Mr. WILLIAMS. There is more to the sixth amendment than that, Mr. BECK (reading):

In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, to be confronted with the witnesses against him.

Mr. WILLIAMS. That is the thing that requires definiteness in criminal statutes, and the decisions of the Supreme Court are so voluminous on that subject and so tremendous that I did not attempt to do more than cite you to one case, which has about 25 or 30 other citations; I did not calculate that you wished to hear a constitutional argument upon that question.

Mr. MAJOR. AS I understand your position, your chief objection to the bill is that it is not sufficiently definite; is that right?

Mr. WILLIAMS. Unquestionably, that is the prime objection, other than the question of policy.

Mr. MAJOR. You have only mentioned one thing that, from your standpoint, is not sufficiently definite; that is, as to what a strike is. What else is there about the bill that is not sufficiently definite? Mr. WILLIAMS. Strike and labor disturbance.

Mr. MAJOR. Is there anything else that is not sufficiently definite to meet the objections you offer?

Mr. WILLIAMS. "Be made acquainted with all conditions affecting labor as they then exist at said point of disturbance or strike." Mr. BERGER. That has been changed.

Mr. WILLIAMS. "Affecting labor" is wholly indefinite. And then another observation with respect to that, showing the difficulty with respect to the proposition as to what is a strike and what is not one, you are all familiar with the pressmen's strike in New York City not so long ago, which was broken by the pressmen themselves advertising for men to come to take positions so they could fulfill contracts with the New York newspapers. Under this bill they would certainly be liable themselves.

Mr. MAJOR. They would be liable if they did not give the information.

Mr. BECK. Not if they informed the employees.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Then it is also indefinite as to how the information be supplied.

Mr. MAJOR. I think the bill should require information to be given both orally and in writing.

Mr. WILLIAMS. There is this one other observation with respect to that, and that is that this bill in effect is a proposal to add a new section to the Judicial Code; and, with all due respect to this committee, it seems to me it properly belongs in the Judiciary Committee of the House, because it proposes to add a new section to the Judicial Code.

Mr. BECK. Do I understand now from all you have said that you feel there is no problem that we are attempting to deal with that necessitates a statute of this kind?

Mr. WILLIAMS. It is not sufficiently wide and carefully drawn, when it meets with the difficulties of successful interpretation or suc

97085--24- -5

.cessful administration, owing to the fact of our wide facilities for transportation and our constant moving of people across State lines; and I think it is unquestionably-I recur to the proposition that I doubt very seriously whether or not the courts would sustain a statute drawn to apply only to the States.

Mr. BERGER. That can be remedied very easily.

Mr. BECK. The session is drawing to a close, if we are to believe what is said in the papers, and Mr. Wolff would like to get action on this bill.

(Whereupon, at 1.15 o'clock p. m., the committee proceeded to executive business, and at the conclusion thereof adjourned to meet at the call of the chairman.)