issue between the management and the "sit-downers" here involved, and an injunction was issued by the district court

Senator LA FOLLETTE. Was this appealed?

Mr. GALL. It was. The suit arose under the antitrust act, and it was dismissed by the Supreme Court of the United States on certiorari from the circuit court of appeals on the ground it was a moot case.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. How did the case become moot; do you know?

Mr. GALL. I have not referred, to refresh my recollection, to what the court said in dismissing it, but my recollection is it was because there had been a settlement of some kind reached between the union and the employer after this took place.

Senator THOMAS. That is, that which they were fighting over had been agreed to by some kind of contract?

Mr. GALL. I do not wish to make a misstatement, but that is my recollection, and if it is not true, I will correct it in the record.

I should like to offer in the record the document we discussed this morning and which we understood could go into the recordSenator LA FOLLETTE. I understood I put all of those things in the record in connection with the letter.

Mr. GALL. I think Mr. Weisenburger will bear me out, Senator: you said we would come to it in a moment, but we did not come to it. Senator LA FOLLETTE. It was my intention that the documents, with the exception of the pictorial illustrations attached to the letter, should all appear in the record.

Mr. GALL. Thank you, sir.

Senator, we have some educational material in the nature of motion pictures, slide films, and so forth, and we realize they could not be gotten before the committee in any way except visually; they could not be put into the record, so that others could see them. İ should like to read to the committee a brief statement which represents our view of the state of this record; that is, as to what our attitude is as to the findings of fact which should result from the record in its present state.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. Would you not rather reserve that until the record is complete? I will leave it with you, but I should think you would rather reserve it until then.

Mr. GALL. It was our intention not to offer anything else for the record, except to ask you to look at the educational material.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. But the point I was making is that the committee is not through with the investigation, and it would seem to me, perhaps for your own purposes, that you might wish to wait until it was, before you made your comments.

Mr. GALL. Senator, without wishing to stress the point too much, I would like to say that a part of the purpose of making this-it is in the nature of what would be a report on an examiner's report in litigation. We believe the record at this point, in other words, justi fies certain conclusions. This is our opinion only, of what those con

clusions are, and we should like to read it, because we think it will assist the committee. If we are wrong in believing the record justifies these conclusions, the committee itself will wish to introduce material on those points, it seems to us.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. I do not want to quibble with you about anything you want to put in the record, but it would not seem to me to be the appropriate place to put it in, because the inquiry is not concluded, and more testimony is going in, and it would seem like saying that the record is completed at this point, and I therefore do not see any point in it or the logic of it.

Mr. GALL. We feel we have put in, in the way of affirmative documents, all we wish, except we would like to supplement them with certain points, if on examination of the record it seems necessary. Senator LA FOLLETTE. It would seem to me, Mr. Gall, that the record not being finished and the inquiry not being concluded, that the time for you to present a summary is when it is finished.

Mr. GALL. May I confer with Mr. Weisenburger on this point for a moment?

Senator LA FOLLETTE. Certainly.

Mr. GALL. Senator, we defer to your judgment in that matter; we have no wish to press it.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. Since it is not evidence and the testimony is not all in, it seems to me you may want to change or alter it. Mr. GALL. I do not want to insist

Senator LA FOLLETTE. I do not want to be in the position of resisting, but I believe the time to do that is after you have had a chance to study the testimony and the committee has had a chance to go over the material you are putting in now, and you will then be given full opportunity to present any statement you wish.

Mr. GALL. If you will permit us, we will suspend this phase of the matter at this time and would like to present the educational material which Mr. Weisenburger and Mr. Selvage have.

Mr. SELVAGE. This is a 10-minute short, one of four that we have produced and have been showing widely through theaters throughout the country. This particular movie has been shown in Radio City, New York, and it is to give the broad principle of what we believe about industry; it pretty well epitomizes the general story we have been telling you on this public-information program.

(At this point the motion picture referred to was exhibited on the screen.)

Mr. WEISENBURGER. Senator, we have just one more, and we are showing this to you because it has come up, particularly in the conTersation between Senator Thomas and myself. I thought you would be glad to see this in its entirety. It represents the efforts, which I referred to several times, of the manufacturers, through an unbiased fashion, to find out what the employees think about.

Mr. GALL. Mr. Chairman, the purpose was to show one which did. not deal with labor practices and one which did, so there would not

be any impression that all of them dealt with something other than labor.

Mr. WEISENBURGER. I can add to that the fact that we have gotten this out in a fashion so that it can be sent to a manufacturer. You notice the announcement in there, so he can sit down and run it before his officers, before his superintendents, the labor-relations people, and so forth. In other words, it brings the result of this survey right into the management of the plant.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. All right.

(Whereupon there was a film-slide demonstration.)

Mr. GALL. Mr. Chairman, we have submitted to your investigators the 100-page volume referred to in this slide film, which gives the break-down of all the figures resulting from this survey.

If you want to ask Mr. Weisenburger or Mr. Selvage any questions about this survey, I know they will be glad to stop for that.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. I would prefer that you go ahead and finish up with what you have.

Mr. GALL. Senator, we have one other slide film here, called Men and Machines. We have some others here, but I mean the one we had in mind showing you, if you want to see any more of it, is Men and Machines. That is a study of the technological progress; but if you have had enough for your purposes, it is satisfactory to us.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. If you think it is a fair sample of what you have, I think it is sufficient.

Mr. GALL. I think what we have shown you is a fair sample of what we have to show you with regard to labor and nonlabor. We will be glad to show you the rest of them if you wish; but if not, Senator, we will suspend at this point. That is all we wish to introduce at this time.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. The committee will take a recess until Thursday morning at 10 o'clock, and we would like to have you gentlemen here, because we might have some exhibits and other material that we would like to put in the record; and we would like to have you here when it is done.

(Whereupon, at the hour of 3:35 p. m., the committee recessed until 10 a. m. on Thursday, March 10, 1938.)

APPENDIX

EXHIBIT 3851

SPECIAL ISSUE ON "SIT-DOWN" STRIKES

N. A. M. LABOR RELATIONS BULLETIN

ssued by the National Association of Manufacturers in the Interest of a Better Understanding by Industry of Labor Relations]

No. 18 11 West 42nd Street, New York, N. Y.

March 21, 1937

A QUICK LOOK AT RECENT LABOR DEVELOPMENTS

The outstanding recent developments in the labor disturbance field have been: (1) General Motors recognized the United Automobile Workers Union (C. I. O.) s representing its own members, and negotiated an agreement (summarized lsewhere in this BULLETIN).

(2) Chrysler Corporation has obtained an injunction ordering removal of sitlown strikers from its Detroit plant. With union leaders announcing a "handsff" policy, sit-downers refused to leave the plant at the time of the original 'dead-line" set by the Court.

(3) The Carnegie-Illinois Steel Corporation and other U. S. Steel subsidiaries ave agreed to recognize the C. I. O. union as representing its own members; no lefinite agreement has yet been concluded. No recognition has as yet been ranted by major independent steel producers, who have about 65% of the total teel production.

(4) The union and operators of the bituminous coal fields are still engaged in egotiations.

(5) The C. I. O. is expected to shortly start an organizing campaign in the extile industry. There have been conflicting rumors as to whether the textile drive will start in New England, Philadelphia or the South.

OIL FIELD DRIVE EXPECTED SOON

(6) Early in April the C. I. O. is expected to start a drive against the oil prolucers in Texas and Oklahoma.

(7) The Wagner Labor Board has ordered Remington-Rand to reinstate 4000 persons alleged to have lost their jobs in strikes last year.

(8) John W. Lewis, head of the C. I. O., declared March 15th that the union 'is not only an instrument for improving workers wages, hours and conditions of abor, it is also an instrument for the expression of their social, political and economic lims."

(9) Complete inability of the National Labor Relations Board to function in major strikes; virtual repudiation of the Wagner Act by the U. A. W. A. in the General Motors Strike; apparently the Wagner Act is practically defunct whether the Supreme Court officially kills it or not.

(10) The A. F. of L.-C. I. O. split is becoming steadily greater.

C. I. O. has made no real gains-has obtained little or nothing for its members. Why then does it approve of agreements which recognize the union as representing only its own members?

Because it can then show the "papers"-give employees evidence that the employer “recognizes" the union-develop a better “join the union" psychology.

Are these agreements final?
Very few observers think so.

to demands for

IS MORE COMING?

There are already indications that they will lead

(1) Recognition as the "sole bargaining agency" for all employees, whether they belong to the union or not.

(2) Elimination from employment of all non-union employers or employees who belong to other unions—the closed shop.

(3) As a final step, demand for the "check-off" of union dues. Where is the present labor situation likely to lead?

(1) Probably to public demands that public officials enforce existing laws. There are fewer "sit-down" strikes in communities and states where public officials are known to be ready to enforce the law.

(2) Probably to public demands for legislation definitely declaring certain kinds of strikes to be illegal as against the public interest-sit-downs, sympathetic strikes, general strikes. It is noteworthy that Arthur Krock in his special article in the New York Times of February 28th said that President Roosevelt believes it is necessary for the Federal Government to have [2] authority, "to enforce the maintenance of contracts both by employers and employees.'

(3) Possibly to demands for revival of the right to use injunctions to prevent lawless acts and intimidation in labor disputes.

(4) To rising prices which all consumers must pay. It is perhaps significant that M. S. Eccles, Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, said March 15th that"The price rises to which I refer are the result primarily of non-monetary factors including foreign armament demands, strikes and monopolistic practices by certain groups, both in industry and organized labor."

"Increased wages and shorter hours when they limit or actually reduce production are not at this time in the interest of the public in general or in the real interest of the workers themselves."

PUBLIC MAY INTERVENE

There are signs that many public groups are beginning to question both the desire and ability of public officials to enforce the law.

And that the public-especially the farmers are beginning to wonder where it is all going to add up if industry is forced to assume higher and higher costs. And that the public is beginning to wonder if the private property of John Q Citizen can remain safe from violence and confiscation if the property of stockholders can be seized and held for ransom.

Do you remember the peak strength the unions reached in 1920-and the col lapse that followed? Why did the collapse occur?

Because of a public uprising against closed shop labor union excesses, such as: Winnipeg General Strike

Seattle General Strike
Boston Police Strike.

Sometimes history repeats itself.

By NOEL SARGENT.

Additional copies of this Bulletin may be secured from The National Association of Manufacturers, 11 West 42nd Street, New York City. 4¢ each up to 100 copies. $3.00 per 100 copies.

THE BASIC ISSUE

By James A. Emery, general counsel, National Association of Manufacturers The right of every man to be secure in the fruit of his effort, whether it be little or great, is as fundamental as "Thou Shalt Not Steal."

To emphasize that is not to become the victim of that confused declaration that "personal" rights are superior to "property" rights. Property has no rights but persons have rights to property.

There are but two ways of determining the rights of persons either with respect to their liberties or their possessions. One is by force which ignores all moral com siderations and rests upon physical violence. The other is to submit disputes to reason. The first is barbarism and the second is civilization.