction a constitu-Uonal amendment to overcome trying to do is grounded on statesman of an employer association. I cannot child labor. In the wake of the Dagen ship, and not merely on a notion of try prove it to the satisfaction of the man hart decision distinctions and qualifica ing to fulfill a slogan, or something Qf whom I shall quote, a man who was so tions were made in a long line of deci that l~ind. full of hate of what we were trying to sions. The Government seemed impo Of the present members of the com do that he went to my own city and told tent on a national scale to get rid of the mittee, three have been chairmen of the the people there that an employer had evil of child labor. Then in 1941, in a committee or its predecessor. One was ·as much chance before the Senator from case involving the Fair Labor Standards for a long time chairman of one of the Utah as a Jew had before Hitler. Then Act, which became a law in 1938, and be major committees of the House of Rep he denied making the statement. He came a law as the result of the report of resentatives. On the committee there had never been treated disrespectfully our committee, a unanimous Supreme are three farmer governors; the former by the Senator from Utah. He went Court overruled the Dagenhart case and mayor of a great city; and 9 lawyers with back on his word. But the trouble was the Fair Labor Standards Act remained wide and varied experience. When I say that the reporters banded together and in the iaw, and child labor was outlawed that, that is when I, as chairman of the assigned a statement that he had said to the extent that it is outlawed in that committee, begin to shiver in my shoes, it, and gave it to their managers. Let law. It seems to me that those two because the greatest of those lawyers are me say to him and to all men who use events mark: the two most remarkable on the other side. They will take ex such tactics that no one has come before things accomplished in the last decade ception to the things I am saying now. this committee and been treated in any and a half in our country in regard to I respect them with all my heart and thing but a friendly way. No one has the freeing of labor. all my soul, and will do my best to meet been treated before our committee in a I cite this history for two reasons. their arguments. way that he should not be treated. First, I wish to emphasize the bigness There are five university professors on I shall refer to some of the testimony of the subject which is before us. the committee. What kind of profes on March 26, 1934. I shall require a Second, I wish to point out the serious sors are they? Are they ordinary uni minute or two to read it into the ·RECORD. ness of the task facing the committee. versity professors? No. One of them However, I think the point I am trying What if we fail to repeal the Taft had experience on the War iiabor Board. to make is worth while. Another sat in judgment in many arbi Hartley law? Is the repeal of the Taft NAM TESTIMONY ON LABOR LEGISLATION IN Hartley law again to become a cam tration cases. Another had troops un 1934 AND 1935 paign issue? Is it to be discussed der his command during a period when again? Are we to ask for another martial law was invoked. I could go on On March 26, 1934, Mr. James A. amendment? Whatever we do here will and detail all the experiences which Emery, general counsel of° the National be reflected not only in 1950, but in 1952, have to do with the legislation which is Association of Manufacturers, presented because the next session of Congress will before us. The country is not going to testimony on behalf of the association be loath to act if we do not act. accept what we do without very seri before the Senate Committee on Edu I wish the people of the country could ously considering it, and considering the cation and Labor in opposition to Sen become acquainted with the committee leadership which this committee exer ator WAGNER'S bill to create a National which is handling this legislation. cises in Congress at this time. · Labor Board-Hearings on S. 2926, Sev When I say the committee, I mean all its Despite the fact that the committee enty-third Congress, second session, members, not merely the majority. I has faced opinions of the highest court pages 340-400. mean both the majority and the and has recommended legislation to The following year, on March 21 and minority. No more serious committee meet those opinions, the real opponents April 2, 1935, he testified against the ever served the United States Senate. of the change have remained the same, bill to create a National Labor Relations Two members of the committee were on and are talking today as they talked in Board, which became the Wagner Act_:_ the committee when the National Labor 1934 and 1935. What they said in 1934 Hearings on S. 1958, Seventy-fourth Relations Act was passed, so their and 1935 found placement in the Labor Congress, first session, pages 242-264, memories go back and cover the entire Management Act of 1947. So no matter 840-868. scope of labor legislation as it evolved what anyone may say, the opponents of Although that testimony was given 14 since the Supreme Court allowed Con the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 and 15 years ago, it is replete with state gress into these two great fields, if I ha.ve fought that act from that time until ments of position which are being ad may put it that way. Four members of the present. The things to which they vanced today, and some of which found the present committee were on the com objected in 1934 and 1935 found place legislative expression in the Taft-Hartley mittee when the Fair Labor Standards ment in the Labor-Management Act of amendments. Inasmuch as those posi Act became law. 1947. tions were formulated prior to the en When General Eisenhower, a great In that time labor organizations grew actment of the Wagner Act, they cannot ms-,n in every way, was made Chief of from a membership of approximately be said to have come into existence as 7234 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE JUNE 6 the result of alleged abuses in the admin ercising the natural circumstances of bar secured the agreement of the Senator istration of that law. gaining, impair its nature and extent, gratu-· from New York [Mr. WAGNER] to an itously presumes that he only exercises coer SCOPE OF NAM OPPOSITION amendment so providing (Hearings 1934, cion in the employment relation, or indulges p. 348). The following year Mr. Emery In both years the opposition of the in unfair practices • • • makes no effort to define, regulate, or prohibit the equally reproached the Senator from New York National issociation of Manufacturers for having changed his mind as to the to the proposed legislation was total. reprehensible and long-recognized practices and abuses of labor organization, destructive propriety of such an amendment. He That is best illustrated by lengthy ex of the rights of their fellow workers, of em complained that- cerpts from the testimony. Mr. Emery ployers, and of the public. (Heari:p.gs on said: Neither the original nor the reported bill S. 2926, 73d Cong., 2d sess., pp. 341, 342.) conform to the declaration of the President We resent the suggestion that the normal Now, Mr. Chairman, I will conclude very of March 1934: conduct of the employers should be out rapidly. Our conclusion, then, is that in the light of "The Government makes it clear that it lawed and the abnormal conduct of other favors no particular union or particular groups shall be encouraged by law. We the argument we have endeavored to present to you the bill is invalid in law and unsound form of employee organization or represen therefore oppose the measure before you be tation. ·The Government's only duty is to cause we believe it invalid in law and un in policy. By its structure, piece by piece, it is shaped into a design which by the author's secure absolute and uninfluenced freedom sound in policy. We will demonstrate it is of choice without coercion, restraint, or in not an exercise of the commerce power of own statements, by his rulings as a member of the Labor Board, by its unmistakable timidation from any source." (1935 bear Congress, but a deliberate and indefensible ings, p. 242, also see p. 858.) invasion of the right to regulate and even terms, is plainly intended to execute the compel local employment relations, which declaration of the president of the Ameri Legislative reflection of this insistence the Supreme Court without exception has can Federation of Labor. "There is no room by the National Association of Manufac declared are exclusively a subject for State in the United States for any other labor turers on provisions outlawing union and not Federal control; but assuming the movement." bill were within the commerce power, the The issue it presents is plain. It is no coercion is found in section 8 (b) <1) administrative body established, the author mere dispute over policy between employers CA) of the Taft-Hartley law. ity proposed, the manner of its exercise are and labor unions. It is a deliberate step ON THE EMPLOYER'S DUTY TO BARGAIN arbitrary, destructive of the fundamental toward a nation unionized by the act of COLLECTIVELY government. It would bloclt the pathways rights of the parties, and vest in an admin In 1934, Mr. Emery philosophized on istrative body the determination of questions of opportunity to all but members of a p ~i vi of fact and law, without judicial review, that leged organization. It would ultimately re the right of collective bargaining in the may be adjudicated only by a court. With sult in permitti... .g the transportation and following words: out itself being bound by the rules of evi marketing c.f goods produced by unions only. I recognize the right of the employer to deal dence, the bill undertakes to compel the re It would destroy the elementary rights to with them (employees) or refrain from viewing court to be bound by the Board's remain t·norganized, to select individual or dealing with them as they may merit for the finding of fact. The Board is neither re collective bargaining, and to determine its purpose of bargaining, because I want to quired to give reasonable notice of the char form. If one is not equal in bargaining with make it clear here-I think it is one of the acter of the complaint nor the time of its many, in.any are not equal in bargaining things overlooked in controversies-that the hearing. It sets up as offenses a series of power with one. One among 10,000 em right to organize any association does not acts so vaguely described as to violate the ployees dealing individually with a corpora carry with it by that fact a duty on the part essential requirements of a penal statute. tion is at the same disadvantage, it is true, of everyone else to deal with it on its terms. Many of such acts represent the normal and as the employer of one or more persons deal Men may organize a corporation, but it necessary intercourse between employer and ing with the power of a million men. Each does not carry any obligation on the part of employee. • • • The prohibition of such deserves the protection of the law. the public to deal with them when it is acts would dstroy the natural and valid rela The bill multiplies the tremeadous power organized, if it happens to be a merchan tionship between them. In form and sub for private and public injury of a vast combi dising or manufacturing corporation. stance, the measure violates elementary prin nation without any corresponding legal re "A union, or any other organization of ciples of justice and fair play. sponsibility. It is to be vested by law with the working men must attract those who wish to The policy of the measure would not equal power of economic life and death over the deal with it by the character of its mem ize the bargaining power of the employer and worker who does not accept its dictation or bership, by the performance of its contracts, employee, as the title suggests, nor do we be rejects its leadership. Its enactment would by its other evidence which it gives of good lieve it would encourage the amicable settle mean that the public could be continually conduct and responsibility through which ment of disputes between them. subjected to the '.nterruption of production relations between men are established and and distribution through a private associa ·sustained." (1934 hearings, p. 346.) Let me stop for a moment reading the tion, enforcing its demands by the threatened testimony of Mr. Emery. I should like paralyses of farm, factory, and mine. ON THE MAJORITY RULE PRINCIPLE to inquire, Mr. President, whether you The bill mt'lkes Government its recruit.ing In 1935, Mr. Emery had this to say think that today the president of any sergea.nt. Its philosphy, realized in actual about the proposal that the representa great corporation in the United States ity and attaining the announced goal of its tive selected by a majority of the em would say of the National Labor Rela creed, means that the public could obtain its food, its fuel, its clothes, its shelter, and ployees should represent all for bargain tions Act and what it has done that in all its daily needs, conveniences and re ing: form and substance that measure vio quirements, only under conditions fixed by If this bill goes into effect, employees will lates elementary principles of justice and a self-governing monopoly protected by an lose the right to make individual agreements, fair play. I do not think that is the case. administrative body against interference. and their labor agents and working condi From the beginning of the hearings on Every other form of organization and col tions will be determined by the majority. the Taft-Hartley law we had witnesses lective bargaining is outlawed and a single That means out of 5,000 men, 2,501 can de who said what Mr. Emery said away back private organization is lifted to exclusive termine the representatives and bargain for in 1934 and 1935, as I shall point out in control 9f employment, while relieved of the other 2,499. legal responsibility for the abuse of its If a man holdin& his membership volun a moment, namely, that everything was power. (Hearings on S. 2926, 73d Cong., tarily joins an organization, he can say, "I one-sided before the National Labor Re 2d sess., pp. 394, 395.) will disagree with them over matters of policy. lations Act came into existence. One of I no longer wish them to represent me in the my own friends from my section of the The first day of spring, Mr. Chairman, is matter of making agreements with respect country said that all that was the matter marked 'by consideration of an exotic in to how·s and wages"; then what does he do? was that we went too far, and now we legislation, which we trust will find little He may withdraw from the organization and would have to bring things back again. favor in your cultivated consideration. not from employment. An employee in any But I do not know of any witness who The bill is the lineal descendant or suc employment unit cannot, under the ma would condemn the progress made by the cessor in interest of S. 2926, introduced by jority principle as it operates in that em Mr. WAGNER, March 1, 1934. • * * It ployment unit, accept by arrangement with United States in its industry labor rela an employer, he cannot make an agreement tions in the past 14 or 15 years. I am contains all its original errors and no reme dial improvement. (Hearings on S. 1958, for himself, he can present a grievance and sure no one could honestly condemn what 74th Cong., 1st sess., p. 241.) utter a complaint, but he cannot bargain for has taken place in the evolution of our himself. He can only withdraw from em country's industry labor relations. "COERCION FROM ANY SOURCE" ployment. There is a fundamental right of Mr. Emery further said, when testify The proposition that a national labor both liberty and property in labor, and that is the right to make a contract for yourself. ing before the Committee on Education law, devoted to encouragement of col and in not having it made for you by one 1iot and Labor: lective bargaining, should outlaw coer selected by you. That principle h&.s been On the f'-:>ntrary, analysis shows it to be so cion practiced by unions, was advanced recognized ever since we hav.e had any law designed as to prevent the employer from ex- during the 1934 hearings. Mr. Emery (1935 hearings, pp. 261, 262). 1949 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 7235
Mr. President, I cannot refrain from The fundame~tal defect of all these pro their own accomplishments, and they stopping a moment to remind all Sena posals of this character 1s that they speak like to tell the people about them. I in terms of confliQt, and not of conference know of no other time in the history of tors present of a thing which I am sure and cooperation. They are written in terms they know. In the beginning there was of bitterness, in which son:ie party is to be ~ our country when a party which had objection on the part of employer asso forced to do something against his will, something to talk about which was con ciations to tbe recognition of majority whereas the best resul-ts are accomplished, structive and fine, instead of talking rule, but when representatives of the em not when parties are in that state of mind about and acceptihg that which had ployer assoCiations came before us, ex Qr when the arbitrator ls supposed to be in been accomplished, rejected it, outlawed amined the constitutions of labor unions, that state of mind (1934 hearings, p. 384). it, and completely nullified it, as the and saw what the members who joined SUMMARY ~reat Republican Party did. Thus, the under those constitutions agreed to~ they The following table indicates the prin- Labor-Management Act of 1947 stands subscribed to the rule that whatever the cipal positions-other than the attack on as a political aim, as a monument to a unions decided was binding upon them. . constitutionality-taken by the NAM in political program that was to destroy the How did a union make up its mind? Was Mr. Em~ry's 1934 and 1935 testimony. New Deal, but which was also to carry it by majority rule? Was it by unani Where feasible, the section of the Taft us back to a political philosophy of the mous rule? Or was its decision made by Hartley Act which marks cengressional late twenties, and to overcome whatever its officers? Majority rule is democratic 'adoption of these pre-Wagner Act NAM changes the Supreme Court and the under almost any sort of code that may proposals is indicated: Congress had brought about since 1932, be worked out. But minority rule is not the date of the passage of the Norris democratic. A rule which binds a per;. Hearings LaGuardia Act, the Republican Party's son or an organization to all the deci •-----i Taft-Hartley contribution to labor reform. Not only NAM position Act sions of the organization may or may 1934 1935 did they wipe out all the New Deal had not be a majority rule. But the fact re accomplished, but what had been ac mains that employer associations may complished by the Republican Party and Attack on "one-sidedness" 341 ------Sec. 8 (b), condemn majority rule on the part of of proposals. $03. a Republican Congress in the enactment Proposal to outlaw "coer- 348 242, 858 Sec. 8 (b) (1) of the Norris-LaGuardia Act. others, and then find themselves bound cion from any source." (A.). by rules very much tighter than ma- Opposition to majority ---- 261 (2) At the time the Norris-LaGuardia bill jority rule. · rule. became law a Senator who was President Opposition to closed shop __ ----- 854 (5) Sec. 8 (a) Q) ON THE RIGHT OF EMPLOYEES TO REFRAIN FROM {l(3) ,14(b). pro tempore of the Senate and who occu COLLEC'l'IVE BARGAINING Advocacy of employees' ---- 863 Sec. 7. pied the very chair which the Presiding right "to refrain." It is most interesting to nqte the D efen se of "company 355 ------ Officer is now occupying made a pro things that have found their way into unions." nouncement against the progressives in Proposal to outlaw juris------860 Sec. 8 (b) (4) the Taft-Hartley law, proposed by men dictional strikes. (D) . the Republican Party, calling them who were against the National Labor Re Opposition to protection of 372 ------ Sec. 9 (c) (3), "sons of the wild jackasses." That ex strikers as "employees." 8 (d) . pression remained for a long time. I do lations Act of 15 years ago. Objection that rules of evi- 341 244 Sec. 10 (b). The Taft-Hartley amendment of the dence do not apply. not know whether it had anything to do Objection to agency pro- 341 244 Sec. 10 (c) • with the defeat of that President pro . rights guaranteed in section 7 of the cedures. Wagner Act has its direct ancestor in Mr. Objection to inadequacy of 341 244 Sec. 10 (e), tempore, but, in any event, in 1932 he Emery's complaint, in 1935, that- judicial review. (f). ceased to be a Senator of the United Objection to Board as ---- 858 Sec. 3 (d). One thing this bill ignores, to which I beg "counsel, judge and States. I do not know anything about to call your express attention, in its declara: jury." politics, Mr. President, but I do know tion of policy is the principle so well stated in that when a political party turns its the Norris-LaGuardia declaration of policy, I am indeed sad to have to bring out back upon that which it has itself done and that ls that the right of association in in the presence of the Senate the fact there are probably persons doing the cludes the right to declirie to associate with others. that what has been said and was said planning other than the political party The right to decline to associate with oth so much in favor of having a counsel to itself. Political parties usually accept ers is one of the most valuable rights that administer the board's affairs, was not -change. They point with pride to the .man possesses. He is free to associate with an idea conceived in 1947 at all. It went progress created by their accomplish others as he sees it, but to refrain from doing away back to Mr. Emery, in 1934. It per ments. But let us see what the author so if he does not think his interest is ad sisted in the iqeas of employer associa of the Taft-Hartl€y law had to say with vanced by so doing. That is a right of lib tions until 1947, and. it found complete erty, a right of property (1935 hearings, p. reference to what he had accomplished. lodgment in the 1947 act. This statement, Mr. President, is 853). That, Mr. President, by way of history, ON "COMPANY UNIONS" taken from chapter XV of a book entitled and by way of summing up the way in "Our New National Labor Policy," writ Section 5 (3) of S. 2926, the forerunner which the laws I J;J.ave mentioned have ten by Representative Hartley, from of section 8 (2) of the ·Wagner Act, and grown and developed. I proceed now to which I now read: section 8 (a) (2) of the Taft-Hartley a discussion of the Labor-Management Act proposed to make it an unfair labor No sooner had the Taft-Ha:rtley law been Act of 1947 and its political significance. enacted over the Truman veto than the Re practice for an emplE>yer- The expression of one of t~e authors of publican leaders of both the House and Sen To initiate, participate in, supervise, or the act, which, incidentally, was not ate decided that no more legislation to which influence the forJl1ation, constitution, by uttered as the other statements I have organized labor could possibly object would laws, other governing rules, operations, pol quoted were, in the 1930's, but after the be passed until after ~he presidential elec icies or election of any labor organization. Taft-Hartley bill became a law, shows tion of 1948. Mr. Emery def ended the right of em- that one of the authors of the act at Mr. PresideRt, it is all right for a man ployers- · least realized that he had accomplished not in public life to open his heart, but To initiate a suggestion, suggest a plan, something of great political significance, it is dangerous to let out the secrets of or offer a method of intercourse, in one of and that the purpose of the Taft-Hart the planners of the Republican Party and the most delicate and importan.t of the ley Act wa.s not merely to reform indus to say they have done enough violence to relations of life (1934 hearings, p. 355) . try-labor relations, but to destroy the organized labor; in other words "Be quiet. ON LEGISLATIVE COMPULSION GENERALLY theory of industry-labor relations as We shall not do anything else for which Mr. Emery opposed what he conceived they had previously existed under the we can be criticized. Probably the voters to be the compulsive aspects of Senate New Deal. Its purpose not only was to will forget about it by election time." bill 2926, as follows: destroy what had been accomplished in industry-labor relations under the New Let me again read what he said: I want to insist, Mr. Chairman, that you Deal, but also to initiate the destruction No sooner had the Taft-Hartley law been have ample machinery in the Department enacted over the Truman veto than the Re of Labor in the character of the conclllators of all the economic, social and political publican leaders of both the House and Sen and mediators whom you chose to do a very changes that had eome about in past ate decided that no more legislation to which em~ctive service in disputes 1n the United eo years. organized labor could possibly object would States, not by coercion, not by compulsion, Political parties usually "'point with be passed until after the presidential election but by persuasion a.nd good will. pride." They are always happy about of 1948, XCV-456 7236 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE JUNE 6 Why did they so decide, I wonder? Deal. At the same time, it points the· way Mr. MORGAN . . Mr. HALLECK told me that he Then he goes on to say: toward a method to be utilized in correcting would see that I got paid for my services. other errors of government initiated during Now, he said, "I do not know whether I can I h ave never felt that the great body of the the 1930's. get you paid by the National Congress or electorate which has been faithful and loyal Our final goal is, and must be, a strong whether I can get you paid by the Republican to the Republican Party during the years but fair central government; one not too big National Committee, or whet her we will have would have approved this decision. to be managed but, on the contrary, small to take up a collection. But you will be paid I hope he is right. enough to accomplish the intelligent devel for your services." opment of this land into the country it Mr. PERKINS. Did they pay that fee at one Nevertheless, the decision was made and ought to be. time, the Republican National Committee, or adhered to with a steadfastness worthy of a. The Taft-He.rtley Act is but a step toward did they pay it by installments? better cause. that goal, bu.t it is certainly the first defir.iite Mr. MORGAN .. They paid it by installments. I regretted it at the time, and regret it step this Nation has taken since the merry Mr. PERKINS. You do tell the committee now, both personally and on behalf of the go-round began in 1933. that you received only $7,500 from the Repub Republican Party. lican National Committee; am I correct in On pages 192, 193, and 194, he goes on Mr. President, I cannot help saying that statement? · to say: · · what I said in the beginning. There· are Mr. ·MORGAN. That is correct. political aspects to the discussion of this To prevent this from sounding like a com subject, and that is one of them. But Thus my task in the opening state pos!te of the usual political speech, I shall so completely were the forces of reaction ment is not merely to lay the ground for be specific as to the sort of governmental the repeal of the Taft-Hartley Act, but activity which is costing us more than we in control in 1947 that the Republican can justify. Congress actually swept aside its own it is also to state why the attempt was The Fair Labor Standards Act- accomplishment, the Norris-LaGuardia made to attain the three unities which Act, .and handed over completely its our committee did attain: Unity of ad Imagine, Mr.' President-the act which leadership to reaction. He who pays the ministration thinking respecting what brought some sort of justice to forty or bill is usually responsible for the pur the President meant to put into law in :fifty million workers- poses of the feast. Who paid for the his message; unity of the democratic The Fair Labor Standards Act is typical writing of the Labor-Management Act membership of our committee; and unity of the New Deal legislat ion enacted to com of 1947? I do not know. But here is of the labor organizations who have come bat the · depression. Such legislation failed to the support of our bill. These three to affect the depression one way or another the testimony of one who claims to have and it has definitely outlived the usefulness written it. I read from the transcript of unities must be preserved. In handling ·it was supposed to have had. hearings befere the House Committee the bill I will do my .very best to preserve The Federal Communications Commission on Education and Labor, March 18, 1949, them. They ought to be preserved. has expanded its act ivities far beyond its pages 2514, 2515, and 2516. Repre Since the Taft-Hartley law has become simple original function of dividing up the sentative PERKINS, who evidently was political, since we campaigned over the available wavelengths among various radio presiding, said: whole Nation for its repeal, since I have stations. Mr. PERKINS. I want to make the obser made the point that under th,e theory The Federal Power Commission represents of. popular sovereignty, if the .members and perpetrates unwarranted encroachments vation that I have been wondering ever since upon the individu al righ ts. we started these hearings, up until I heard of a political party cannot stand by the The innumerable Federal agencies charged this witness, just. who prepared the act. I promises of their political party we sim with conflicting responsibilities in the field am glad to have this information, along with ply cannot have popular sovereignty, of housing have contribut ed more to the the other counsel that assisted you in the since we have arrived at the point-where shortages of housing than any single factor preparation of the act. · we have gone so far as to ask the admin except the wartime drain on materials. Not I notice from your statement that you istration to unite its forces in regard to one has come to grips with the heart of the s.pplied approximtely 24 hours a· day in draft this law, I say it is incumbent upon us housing problem, which is in the inefficiency ing the act for a period of several months, of the labor force in the construction field, and that you received no compensation until to respect at all hazards the political due in part to labor union abuses but gen: several months after the bill became law. aspects of what we are doing. erally to outmoded and old-fashioned build You furt her stated that when you were paid I know that no matter what we may ing methods still in use. compensation, you were paid by the Repub do, this question will remain in politics All of the top executive departments are lican National Committee, and that you had for a long time. I have shown the Sen over-staffed and are at tempting to do far h ad no contract with Representat ive HALLECK ate, from the testimony of a representa more than Congress ever authorized and more or Mr. Hartley concerning what your com tive of an employers' association, that than the people want done. pensation would be. Inasmuch as you ap such associations have advocated This is a great Nation. plied yourself so diligently, and you have dis through one, two, three, four adminis But the greatest of nation s cannot last closed the fact to the committee, would you forever carryin g a load of nonproductive Gov. mind telling the commit tee just how much trations the same principles, and have ernment officials and employees. We must compensation you received from the Republi attempted to accomplish the same pur develop a method t o shrink our Federal can Nation al Committee for this difficult task poses, but the associations have given establishment, an d quickly. that you have detailed to the committee? up much of their zeal, much .of their in I am well aware of t h e political difficulties Mr. MORGAN. No sir; I would not. I re terest, and have come to support as wise of eliminating the New Deal social legis ceived $7,500. policy the labor policy initiated in 1934 lation. It cannot be repealed at a single Mr. PERKINS. That is from the Republican and 1935. stroke. National Committee? I repeat, Mr. President, we cannot es All legislation of t h is type requires interim Mr. MORGAN. Yes, sir. treatment. To begin wit h, too m any persons Mr. PERKINS. And also, how long did it t ake cape the political aspect of the question. have come to depend upon the helping h and you to earn that money, if you do not mind I want every Senator on this side .of the of government for that h and to be removed telling the committee? Chamber to realize t hat fact. We h ave without a period of adjustm ent such as we Mr. MORGAN. I started work on the_bill in arrived at the point where the people of provided for both labor and m anagement January 1947, and my work on the bill went the country can ask, and ask with real under the Taft-Hartley Act. through the conference committee on the meaning, "When your political part y But as soon as all segments of the populace bill; so it was a period of about 6 m on ths. speaks, does it mean what it says? When become aware of the tremendous cost of the I did not m ean to imply in answerin g your your President spea,ks, does he mean particular benefit s of governmental labor question the way I did that I spent 24 hours relations agencies as compared to reduced a day. There were periods during my work what he says?. When you pose as Demo tax bills and we provide interim legislation on the bill when it was morning, noon, and crats and pose as supporters of adminis which does not benefit any particular group, night. There were other periods when there tration bills, do you mean what you say?" then, and only then, can we make appreciable would be a day, 2 days, or 3 days when I Those three questions, as I now pose headway in reducing the size of government. would be engaged in other matters. them, are probably not politically wise Before the 1948 elect ions are finished, the Mr. PERKINS. You were looking to :W.Ll'. HAL to pose. Perhaps I should leave space Taft-Hartley Act will be h ailed as the great LECK and :Mr. Hartley as paymasters for your for our Democratic forces to go in all est single contribution the Republican Party services, were you not? has made to this Nation. · Mr. MORGAN. Yes, sir. directions. However, I do not want to To my mind, the Taft-Hartley Act repre Mr. PERKINS. And from your conversations do so. I want to hold them to the unity sents the greatest single contribution· made with those two gentlemen while you were of the majority of the Committee on by any political party for the past two dec drafting the act, you knew that you would Labor and Public Welfare. I want to ades. It corrects in a single piece of legis be well paid for your services, even though hold them to the unity attained in the lation the outstanding mistakes of the New you did not ask them directly? administration. I want to hold them to 1949 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 7237 the unity we have accomplished by way population and every individual in our But I .also agree with him in his further of labor supp0rt. But above all, Mr. broad and rich land a fair deal. While remarks, in which he said: President, I want to be able to tell the Republicans talked of unity in the ranks, I think all we can say about it with i·espect people of the United States, that so far assuming that the generalship would rest to that issue is that in a good many States as the Democratic Party is concerned, in the hands of a privileged few, we Dem the Taft-Hartley law was an issue, made so that party stands on its pledges, it stands ocrats made clear in our campaign plat in the campaign as far as State elections were concerned, and as far as the President was by its President, and its members stand form that-. concerned, by his reference to it. It un by one another. We reject the principle-which we have doubtedly had its effects on the election. Mr. President, we now come to what always rejected, but which the Republican I repeat, that taking the two campaigns in to me is a most diffi.cul t task, and one Eightieth Congress enthusiastically ac comparison, I think the conclusion must be which may bring about some repetition, cepted-that Government exists for the reached that a majority of the people who but which at the same time is necessary. benefit of the privileged few. did vote expressed a preference for the gen I have already stated that the law is To serve the interest of all and not the few; eral program as offered by the Democrat ic to assure a world in which peace and justice Party in contrast with the program offered complex. I have said that the decisions can prevail; to achieve security, full produc by the Republican Party. I say that was the of the courts, the decisions of the board, tion and full employment-this is our plat view of a majority of those who voted, keep and every phase of the law have a bear form. ing in mind the fact that the Democratic ing on what we are trying to do. I have Party, as far as the Presidential race is con already stated that the primary aim is to Put side by side the following state cerned, did not get a majority of the votes, repeal the Taft-Hartley Act, and by re ments of the Republican candidate for but they got more than we got. So to the pealing it I mean to repudiate its spirit, President in his campaign speech of Oc extent that they got more votes than we got its intent, the reasons why it was en tober 11, 1948, and the platform pledge I am inclined to attribute it to the fact that of the Democratic Party, and the choice it represented a greater approval of those acted, and the purposes behind it quite voters for the general :program of the Demo as much as I mean the repeal of the let the American people had to make in the crats, arid a tendency on the part of the ter of the act. 1948 election can be clearly seen. Gov voters to express a general disapproval of our Therefore, Mr. President, it is neces ernor Dewey attempted to give assurance program. sary in opening the debate to go into to the voters in the ranks of labor that these matters in great detail. But when they did not need to fear too greatly the So even if there are some who think I have finished I hope I shall have at consequences of a Republican victory. that the election was not a mandate to least proved the simple contention of But he then went on to defend the Taft the Congress to repeal the Taft-Hartley the committee that the Taft-Hartley Act Hartley Act, which the Republican plat Act, as my good friend from Oregon should be repealed. form (.iescribed as a sensible reform of claims, it nevertheless clearly was an en Mr. President, in opening the debate the labor law, and to attack President dorsement of the Democratic Party plat on Senate bill 249 to repeal the Labor Truman bitterly for his veto of the act. . form and program; and central in our Management Relations Act, 1947, I do Against these statements, what did we platform and program is the repeal of not think I need to emphasize its im Democrats say about the Taft-Hartley the Taft-Hartley Act. portance to the American people. Two Act during the election campaign? What At any rate, Mr. President, as a result years have elapsed since that act, which did our Democratic platform say? You of the election we again have before us we commonly Fefer to as the Taft-Hart know the answer to these questions, Mr. the question of putting our Federal labor ley Act, was passed. In that period it President. President Truman, from one relations legislation on a sound, con has been clear that it has been taking us end Of the country to the other, de structive basis. The Committee on La • down the dangerous road toward Gov nounced the Taft-Hartley Act and called bor and Public Welfare pointed this out ernment intervention and dictation in for its repeal. Our Democratic platform in its report, saying: industry-labor relations. It has had stated unequivocally: The facts concerntng the Taft-Hartley Act and its operation were then fully presented harmful eiiects on harmonious labor re We advocate the repeal of the Taft-Hartley to the American people. Now the task of the lations throughout our land. Last No Act. It was enacted by the Republican present Congress is to abandon the destruc vember the American people in unmis Eightieth Congress over the President's veto. tive principles of that law and to restore our takeable terms decided that its enact That act was proposed with the promise it national labor policy to a sound basis. ment was a mistake-a mistake which would secure "the legitimate rights of both This is the challenge before the Congress. should be rectified by this Congress by employees and employers in their relations repealing that act and by going back to affecting commerce." It has failed. What are the principles which should the sound and constructive principles of The number of labor-management disputes guide us in meeting this challenge?· the National Labor Relations Act. has increased. The number of cases before What policies should we advance? What the National Labor Relations Board has more pitfalls should we avoid? These are I say advisedly that in the election last than doubled since the act was passed, and questions we must answer, Mr. President, November the American people decided efficient and prompt administration is be in the course of this debate. that the Taft-Hartley Act was a mistake coming more and more difficult. It has en- and should be repealed. I am aware that -couraged litigation in labor disputes and In his state of the Union message of the results of that election cannot be at undermined the established American policy January 5, 1949, the President outlined of collective bargaining. to the Cong·ress his ideas as to the man tributed to any single issue or factor. ner in which this challenge should be Yet perhaps no single question before Putting these statements beside those met. He said: the people in that election more clearly of the Republican candidate and the Re demonstrated the character of the choice If we want to keep our economy running publican platform, can anyone say, Mr. in high gear, we must be sure that every t~ people had before them than the President, that the American people did group has the incentive to make its full con Taft-Hartley Act. not have a clear-cut issue before them on tribution to the national welfare. At present," That choice was between two essen the principles of sound labor-relations the working men and women of the Nation tially confticting theories of government. legislation in the 1948 election cam are unfairly discriminated against by a stat In the 1948 campaign, as in all previous paign? I do not contend that the deci ute that abridges their rights, curtails their campaigns since World War I, the theory sion which was made by the people when constructive efforts, &nd hampers our system of free collective bargaining. That statute which the Republican Party asked the they went to the polls after the great is the Labor-Management Relations Act of American people to accept was that if campaign debates were over was solely a 1947, sometimes called the Taft-Hartley Act. sufficient protection is given to, and Gov verdict on the Taft-Hartley Act. In an That act should be repealed. ernment is not allowed to interfere too address to the Senate on March 18, 1949, The Wagner Act should be reenacted .. much with, the privileged few, the wel my very able and distinguished colleague· However, certain improvements, which I fare of the people as a whole will take on the Committee on Labor and Public recommended to the Congress 2 years ago, care of itself. In the 1948 campaign, as Welfare, the Senator from Oregon [Mr. are needed. Jurisdictional strikes and un justifiable secondary boycotts should be pro in previous campaigns, the theory which MoRSE] stated-in my judgment, quite hibited. The use of economic forces to de the Democratic Party, on the other hand, correctly-that the election- cide issues arising out of the interpretation asked the American people to adopt, has could not be cited as a mandate for any spe of existing contracts should be prevented. been that the obligation of Government cific action on labor legislation in the form Without endangering our democratic free is to assure to every segment of our of bill A as contrasted with blll B. doms, means should be provided for settling 7238 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE JUNE 6 or preventing strikes in vital industries which principals and a draft of a bill was sub ·1ng under the conditions of a prosperous aff€ct the public interest. mitted to me. Thus, the bill represents economy, collective bargaining ·relations The Department of Labor should be rebuilt and strengthened and those units properly the composite thinking of the v~rious which were established in many of our belonging within that Department should be Government labor agencies as to the great industries before the Taft:.Hartley placed in it. manner in which the President's recom Act was passed, and the highest level of mendations could best be carried out. employment we have ever known in this Early in January I called a meeting in As the Secretary of Labor said when he country. There has been little incen my office in an effort to devise an orderly appeared before the committee on the tive, as yet, for employers to utilize to plan of procedure in regard to legislation first day of our hearings: the full the advantages which the Taft to carry out the recommendations of the The present bill which. is before you was Hartley Act has provided for them. We President. drafted as a result of the suggestions and do not know yet how the pro\tisions of I go into detail because, with the ex the proposals ·that were offered, not as the that act would work in a period of de ception of the President's message to the official presentation of these departments, clining business activity and a fluid labor Congress, every move was initiated by but as the thinking of probably the individ market. Nevertheless, th~ record of 2 those of us in the Congress-largely by ual or head of the department, although years' experience under the act shows myself. We talk about the President's they do not assume full responsibility, and ·the beginnings of trends sufficiently dan bill, the President's amendments, and so the composite drafting of the members of _the various departments. gerous as to require the Congress to take forth. That is all right. Loosely that steps immediately to repeal the act be is correct, but that is not actually the Before reporting Senate bill 249, Mr. fore the full impact of its destructive case, because t.he agencies of Govern ·President, the Committee on Labor and force is felt upon our economy. ment acted in response to my request. Public Welfare held hearings from Jan The reason for this is, of course, Mr. That which they did was in keeping with uary 31 through February 23, 1949. The President, that the basic theory of the my request. committee has had t:he benefit of the Taft-Hartley Act-the theory that our Those with whom I conferred at that views and suggestions of the heads of the labor legislation should undertake to de meeting were Mr. Maurice J. Tobin, the various Government labor agencies fine and delimit the intricate and inter- Secretary of Labor; Mr. Clark Clifford, which participated in the preparation of ·related rights and obligations of em special adviser to the President; Mr. the legislation. It heard a number of ployees and· employers and of unions and Paul M. Herzog, the Chairman of the .distinguished experts in the field of labor their members, rather than to promote National Labor Relations Board, and his law and labor relations, such as Mr. Wil collective bargaining-is false and will colleague, our former colleague in the liam H. Davis, former Chairman of the not work in our free American economy. Senate, former Senator Murdock, who National War Labor Board; Dr. William This theory is stated in the very first is a member of that Board; and Mr. M. Leiserson, formerly Chairman of the section of the act, and runs through Cyrus s. Ching, the Federal Mediation National Mediation Board, and member every change which the act thereafter and Conciliation Director. of the National Labor Relations Board; made in or added to the preexisting Fed As a result of that meeting, which was and Prof. Nathan P. Feinsinger, a mem eral law with respect to industry-labor held in my office, a plan of procedure was ber of the faculty of the .Law School of relations. devised. I stated at its close: · the University of Wisconsin, and for In a field as highly sensitive as that The repeal of the Taft-Hartley law was a merly member of the National War La of the relations between employers and campaign promise and is also part of the bor Board. In addition, the committee employees, we cannot afford to have the • President's recommendation. It is not all received voluminous testimony from rep settlement of controversies constantly of the President's recommendations but it resentatives of the major labor organiza dependent upon the decisions of adminis affords a good starting point and one which tions and from individual employers, will furnish n clear-cut issue and not result trative bodies and the cou.rts, as must be in confusion. No one knows better than I employer associations, and their spokes the case when we try to balance and de that the simple repeal of the Taft-Hartley men. . In all, more than 70 persons were fine their respective rights and obliga: Act will not suffice. heard; and the written statements of 'tions. Labor and industry mm'!t work many more were received and made a together, whether they like it or not; I say that because the Taft-Hartley part of the record of the committee hear ·and we must provide means to enable law was built upon the National Labor ings. The record of our hearings on them to do so successfully and harmo Relations Act, and much in the National this legislation, in fact, ex.ceeds in vol niously. If we go on the principle that Labor Relations Act was reenacted in the ume the hearings held before the Com we must alternately arm and defend Taft-Hartley law. No one expected that mittee on Labor and Public Welfare on unions and employers against each other, · it would be desired to repeal the Taft proposed labor legislation during the as if they were constantly contending one H~rtley law to the extent of abolishing first session of the Eightieth Congress, with the other, we cannot write sound the labor-industry provisions of the act from which the Taft-Hartley .Act legislation that will insure stable and which had been functioning for the past emerged. constructive labor-management rela 12 or 15 years. Our findings with respect to the opera tions. I continue with the statement which I tion of the Taft-Hartley Act are set · Mr. President, it is a curious thing made at the close of the meeting to forth in the report which we have filed that no one has preached more eloquently w~1ich I .have referred: to accompany Senate bill 249. That re or more earnestly for unity and harmo.ny The Government's labor program under port contains a detailed record of ex than did the Republican candidate for the theory of the National Labor Relations perience under that act which shows President in the last election campaiin. Act has been functioning for over ::. decade. conclusively that the act has- Thus it is upon that act that we should Yet I venture to assert that no piece of properly proceed in' building our law. Know First. Increased Government interfer legislation in many years has had a ing that I will be called upon for such ence with and has restricted free collec greater effect than the Taft-Hartley Act legislation, I am asking each of you to tive bargaining; in creating disunity, in promoting discord appoint your best informed labor law expert Second. Hampered workers in the ex between employers and emi:)loyees. This to meet jointly under the leadership of the ercise of basic rights; act assumes a basic antagonism between Secretary of Labor and proceed in the prepa Third. Provided unsound procedures the interests of labor and industry. We ration of a bill and be ready when called and administrative structures; Democrats do not agree that any such upon. Fourth. Dealt with matters of public antagonism is necessary between em They immediately went to work, and policy outside the proper scope of labor ployers and their employees organized they did as good a job as any great group management legislation; and in unions. We believe they can, and could have done. Following that meet Fifth. Discriminated unfairly against experience has shown they can, work to ing the legal staffs of the various Gov labor organizations. gether and solve their own· problems, if ernment agencies drafted alternate pro Experience under the act thus far, of there is scope for free collective bar posals dealing with the problems outlined course, shows only the beginnings of the gaining. That is proved by the history by the President in his State of the trends which may be expected to de of industry-labor relations. There are Union message. Their proposals were velop from the operation of the Taft corporations with employees organized then thoroughly threshed out by their Hartley Act. The act has been operat- into unions that have not had strikes 1949 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 7239 for more than two generations. The re work, a national emergency arising from I do not want to read the law on this lationships are entirely harmonious. a threatened or actual work stoppage in subject; but I shall place in the RECORD a That has occurred under free collective a Vital industry that affects the public statement concerning the Surplus Prop bargaining. interest can be averted: erty Act of 1944. That law was not I do not deny, Mr. President, that labor Third. Restoring the Federal anti-in enacted as the result of a resolution organizations have at times arrogated to junction statutes with the full force and adopted by a manufacturers' associa themselves arbitrary power, and that effect they had before the Taft-Hartley tion. It did not come about as the result there h!:J.Ve been abuses by employees and Act was enacted, and restoring the right of someone's speech on free enterprise. unions of their lawful rights; but I say of labor organizations to make expendi It was enacted because it represented that we cannot build a sound Federal la tures in connection with Federal elec the thinking of such men as the Senator bor-relations law upon the basis of pro tions; from Colorado [Mr. JOHNSON], who was hibitions and restrictions, as if such prac Fourth. Retaining the present five a member of the committee, the Senator tices were the rule rather than the excep member National Labor Relations Board from Alabama [Mr. HILL], who was a tion. We must build upon the principles and continuing to allow panels of three member of the conference committee, the so well stated by Dr. William M. Leiser members of the Board to hear and decide former Republican Senator from Ver son in his testimony before the Commit cases, as at present; mont [Mr. AUSTIN] who was on the con tee on Labor and Public Welfare. He Fifth. Reestablishing the United States ference committee, and the Senator from said: Conciliation Service in the Department Utah. I could name other Senators. I think the policy must be, basically, col of Labor; specifying simply and clearly The only definition of "free enterprise" lective bargaining. There is nothing sac the functions and duties of the Service which was written into the law of the rosanct about the Wagner Act. It will need and the conduct of conciliation officers; land, that I know of, was written as the amendment from time to time, like any other defining the duties of employers and em result of the activities of per-sons who law, but one idea mu'st always be held: were supposed to be opposed to free Anything that interferes with collective bar ployees, and their representatives, with gaining that we did not know about before, reference to the making and maintaining enterprise, and who in their political put an amendment in, and there will be a of collective-bargaining agreements and campaigns are always accused of trying good deal. But nothing more than that participation in meetings called by the to destroy this great free system. I need should be done. Anything that weakens col Conciliation Service; and providing for a not read these things, but I ask that lective bargaining we do not want as an Labor-Management Advisory Commit there be inserted in the RECORD at this amendment. And the Taft-Hartley law is tee, to be composed of an equal number point in my remarks, the objectives of full of provisions that go counter to the col Public Law 457, Seventy-eighth Con lective bargaining policy and weaken col of representatives of labor and manage lective bargaining. ment and one or more public members, gress, the Surplus Property Act of 1944, to advise the Secretary of Labor on ques to stand, I hope, forever, as a part of our Senate bill 249, as reported, is founded tions of policy and administration affect industry-labor aspirations and hopes, on these principles. Like the Wagner ing the work of the Conciliation Service. and as a clear definition of ·the way in · Act, it looks to collective bargaining as The bill contains a savings clause which democracy should work. the way to achieve peaceful and con under which the provisions of titles II · There being no objection, the state structive labor-management relations. and III will not apply with respect to ment was ordered to be printed in the It accomplishes this by- ' persons subject to the Railway Labor RECORD, as follows: First. Repealing the Labor-Manage- .Act. Exemption with respect to em- PUBLIC LAW 457, SEVENTY-EIGHTH CONGRESS 1 ment Relations Act, 1947; · ployers subject to the Railway Labor Act OBJECTIVES " Second. Reenacting the National La from the provisions of title I will continue SEC. 2. The Congress hereby declares that bor Relations Act of 1935 with amend to be provided under section 2 (3) of the obje.ctives of this act are to facilitate and ments which will- the National Labor Relations Act, as regulate the orderly disposal of surplus (a) promote and protect collective amended. property so as- bargaining, as provided in the National These provisions of Senate bill 249, as ( a) to assure the most effective use of such Labor Relations Act, by enabling the Na property for war purposes and the common reported, are wholly consistent, Mr. defense; tional Labor Relations Board to protect President, with the basic ideas and prin (b) to give maximum aid in the reestab employers from strikes and secondary ciples of a sound national labor policy lishment of a peacetime economy of free boycotts designed to cause them to recog the policy that the Congress laid down independent private enterprise, the develop nize a union in violation of the act or in as law of the land in· 1935 when it en ment of the maximum of independent opera furtherance of interunion jurisdictional acted the National Labor Relations Act. tors in trade, industry, and agriculture, and disputes; No provision of the bill takes away rights to stimulate full employment; (b) strengthen the national labor (c) to facilitate the transition of enter from anyone who needs them for his pro prises from wartime to peacetime production policy declared in the Wagner .Act by re tection. Every provision of the bill is and of individuals from wartime to peace quiring the parties to a collective bar clear and readily understandable. It time employment; gaining agreement to give the United does not contain a provision that is not (d) to discourage monopolistic practices States Conciliation Service 30 days' no-· workable. and to strengthen and preserve the competi tice of desire to terminate or modify the In approaching this proposed legisla tive position of small business concerns in agreement and by declaring the policy tion I ask the Senate to bear in mind an economy of free enterprise; of the United States to be that collective certain· basic principles and historical ( e) to foster and to render more secure bargaining agreements contain mutually family-type farming as the traditional and · facts. desirable pattern of American agriculture; satisfactory procedures by which either First, Mr. President, it is important to (f) to afford returning veterans an oppor party to the agreement may refer issues bear in mind that the kind of economy tunity to establish themselves as proprietors arising out of the interpretation or appli we want to maintain in America is a free of agricultural, business, and professional cation of the agreement to :final and economy in which the greatest number enterprises; binding arbitration; of our people can enjoy individual liberty (g) to encourage and foster post-war em (c) expand the scope of free collective and an American standard of living, ployment opportunities; bargaining, since State laws restrict (h) to assure the sale of surplus property Those words remind us of what we con tn such quantities and on such terms as will ing union security and the check-off stantly hear. Nearly all employers at discourage disposal to speculators or for will no longer be effective to bar col banquets express themselves as wanting speculative. purposes; lective-bargaining agreements dealing to maintain free enterprise, individual (i) to establish and develop foreign mar with these subjects, except where purely liberty, and similar things, with which kets and promote mutually advantageous · local enterprises are involved; and all of us heartily agree. It is interesting economic relations between the United States (d) provide procedures whereby, under to note that those things are in accord and other countries by the orderly disposi the auspices of the Government, includ tion of surplus property in other countries; ance with the law of the land. When we (j) to avoid dislocations of the domestic ing the findings and recommendations of wrote the Surplus Property Act, we asked economy and of international economic rela an emergency board appointed by the that it should be administered in such a tions; President, and during a 30-day waiting way as to preserve our established eco (k) to foster the wide distribution of sur period while the Board is engaged in its nomic theory. plus commodities to consumers at fair prices; 7240 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE JUNE 6 (1) to effect broad and equitable distribu I ems between themselves. In that recognlzed sources of industria~ strife and tion of surplus property; . period the Government was often unrest" by declaring them to be unfair (m) to achieve the prompt and full utiliza tion of surplus property at fair prices to brought into labor disputes, but usually labor practices. Such unfair labor prac the consumer through disposal at home and only through injunctions-until the tices cowd be prevented under appro abroad with due regard for the protection of Norris-LaGuardia Anti-Injunction Act priate procedures administered by the free markets and competitive prices from of March 4, 1932, put an end to this National Labor Relations Board. dislocation resulting from uncontrolled futile and unfair device-and with crim- The principal obstacles to free collec dumping; • inal prosecutions under the antitrust tive bargaining which most commonly (n) to utilize normal channels of trade statutes. Almost invariably these ac- prevailed befor_e the National Labor Re and commerce to the extent consistent with efficient and economic distribution and the tions were directed against the activities lations Act was passed were certain em promotion of the general objectives of this of labor organizations. That policy was ployer practices, such as the "yellow-dog act (without discriminating against the productive of conflict and controversy. contract," the company union, and the establishment of new enterprises); It undercut the living standards of our refusal of employers to bargain or deal ( o) to promote production, employment of people and undermined the economic with unions representing their employees. labor, and utilization of the productive structure of our country. The lack of Therefore, the act addressed itself to capacity and the natural and agricultural an affirmative national labor policy, it providing machinery by which such prac resources of the country; can truthfully be said, played no small tices could be stopped. (p) to foster the development of new independent enterprise; part in bringing on the great depression The National Labor Relations Act was ( q) to prevent insofar as possible unusual of the early thirties. During that period in all respects specifically devised to pro and excessive profits being made out of sur we not only did not have a sound na- mote and maintain free collective bar plus property; tional labor policy-we had, in fact, no gammg. Thus, employers were prohib (r) to dispose of surplus property as national labor policy at all. . ited from interfering -with or coercing promptly as feasible without fostering mo With the adoption of section 7 (a) of their employees in the right to farm, join, nopoly or restraint of trade, or unduly dis turbing the economy, or encouraging hoard the National Industrial Recovery Act or assist labor organizations for the pur ing of such property, and to facilitate prompt and the National Labor Relations , Act, pose of collective bargaining or other redistribution of such property to consumers; however, the Federal Government began mutual aid or :Protection. IjilliploYers (s) to displose of surplus Government to exert an affirmative influence in pro- were also forbidden to dominate or in owned transportation facilities and equip moting industry-labor peace through the terfere with the formation or adminis ment in such manner as to promote an ade protection of collective bargaining. tration of labor unions, or to adopt quate and economical national transporta With the adoption of that policy, we for employment practices discriminating tion system; and the first time put ourselves in a position against employees because of their mem ( t) except as otherwise provided, to obtain for the Government, as nearly as possible, where our free-enterprise system could bership in a labor union or because they the fair value of surplus property upon its begin to assure more equitable distribu- had filed charges with the National Labor disposition. tion of the Nation's wealth among the Relations Board. . Employex:s .were .told people of our country and more . stable they could not refuse to bargain with the Mr. THOMAS of Utah. Mr. President, and harmonious relations between em- duly chosen representatives of their em · I am sure that if anyone will refer to ployers and workers. ployees. The act set up procedures the statement, he will discover it to be The theory of both the National Indus- whereby such representatives could. be as good a definition as can be made of trial Recovery Act and the National La- chosen peacefully, without the necessity free enterprise and of its meaning under bor Relations Act was clearly set forth of resort to strikes for recognition or our democratic system . . in two paragraphs of section 1 of the other forms of economic coercion. Second, we must remember that this is latter act which I believe cannot be read Just as the Norris-LaGuardia Act had a common enterprise in which we all too carefully for I am convinced they for its purpose the denial of Federal court participate, in which it is essential that contain the key to any successful labor injunctions to employers involved in la there be agreement on objectives and relations legislation. In those para- bor disputes, so the National Labor Rela that the means we adopt to advance to graphs the Congress declared in 1935: tions Act denied protection to employers ward these objectives are soundly devised The inequality of bargaining power be- when they sought to interfere with their to enable us to attain them. Third, in tween employees who do not possess full free- employees' rights of self-organization and the field of industry-labor relations we dom of association or actual liberty of con- collective bargaining by such practices as can realize our objectives only through tract, and employers who are organized in I have mentioned--yellow-dog contracts, free negotiation and collective bargain the corporate or other forms of ownership company unions, and other unfair, harm ing between equals. association substantially burdens and affects ful, and disruptive devices. Our Federal labor-relations legisla · the flow of commerce, and tends to aggra- vate recurrent business depressions, by de- Because it undertook to recognize the tion, therefore, must, in the public in pressing wage rates and the p_urchasing right of workers to form and join unions terest, be founded on two basic princi power of wage earners in industry and by and to eliminate certain unfair em ples: First, it must promote, not stymie preventing the stabilization of competitive ployer practices which had been obstacles . and disrupt, free collective bargaining wage rates and working conditions within . to collective bargaining and peaceful in between industry and labor; and, second, and between industries. dustry-labor relations, there are some it must advance, not def eat and ob Experience has proved that protection by who have described the National Labor struct, the constructive efforts of the law of the right of employees to organize and Relations Act as a prolabor measure. . working men and women of our Nation. bargain collectively safeguards commerce This conclusion is inescapable, Mr. from injury, impairment, or interruption, The National Labor Relations Act, how and promotes the flow of commerce by re- ever, undertook: to protect the interests President, if one has given careful study moving certain recognized sources of indus- of employees and their organizations only to the problem of legislation covering the trial strife and unrest, by encouraging prac- . . as a means of advancing the practice and difficult and complicated field of indus tlces fundamental to the friendly adjust- procedure of collective bargaining and try-labor relations. The experts who ment of industrial disputes arising out of thereby assuring stable and harmonious appeared before our committee during differences as to wages, hours, or other work- labor relations in the public interest. We the course of our hearings were virtually ing conditions, and by restoring equality of unanimous on this point. This is the bargaining power between employers and em- should keep this in mind, Mr. President, conclusion which I have come to as I ployees. for it is clear to me that unless such have listened to witnesses testifying be The National Labor Relations Act un- relations are protected, neither employ fore our committees and to the many dertook to remedy "inequality of bar- ers nor workers can have any assurance debates on the subject which we have gaining power" by recognizing the right that their disputes can be resolved in a had in this body since I came to the of workers "to self-organization, to form, peaceful manner, and without this assur Senate in March 1933. join, or assist labor organizations, to bar- ance our way of life and our free enter Before the enactment of section 7 (a) gain collectively through representatives prise system cannot endure. of the National Industrial Recovery Act of their own choosing, and to engage in Federal Works 'Admini~trator and tbe head amendments of ·the Senate to the bill (H. R~ · Mr. THOMAS of utah. Mr. Presi of such corporation: .efovided, however; That · 2663) to provide for the administration of dent, I suggest the absence of a quorum. in the event the Fe,Steral works Administrator the Central -Intelligence Agency, established and the head of such corporation: shall fail pursuant to section 102, National Security The PRESIDING OFFICER I A member of a judicial body or a quasi consent to have printed in· the RECORD THE NOMINEE judicial body charged with the responsi at this point as a part of my remarks Thomas Chalmers Buchanan was born at bility of determining the rights of liti a copy of the committee report on this Beaver, Pa., November 12, 1895, the son of nomination. John McFerron Buchanan and Jane (Mitch-_ gants and making decisions that affect ell) Buchanan. With his wife, Juliet Sophia the economic life of our people shoUld not There being no objection, the report (Bradford) Buchanan, and three children, he be a zealot, an evangelist, or a crusader. (Ex. Rept. No. 6) was ordered to be resides at 846 Turnpike Street, Beaver, Pa. He must be imbued with the qualities printed in the RECORD, as follows: Mr. Buchanan was educated in the Beaver of fairness and justice and must always The Committee on Interstate and Foreign public schools; graduate of Washington and endeavor to find a fair and just deter Commerce, to whom was referred the nomi Jefferson College, Washington, Pa., A. B., mination of the matter before him. nation of Thomas Chalmers Buchanan, of 1917; attended University of Pittsburgh Law I am convinced from a reading of the Pennsylvania, to be a member of the Federal School, 2 years; law office of H. F. Reed, 1 record and from my personal knowledge Power Commission for the remainder of the year; admitted to practice law, Supreme term expiring June 22, 1952, having consid Court of Pennsylvania, 1922; member Kappa and observation of Mr. Buchanan's con ered the same, report favorably thereon and Sigma Fraternity (social). Phi Delta Phi duct that he does not measure up to recommend that the nomination be con Fraternity (legal). . those requirements. firmed by the Senate. He is a World War I veteran' and member of the American Legion. I cannot overlook his own statement CHRONOLOGY AND BACKGROUND when the facts were placed before him Mr. Buchanan was appointed a member of The nomination of Thomas C. Buchanan the Public Service Commission of Pennsyl that under similar circumstances he to be a member of the Federal Power Com would publicly discuss matters pending vania, March 16, 1936; member of the Penn mission was referred to the Committee on In sylvania Public Utility Commission for a before the commission and would give terstate and Foreign Commerce on April 15, term of 8 years; coreceiver of the former out confidential reports and recommen 1948. Public hearings were held by the full Pittsburgh, Shawmut & Northern Railroad dations by the staff prior to final deter committee on April 29 and May 6, 1948. The Co.; member of Federal Power Commission mination of an issue. nomination was considered in executive ses- . by interim appointment July 14, 1948, to date. I want to make it crystal clear that sion on May 13, 1948, by the committee, and He is a. registei;_ed Democrat. a subcommittee was appointed to consider I am not now, nor at any time have I the nomination, with instructions to report SCOPE OF INQUIRY INTO NOMINEE'S advocated, the protection of public util back to the full committee within 2 weeks. QUALIFICATIONS ities. I have never represented any pub The subcommittee consisted of the Senator As the record will show, exhaustive and lic utility in Pennsylvania, or elsewhere. from Indiana [Mr. CAPEHART] chairman; the thorough hearings were held on the Without proper regulation, there would Senator from New Jersey [Mr. HAWKES]; and Buchanan nomination, first by the full com be some unscrupulous men in charge of the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Mc mittee and later by a subcommittee under the management of public-utility com MAHON]. the able direction of the senior Senator from The subcommittee held public hearings on Indiana [Mr. CAPEHART]. The public hear panies who wowd in every way possible May 13, 25, and 26, 1948. On May 27, 1948, ings lasted for 6 days, April 29, May 6, 13, take advantage of the public. I think the nomination was a.gain considered in 25, 26, and June l, 1948. Thirteen witnesse$ we all agree that proper regulation is not executive session by the subcommittee and a were heard, and the printed record of those· only essential but mandatory. It is one decision· was reached to hold additional hearings which ls available to Members of thing for a commission to clean out of hearings on June 1. Thereafter the nomina the Senate comprises 330 pages of testimony, utility companies the abuses, but is quite tion was considered by the full committee on letters, telegrams, and related material. another thing to hold that whenever liti May 27, 1948, and the subcommittee was The nomination was referred to the com gation arises in which one of the par granted an additional week in which to report mittee on April 15, 1948, and thereupon the to the full committee. Pursuant to this au committee announced that consideration ties is a public utility, that the utility thority the subcommittee held another pub would be had on April 29. However, it was company must always lose. lic hearlng on June 1, 1948. not until this latter dat-e that the committee Senators may examine every decision On June 2, 1948, the nomination was con received formal notice that there was op of the commission and they will find sidered in executive session by the subcom position to the nomination. During the that Mr. Buchanan held to the theory mittee and ordered reported. adversely to the period from April 15 to 29 no one formally that under no circumstances could a util full committee by a vote of 2 to 1. communicated with the committee express ity company be right. Mr. Buchanan's The committee considered the subcommit ing a desire to be heard in opposition to tee's report on June 3, 1948, and the follow Mr. Buchanan. The junior Senator from record discloses that he held them to be ing motion was adopted: Pennsylvania [Mr. MARTIN] subsequently wrong 100 percent of the time. Yes, and "That pending the final vote upon the con testified in opposition to Mr. Buchanan and the record further discloses, that he could firmation of Mr. Buchanan, the subcommit suggested that additional individuals be in come to a conclusion and discuss it pub tee be authoriEed to take such action and vited to appear. Other witnesses in opposi licly without having first heard the tes such further testimony and make such sup tion to Mr. Buchanan, who testified at the timony. plemental report as in its judgment it deems hearings referred to above, thereupon ap I greatly appreciate having the oppor wise, and to report thereon to the full com peared at the invitation -of the committee or tunity to address the Senate and to make mittee." through subpena. None of them volunteered my position clear. There was no further action on the nomi to testify. And in the present Congress, al nation, by the full committee or the sub though the nomination has been pending I shall, however, not press for a record committee, prior to the adjournment of the for more than 4 months, not a single person vote. Eightieth Congress on June 19, 1948. has communicated with the committee and Mr. MYERS. Mr. President, when Pursuant to the authority vested in him expressed any opposition to Mr. Buchanan this nomination was before the Senate by law to make interim appointment of a or any desire to testify in opposition. Committee on Interstate and Foreign nominee who has not been acted upon during It was not until May 25, 1949, when the Commerce last year I appeared before a precedi!J.g congressional session, the Presi committee was ready to proceed to consid the committee and made a rather dent of the United States on July 14, 1948, eration of the nomination in executive ses lengthy statement in support of the appointed Mr. Buchanan to the vacancy then sion that a formal request was received that existing in the Federal Power Commission. action on the nomination be deferred pend nominee. Among other things, I had He took oath of office as a Federal Power Com ing further hearings. That request was re this to say at that time: · missioner on that day and has served con fused when the committee formally rejecl~d He is thoroughly familiar :with the work tinuously since then. a motion to hold further hearings. of the Federal Power Commission and with Congress reconvened on July 26, 1948, and It is the committee's considered opinion the entire utility field. When he was on 2 days later Mr. Buchanan's nomination that the present record is as complete as it the Pennsylvania commission, it supervised again was submitted to the Senate by the is possible to make it and that everyone who utilities with assets exceeding $2,000,000,000- President. No committee action was taken wanted be heard has had ample opportunity the entire field. He has been a friend of on the nomination prior to the adjournment to testify. When the hearings were held last Rural Electrification and REA cooperatives, of the Eightieth Congress on August 7, 1948. year the subcommittee chairman (Mr. CAPE but cannot be considered a foe of private The Eighty-first Congress convened on HART) stated publicly during the course of enterprise by any stretch of t)le imagination. January 3, 1949, and 2 weeks later, on Jan those hearings that he would be glad to He is honest, decent. I am proud he is from uary 17, 1949, the nomination was again sub write, wire, or telephone to any witness who my State. I recommend him proudly. mitted by the President and referred to the cared to appear in opposition to Mr. Bu Committee on Interstate and Foreign Com chanan. He said further: My entire statement was placed in the merce. On May 25, 1949, the nomination The chairman will likewise, with the con RECORD at that time. Therefore, I shall was considered by the committee in execu sent of the committee, subpena any wit not burden the Senate now with a tive session and it was ordered reported fa ness who in their opinion should be called lengthy statement. I ask unanimous vorably by a vote of 9 to 1. in respect to this matter." - 1949 CONGRESSIONAL' RECORD-SENATE 7253 The junior Senator from Pennsylvania ciary unanimously endorsed the nomination Hon. Clyde T. Ellis, executive manager of [Mr. MARTIN] had emphasized to the com of Mr. Buchanan to the Federal Power Com· the National Rural Electric Cooperative As mittee at the time of the hearings last year mission. Among these was Hon. Chester H. sociation, and a former Member of Congress, that in his opinion 1 day of hearings on Rhodes, the presiding judge of Pennsylvania's one of several witnesses who voluntarily tes the nomination would be ample. Neverthe Superior Court, which has jurisdiction over tified in behalf of Mr. Buchanan, declared: less, 6 days of open hearings were held to appeals from decisions of the commission on "I want to endorse Mr. Buchanan on behalf give every opportunity for all who desired which Mr. Buchanan served in Pennsylvania. of all our people throughout the coun to be heard. In the committee's opinion no Of Mr. Buchanan, Judge Rhodes said: try. • • • They feel that he has a judi good purpose can now be served by delaying "I can say without any reservation that he cial temperament, that he was fair with them longer the consideration of this nomination. is a man of integrity anEl ability. His exper1-· and all parties." BUCHANAN IS EMINENTLY QUALIFIED ence in the utility field should be of great value as a member of the Federal Power It may be significant that the testimony The testimony shows that Mr. Buchanan Commission. He served upon the Pennsyl before the committee established the fact is an able attorney and thoroughly schooled vania Public Utility Commission for 9 years, that Mr. Buchanan played a leading and im in the fundamental theories and practices of and his record discloses that he was fair, just portant role in the investigation of the As ut111ty regulation. His patriotism, his loy sociated Gas & Electric Co. This investiga and, impartial ~n the administration of that alty, his war record, and his character have omce. From my personal observation as a tion unearthed one of the worst utility scan .. never been questioned. He is now serving member of an appellate court of Pennsyl dais ih American history. The testimony be on the Federal Power Commission under an fore the committee also established that it interim appointment. He has fully demon vania for 14 years, I feel that a most essen tial qualification of a commissioner on either was on. Buchanan's motion that the com strated in that capacity his qualifications for plaint was made by the Pennsylvania Public Senate confirmation to a full term. the Pennsylvania Utility Commission or the Federal Power Commission is an impartial Utility Commission to the Federal Power The nominee. previously served 9 years on Commission, which led to the Hope Natural the utility regulatory commissions o{ the approach to the problems with which such Commission is confronted. I am sure that Gas Co. case in the Supreme Court under Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, beginning Which the basic powers of the Federal Power in 1936. He played a prominent role in the Mr. Buchanan, as a member of the Federal Power Commission, would adhere to those Commission under the Natural Gas Act were drafting of legislation which for 11 years has upheld by the highest court. . remained unchanged as the basic utility regu same principles in the public interest and in the observance of our constitutional proc The junior Senator from Pennsylvania latory law of that State. [Mr. MARTIN] in opposing the nomination, As a commissioner of the Pennsylvania esses as he did while a member of the Penn sylvania Commission." stated that in his opinion the nominee "has Public Service Commission and of the Penn demonst ted over a period of years that he_ sylvania Public Utility Commission, which The Honorable Charles Alvin Jones, a member of the Supreme Court of the State does not have the qualifications that are replaced it in 1937, Mr. Buchanan· demon essential to the proper performance of the strated an intense inslstence upon adequate of Pennsylvania, wrote to the chairman of duti~s incumbent upon a member of the regulation of public utilities in the public the committee on April 30, 1948, stating in part: Federal Power Commission." interest. The committee finds it diflcult to under In his testimony before this committee he "From personal knowledge of Mr. Bucha made clear that he believes wholeheartedly in nan over the past 20 years, I know him to be stand this charge in view of the fact that private enterprise in the public-utility field a man of highest moral and ethical stand~ the testimony before it makes clear that Mr. and that the best assurrance for the continu ards, of unimpeachable honesty, and of ex Buchanan is thoroughly trained in the law ation of private enterprise in this field lies cellent reputation. He is a lawyer of marked a~d practice of utility regulation; is a pa-_ in proper regulation of these utilities in the ability and industry and has long been inter tr10tic American devoteq ~ncompromisingly public's behalf. ested and experienced in matters relating to to American principles of freedom and of Although Mr. Buchana.n's nomination was governmental regulation of public-service justice under law; is independent in his opposed during the hearings by various in companies. He served for 9 years as a mem thinking and forthright in his opinions; is dividuals and by representatives of some ber of the Public Service Commission of a ~rm believer in free enterprise in public Pennsylvania Utilities and utility associa Pennsylvania (later the Public Utility Com Utllity operation; and is motivated by a de tions, this opposition was based primarily, mission), where in the opinion of many citi sire to protect consumer interest. aside from personality issues and issues of zens of this State, including myself, he made The junior Senator from Pennsylvania attitudes," on differences of opinion on util a creditable record by faithfully discharging [Mr. MARTIN] himself testified: ity regulation principles. the duties of his omce with an eye single "He [Buchanan] is a man of integrity and The principles for which the nominee al to the promotion of the public interest. His .fine standing." ways has stood as an official of utility regula unswerving fidelity to his responsibility in The senior Senator from Pennsylvania tory agencies, according to his own testi such connection led at times to criticism of [Mr. MYERS] in appearing before the com mony and his record, have been those of a him in some quarters as "an enemy of the· mittee on behalf of the nominee, stated: fair return for utilities as written into law utilities." That characterization, however, "He [Buchanan] is thoroughly familiar by the Congress and as upheld over the years I know to be entirely unfair and undeserved. with the work of the Federal Power Com by the Federal courts, including the United Actually, if properly appraised in the light mission and with the entire utillty field. States Supreme Court. of its source and motive, the criticism was When he was on the Pennsylvania Commis It may be significant in analyzing opposi in truth a testimonial of his qualifications. sion, it supervised utilities with assets ex tion to Buchanan that, although these prin He is fundamentally a fair-minded and just ceeding $2,000,000,000-the entire field. He ciples have been settled with respect to poli man, and I am quite certain that he always has been a friend of Rural Electrification cies of the Federal Power Commission, and has been and will continue to be equally and REA cooperatives, but cannot be consid that Congress has not changed these princi vigilant and alert to preserve and maintain ered a foe of private enterprise by any stretch ples and policies· by legislative action since the constitutional security of bona fide capi of the imagination. He is honest, decent, they were established by court. review, they tal validly invested in private companies de I am proud he is from my State. I recom are still a matter of controversy insofar as voted to the service of the public." mend him proudly." utility regulation in the Commonwealth of On April 29, 1948, Hon. Guy K. Bard, of the United States District Court for the The Federal Power Commission is one of Pennsylvania ls concerned. our most important agencies. Although it Opponents of the nominee appearing be Ee.stern District of Pennsylvania, wrote to the committee: deals largely with judicial matters, Mr. fore the committee based their opposition Buchanan is the only lawyer now a member largely on grounds that he had sought to "I can attest to Mr. Buchanan's unques tioned integrity and his alertness to the of the Commission and his legal training and further similar principles of regulation in background, his ability and energy are ex Pennsylvania. public interest. He is able, his views are sound, and he carried the r-espect of every tremely useful to its operation. Your com Specifically, he had sought to establish in mittee has been most careful, perhaps overly Pennsylvania the principle of rate making one who was interested in fair adjudications. on a basis of fair return on invested capital, In addition, he always exhibited rare courage cautious, to see to it that this nomination less depreciation, which is the principle fol in the discharge of his public duties." received full and complete consideration and lowed by the Federal Power Commission and P. Stephen Stahlnecker, former member of that everyone desiring to do so had an oppor upheld by the courts and unchanged by Con the Pennsylvania Public Utilities Commis tunity to testify or make his views known to gress. In Pennsylvania; utility rates are sion, who opposed Buchanan's nomination, the committee. The nomination has been based largely on return on reproduction cost nevertheless said : held up and subject to public scrutiny for estimates. The most recent session of the "I have no criticism whatever of Mr. almost a year and a half; the nominee has Pennsylvania Legislature considered but Buchanan's ability as a citizen or as a lawyer been serving in the office and exercising the failed to pass a bill establishing the original or his integrity as a man." full duties of a commissioner for almost a depreciated-cost principle in the State. David Dunlap, a former employee of the year. Since the close of last year's hearings Mr. Buchanan was charged before the com Pennsylvania Public Utilities Commission and until 2 days ago no one has come for mittee with lacking "judicial temperament." who also appeared in opposition to Buchanan: ward and raised his voice in opposition to The committee believes it important to point also said: Mr. Buchanan. out that the only communications received "Commissioner Buchanan is an able man. It is the opinion of the committee that by the committee from members of the Judi- He is very intelligent." justice and fair play require that there be .7254 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE JUNE 6 no further delay. If the Federal Power Com of democracy in German youth and Ger mission is to discharge properly the duties man citizenship, and whether or not we HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES which Congress has delegated to it, the Com may depend upon it in the days ahead mission should have a full complement of Mo~DA Y, JUNE 6, 1949 duly confirmed commissioners. It would be that we shall never again have to pay the unfair to the Commission and unfair to this price which we have paid twice in our The House met at 12 o'clock noon. nominee to withhold action any longer. All time because of German nazism and The Chaplain, Rev. James Shera Mont of the facts pertaining to Mr. Buchanan's German fascism. gomery, D. D., offered the following qualifications have been developed. The RECESS prayer: record is complete. No good purpose can be served by withholding Senate consideration Mr. LUCAS. I move that the Senate Blessed Lord, Thou knowest the way of his nomination. take a recess until 12 o'clock noon we take i there are no lonely coast lines Therefore, the Committee on Interstate tomorrow. where Thou art not. The wings of the and Foreign Commerce reports favorably on The motion was agreed to; and