Th_e Case for a Fair Deal Labor Policy

Speeches of HON. HUBERT H. HUMPHREY of Minnesota

In the Senate of the l June 10 and 14, 1949

"I submit that the processes of democracy are a s relentless and ever-flowing as the )ide itself ..• the American people, the worlcing people of this country, the people who have been oppressed by this law-, are determined that they are going to remove this kind of punitive legislation from the statute books, and are determine.d that they are going to have something to say about the proc­ esses of government, because this country is their r-- country, as well as it is yours and mine."

NOT PRINTED AT GOVERNM~NT EXPENSE

844385---30518

A Case For a Fair .Labor Policy SPEECHES of the appropriate purposes· of such pol­ OF icy. What can_a Government labor pol­ icy achieve and what are its limits? Table of Contents HON. -HUBERT H. HUMPHREY What should a Government try to do in OF MINNESOTA that field, and what should it refrain IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES from trying to do? Page June 10 and 14, 1949 Statements of objectives too often are Objectives of a. National L abor Policy______3 mere generalizations on which everyone The P lace of Labor Unions in Our Economy______8 can agree. This is true of much of the June 10, 1949 "declaration of policy" in the preamble H istorical Background of Government's Attitude The Senate resumed the consideration of. the Taft-Hartley Act. Few will dis­ of the bill

porations came upon the scene. The act and labor in a free economy are to meet ernment but by the parties-free action Davis, of William . M ~ Leiserson, and of ignores a fundamental fact which was together, the strong arm of government by .free citizens in a free economy in a Dr. Nathan P. Feinsinger, professor of recognized by numerous Supreme Court should project itself and be the final de­ free country. law, of the University of Wisconsin, decisions, as when the Court in the Jones terminer of what is just and right. The Wagner Act in its statement of three eminent men, who have been hired and Laughlin case relied in its decision Is this a biased view? If so, the bias is policy recognizes the actual facts of in­ by business, who have been used by Gov­ on the helplessness of the single em­ not restricted to those who are commonly equality in bargaining power between ernment, and who have proved 'them­ ployee, his complete dependence on his charged with pro-labor bias. In evidence employees when they do not have full selves o.ver the years ·as knowing the daily wage and consequent inability sepa­ it is worth while to recall the editorial freedom of association and collective sound ·economic .facts of labor-manage­ rately to resist arbitrary and unfair treat­ views expressed in Business Week of bargaining rights and employers who ment relationships. They think in terms ment, and his dependence on his union February 19, 1949. The following is a are organized in corporate or other forms of public policy, not in terms of special for equality in dealing with his employer. quotation from the editorial in tr \Jf ownership association. The preamble privilege or of private advantage. In other words, Mr. President, labor re­ journal: ,if the Wagner Act recognizes the fact What did Mr. Leiserson say ih his ar­ lations in the year 1949 cannot be con­ What was wrong was that the Taft-Hartley that this inequality interferes with the ticle in the New York Times? Act went ceived of as being in some s.ort of fairy­ too far. It crossed the narrow line flow · of commerce, tends to aggravate A good way to begin thinking about a new land, as might have been the case in the separating a law which aims only to regulate business depressions, and causes indus­ labor law, now tal{ing shape in congressional days of 1800, before the growth of the from one which could destroy. trial strife or unrest. The whole pur­ h earings, is to compare the policy pronounce­ giant corporation or what is commonly Given a few million unemployed in Amer­ pose of the act was consistent with the r.lents of the Taft-Hartley Act and the Wag­ known as big business. Labor relations ica, given an administration in Washington traditional ner Act. which and basic principles of Gov­ cannot be considered in a theoretical was not pro-union-and the Taft­ ernment in the United States. lt'sought The Taft-Hartley Act says: "It Is the pur­ vacuum. Hartley Act conceivably could _wreck the pose and policy of this act to prescribe the That question is no longer an labor movement. to avoid unnecessary positive interven­ academic one; it is the very substance of legitimate rights of both employees and em­ These are the provisions that could do it: tion by Government. It sought merely to ployers, to (prevent) interference by either a sound, productive economy. (1) can be restrained by injunc­ use the functions of Government for re­ with the legitimate rights of the other, to Equally important is the fact that the tion; (2) employers can petition for a col­ moving obstructions and inequalities and protect the rights of Individual employees in individual employee is helpless as com­ lective-bargaining election; (3) strikers can encouraging free and equal collective their relations with labor organizations pared with his employer in making use be held ineligible to vote-while the strike bargaining. It • • •, to define and prescribe practices replacements assumed the carrying on of the laws of the land designed cast the only ballots; and (4) (inimical to general welfare). on ~he ·part for the if the outcome of this of industrial relations, not by Govern­ maintenance of rights, and in appealing is a "no union" vote. ment of labor and management, and to protect the Government must certify and enforce it. but by the parties, under condi­ t he rights of the·public to the courts or to administrative agen­ tions of full and mutual freedom of as­ ." The editorial froM Business We Quite different was t he purpose of the cies for the interpretation and enforce­ ek con­ sociation, self-organization, and nego­ Wagner Act. It declared the policy of the ment of these rights. tinues: tiation of the terms and conditions of United States to be "encouraging the practice The. Taft-Hartley Act is profoundly Any time there is a surplus labor pool employment on a free and equal basis. and procedure of reactionary. It ignores the facts of eco­ from which an employer can hire at least Many authorities, eminent for their • , protecting the exercise by workers nomic life by assuming that the individ­ token strike replacements, these four pro­ , long experience and impartial attitudes of full freedom of association,- self-organiza­ ual worker can successfully pit himself visions, linked together, presumably can de­ tion, and designation of representatives of stroy a union. in dealing' with labor-management rela­ against the power of a highly organized iJ.ons, have spoken on the proper objec­ their own choosing for the purpose of ne­ and complex economic system. The gotiating te·rms and conditions of their em­ act, Mr. President, the editorial writer hves of Government policy in labor­ ploym.ent or mutual aid or protection." however, is worse than reactionary, in Business Week understands one of the management relations. Probably none is the sense of seeking to reinstate a one­ basic reactionary tendencies of the Taft­ more eminent or more widely respected Mr. THOMAS of Utah. Mr. President, sided individualism applicable to the Hartley Act. I submit that the real than William M. Leiserson. Mr. Lei­ will the Senator yield? worker but not to the employer. It de­ danger of the Taft-Hartley Act to sound serson, a well-recognized author-ity and The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the parts from our past traditions and poli­ labor-management relationships does student in·the field of labor-management Senator from Minnesota yield to the cies by setting up a governmental system not lie in its individual provisions alone, relationships, expressed himself tn the Senator from Utah? for the direct and detailed intervention considering them one by one, but, as New York Times of February 6, 1949. Mr. HUMPHREY. I yield to the dis­ of government into areas of economic this wise editor has said, the real dan­ Before I read the statement, let me say, tinguished Senator. activity always heretofore reserved to ger lies in their being linked t0gether; I feel that as Members of the Senate, as Mr. THOMAS of Utah. Mr. President, the parties in the field of industrial re­ and all too often they are linked to­ members of the Committee on Labor I think the contrast between the two lations. gether. and Public Welfare, the testimony which bills should be emphasized, one being Mr. President, let me say that some The facts of life in our highly complex was the most vital, the testimony which based upon rights of conflicting inter­ of the proponents of the Taft-Hartley and highly organized economy with its seemed to ring most true, the testimony ests, the other upon the theory of hav­ Act and some of the groups in the United powerful corporations and associations which I fert came in with the least evi­ ing these interests work together and States that so staunchly defend it are of employers are recognized far more dence of bias, the testimony which was come to a decision. I know of no con­ the very first to criticize the use of gov­ realistically in the ..statement of objec­ the most direct, did not come from flict which has ever been settled so that ernment in any area of our economy, the tives of the Wagner Act. The preamble either labor or business. I wanted to the people could carry on together where very first to use the phrases "free enter­ of that act recognizes, furthermore, the rest my judgment on the kind of testi­ the arguments were left entirely in the prise" and "private property," the very highly desirable limitations on the func­ mony which was submitted by those who sphere of rights. One right is posed first to call such developments to the at­ tions of Government in avoiding as far have made labor-management relations against another right. · Probably the tention of the Congress and the Presi­ as possible a positive interference with a life profession, and are known for their . best illustration I could give would be a dent, and to point to the fear of state­ the liberties and rights of both parties ; objectivity and their impartiality in _case involving domestic relations, for ism or socialism. These same people it attempted merely to remove obstruc­ dealing with labor-management prob­ example, .in which .the husband decl;ues and concerns are the ones who today tions and prevent the bad effects of in­ lems. So I have literally for all prac­ his rights and the wife declares her would say that in the great area of our equalities of power in the carrying on tical purposes, taken to myself for con­ rights. There is never a reconciliation productive process, where management of industrial relations, not by the Gov- sideration the ·testimony gf William H. so long as they talk about rights. There 8443£5-30518 844385-30518 6 7 is such a thing in law as divorce. If we Mr. TAFT. Mr. President, will the third i_s the policy by which the Government If our national policy is to_be eff~ - ctuated attempt, in view of this conflict of rights Senator yield? determines the rules or terms of employment, through collective bargaining, we canno.t to make a decision in or _both. simultaneously encourage a competing sys­ in labor relations, Mr. HUMPHREY. I yield to the Sen­ tem of individual bargaining. If collective the field of rights, there is a divorce and ator from Ohio. The Taft-Hartley Act fayors this third policy. Although it did not venture to fix bargaining is to be free and voluntary, we not a reconciliation. Mr. TAFT. Does the Senator from cannot have governmental ·intervention, ex­ Mr. President, I wages, it did decide by congreSsional fiat Mr. HUMPHREY. Minnesota also agree with Mr. Leiser­ vital issues of rules and working conditions cept to insure the conditions under which must say that the observations of the when he says that the inVolved in labor contracting, under the free bargaining -can take place. (I use the son advisedly. distinguished chairman of the Senate and the should be prohib­ -guise of determining legitimate rights. In term "governmental intervention" Committee on Labor and Public Welfare purported to further the policy _ I have observed that the term used is "gov­ ited? doing this it the are surely to the point and exemplify his of collective bargaining, but its concern that_ ernment interference" when it helps Mr. HUMPHREY. The Senator fro other fellow, and "Government protecting sound knowledge of the prob­ ~tr ikes and other forms of 'industrial unrest deep and Minnesota will continue to read fro the public interest" when it helps our side.) lems of economic and human relation­ ,br concerted activities (shall not) impair the Mr. Leiserson and from the opinions o of the public led it to -prescribe - If we are to have realistic bargaining, each ships. I think his presentation in the interest to say the other men whom I have mentioned. which h ad the effect of determining side must be free in the final analysis of the debate was clear and rights ans the right to beginning I do not say that Mr. Leiserson is a saint. disputed issues and removing them from the "Yes" or "No," which me his intimate ac­ the right to lock-out if no agree­ adequate testimony of I said I considered that, in the main, he field of bargaining. Incidentally, in encour­ strike and quaintanceship with the problems con­ bargaini-ng, the act in effect ment be reached. The exercise of the right is a wise man. aging individual the rirk of eco­ fronting our economy in the field of labor for employees a right to refrain to strike or to lock-out entails he had stipulated only to the adversary but relationships. Mr. TAFT. The Senator said from collective barg_ainlng. · - nomic injury not what Mr. Leiserson a high•opinion for Mr. Leiserson's views. to neutrals. Such risks are -inevitable in a I continue with Only a democracy can meet such has to say on the subject: I wondered if he agreed also with his That is the conclusion of the substance democracy. that the union shop and the closed the article which appeared in the New risks, and take them in stride. The two laws approached the problems of view of employer-employee relations differently, and shop should be prohibited. York Times on February 9, 1949. Mr. President, I think it is of para­ they went off in different directions to find Mr. HUMPHREY. I have a high re­ Mr. President, among the many other mount importance that the American solutions. The Wagner Act put Its faith spect for the Senator from Ohio, on some eminent authorities with long experience people, who speak of freedom, who be­ in collective bargaining- subjects. There are some things on ·an-d whose impartial views are beyond lieve in freedom, who want freedom, po­ but while the Taft-Hartley Act paid lip which we disagree. I am agreeing with . of Mr. freedom, economic freedom, re­ service to the principle of collective bar­ question, mention may be made litical Mr. Leiserson's views on the broad, gen­ Nathan P. Feinsinger. As a professor of member that there is a price for it, and gaining, its insistence on "legal rights" en­ re­ couraged individual br.rgaining and, to an eral principles of labor-management law, a public official in both State and a real price. In the economic area it is even greater extent, Government determi­ lationships. I shall arrive, in the course Federal capacities, and a conciliator or the price of a strike or a lock-out; it i~ nation of the labor b:trg a~ n. of my remarks, at the question of the arbitrator in numerous cases, Mr. Fein .. the price sometimes of a stubborn union I shall be more than Mr. Leiserson continues: closed shop, and singer's views have special value. These or a stubborn employer. There is no anxious to receive questions from the dis­ are already fr.miliar to members of the doubt that at times some neutrals, those The act's attempt to pursue three incom­ that patible labor policies at the same time could tinguished Senator from Ohio, so Committee·on Labor and Public Welfare who are not involved, possibly, are af­ result only in confusion. once and for all we can dismiss the .'who were so greatly impressed with his fected, at least for a period of time, short The confusion was soon reflected in the subject of the closed shop and the uni /testimony, but they should also command or long, as it may be. But every one of administration of the law-the NLRB and shop, so far as those two subjects con the earnest attention of alL He sum­ us has a stake _in economic freedom, its coordinate general counsel being unable cern the junior Senator from Minnesota marized his views for conside-ration by not merely those who are participating to agree as to its intentions. and the senior Senator from Ohio, be­ or particular dispute. Apparently the voters sensed the act was the committee as follows: in an individual cause there is plenty of sound argu­ follow Every one of us has a deep concern for working at cross purposes, and returned to the floor of the Sen­ Legislation in this vital field should office the President over whose veto it was ment, not only on a long-range national .policy; it should be and a vital interest in political freedom, adopted with a Congress dominated by the ate, but in the long-range practice in confined to basic problems; it should provide free speech, free press, freedom of re­ party whose platform called for its repeal. American industry, for the closed shop, practical measures. ligion, freedom of enterprise. These are the Taft-Hartley Act notwithstanding. We Mr. Leiserson says, further: I would state my conception of a sound precious heritages for everyone. I proceed, then, with Mr. Leiserson's policy for America as follows: As a that the right to strike to say precisely what labor need to remember No one is in a position comments and his general observations: nation, we are dedicated to the ideal of a · is a vital _part of the American system the rr:anda te is as to the kind of a new labor liber­ But we shall But what are the possible choices? Broadly free society, through which individual of freedom, and the right of the em­ Jaw that should be adopted. to the highest degree if we assume that the public speaking, there are only the three: (1) Indi­ ties may be exercised ployer to lock-out is a vital part. I am not go far astray like liberties for others. We Jaw based on a clear-cut labor policy vidual bargaining; (2) collective bargailiing; consistent with we can get wants a a system of free enterprise because not one of those who believe that it can understand, with specific pro­ (3) Government dictation. The first leaves endorse wili'ing we believe it most conducive to a free society. freedom cheaply. We have to be visions reasonably calculated to carry out the labor relations to be governed by individual to pay the cost for individual freedom. definite choice among contracts of employment. This means, as We seek to promote industrial self-govern­ policy. Making a coopera­ then discusses recent possible national labor policies is in any case the Supreme Court said as far back as ment, through labor-management Mr. Feinsinger because we believe interruption of an Indispensable preliminary requirement 1898, "The proprietors lay down the rules and tion and self-discipline, -history, the wartime it to be, iii the long run, most consistent bargaining, and the for ~afting a workable law to govern so the laborers are practically constrained to normal collective and explosive a subject as with a system of free enterprise. We adopt disturbing problems of the tran.sitional emotion-fil!ed obey them"; In other words, management as the labor and management relationships. free, voluntary collectiTe bargaining period. He then states: dictation. The second policy requires the instrumentality best suited to the practice That statement indicates the political rules to be made jointly by representatives of industrial self-government; to the protec­ The Taft-Hartley Act was a product of sagacity and the philosophical maturity of managements and the workers, and em­ tion of the liberties of the individual worker; anger, confusion, and compromise, but also of Mr. Leiserson in the field of labor. body them in collective agreements. The to the attainment of practical democracy of considerable idealism. within our modern industrial society; to the describes the act as "a throw­ 844385-30518 achievement o! Industrial peace; to the He then maintenance and Increase of purchasing back to doctrines once discarded as un­ power; and, through all these, to the safe­ realistic and unfair. The antiboycott guarding and advancement of public Interest. sections, for example, restore the dis- 844385-----30518 8 back people of equal physique, of equal The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. credited notion that the only persons would prevail here in the absence of a strength, of equal maturity, of equal GRAHAM in the chair). Does the Senator interested in a labor dispute are the em­ free and strong labor movement. power. ·It is something like patting on from Minnesota ·yield to the Senator ployer and his employees, thus ignoring It is worth while to recall some of the the back a 2-year-old son and a 40-year from· Louisiana? , the facts of industrial life. Implicit in main facts as to the nature and-functions uncle, and then coming along and giving Mr. HUMPHREY. I yield. the act is the notion that individual bar­ of unions in the United States. There equally vigoro'us kicks to the 2-year-old · Mr. LONG. I ask the Senator from gaining is on ·a par, policy-wise, with are approximately 200 national and in­ son and the 40-year-old uncle . . It can Minnesota what the effect is when strike­ collective bargaining, and the proc.ess of ternational unions, affiliated either with be said theoretically that both have breakers replace union workers? ' About organization for collective bargaining is the American Federation of Labor or the equally received a pat and have equally 6 months ago some laborers came to me at bottom a contest between the em­ Congress of Industrial Organizations. received a ·kick, and then call it equality and asked if something could not be done ployer and the union for the loyalties of The A. F. of L. and the CIO are some­ ,.of treatment. . It is like Anatole France's to help them. They had gone out on the unorganized workers." what loosely organized groupings ,~tatement, that all men have certain strike and had ·been replaced by strike­ The "severest indictment of the Taft­ these nationals and internationals. The basic rights; that the rich and the poor breakers. At that time there was a short­ Hartley Act," Mr. Feinsinger continues, unions which make up the A. F .of L. and alike can sleep under the bridges and eat age of labor and it was difficult to replace is the "invasion by legislative fiat of the the CIO are autonomous, and are com­ in the gutter. Both can do so equally, union workers, but nevertheless the area of collective bargaining." He states posed of local organizations of workers .and that may be called equality of oppor­ strikers had been replaced. The Board that "We have now in embryo the leg­ in the various crafts, trades, professions, tunity, if one should desire to call it such. was then in the process of declaring that islative determination of the terms and and industries. The locals themselves ·I do not. the were entitled to bar­ conditions of private employment." He are more or less autonomous, the degree Union members probably comprise be­ gain, and could avail themselves of the .concludes: of autonomy varying from union to .tween 40 and 50 percent of that portion provisions of the Taft-Hartley law. The I do not say that legislative control of the union. of the labor force in which unions have union workers were out on the street, and employment relation in its entirety is good The national and international unions ·concentrated their organizing efforts. were obliged to find employment in other or bad. But I am certain that the propo­ range widely in size; 16 of them each had Unions are thus extremely diversified fields of industry. nents of the act did not intend or foresee less than 10 locals in 1948; more than in size, in types of membership, and in such a result. Yet they have started the half of them had less than 200 locals; My question is, What protection has ball rolling in that direction, and who is to their relations with central or over-all the Taft-Hartley law conferred upon say where and only 6 had as many as 2,000 locals. organizations. They have certain basic and when it will stop? Among the national and international those strikebreakers? We are really at the crossroads of two common interests but they do not have Mr. HUMPHREY. The Taft-Hartley conflicting ideologies. The choice is clear. unions, 16 had less than 1,000 members any strong central authority or any and all but 37 had less than 100,000 law made it possible for the strikebreak­ We must either return the incidents of the means of concerted action except in re­ ers to come in and take the jobs of the employment relation, beyond the establish­ members .. stricted fields and for limited purposes. ment of minimum standards, to the. parties In addition to the national and inter­ legitimate bargaining workers, and to be or we must be prepareg to have the Govern­ Union organizations in general are char­ certified· as the legitimate new bargain­ national unions, both the A. F. of L. and acterized by the typical spirit of auton­ ment play the role of the camel in the tent CIO maintain city and State organiza­ ing agent. of collective bargaining. omy, independence, and action on the Mr. TAFT. Mr. President, will the tions with which these are ordinarily basis of discussion and agreement. Now, Mr. President, having discussed joined by the affiliated unions in t Senator yield? · · ;rendenetes:·toward organic unity and Mr. HUMPHREY. I yield. the objectives of a national labor policy, area. Early in 1948 the A. F. of L. ha 'concerted action have been promoted I turn to a closely related subject. 795 city · centrals and 50 State federa­ chie'fly by a defensive attitude-which in Mr. TAFT. . ·In the first place, the per­ tions of labor; the CIO reported 243 citY. turn has ·arisen most significantly in sons in question are not strikebreakers. The Place of Labor Unions in Our county, and district councils and 39 They are persons who are permanently Economy recent years from policies which Business State industrial councils. Week editorially described as potentially employ€d, who live in that section. In Mr. President, I wish to discuss the Several of the larger and more influ­ destructive of unionism. order to take the place of the strikers place of the labor union in our econ­ ential unions are not affiliated with either they must be permanent employees. L·aboring m.en in this country are fear­ omy-not the economy of Alice in Won­ A. F. of L. or the CIO. This question .arose first under the derland, not the economy of Henry VIII, The total Membership of the unions ful of the Taft-Hartley Act, because of Wagner Act, not under the Taft-Hartley or Thomas Jefferson, but in the economy in the United States now exceeds 15,000,- their keen insight. Although they do nCit possess Phi Beta Kappa Act. Under the Wagner Act the Supreme of 1948 and 1949, when we produced 000 worl{ers. These workers comprise keys, though Court held that a striker who was re­ more than $200,000,000,000, gross, of roughly one out of four workers in the they may not have Harvard degrees, placed by a permanent employee, that is, commodities, in an economy that has total labor force, including the self­ without being profound students of eco- , nut by a man_br.ought..in....fr.oiiLthe. .oOu .t.- seen great concentration of business. No employed and managerial and super­ . nomics, but simply- by reason of . their side, but a man employed permanently, one can deny the fact that instead of visory workers. experience, their suffering, they have was not entitled to reinstatement. He there being less merge:.· and less con­ I submit, Mr. President, that corporate looked at this law . and they have said was no longer an employee for the pur­ centration of economic power in this Na­ business in America does better than· 25 they were against it, long before the edi­ poses of the act. The Board haa great tion, there is more and more of it. Let percent of the total business, and has torial writer of Business Week ever got' difficulty at that time in determining us take a look at the place of the labor more than 25 percent of the control <;>f around to finding out about it. The whether or not he could vote. The Board union in our economy. the Nation's economy. Yet all the plain ordinary worker of America looked held, under the Wagner Act, that both Public policy toward unions and labor­ unions in America put together repre­ at the law and came to his conclusion the strikers and those who had replaced management relations should be viewed sent only one out of every four of the about it 1 week after the law was passed, the strikers as permanent employees in the light of the place of union organi­ total available labor force. · whereas it took the editor of Business could vote. That created a very anoma­ zations in our economy, The actual role So when we start comparing, with a Week 2 years to find out about it. But I lous situation. When we considered the of unions in the ·united States should, pat on the back for the one and a pat on am glad the editor of Business Week has question originally we had the case of the in turn, be viewed in the light of condi­ the back for the other, and a kick forthe found out about it. Redwood strike in California. The strike tions existing in many other countries. one and a kick for the other, let us not Mr. LONG. Mr. President, will the had been in progress for 2 years. The and also in the light of conditions that forget that we are not patting on· the Senator yield? men had struck, and they had been grad- 8443: 5-30513 844385--30518 10 11 by -veterans who came who owns stock in a company is never class B, and non-voting stock. There integrity and equality of unions, as well ually replaced anizations, in back and settled in the community, until around. He does not even know who the are no preferred stocltholders or bond­ as employers and their org workers had been replaced. manager is. The stockholder is operat­ holders. · Let us not· compare a union the collective-bargaining process. is the all but a few American ex­ Various elections were held. The strik­ ing a garage, or he owns a drug store, with a corporation. Corporation law­ outstanding fact in the carried the or a farm, or has a job at the local utility yers ha-ve been able to figure out more periment, under present-day large-scale ers always came pack and "mainte­ votes, although company. But he never loses his right "gadget~" to dC;ny People who own the and complex enterprises, in the election by half a dozen soCiety. both the strikers and those who replaced to vote. He has a property interest in company the right to say anything about nance of a free and democratic them vot:ed. So, although the strikers the corpo11ation. the policy than a Philadelphia lawyer Let me emphasize that point. A union had jobs elsewhere, one man with a When the union is a certified bargain­ could figure out in a hundred years. is a very fundamental part of our sys­ picket sign remained in front of the ing agent, and when there is a legitimate In the case of a union, when a person tem for .preserving a free economy·, in a place, and, so far as anyone could judge, economic dispute, the workers who hav \Qins, he is in. If he ·does not show up day when business is big. We n eed big that strike could continue for the next been on the job have a property int.ere ,() vote, the situation is no differen~ than business for big production. Sometimes 10 years, although all the workers had in their job. That is their life. It is it was in the last national election. Some I think that merely shouting against big been replaced, and most of them had their bread and butter. As the distin­ people did not show up to vote .last No­ business is failing to see some of the moved out of the neighborhood.· guished Senator from Ohio says, realiz­ vember, as they were expected · to do. economic facts. The question is , How That was the question we had before ing the error of the Taft-Hartley law, They have no one to blame but them­ shall the public have an opportunity to us. Who should vote under those cir­ which has been pointed out only recent­ selves. They could have voted, but they get some of the fruits of this production? cumstances? The Taft-Hartley Act pro­ ly, certain amendments have been of~ did not vote. In tJ'l.ose areas where they How shall we prevent concentration of vided that only the replacements could fered. Great damage h as already taken cannot vote, we are making frantic ef­ economic power which would grind into vote, and that those who were no longer place. Surely there was no need for it. forts to see that they do vote. the dust the little people who are weak entitled to reinstatement were not en­ It is a very basic illustration of the vice · Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, will the in their individual power? titled to vote. Under the Supreme of legislation based upon isolated situ.:­ Senator yield? One answer is for the G::>vernment to Court's own ruling they could not vote ations. II the proponents of the Taft­ Mr. HUMPHREY. I yield. take over. That is .what has happened in an election as employees. Hartley Act had not been in such a hurry Mr. MORSE. Does the Senator mean in Russia. There are no strikes in I think on the whole that argument and had listened to reason, and had to imply that if they had voted the re­ R-Ussia. There is collective bargaining was _iustified. As pointed out in the Busi_­ listened to those who had been in the sult would have been different? under government edict, but not free ness Week editorial, that was based upon field of labor -management relationships Mr. HUMPHREY. I do mean to imply collective· bargaining. one section of the act. Under the amend­ all their lives, they would never have that. I think the majority would have Another answer· is to have the kind ments which I have presented, we remove put such a p rovision in the Taft-Hartley been everi greater. · of system which we have i~~ the United that provision and return to the provi~ Act in the first place. In the spirit of a What I was trying t.o point out was that States, which says that the best answer sions .of the Wagner Act in .that respect. good. clergyman, I rejoice that som,eone there has been a tendency to compare to the concentration of economic power Therefore, so far as any argument can has repented of his sins and returned to a union with a corporation. is to permit those who work with that be based upon that section, the argument the fold, at least partially. He is at least No, Mr. President, a union is just what economic power to join together so as to is removed by the amendments which we in the vestibule. it purports to be. It is an independent achieve a balance in equity. I b elieve are now offering. I think· the argument Why do workers join unions.? T (.;j Jrganization of free individuals, all of in that system. of the- editor of Business Week .is also b!.sic answer to that question is to b \.., whom have the same rights and priv­ to look at conditions in in. the fact that the liberty of the We have only removed by the amendment which strikes found ileges, coming together for purposes of iron-curtain countries to realize the out that provision. It was regarded as a individual worker can be maintained their own benefit, and for the formula­ disadvanta-ges of subordinating of group action. Free grave very minor matter. It was passed over only by means tion of thefr own policies. In a corpora­ unions to governmental control. And it without very serious .consideration by th~ and independent unionism, under the tion the situation is entirely different. more exten­ is absolutely must be recognized that the committee. Certainly fr'om the point of American economic system, People invest in a corporation for profit. sive is the authority and responsibility of view of argument, the argument can. be essential if the individual worker is to Some have something to say about it. equality the Government over the processes and made that by adding that provision to maintain anything approaching Some do not. Some get more profit than terms of collective bargaining the greater four other provisions in the act, it can in his relations with his employer. Free others. Some get the first "take," some responsibility is, further­ must be the authority and be made a weapon for the destruction of and independent unionism get the last "take," and some simply get of Government not only over unions, but unions. While it is a rather tenuous more, essential to the individual worker "taken". A union is not like a corpora­ over the employers of the members of argument, I can see the logical argument if he is to express his views and protect tion. unions. his interests in the vital field of public that could be made, and I thought we In our system of private enterprise unfortu­ about vot­ opinion and public policy. Unions, as in a more or less Another possibility, which ought to remove the provision a:s it has developed nately has been actually experienced to ing, and we do remove it in our amend­ representative institutions in the eco­ democratic way, the central fact of labor­ nomic field, are closely analogous to rep- bar­ a limited extent in the United States, is ments. management relations is collective control of unions by their employers . . resentative institutions in the political . Industrial government, in the the Mr. HUMPHREY. I am very grateful gaining . It is ·not necessary, even i"f there were to the Senator from Ohio for his expla­ field. The individual citizen votes for sense of participation by workers as well Members cf Congress for the purpose of time, to go into the history of company nation with reference to that particular as employers, is primarily to be found in in the United having them represent him in the for­ of collec­ unions and company towns question. I think the ·explanation points the procedures and processes States. Fortunately, they were never up,the fact that we have seen the error mulation and enactment of laws. ·Mem­ tive bargaining. In the economic field bers of unions necessarily delegate to firmly established in the United States of our way in the Taft-Hartley law, It the scope, limits, and end results of de­ and fortu­ their officials the representative function govern­ except in very limited areas points out, first of all, the fact that under mocracy in the field of industrial nately they are now both on the wane. strikers and of formulating collective agreements. ment are to be found primarily in the the Wagner Act both the needs to be emphasized, Mr. the replacements were allowed to vote. I think the analogy is clear. Once a terms and the administration of collec­ What The Wagner Act was based on good person is a member of a union, he has tive agreements. President, and kept in mind alike by American capitalist doctrine. The man the right to vote. There is no class A, Collective bargaining is, of com se, not workers, employers, aild those Qf us who charged with the responsibility of 844365--305113 the only function of unions. But the are 844385-30518 12 13 formulating public policy, is that free and you are going to bargain in the way I of'the'Tennessee Valley Authority, which . commonly called .social-welfare legisla- .. democratic enterprise has no alterna­ tell you to bargain." To my mind, that appears at the conclusion of the speech tion, the labor movement must be-given tive to the maintenance of free and vig­ will mark the end of free labor and free Of Mr. HUMPHREY.) credit . for having worked for those orous unionism. It is only in .that .way management in this country. Mr. HUMPHREY. As I have related, things; and it did not always do so mere- · that the integrity and success of volun­ The question of the place of unions in Mr. President, unions were created out ly for wages. tary collective bargaining can be main­ our economy involves one of the oldest of the needs of people who were working I make bold to assert tha:t sometime tained. And employers above all should and inost vital of American traditions. for their livelihood,-and who could not American busine'ss had better find out recognize-and let me say that many of I refer to the right of free association. cepe with their economic problems as that the people of America do not live them do recognize-that the alternative That right has been legally recognized individuals. Although many of us recog­ by bread alone. Some of us are inter­ in our modern society to voluntary and and protected in the case of unions of nize ·unions as an important force in our ested in education for our childreri, effective collective bargaining is not so­ workers more recently than in the case f.f l.(Onomy, some do not approach them decent living standards, and decent.social called individual ·bargaining, nor is it associations generally. The continu \1 .fith a sympathetic attitude, as though standards. As I said to one of my very control of enterprise by employers. The maintenance of the right of free and they are true representatives of the aspi­ good· and distinguished friends in a busi­ alternative is necessarily a far greater equal association for employers and rations of the working people in the ness deal, "Be for something, for a extension of public authority and respon­ farmers and for citizens, irrespective of United States. Some of us are sometimes change. We know what ycu are against. sibility over enterprise than has been their economic connections, is, in fact, inclined to become impatient with these Be for something, do not come around, necessary in the past. This is the view, involved in the present controversy. working people because their interests being for it, 2 years after everybody else as we have seen, of outstanding and im­ The denial or the impairment of free seem to be pushed by their representa­ is for it, because you do not get credit partial authorities in the field of labor­ and equal association of workers in tives to a degree which mal{es it uncom­ for it then." The first tlemands of labor management relations. unions will sooner or later imperil the fortable to people whose aim is to main­ unions were as much for union secur:ity, In other words, there are three rights of other groups to maintain free­ tain the economic status quo. recognition of group action, status in the choices: First, free-collective bargaining dom of association. There are many explanations of the community, and free education for the between free management and free I take it that there are some persons reason for the labor-management c:m­ children, as they were for raises in wages. labor; or, second, individual bargaining, who would like to destroy the United fiict. A former Member of Congress, Of course, we must admit that, especially which merely means taking orders; it States Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Representative Hartley, has explained among the low paid, the financial in­ ·means that a man might go to the Stand­ President, · we may disagree with the this conflict in his book, published, I be­ terest is an important one. ard Oil Co. and might say, "I want a job United States Chamber of Commerce on lieve, last year, by saying simply, "Man­ - Our economy is so complex.that mem­ at so much an hour," and the company's occasion; but I would never vote . for a agement wants to make all the money it bers of economic groups must form or­ representative would say, "I will not pay law to destroy it or limit its freedom of can; labor wants to make all the ganizations to represent them. Farm­ you that much," so then the individual action. American business institutions mo~ey it can. The result is," says ers,-employers, wage workers, small-busi­ has to say, "Then I will bargain with have the right to join together for pur­ Mr. Ha·rtley, "labor-management con­ ness men, all feel the. need for organizing you." That does not make much sense, poses of formulating policy and decision. fiict, strife, and strikes." This is too to attain their objectives. of course. The choice, then, is between Each one of us must make up his min'd much of a simplification of the prob­ The American Medical Association or­ free-collective bargaining between free either to be in favor of freedom or to l-em, but it is a view which is popular at ganizes to obtain its objectives. I ask, management and free labor; or, second, opposed to freedom; we cannot be a li ~he present time. Historically, unions why do we not pass laws about the AMA? · individual bargaining-and, as a matter bit in favor of freedom. nave been interested in much more than Why do we not pass laws about the bar of fact, very few persons would be in­ . Mr. THOMAS of Utah. Mr. President, the selfish fight, if one .will call it that, associations? Because, ·Mr. President, clined to attempt that, so for all practi­ will the Senator yield? for money for their members. The first those distinguished professional people cal purposes we may disregard it; or, Mr. HUMPHREY. I yieid to the Sen­ demands of labor unions were as much have the right to join tog·ether; and when third, a much greater extension of public ator from Utah. for union security, recognition of group we start segregating every little group, authority and public responsibility over Mr. THOMAS of utah. If we tried to action, status in the community, and free and pass.ing a special law because we do both management and labor than have outlaw such an organizg,tion as the education for their children, as they were not fike some of the things that some of for raises in wages. . their officers do, we are theri going to existed in t~e past. United States Chamber of Commerce, would not it be like trying to outlaw the I should like merely to point out, Mr. be so busy passing laws against every So I think the choice can be narrowed comic papers or some of the other things President, that some of the same type of little organization that we shall not get down to this: Do .you want free-collec­ which are a part of our life and which folk who today have fought bitterly for anything else done.' tive bargaining or do you want Govern­ the people rather enjoy, but never take the retention of the Taft-Hartley Act-! 'Mr. LONG. · Mr. President,' will the ment-controlled, Government-regulated, seriously? say some, not all-are the same kind of Senator. yield? · and Government-dominated collective Mr. HUMPHREY. I shall accept the folk, if you please, who fought against . Mr. HUMPHREY. I yield 'to the Sen­ bargaining-in other words, not merely statement of the distinguished chair­ public education. It is to the eternal ator from Louisiana. to have the head of the camel under the man of the committee. I must say to credit of the great trade-unions and their . Mr.' LONG. The Senator asks, why do tent, but to have all the camel in the my good friend and colleague that ·at members that in the early history of the we not pass laws relating to bar associa­ tent. Mr. President, do our people want times I have taken the Chamber of Com­ Nation they went forth and did battle for tions? I would point out to the Senator to have the Government of the United merce quite seriously. The new presi­ the right of an educational opportunity that we attorneys have one of the strong­ States draw up . a labor policy which dent of it is a very good personal friend for the children of America. That is a est closed shops in America. Anyone who brings the respective parties to the door of mine, and I think a great deal of him. little more than certain other groups can will investigate will find that we have of conciliation, or do they want the I frequently disagree with him, but I claim. In regard to those things which laws on the statute books of every State Government to draw up a policy which think the right to disagree is one of the have elevated the general living and cul­ in Amerie;a. We prescribe an examina­ not only takes the respective parties to luxuries we have in this country. tural standards of our people, such as tion which everyone must take who wants the door of conciliation, but kicks open (At this point Mr. HUMPHREY yielded public health measures, workmen's com­ to practice before the courts, before he the door and brings the parties to the to Mr. KEFAUVER, who made a statement .Pensation laws, child-maternal care, so­ can stand in court to plead a case for table, lttld says to them, "Look, fellows; rela.tive to Gordon R. Clapp, Chairman piftl s.ecurity, and all sorts of legislation anyone except himself. 844385-30518 844385--30518 14 15 Mr. HUMPHREY. I am economic structure, dealt with very happy as if he condition." The individual worker knows than the union can to have the observations of my were not human. get for them: I pay friend, that his voice is being heard. Other­ them better than the union pays them. the able and distinguished Senator from If" the trade-union existed· simply as wise, his voice would never be heard. a means for workers to get more money, They have shorter hours than the union Louisana. I am not an attorney, and I The trade-union of today can be ex­ is hesitate one would think that unions would not requesting. They' have a p ension to make any remarks which plained better by describing it as I have· fund; they are given turkeys at Christ­ could in any way be interpreted as not exist where workers were well off. Some done, as the sole medium for meeting the of them are well off. Why is it that mas, Easter bunnies at Easter, and fire­ being friendly to that great and noble aspirations of workers in all fields. crackers on the' Fourth of July." pt:ofession. What I was pointing out some of them are the most well off? With advanced technology, a trade­ Why is it that the railroad brotherhoods, Let me remind you, Mr. President, that was that there is no·e.ffort on the part of union meets ·the psychological needs of there have the Congress of the United which have fairly good standards, a,nd been times in the history of States to pass workers for a voice in the decisions which this world when nations were ruled by laws against what the distinguished Sen­ which have operated over a long perio l;!ave to be made concerning their day­ of time, are well off? Ask a good con great and benevolent kings who were ator has said is a closed shop. I have to-day working conditions. The unions more never looked at it ductor. Ask a member of the Brother­ noble in their generosity, more in that way. I am glad fit their pattern of organization to that gracious, and more kindly, possibly, than to have that opinion; it is very edifying. hood· of Railroad Trainmen if they want of the economy in which they operate. their union. They are better off than any democracy has ever been; but he Until the New Deal period began, the We have big unions only because they who giveth can take away, organization some of the others who have not be~n and the one of workers into groups to have to deal with big managements. Mr. who may be kindly on Wednesday may meet their economic needs was either long organized. Ask them if they wa,nt President, we do. not go around putting their union. Try to take it away, haVe dyspepsia on Thursday, and be not frowned upon or, at best, not protected. an

67 66 then, to raise was going the other day, it is when the people Would it not be better, America's economic resources the labor movement in 1946 were attack­ said wage, for. example, to 75 vested, privileged posi­ 1947. are of! guard that we can best judge the minimum on by those in ing the cooperative movement by cents an hour so as to give some measure than at any time before in Ameri­ were. next .on them, not when. they are on guard. . tions The farmers' cooperatives people. of security to the underprivileged, with­ can history. I make that statement Already the tom-toms are start" America needs to speak for her of us the list. which comes out whose economic freedom none without fear of successful contradiction. ing to beat out that familiar old rhythm: She needs the spoken word Congress which the lips, but from the is secure? The same T:-vo wrongs do not make a right. "The farmers also have gotten too st"ro~g not merely from to enact the Taft-Hartley example of her experiences. found the time Busmess deserves a fair profit. It de­ now." The farmers have producers' co­ living did not find time to learn what was to mar­ I conclude by asking, Would not a law serves an opportunity to enjoy economic operatives. They jdin together happening to the cost of living. It did possible a fair They do not let the labor-relations policy be better directed conditions which make ket their products. !lot find time to learn what was happen­ when I speak of business I on the grain exchange clean therri toward raising real wages back to their a profit. But people artificially In? to those who were working under speak of the kind of people whom I have up any more. So some day it is neces­ earlier level rather than or fifty cents an on the rights of· the mmimum wage of forty known in business-those who made sary to watch out for these cooperatives, clamping down The same Congress which saw fit get that people who struck in retaliation against hour. this country, those in the grocery stores, too. But they did not quite to reduce ~axes. on the high, the mighty, stores. President, because the economic blows they suffered in 1946 ? the drugstores, and the clothing done 2 years ago, Mr. and the .ncb did not find time to raise who made America. is a pretty rugged individual. Certainly they struck in 1946. Some em­ They are the ones the farmer people the level of the unorganized workers. is suffering He was at one time left almost ragged. ployers tried to tell the American shed over the Little business in America 5 cents an hour I have seen many tears every day. The big boys Now he is rugged. He fought back. that if they had to pay workers, I will believe some more and more labor would be · bankrupt. They unorganized tried to pit little business ap-ainst Those engaged in the farm and the more they of the talk I hear about love for the un­ have standing shoulder to were guilty of a deliberate falsehood. ·In labor. They have tried to tell the little movement are organized workers when the Congress in fighting for its rights right now. 1946 net profits after taxes were $12,800,- which businessman, like the little contractor shoulder after ~ees fit to enact a minimum wage is the union. Mr. President, who are these high and 000,000; in 1947, $17,300,000,000, If any Mem­ California, that his enemy net IS fit for a human being. who his enemy mighty ·people who think there is any­ taxes; in 1948, almost $21,000,000,000 can tell me how he can ~omeday ~e will find out who . ~er of Congress Will wake up to discover that thing in this country besides those after taxes llVe on 50 cents an hour, I want to see IS. He produce; the men who work in the Mr. KILGORE. Mr. President, will when he wants to borrow money he really hlm, but soon. When big shops, in the factories, on the farms? the Senator yield? a part of a must pay 4-percent interest. . All these questions are money, it gets They are the producers. Business can­ Mr. HUMPHREY. I yield. We should not consider business wa.nts to borrow the Senator seen smgle pattern. That is a 2-percent not continue unless people have purchas­ Mr. KILGORE. Has legislat_ion piece by piece, and say, "Is it for 2 percent. ing power. Their rights are basic rights, the news item recently placed in the Let us find out handicap at the start. The little-busi­ to the effect not ~his a fine bill?" up and find out that are fundamental rights, and come even Appendix of the RECORD, stands up alongside other things. ness man will wake on top, had applied to the how It important customets he ever before the privileges of · those that General Motors What about the effect of the Taft­ the only those in the higher bracl{ets. Securities and Exchange Commission for labor? What about had were those who worked in overalls. a $20,000,- Hartley Act upon corporation direc­ I repeat, this Nation is only as strong the privilege of distributing do not have homes in which There are not enough its a $20,000,000 sto'ck those who k_eep every store in America busy, as its working people, its farmers, 000 cash bonus plus ,to live? What about the slums? What tors to craftsmen, its skilled workers, whose boys bonus among its directors and top opportu­ '!'hat IS our philosophy. That is the (~ about the lack of educational Act was and girls need homes, need pork chops, executives? go all the way down the Phil_osophy to which the Wagner very happy nity? We could philosophy that the need clothes. They are the people who Mr. HUMPHREY. I am line with such questions. dedwated-the niake America strong. If we ever forget to receive that information. I know that behind ~mcrican people have the right to organ­ f I believe that the philosophy their ·that and attempt to enact punitive legis­ there are those who have all sorts o Act was quite clear. Ize to protect themselves, to lift have line. I recall the Taft-Hartley to equalize the situa­ lation against them, then we shall information along that Apparently there was one group in o_wn ~tandar_ds, and lost our American heritage. that when I was a student, 1 ye.ar be­ be really "taken tiOn m the light of economic realities. York America which had to I appeal to Senators today to remem­ fore the City National Bank of New That was labor. Why? Be­ The question of obtaining a satisfac­ that it had dis­ care of." is ber that when we consider labor-man­ closed its doors, I read ?ause her leaders had been honored dur­ tory labor-relations policy, therefore, agement relationships we are not con­ tributed millions of dollars in bonuses for beautiful and wonderful broader than the question of the Labor­ little later 'it mg the war the sidering them merely within the borders among its directors. A cooperation. Because her· leaders and Relations Act itself. I have gone to the United· States. The eyes of the cleaned the American people out of mil­ produced fabulous large cities of America and have looked of after all, her rank and file had world are fixed upon us. The people of lions of dollars of deposits; but, of war material. Because her over the slum areas. . I have said to my­ had their ·fun. quantities other countries want to know whether the directors sons and daughters had been faithful self, "I wonder who lives there." I find this great America is concerned about What I am trying to point out is that loyal. Because labor had helped to who live there work am arid and that many of those people or about the golden calf. I the way to preserve a free economy bUild America. I refer to the working They may work in one of we literally 'erve in factories. one of those who believe that · a free-enterprise system is to pres P~ople who emerged from that period s, or in an auto­ throughout the to the electrical factorie improve our situ·ation the opportunity for men and women With. a few little series E war bonds, When I look at the kind win the battle for men's minds that the war still mobile factory. world and earn a living. We have found that workmg people who, after the workers and their when we recognize ·that plain, ordinary preserved children of thei~ in­ of hovels in which opportunity can best be h ad eight or nine , I say to myself, "Is it people everywhere are interested in our living with them in the same little families must live through organizations of their own-co­ laws they want to strike humanitarian accomplishments. associa­ house, because there was a housing any wonder that operatives, unions, and trade It may be a relief. It Sometimes I think that ·what we need State levels. shortage. once in awhile? tions at local, district, and be a pleasure." in America is a little greater sense of hu­ to 'preserve What was going on during that time may common, hu­ We ai:e talking about trying of war was in the Senate, mility, a sense of ordinary, which makes ·it was that while the whiplash I ask my colleagues We are watched for the . · the kind of economy placed on the backs of labor in woult: you like to live in some of the mane decency. American people· to be being How little things we do. ·As the distinguished possibie for the 1946 and 1947, more exploitation of filthy, degraded, slum areas of America? self-respeG_~ing. · Senator from Illinois [Mr. DouGLAs] self-sustaining and 844385-30518 844385-30518 I

68 Mr. President, who. live in the slums? citizenry that is contented and happy . Do the authors of the Taft-Hartley Act and realizes that ·the community is in­ live in the slums? Not on your life, Mr. terested in the individual. But cer­ President. The people who live in the tainly when the individual worker sees, slums are the-ones upon whom the Taft­ for example, that under the law he is Hartley Act bears mos1i·heJl,vily. faced with jail because of his opposition Now we are getting around to doing a to an , or that his little something about the slums, late as union is going to be sued because some­ it is, but we are grateful for the oppor­ one in the union may have done some­ tunity just the same. We are getting thing he should not have done, when he around to doing something about better finds out that the union which helped educational opportunities, and perhaps a him get his job and is making a little little later we shall be able to do some­ provision for him in the way of a wel­ thing about improving health opportuni­ fare fund, is going to be penalized, I ties and health care. All those things submit that he will not be happy until will work for a better and more h ealthy that law is removed from the statute America. books. Labor legislation does ·not determine I do not know whether we shall get · the pattern of labor-management rela­ around to doing that at this time, but I tionships, Mr. President. In that con­ submit that the processes of democracy nection labor legislation is but one fac­ are as relentless and ever-flowing as tor. Good will between employers and the tide itself; and just as surely as we employees is another factor. A good are here in the Senate Chamber today, community that is interested in the lives if we fail to do our duty in 1949, there of its children and fathers and mothers will be some of us who will be back here is another important· factor, a vital part to do our duty in 1951, and I would not of good labor-management . relations. be surprised if there were new faces here We can have all the law we want to then, because the American people, the have to tell the American people, "You working people of this country, the peo­ cannot do this, that, or the other," but ple who h ave been oppressed by this law, if .we keep then: living in slums, if we are determined that they are going to deny to a man the right to send h is chil­ legislation a remove this kind of punitive dren to a good school, and if we deny and are deter­ shall not be from the statute books, m an health protection, we going to have some­ any kind of law which wlll mined that they are able to enact processes of gov- m ake for industrial peace in this Nation. thing to say about the we want law observ­ . ernment, because this country is their Mr. President, . ance. Law observance comes from a country, as well as it is yours and mine 844385-30518_ 0

Minnesota Historical Society

Copyright in this digital version belongs to the Minnesota Historical Society and its content may not be copied without the copyright holder's express written permis­ sion. Users may print, download, link to, or email content, however, for individual use.

To req uest permission for commercial or ed uca tional use, please contact the Minnesota Hi stori cal Society.

1~ W'W'W. mnhs.org