Gentlemen, I am pointing out to you some of the ways in which this bill will react on the people in my section of the country and in the South and the Midwest; and, gentlemen, I beg of you not to support this bill in the form in which it is, because it will not only destroy the little factories in my section, but it will seriously interfere with the agricultural pursuits in my country.

Mr. HEALEY. May I ask a question?

Mr. ZIMMERMAN. Yes.

Mr. HEALEY. Have you completed your statement?
Mr. ZIMMERMAN. Not quite; no.

Mr. HEALEY. Well, go ahead. I will not interrupt.

Mr. ZIMMERMAN. I want to say another thing: Gentlemen, until I came to Congress, I have always been identified with the courts. I have tried to practice law down in Missouri and, gentlemen, I will say to you that this is strange language to be found in a democracy. Talk about a man having a right to be heard-a trial, if you please. Read this and see what he gets. I do not want to take your time, but I do want to read this:

Upon his own motion, or upon complaint of a breach or violation of a representation, agreement, or covenant made as herein provided, the Secretary of Labor or representative designated by him shall have the power to hold hearings

Where? Down in the man's community, so that he can be tried at home? It does not say. Presumably, here in Washington— and to issue orders requiring the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production of evidence under oath.

Farmers down there who are cutting, piling, and running a little sawmill could be brought up to Washington to testify.

Witnesses shall be paid the same fees and mileage that are paid witnesses in the courts of the United States. In case of contumacy, failure, or refusal by any person to obey such an order, in a district court of the United States or of any Territory or possession, or the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, within the jurisdiction of which the inquiry is carried on, or within the jurisdiction of which such person who is guilty of contumacy, failure, or refusal is found, resides, or transacts business, upon the application of the Secretary of Labor or representative designated by him shall have jurisdiction to issue to such person an order to require such person to appear before the Secretary or representative designated by him, shall have jurisdiction to issue to such person an order requiring such person to appear before the Secretary or representative designated by him, to produce evidence in, as, and when so ordered, and to give testimony relating to the matter under consideration or in question; and any failure to evade such order of the court shall be punished by said court as a contempt thereof.

Now, gentlemen, is this a trial by jury or is it a trial by the Secretary?

Let us get over here [indicating]. I do not want to take your time, but this has been pointed out. Now, gentlemen, I want, in my concluding remarks, to call your attention again to the suggestion made by my colleague from Ohio, who has pointed the way for you to correct most of the evils which have been mentioned here in the testimony, to wit, convict labor, sweatshops, child labor, by amending the law which provides for the purchase of materials for the Government and for the erection of buildings for the Government. Now, gentlemen, that is a simple proposition, and if you follow that suggestion you are going to get rid of all of the trouble

that will arise if this bill is sought to be enacted into law in its present form.

I thank you.

Mr. HEALEY. Mr. Zimmerman, as I gathered from your statement, your principal objection to the enactment of this bill is based on the fact that you believe it will raise wage levels in your section of the country so that you will not be able to compete with other sections?

Mr. ZIMMERMAN. That is right. We wage in our section; industry will cease. happen.

cannot pay the increased That is exactly what will

Mr. HEALEY. You further stated that the workers were not as skilled, for instance, in the boot-and-shoe business in your section of the country as they are in Massachusetts?

Mr. ZIMMERMAN. That is right.

Mr. HEALEY. Therefore, to make up for that deficiency, you have to have a lower-wage rate?

Mr. ZIMMERMAN. That is right.

Mr. HEALEY. In order that you may compete for these Government contracts?

Mr. ZIMMERMAN. In order that the shoe factories in St. Louis can afford to operate their factories at all, they are, of necessity, forced to pay these people in country factories lower wages, because they are not getting the output.

Mr. HEALEY. If I understand you correctly, you further state that many of your people work on the farms

Mr. ZIMMERMAN. That is right.

Mr. HEALEY. And are adlso engaged, in certain seasons of the year, in these factories?

Mr. ZIMMERMAN. That is right. Not in the factories all of the time.

Mr. HEALEY. You have no regard, of course, for those people who might be termed as being boot-and-shoe people, born and bred in the shoe business, and who have acquired a certain skill because they have followed it for so many years, and who do not have any farms upon which they can at least subsist? When you attract your shoe factories to Missouri from Massachusetts or New England, you do not have any regard for them. What becomes of all of those people who are thrown out of work by that transition?

Mr. ZIMMERMAN. I think I stated, and I believe I can prove this, gentlemen, that when you consider the low cost of living that has been determined from the statistics compiled, and you consider the living expenses, say, in Boston-I will make that comparison-with Kennett, Mo., or any other town in southeast Missouri-Sikeston, Poplar Bluff, Cape Girardeau-when you consider the wage which we pay in comparison with the wage which you pay, we are paying the higher wage; they are getting more money for what they are doing than you are giving your people in New England, absolutely; and you fellows are not treating your people right, because you are not paying them in proportion to what we are paying them down South.

Take the statistics. I made a statement here last year-and I have this table showing that some 30 or 40 different towns-we consider

the living expenses as compared with St. Louis, Boston, New York, and Chicago and the other big cities-that what I am telling you is a fact.

Mr. WALTER. Will you yield?

Mr. ZIMMERMAN. Yes.

Mr. WALTER. If you take the exact average over New England and other sections of the country, why are you fearful of the ill effects, so far as you are concerned, upon the passage of this act?

Mr. ZIMMERMAN. During the codes, my colleague, they recognized wage differentials for the South and Midwest; and I will say that the code authority was made up not by people from the West, but it was made up by people from New York, Boston, and the manufacturing centers of our country. They recognized the necessity for wage differentials and they gave it to us.

But Mr. Green says it ought not to exist; Miss Perkins says it ought not to exist; and they have come here as representatives of the proponents of this bill; and I take it that if the Secretary of Labor continues to have that attitude as the Honorable Secretary now has, there will not be any wage differential recognized, nor does your bill provide for it.

I want to say to you that if you will make provision for the recognition of a fair wage differential, then I would not be so exercised about this bill; but it does not recognize anything like that, and these people say, or the one who is to determine that fact, that there will not be any differential between Arkansas, Alabama, Boston, and the other centers.

Mr. HEALEY. The bill sets up standards?

Mr. ZIMMERMAN. Yes; but it puts into the hands of the Secretary the absolute, complete authority, and she says there ought not to be any difference.

Mr. RAMSAY. Whose hands would you put it into?

Mr. ZIMMERMAN. I have not thought of that, my colleague; but I say this that the time has come in this country when we had better pause before putting the whole industry of the Nation into the hands of one individual.

Mr. RAMSAY. I think my colleague has made a splendid argument for the bill.

Mr. ZIMMERMAN. For the bill? All right; I cannot tell how the human mind will operate, but

Mr. RAMSAY. You accuse Mr. Connery of having a selfish motive; you do not have any, do you?

Mr. ZIMMERMAN. He said so.

Mr. RAMSAY. Well, do you say that you have?

Mr. ZIMMERMAN. I want to preserve my home. I say that any man ought to fight for his home and for the country in which he lives; and I think that is fair.

Mr. RAMSAY. Do you think that you should have the advantage when you have men that can work on the farm and, at the same time, take away work of these employees in the cities who have nothing in the world but their work to live on?

Mr. ZIMMERMAN. I suggest and invite them to come down and live in a country where it is not so cold, and where living is cheap, and

where they can enjoy the bright sunshine and a lot of things they do not enjoy in New England.

Mr. RAMSAY. You want to depopulate all of the cities in the North?

Mr. ZIMMERMAN. A man has a right to move, and we invite him to come. They do not have to stay in New England, and we will be glad to enlarge our plants down there and take care of every one of them.

Mr. CITRON. As I understand it, if this bill was limited to the extent that it prohibits child labor, convict labor, home work, you would be satisfied?

Mr. ZIMMERMAN. I do not think you need this bill, with all of the machinery set up, as called for. Here this little N. R. A. will cost this Government millions of dollars; and, furthermore, this commission could pay $25,000 a year to an attorney, or to an investigator, because there is no limitation upon the salaries or the number of employees, and you could have another N. R. A. set up under this organization.

Why not just do like your colleague from Ohio suggested? Amend some of the existing laws, incorporate these things in them, and you will solve the problem. You do not have to have any machinery set up to do that. I believe we can trust our Government to enforce its laws as well as we can trust the Secretary of Agriculture to do it.

Mr. WALTER. If we do amend the existing law by defining what a responsible bidder is, what definition would you give to "responsible bidder"?

Mr. ZIMMERMAN. I would not use the word "responsible"; I would say "best."

Mr. WALTER. How would you describe "best"?

Mr. ZIMMERMAN. You could take into consideration

Mr. MICHENER. You would not compel a man to get on the eligible list, would you?

Mr. ZIMMERMAN. I have not looked that up, but my State says that, under that provision, it is discretionary, and that the body authorized by law to pass upon that can reject any and all of them, if you please; and you can amend it to protect against child labor, the sweatshops, and convict labor, or any other provision you want to put in it, and you do not have to enact this bill into law at all.

Mr. HEALEY. Mr. Zimmerman, one question: You do not have any automobile factories in your State?

Mr. ZIMMERMAN. No; we use them, we buy them.

Mr. HEALEY. Would you suggest that the automobile industry migrate to your State, too?

Mr. ZIMMERMAN. We would be glad to have them, if they want to come, and I tell you we have got the room to take care of the people,

too.

Mr. MICHENER. We pioneered that industry, and no one has taken it away from us yet.

Mr. HEALEY. All right, Mr. Zimmerman.

Mr. ZIMMERMAN. Thank you, gentlemen, for your very courteous hearing.

Mr. HEALEY. Gentlemen, Senator Walsh is here, and I believe we may hear from him now.

STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID I. WALSH, SENATOR FROM
MASSACHUSETTS

Senator WALSH. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I understand a sinister or selfish motive has been attributed to me, namely, that I originated this diabolic scheme to protect the industries of Massachusetts. I regret keenly that I have not the honor or distinction of originating this idea. This measure was originally drafted by the administration, the present Democratic administration, and not by Senator Walsh, and I had no knowledge of it and my name has never been attached to it, or would not have been, if it was not for the fact that the bill had to come to the Committee on Labor and Education, of which I am chairman.

So I want it known, once and for all, that it is no New England or Massachusetts scheme or selfish plan to control the purchase of Government supplies for New England industries.

After the bill came before my committee I gave it intense study and did what you gentlemen have been doing, revised it, modified it, and tried to improve it. I confess that, when the bill first came before my committee, I looked with askance at the measure because I realized it would be charged with being an attempt to revive the N. R. A. that the Supreme Court had found illegal; and I am glad to learn that your minds have traveled over the same course that mine did—that is, that you have studied this bill more and more and analyzed it and thought about it, and I venture to say that most of you have become no only interested in the bill but very much devoted to it, to its objectives, and now desire to see it made the law of the land. That was my experience. I want to commend the subcommittee for the time and attention that you have given to the bill and the improvements which you have made in the bill, and the help which you have extended in trying to solve this very difficult problem.

To have the proper concept of this bill, we ought to understand what it does not do. It does not touch, in any way, shape, form, or manner, a single, solitary industry of this country until it undertakes to make a contract with the Federal Government. Every private industry is left to go and attend to its affairs and do its business, without interference, any regulation of any shape, form, or manner. But the moment an industry puts its hand into the Public Treasury to take the taxpayer's money, if this bill becomes a law, it will then require, in the manufacture of goods that the Government buys, some of the same provisions that are now fixed by law when the Government makes a contract to build a building.

Any building contract made by this Government, no matter who the contractor may be, is required to pay certain standards of wages and observe definite labor standards.

Why should not the Government, when it goes to buy hosiery for its Army, shoes for its Army, clothes for its Army, and blankets for its C. C. C. boys, and all of the other necessities-why should not the Government say in its contract to the purchaser, "Will you agree, in your contract of sale and I will be willing to pay a little more for it-to certain reasonable labor standards that reasonable men everywhere have recognized that the working class is entitled to-will you agree to those in your contract?”