gross exaggeration of the true conditions. I am at a loss to know where and how these figures were obtained.

Aside from the group of 307 claimants, referred to above, I examined a large number of these workmen, perhaps as many as 200, on most of whom I kept no record, who claimed to be affected by reason of their employment. I found very little if any impairment of their health which I could attribute to their work in the tunnel. I advised most of them that they had no grounds upon which to base a claim for damages against their employer. some of these men, as I later learned, did file suit for damages.

However,

At this time there are to my knowledge only a few cases of silicosis in this community and these are only moderately affected. To my knowledge the last death resulting from silicosis in their community, occurred on November 30, 1934.

It has been said that none of the men knew of the hazard connected with the work. This is not correct. Shortly after the work began many of these workers came to me complaining of chest conditions and I warned many of them of the dust hazard and advised them that continued work under these conditions would result in serious lung damage. Disregarding this warning many of the men continued at this work and later brought suit against their employer for damages.

While I am sure that many of these suits were based on meritorious grounds, I am also convinced that many others took advantage of this situation and made out of it nothing less than a racket.

In this letter I have endeavored to give your committee the facts which came under my observation in connection with this situation.

If I can supply further information I shall be glad to do so.
Respectfully yours,

L. R. HARLESS.

Mr. MARCANTONIO. I should like to comment on Dr. Harless' letter. From the testimony of Dr. Harless, which testimony was given in the trials of these cases, it will be found that his testimony varies considerably from the contents of the letter that has just been placed in the record. I would suggest to members of the committee that before we proceed we ought to have Dr. Harless' testimony, the testimony he gave in court, before us.

Mr. RANDOIPH. Mr. Love, by whom were you sent to Gauley Bridge and this area?

Mr. Love. By the Pittsburgh Press and the Scripps-Howard newspapers. They were all interested in this matter.

Mr. RANDOLPH. The Pittsburgh Press was interested in it principally because that paper served territory that is more or less familiar with mining, not necessarily mining of this type but mining of other character.

Mr. Love. We were, possibly, the closest paper in that territory, and it was easier for us to get there and investigate the situation. Moreover, it looked to be a national story.

Mr. RANDOLPH. How many days, all told, did you spend there? Mr. LOVE. Five days.

Mr. RANDOLPH. As a trained reporter, would you say that there were as many as 400 or 1,000 who died from this disease, as has been stated by other witnesses who have been before this subcommittee?

Mr. Love. It would be impossible for me to say, Mr. Randolph. I do not know of my own knowledge, but from the knowledge of persons who should be qualified to know, there are many cases of silicosis. We made no attempt to fix a number, because reliable figures upon which to base a conclusion were not available.

Mr. RANDOLPH. Were your articles written from the standpoint of just going down and reporting the picture as you actually found it?

Mr. Love. I was to report exactly what I found. In cases where I could not myself learn the exact facts I quoted people who should be able to know, and in cases where the people might not know accurately I qualified every statement of theirs that I quoted. Our sole idea was to give a correct picture of the conditions as it was. Ours was to be an impartial investigation.

Mr. RANDOLPH. It was a fact-finding trip?

Mr. Love. It was a fact-finding trip. We had no selfish motive. I was not instructed to play up anything particularly. I was simply to find out exactly what was going on and to report upon it.

Mr. RANDOLPH. I believe I have read all of your articles, and you did not color those stories at all.

Mr. Love. No; I attempted to stay away from that practice. I was instructed not to partially find in favor of one side or the cther. Mr. RANDOLPH. You have mentioned the name of A. A. Lily. He is, of course, quite a well-known man in the State of West Virginia; he is quite an attorney and politician, and I believe that you have said, if I am correct, that he intimated to you that the juries in those trials at Fayetteville were tampered with?

Mr. Love. Yes; he said that. I did not use that in my story, because it seemed like something that could not be satisfactorily proven. Mr. RANDOLPH. I wonder if you could give us any statements that he actually made to you. Could you recall his approximate language? I think this is important, because he is an individual of some prominent standing in that section of the country.

Mr. Love. I cannot, obviously, quote him exactly. I can, though, give you the substance of his remarks. He said that juries had not been locked up as they had been locked up in other important cases, such as murder cases. He said that men were waiting outside the courtroom, where the jurors sat, in cars to take the jurors home when they were excused for the day, and that it was his opinion that one or more persons on those juries had been influenced, because in each case it seemed that one, two, or three jurors held out. As for exact quotations, I could not give them to you.

Mr. RANDOLPH. That is all.

Mr. GRISWOLD. Mr. Dunn, have you any questions?

Mr. DUNN of Pennsylvania. We will all agree, no doubt, that the Pittsburgh Press is a very liberal newspaper.

Mr. Love. Yes.

Mr. DUNN of Pennsylvania. The Pittsburgh Press is to be commended for sending you there to make an investigation. I believe you have told us that you made it a special point to contact many of these people in their homes in trying to learn what they knew and trying to find out whether they were acquainted with anybody who had contracted silicosis.

Mr. Love. The workmen ?

Mr. DUNN of Pennsylvania. Yes.

Mr. Love. Yes; I did; I did not want to take anybody's word for it, particularly; therefore, I always made it a point to contact the men concerned wherever I could find them.

Mr. DUNN of Pennsylvania. Did you see Dr. Harless, who wrote the letter that has just been read into the record?

Mr. Love. Yes; I know him. I talked to him on two separate occasions.

Mr. DUNN of Pennsylvania. Did he impress you as one who thought this was a very serious thing in that section of the country? Mr. Love. Yes; he did. As a matter of fact I would say that Dr. Harless has probably become very self-conscious about this matter. I cannot say that he has retracted what he told me; but possibly he had been thrust into the limelight attaching to this matter so much that he is more conservative now than when the matter was simply something of local interest.

Mr. DUNN of Pennsylvania. I notice in the letter that in one place he stated there has been exaggeration and in another part of the letter he said that he had warned the men about going into this tunnel because they would surely contract the disease. I wonder why the two different statements?

Mr. Love. I do not know about that. Dr. Harless told me and the photographer that accompanied me that it was a very serious situation. He said that at one time the company claimed they used wet drilling, and yet the men would come in to him with this silica dust all over them, in their hair, eyebrows, and on their clothes.

Mr. DUNN of Pennsylvania. Did he make that statement to you? Mr. Love. Yes.

Mr. RANDOLPH. You have stated that the newspapers in Pittsburgh are all liberal. You mean the Post-Gazette, do you not?

Mr. DUNN of Pennsylvania. Yes; at any time it wants to bawl one out it does so, and then it will say a good word for the same man later; that is, if he deserves it.

Mr. MARCANTONIO. Did Dr. Harless tell you that he was a member of a commission of three doctors who examined 309 of these men and found 137 had silicosis? That means that more than 33.3 percent of the group examined had silicosis; and yet he added in his letter that there was a silicosis racket. What do you think of the figure 137 out of 309 from the standpoint of averages?

Mr. Love. I believe it may be correct for this reason: I have done research into this matter at the Bureau of Mines. It appears that silicosis is a difficult disease at the present time to diagnose; that the silica dust may bring on other lung disorders, and it is possible that these other men had physical irregularities that could not be said to be silicosis but that might be just as serious as silicosis.

Mr. MARCANTONIO. As a matter of fact, a man may be examined a year after he has worked in a tunnel and not show a sign of silicosis, and yet the silicosis may develop later; is not that true?

Mr. Love. Yes; it may develop as many as ten years after a man has left a tunnel.

Mr. MARCANTONIO. Even basing the statement on the figures that 137 of 309 of these men examined had silicosis, from your observation and investigation, the doctor's claim that this is a racket is not justified?

Mr. Love. No; it would not seem to be justified.

Mr. MARCANTONIO. Incidentally, I should like to point out to members of the subcommittee that Dr. Harless volunteered the following statement: "I warned many of these men of the dust hazard and advised them that continued work under these conditions would result in serious lung damage." I submit that such statement contradicts his other statement that there was an exaggeration of the reputed prevalence of silicosis.

Furthermore, I want to call the attention of members of the committee, in view of that statement, to a part of the law of West Virginia which says that "if any claim should satisfy these conditions it may be barred under the statute if the employee has been guilty of willful self-exposure." I wish the committee would bear that in mind in connection with the statement of Dr. Harless that he advised the men that if they continued in that tunnel work there would be serious lung damage, that their work there would result in silicosis.

I want to offer in evidence at this time, to be made part of the record, the examination of Dr. Emery R. Hayhurst in the trial of the Raymond Johnson case. It will be recalled that Dr. Hayhurst was a member of the board of three medical officers who examined these men.

Mr. GRISWOLD. You are offering that transcript for the record? Mr. MARCANTONIO. Yes.

Mr. GRISWOLD. Without objection, it will be admitted.

Mr. MARCANTONIO. It reads as follows:

EMORY R. HAYHURST, introduced as a witness on behalf of the plaintiff, having been first duly sworn, testified as follows:

Direct examination by Mr. BACON:

Question. Tell the jury your name.

Answer. Emory R. Hayhurst.

Question. Have you been sworn, Doctor?

Answer. Yes, sir.

Question. Where do you live?

Answer. Columbus, Ohio.

Question. What is your profession?

Answer. I am a physician, and I specialize in occupational diseases.

Question. State your education, Doctor, if you will. Don't be modest about it; just tell about it.

Answer. I graduated from the high school in Chicago in 1899. I graduated from the University of Illinois in the course preliminary to medicine in 1903, with the degree of bachelor of arts. I went into the graduate school there while doing some teaching work in physiology, and received the degree of master of arts in 1905, with a thesis on the physiology and chemistry of respiration. I then went into the college of medicine of the university, which was then called the College of Physicians and Surgeons in Chicago. I received my degree there in June 1908, passed the State medical board in Illinois, and then took 2 years hospital training, 6 months at the University Hospital in Chicago and 18 months at Cook County Hospital, Chicago, from the latter of which I received a diploma of resident physician in 1910, in June. I then was engaged by the University of Chicago in Rush Medical College as a fellow in occupational diseases, and later as director of the occupational-disease clinic for about 22 years. I was also appointed pathologist to the University Hospital, a position which I held for about 21⁄2 years, concurrently with this Rush Medical College appointment. I eventually took my doctor of philosophy degree from the University of Chicago in 1916, specializing in hygiene and particularly industrial hygiene. Further education might be considered to be the attendance at various scientific and professional society and association meetings annually, and sometimes more frequently, both in this country and abroad. I have done this continually ever since. I think that is about the basis of my educational preparation.

Question. What are you engaged in at the present time, Doctor? Answer. I am consultant to the Ohio State Department of Health in occupational diseases, a position which I have held for 20 years this coming May. I am a consulting hygienist to the United States Public Health Service, do a certain amount of work in that capacity also for the United States Bureau of Mines, and indirectly for the United States Bureau of Standards. I would, however, state that I am not here acting officially for the Ohio State Department of Health nor for the Public Health Service, or any of these other official or Federal agencies that I have named.

Question. Have you ever held any position at the Ohio State University, I believe it is?

Answer. Yes, sir; I was professor of hygiene there for 11 years, and chairman of their department of public health and hygiene. Prior to that I was an assistant professor there, and chief of staff of the dispensaries of the university.

Question. Are you at present a member of any committees having to do with occupational diseases, or anything of that sort?

Answer. Yes, sir; I am a member of several. Since 1915 I have been a member of the—I am chairman, have been chairman of the American committee of the International Association of Industrial Accidents and Diseases, which meets every 2 or 3 years in Europe. Since 1917 I have been the chairman and the editor of the Abstract Notes on Industrial Hygiene, for the American Public Health Association, which are published monthly in its journal, called the American Journal of Public Health. I have been a member of the pneumoconiosis committee of the American Public Health Association ever since it was organized, I think in 1926. The other two members have been Dr. Sayers, for years the chief surgeon of the United States Bureau of Mines, and now in charge of the office of hygiene and sanitation of the Public Health Service, and Dr. A. J. Lanza, of the Public Health Service, who is now with the Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. The committee was enlarged this past year by the addition of Dr. A. E. Russell, of the United States Public Health Service. I have been a member of the committee on standards of the American Public Health Association which, after these other committees report, then determine about the question of standardizing these reports so that they can be made workable in practice. I am one of the three members of the committee on occupational diseases of the International Labor Association, which is a function of the League of Nations-that is, I am one of the three American members. The other two members are Dr. Allis Hamilton and Dr. Cecil K. Drinker, both of Harvard University.

Question. Is silicosis an occupational disease?

Answer. It is.

Question. What experience, if any, have you had with silicosis?

Answer. I have been apprised of silicosis and investigating subjects with it, in the places where they work, where they develop the disease, knowing it as silicosis, since at least 1913. Prior to that I called the disease, as it was then named, miner's phthisis, or fibroid phthisis, or potter's rot, or grinder's rot, or whatever other occupation a man might have been in, but since 1913 the disease has been specifically known as silicosis. I have naturally continued that up to the present, because of my association in this field of work. Question. Have you examined persons having silicosis?

Answer. I have.

Question. Can you tell the jury about how many, or over what period of time you have examined, persons having silicosis?

Answer. Well, to answer your last question first, I have examined persons with silicosis for at least 25 years, knowing it as silicosis for at least 20 years. In answer to your second question, I presume I have examined 12 or 15 hundred persons who had silicosis. I have naturally, in my consulting work, passed upon the evidences submitted in a great many more cases.

Question. Have you taken X-ray pictures of persons having silicosis? Answer. I am not an X-ray technician myself, and do not take the pictures, but I have examined a very large number of X-ray pictures of silicosic individuals and others alleged to be silicotic, for which a differential diagnosis was desired.

Question. Are you able to read and interpret X-ray pictures of persons having silicosis?

Answer. I am.

Question. How long have you done that kind of work?

Answer. About 15 years.

Question. Have you performed autopsies on persons having died with silicosis? Answer. I have performed some myself. I have more often been a witness at such autopsies.

Question. Over what period of time would you say you have performed autopsies and been a witness to such?

Answer. Twenty-five years, knowing it as silicosis for about 19 or 20 years. Question. I will ask you whether or not you have examined microscopic specimens of silicotic lungs and tissues.

Answer. I have.