tee, portion of which were read in by Mr. Aston. It was prepared and the notations printed on it, but it seems to me in view of the vast volume of what we produce here, that it would be nonsensical to print all these. The board's findings too are all in that; so you do not need to go behind them to have all the facts. Mr. ANDRESEN. Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the consent of the committee to insert these findings as a part of this record. Mr. HOOPER. Received as part of the record. Mr. LE SUEUR. To sum up the situation in just a word: The ques tions that bothered the other committee considerably were the ques tions of administration. They found no difficulty on the question of whether or not the Bethlehem case was a precedent. That was shown by the part of the record which was read here. On the matter of the general policy involved here I would like to say a word. Conditions in the United States to-day are bad. The Labor Department reports 3,000,000 men out of work to-day in the United States; and it is the time for the Government of the United States to exhibit fair treatment for labor. Labor conditions in the Northwest are bad. We have a condition in the United States in which crime is rampant; and respect for law is growing less and less. And one of the things which every thinking person in the United States refers to as lessening that respect, is the enormous delays in the courts when a poor devil asks for justice. There is nothing worse for Government than that delay. It would not be as bad to say to them "This is wiped off the slate." Here are four or five firms working all this time to have this finally settled, and to see that the poor man achieves an equal standing before the law with his wealthy neighbor. The Government is now spending hundreds of millions of public money for the relief of the farmer; but how about an unemployed worker who is only asking that several thousands of them be paid what the Government agreed to pay them for actual services actually rendered. This too, while high tariffs add to their cost of living. Judge ESLICK. The question will certainly arise if this bill gets to the floor of the House, as to the recommendations of the Secretary of War. I understand that your contention is that under Secretary of War Baker an award was granted, but before the award was paid, his decision was reversed, so to speak, by his successor, Secretary of War, Mr. Weeks. Mr. LE SUEUR. He attempted to reverse it. Judge ESLICK. Well, as far as the effects were concerned it was a reversal? Mr. LE SUEUR. Yes, sir. Judge ESLICK. I think it would be quite serviceable if you made a short memorandum for the information of the committee to the effect that Secretary Weeks had not the legal right to change the decision of his predecessor. Mr. LE SUEUR. I will give you the authorities on that point, Judge Eslick. To save you a lot of research I will give you the result of my search, I want to call your attention briefly to this opinion, which has the decision of the Supreme Court behind it, concerning the finality of a finding of that character: In 1825 the Secretary of the Navy asked the opinion of the Attorney General as to "How far the present executive is authorized to review and unsettle the acts of its predecessor? Replying to that the Attorney General said: If it has such authority, the Executive which is to follow us must have the like authority to review and unsettle our decisions, and to set up again those of our predecessors; and upon this principle no quest on can be considered as finally settled. The establishment of such a principle besides the uncertainty and confusion just noted, would throw upon the Executive a load of duty which it could not possible sustain. Then Mr. Taney, in an opinion, given at the request of the Secretary of War in 1831 said: If a final decision, upon a knowledge of all the facts, made by an officer authorized to dec de on claims against the Government, is liable to be opened and reviewed by his successor in office, every change in the office will produce a new hearing of the claim, and the accounts of the Government will always rema n open and unsettled. An erroneous decision of the officer in favor of the c'aimant and the payment of the money, become conclusive on their successors in office and the Government. Those are the early decisions. Then here is a later one, and all kinds of decisions following that precedent. Here is one based on the claim of Charles F. Sibbald by Attorney General Reverdy Johnson, in 1849, in which he said: That the adjudications of the different departments of the Government upon matters submitted to them are in general to be considered as final, has never been doubted. That mistakes in some matters of fact by a head of a department may, in certain cases and for certain purposes be reviewed and corrected by his successor is clear; and that claims rejected for want of proper evidence may be afterwards allowed upon its subsequent discovery in certain cases is also clear. But neither proposition is universally true. If the decision pronounced is quasijudicial—if the head of a department is by law made the judge of the claim, to decide upon its existence and its extent, and his decision is erroneous, it is equally conclusive, whether this error be from a misconception of the facts or the law. The Government could not run upon any other theory; and that is the rule all the way down the line, sustained by the Supreme Court of the United States, and those decisions are cited in this document which with your permission I will leave with the committee. (See attached papers.) Now, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, no difficulty was found in auditing the accounts of some hundreds of the men whose claims were audited under Secretary Baker. There is a lot of talk to the effect that the officials who made the first promises made them without authority. How about the later promises which have been read to you, made by the war contract adjustment board and the Secretary of War. They had authority; and good faith and equity cry aloud for the fulfillment of those promises to these claimants. Mr. HOOPER. This matter has not been in shape where it could be handled. We do not need any exhortation to pay a just claim. Mr. LESUEUR. Then further on the question that there was no promise made by an authoritative officer. First. Can the representative of the President of the United States promise these things to the men? The objectors to this bill do not object to the bills; but they all said "You can not pay through the Department of War. You must get an appropriation. Then there is the statement of Secretary of War Baker as to the finding of the Labor Board-the direct representative of the Presi dent of the United States, of which Chief Justice Taft was a mem ber, they were there, and they made findings as to the work of the contract adjustment board; and the particular findings in each on of these particular cases, will be found in the document which w will attach to our presentation to-day. So there is no question but that the men had a perfect right to expect and to reply upor those findings, especially in view of the indorsement of the Govern ment in other cases that had been carried out, and that all but 4 or of those 67 companies who went under that award, complied with it without any further pressure. So I think there is no question about the equities of these men, nor the righteousness of their cause Mr. ANDRESEN. There is one thought in my mind, Mr. Chairman and that is in connection with the letter he read from Secretary of War Hurley. There is no opportunity for any one here to crossexamine any representative of the War Department. Certain statements are made in that letter to which I would like to call the atten. tion of the committee. (See p. 16, et seq. for letter.) The Secretary of War says it will be difficult to carry out the administration of this act, and he sets forth four different points in his letter. They are First. Classification of each employee in accordance with the terms of the award, based not upon his present designation or occupation, but upon the character of work performed more than 10 years ago. Second. Audit of the time and payroll records of the employing companies, for the period covered by the award, in order to determine the time worked by each employee, the amount paid him therefor, and the additional compensation, if any, due to him under the terms of the award. Three. Determination of all the work performed in the plants during the period covered by the award which pertained to contracts for the War Department; manifestly the Secretary of War would not, without specific legislation to that effect, be authorized to pay claims on account of work performed or contracts pertaining to the Navy, the Shipping Board, etc. Fourth. It is probable also that many persons coming within the purview of the bill, who in the meantime have left the employ of the companies named, could not now be located. Now, those are the four specific reasons which the Secretary of War sets forth in his letter as reasons why the bill should not be approved. Mr. GOODWIN. Would not the same difficulties arise with respect to the award of the Bethlehem Steel? Mr. ANDRESEN. Yes, sir. Mr. HOOPER. Those are difficulties, but they are not insuperable. Mr. ANDRESEN. There will be difficulties, but why should the men whom we can locate, and whose time rolls and pay cards can be located, be held up? Mr. HOOPER. That is true. The committee will give prompt attention to the matter, and report one way upon it as soon as possible. (The subcommittee adjourned.) |