(The following letters and statements were received for insertion in the record:)

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT ADVOCATED BY AMERICAN CITIZENS ASSOCIATION, BALTIMORE, MD.

Joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to be known as the 22d amendment as follows:

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is hereby proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as a part of the Constitution when ratified by conventions of three-fourths of the several States. The delegates to said conventions to be elected by the direct, nonpartisan vote of the people.

"SECTION 1. That strikes, slow-downs and sit-downs by employees, and lock-outs by employers affecting transportation, public utilities, public employment, food, milk, coal, oil, and all other operations which endanger and menace the health, life, peace and general welfare of the Nation are hereby prohibited.

"SEC. 2. That the closed shop, the union shop, maintenance of membership, industry-wide collective bargaining, the check-off (deducting labor union initiation fees, dues, assessments and contributions from the workers' pay be employers), feather-bedding (employment of excess and unnecessary workers and/or payment for work not done, and slow-downs and sit-downs by employees are hereby prohibited.

"SEC. 3. The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article."

Successfully to accomplish this, the American people must urge their Senators and Representatives in the Congress to submit for ratification by conventions of three-fourths of the several States the amendment to the Constitution herein proposed. But should their Senators and Representatives fail to take this action, then the legislatures of two-thirds of the States must be urged to petition the Congress to call a national convention to propose this change in the manner provided by article V of the Constitution.

Article V of the Constitution of the United States reads: "The Congress, whenever two-thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of twothirds of the several States, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States, or by conventions in three-fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress."

JUSTIFICATIONS FOR THIS PROPOSED AMENDMENT

Ratification of this proposed amendment by State conventions, in strict accordance with article V of the Constitution, will enable the members of the Congress of the United States and also of the various State legislatures to wash their hands of this most vicious, controversial and trying issue by referring it right to the American people by whom the decision should be made.

Fortunately article V of the Constitution provides exactly what is required either to add to or extract from the Constitution. This is why article V should be carefully studied and heeded, for it actually has double-barrel power. That is to say, amendments can be ratified either by State legislatures or by State conventions. The State convention method as herein set forth will enable the American people, themselves, to decide whether they shall be ruled by a totalitarian labor dictatorship. Now is the time for a show-down.

The American people who spill the blood, do the fighting, suffering, and dying, who always pay the bills and the ever-mounting taxes, must demand the opportunity to vote directly and nonpartisanly on this issue. For it must not be permitted to remain the greased football of partisan politics, bedeviling all candidates both before and after they are elected to public office.

Actually labor disputes are given precedence over all other matters. То illustrate: Both the President and the Congress subordinated discussion of the Atlantic Pact, with its tremendous world-wide implications, to labor's efforts to repeal the Taft-Hartley law. In short, labor's demands were more important than world peace.

Certainly the Congress has through the years struggled manfully, if unsuccessfully, in its efforts to effect an equitable adjustment between labor and capital. In 1932 it passed the Norris-LaGuardia law, which outlawed the injunction and thus prevented court action against strikes; in 1935 it passed the Wagner Labor Relations law, which provided compulsory collective bargaining and other so-called benefits to labor.

Today we have the Taft-Hartley law, which diminished the powers of the labor barons given them under the Wagner law, put both the employee and employer upon more equal bases and helped emancipate the American workman. Unfortunately, all of these laws have failed to do what they were intended to do. So, it is now up to Congress to let the American people themselves decide the matter; and in so doing save our law makers and the people of America from the constant attacks of labor's pressure groups to the exclusion of the Nation's other equally or more important business.

The Congress also has passed our antitrust laws which have successfully curbed corporations from combining and monopolizing in restraint of trade. But these same laws have had little if any effect upon the labor organizations which openly and brazenly create and maintain such combinations which are in essence effective monopolies.

Industry-wide collective bargaining would create and maintain a monopoly of organized labor and big business which would enslave the American people. This in turn would produce an all-powerful State dictatorship that would destroy all our precious liberties.

Everywhere the director of the American Citizens Association visited during the nightmare of national prohibition, the vast majority of the people favored repeal of that law. Now, everyhere he goes, speaks or discusses the present issue, he finds sentiment favoring this proposal.

When an adequate number of the Congress become aware of the public sentiment favoring this proposed Amendment to the Constitution, and tire of being bullied and persecuted by the czars of labor, and ridiculed by their constituents for their lack of spine, the Congress will take the above-mentioned action.

History reveals that when a sufficient number of the Congress became tired and sick of being bluffed, bulldozed, threatened, and intimidated by the advocates of national prohibition, they proposed the twenty-first amendment to the Constitution for the purpose of repealing the eighteenth amendment by ratification by State conventions, but not by State legislatures.

Thus for the first and only time in our history, the convention method of ratification was employed. Both before and since, all other amendments, including the first 10 amendments which constitute our Bill of Rights, were ratified by State legislatures. Again the time is ripe to give the American people the opportunity to declare whether they want to remain free or to become the slaves of the barons of labor, who have their members in bondage and are trying to enslave the American people.

The eighteenth (prohibition) amendment was ratified by 46 of the 48 State legislatures under the tremendous pressure of the drys. Whereas, the twentyfirst amendment which repealed the eighteenth amendment was ratified by 38 of the 40 States whose conventions voted. Therefore, it was not necessary to vote the remaining eight States as it required only 36 States for ratification. The result was overwhelming, 2,109 wet delegates were elected to only 99 dry delegates. History in all likelihood will repeat itself if the American people are again permitted to vote and express their personal opinion on this issue free of the fetish of partisan politics.

When amendments to the Constitution are ratified by State conventions, the delegates to the convention are elected by the direct, nonpartisan vote of the people in each State. This direct, nonpartisan method of voting divorces the issue entirely and absolutely from the influence and contamination of party politics, and likewise deprives minority pressure groups of their balance of power.

Furthermore, when the people vote as Democrats or Republicans, for Democratic or Republican candidates for State legislatures, the minority-power groups (such as the various labor organizations) really are the balance of power in such elections. Why? Simply because they discard their party labels and cast their vote for the candidates who promise most to the unions if and when they are elected to office.

On the other hand, when the people vote directly for delegates instructed to vote "yes" or "no" in a State convention, the voting is divorced entirely and absolutely from the influence and contamination of party politics. Why? Simply

94422-49-pt. 2-26

because the people are not voting as Democrats or Republicans, for Democrats or Republicans.

Moreover, this direct, nonpartisan voting automatically compels all the voters to discard their party labels, which in turn deprives the minority-power groups of their balance of power. And this explains why the drys fought so hard against State conventions, and why the labor barons will also fight against it. Powerless to bulldoze, threaten, and intimidate either the people or the delegates to the State conventions (who incidentally are not running for office) an honest vote is taken and recorded.

Since the delegates to State conventions vote but once, there is nothing for them to do but vote "yes" or "no", nor is there any opportunity or reason for trading or swapping votes, as is the general practice in all legislative bodies, especially in State legislatures.

Only by this method is it possible to obtain a direct, nonpartisan national vote on anything or any issue by the American people. Let us, therefore, have an honest show-down on the present issue before constitutional government completely disappears.

Every

The American people must not permit themselves to be enslaved. man, woman, and child in the United States must have the constitutional right to choose a job without being compelled to join a labor organization, and be forced to pay initiation fees, dues, assessments, and contributions as necessary prerequisites in the securing and retaining employment. This is not freedom. It is slavery, and it must be outlawed.

The labor leaders, as this goes to press, are making plans to defeat candidates for the 1950 Congress whom they believe they cannot handle. Their plans will be given tremendous impetus by the power and enormous size of their "war chest." Now is the time for the Congress to properly and effectively meet the challenge by proposing the enactment of this amendment to the Constitution.

It goes without saying that the labor unions should be compelled to do their own collecting like all other nongovernmental organizations. The check-off has increased the "take" of the union enormously.

The expense of collecting union dues should be borne by the unions and not by employers who add this collection expense to the cost of their products. Thus the check-off automatically forces the consuming public to assume the expense of collecting union dues.

The governmental check-off does enable Uncle Sam to collect taxes which otherwise could not be collected. But taxes to run the Government are fundamentally different from dues to run the labor unions.

The annual "take" of the labor unions exceeds $1,000,000,000. And some experts declare it is twice that vast sum. It is agreed that the czars of organized labor cannot be trusted not to wield dangerously the enormous power which that vast wealth gives them.

The eighteenth or prohibition amendment, which gave the dry czars such unlimited power, was ratified by State legislatures composed entirely of partisan politicians; whereas the proposed amendment, if ratified by the direct, nonpartisan vote of the people, will deprive the czars of labor of much of their power over the workers of America and the whole American people.

That "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" applies alike to absolute monarchs and labor barons is a fact quite beyond dispute.

The 3-day slow-down workweek by John L. Lewis' United Mine Workers could and probably would starve and freeze the American people into submitting to his demands. We must not forget that he threatened to do this while his country was at war. No man can be trusted not to abuse such power; no industry or combination of industries would dare even to threaten the Nation so outrageously.

The preservation of the Union of the United States, based upon the Constitution and its sacred Bill of Rights, is vastly more important than all the political parties and all the other unions which have ever existed. So, let us have this honest show-down and be quick about it by giving the wholly unorganized American people the opportunity to settle this worse than vexatious issue by their direct, nonpartisan vote, entirely and absolutely divorced from the influence and contamination of partisan politics.

As stated previously, this will enable the Members of the Congress and also of the State legislatures to wash their hands of this most controversial and, to them, embarrassing issue.

Hon. BURNET R. MAYBANK,

United States Senate, Washington, D. C.

ANDERSON, S. C., August 12, 1949

DEAR SENATOR MAYBANK: I was interested to learn you were one of the committee which is considering the status of the 3-day week in the coal mines imposed by John L. Lewis.

Since we produce our own power we are large consumers of coal, and as such are much concerned over recent trends in the coal industry. This arbitrary control of production can only have one result, and that is to raise the cost of mining and ultimately the price of coal. Our suppliers have given me different estimates of their increased costs, but they are all very substantial. Obviously this increased cost will have to be passed on to the consuming public in the long run. No group of producers would be allowed to restrict production to the detriment of the public for a single day. It is not right that any one individual or group should have such control over a vital commodity regardless of who they are. I hope your committee will be able to find some way to prevent this arbitrary one-man control of an essential industry at the expense of the general public. With kindest personal regards, I am

Yours very truly,

APPLETON Co.,

CHARLES B. NICHOLS, President.

Hon. BURNET R. MAYBANK,

ARMCO STEEL CORP., Middletown, Ohio, August 22, 1949.

Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C.

MY DEAR SENATOR MAYBANK: As a member of the Senate Banking and Currency Committee you are considering the proposal that labor unions should be held accountable under certain conditions and circumstances to the antitrust laws of the country.

I started to work 51 years ago as an office boy at $2 a week, and some months later went into the plant as a worker at 132 cents per hour. I have spent my entire business life in the steel industry, and most of those years as a workman, foreman, superintendent, and manager.

During 24 years of that time I personally represented our company in the negotiations with our employees with respect to wages and working conditions. I mention these facts for the purpose of giving you my experience in order that you might feel that I am competent to discuss the subject without prejudice and only from the standpoint of what is best for the country.

For 43 years, starting with my position as a superintendent, I have had responsibilities that were related to employer, employee, and community economic interests.

I can truthfully say that during all these years I have recommended and supported sound economic procedure that would lead to increased purchasing power of wages.

There is only one way to increase the purchasing power of wages, or in other words, permit the worker to buy more with a day's labor, and that is by reducing the cost of things that wages buy.

I have opposed business monopoly because it defeated the purpose of private competitive enterprise which is to reward initiative, improve quality, decrease cost, and thereby give to the public the things that it wants at the lowest possible price.

National labor unions that become labor monopolies through their power to control production and arbitrary wage scales, raise the price of the product they help to produce and thereby prevent the public from securing what it needs and wants at a price which will encourage the continuous interchange of goods and services. We have an example today of a labor monopoly in the coal industry. The officers of the mine workers' union are dictating the extent to which the members of their unions can work and produce. As a result, many commercial coal operators cannot fill the orders which they have on their books. This arbitrary decision of Mr. Lewis and his officers has increased the cost of production by more than $1 a ton on the average. Conditions in each mine are different and therefore the increasing cost varies. One need not be an economist or expert accountant to understand what this is all going to mean to the public.

I do not see how the Congress can subject one monopoly to the provisions of the antitrust laws and excuse another monopoly from its provisions when both monopolies, by their acts, seriously affect the public as a whole.

Very sincerely yours,

CHARLES R. HOOK.

BRENNER, BUTLER & MCVEIGH,
NEW YORK 5, N. Y., August 25, 1949.

Senator A. WILLIS ROBERTSON,

Chairman, Subcommittee of the Committee on Banking and Currency,

Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C.

DEAR SENATOR ROBERTSON: We enclose an affidavit of Mr. Laurence H. Victory, former president of New York Typographical Union No. 6, in reply to testimony of Mr. J. Raymond Tiffany, given before your committee on August 17, 1949.

We regret that in the short space of time available to us we have not been able to obtain a complete transcript of the record and, therefore, have been required to rely on oral reports in meeting Mr. Tiffany's assertions.

We should be grateful if this letter and the enclosed affidavit could be made part of the record of the hearings before your subcommittee.

Respectfully yours,

STATE OF NEW YORK,

County of New York, 88:

BRENNER, BUTLER & MCVEIGH.

Laurence H. Victory, being duly sworn, deposes and says:

That he was the president of New York Typographical Union, No. 6, from 1945 to 1949 and during that time was in active and complete direction of all of the affairs of the New York Typographical Union, No. 6.

Your deponent is informed that testimony has been presented to the subcommittee of the Committee on Banking and Currency, Senator A. Willis Robertson, chairman, to the effect that the president and other officials of New York Typographical Union, No. 6, made statements in the year 1945 that neither they nor the union was interested in or concerned with the problems of veterans returning from the war. As president of the union in 1945, your deponent emphatically denies that he ever made any such statement or statements. For reasons which will be hereinafter set forth your deponent does not believe it possible that such statements were made by any official of the union.

As evidence of the fact that the policy of New York Typographical Union, No. 6, was mindful of veterans' problems your deponent wishes to point out that not only was every ordinary consideration given to returning veterans, but in every instance they were the recipients of special concessions and privileges. An illustration of this is found in the fact that a special veterans' committee, headed by Edwin Christ, was appointed in the year 1945. This committee not only studied the problems of the returning veterans from the viewpoint of the Soldiers and Sailors Service Act and other legislation, but arranged for a liaison with the Veterans' Bureau, both on a national and State level, so that every possible advantage could be afforded returning veterans.

In addition to the above, New York Typographical Union, No. 6, by a referendum vote of the membership, adopted a law which gave veterans more consideration than was given by most other unions. This special law approved by the membership of New York Typographical Union, No. 6, provided that whenever an apprentice arrived at the status of a journeyman he was then given priority in the shop where he had been working back to a certain cut-off date, which in every instance amounted to approximately 12 years' advantage in priority for every veteran.

In the event that a boy who had been working in a printing shop in a status below apprenticeship entered the armed service and returned to the same shop and then became an apprentice, the union waived 1 year of the required apprenticeship period as a measure of consideration for the service given to his country.

On all questions involving the strictest interpretation of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Service Act, New York Typographical Union, No. 6, was vigorous and firm both in claiming benefits from the employers and assuring that they were obtained by bringing scores of matters to the attention of the Veterans' Administration.