more than required for the support of himself, his wife, and his dependent children during those years. When the fund came to his rescue with a disability grant in April 1948, he had no income and his medical certification stated he was not physically able to work. Further medical certification in August 1948 by a physician of the Laird Memorial Hospital stated "he is not able to do any type of work." Not only does Mr. Pentecost's case illustrate the inadequacy of compensation provisions, it also serves as an example of the general statement I made before your committee to the effect that in the men in the mines we find to the highest degree the true American qualities of determination to stand on your own feet and to fight against all obstacles to insure a better chance for your children. Respectfully, BURNET R. MAYBANK, Esq., JOSEPHINE ROCHE, Director, UMWA Welfare and Retirement Fund. GIMBERNAT & SELLWOOD, New York, N. Y., August 26, 1949. Chairman, Senate Committee on Banking and Currency, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR SENATOR MAYBANK: The August 25, 1949, issue of the New York Times carried an article by Louis Stark on the testimony by Admiral Ben Moreell before your committee in connection with your present study of labor union power and control over industry. From the brief extracts of Admiral Moreell's testimony contained in the New York Times article, it seems to me that he has explicitly pointed out to your committee not only the extremely dangerous situation in which our country already finds itself as a direct result of illegal and uncontrolled concentration of power in labor unions and their leaders, but also the very positive and tangible threat to the very existence of our American way of life and our political and economic freedom which this illegal and uncontrolled concentration of power represents. Men like John L. Lewis, Harry Bridges, Daniel J. Tobin, and Michael J. Quill are constantly striving for greater personal power. Drunk with the power already achieved, certain labor-union leaders repeatedly disregard and violate the sanctity of written management-labor agreements as casually and callously as they disregard or imperil the national welfare and public safety. Because of their political importance resulting from their ability to control the votes of the union members and the enormous cash resources in their treasuries, such labor bosses feel that they are men apart and beyond the reaches of the law. Not long ago the Supreme Court of the United States of America was required to hand down a decision to convince Mr. Lewis that he, just like the ordinary plain citizen of this country, was subject to its laws and could not ruthlessly and unlawfully impose his will upon the Nation, its industrial economy and its economic life, solely for the purpose of greater personal power. Unless our legislators, courts, and administrative bodies have the personal courage and political integrity to act as sound conscience and common sense direct and the national welfare demands, Lewis and Bridges, or some egomaniac labor boss or a very plausible and probable combination of such persons, fully realizing the despotic political power they wield through controlled votes and union cash, will in the very near future take full advantage of the present immunity granted and overwhelming favoritism shown labor unions and their leaders in order to achieve the very clearly foreseeable end of a complete and total labor dictatorship of the United States of America. Next month may, and next year certainly will, be too late to take legislative action to forestall such a catastrophe and to put labor unions and their leaders under proper legal controls. I am not opposed to labor unions. In fact, I believe they are desirable and perform useful functions in our present economic system. Moreover, I firmly believe that in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries labor was exploited, in some cases ruthlessly, by capital. However, I feel even more strongly that no sane person can deny that today the pendulum has swung too far in the opposite direction, with the result that labor and labor bosses completely dominate and control this country to a degree that is positively inimical to the survival of this Nation as a free republic. I realize that your committee has had presented to it, in language far more effective than any which I might be able to employ, an abundance of testimony and argument clearly showing the seriousness of the present situation and the urgent need for its correction. In spite of this, I have stated in some detail the danger as I see it because I am so firmly convinced of its seriousness and immediacy. This is the first time in my life that I have ever written a letter to any Congressman or Senator, Federal or State, or taken any active part in political matters in any way other than by voting. This is an unusual step for me to take and it is done only because of my strong belief as to the extreme seriousness of the situation. I might also add (as evidence of my sincere interest in the welfare of our country) that I volunteered for service with the Army in this last war, even though I was firmly old (I am now 48) and was classified as exempt from military service because of the defense nature of my then business activities. Based on the military honor and letters of commendation I received for my work in the Army, I assume my services for my country during the past war may have been a bit above the average of Army men who did not have active combat service. I know you and the members of your committee have the intelligence and the patriotism to realize the urgent necessity of enacting proper legislation and inspiring reasonable and sensible implementation and administration thereof for the salvation of the freedom of this Nation. I pray with the most heartfelt sincerity that your committee will properly and adequately discharge the enormous responsibility now resting upon you; i. e., the responsibility of eliminating and overcoming the greatest threat to the freedom of our Nation which it has ever faced in its history. Most sincerely yours, R. M. SELLWOOD, Jr. Hon. A. WILLIS ROBERTSON, SOUTHERN COAL PRODUCERS' ASSOCIATION, Senate Banking and Currency Committee, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR ROBERTSON: Since Mr. Thurmond, secretary of this association appeared before your committee and gave certain information concerning a Tom Pentecost, there has arisen several questions concerning the intent of his testimony. Mr. Thurmond is on vacation but because of the seeming urgency in this matter, I am writing to you as president of the association in an effort to clarify the intent of our testimony. Mr. Thurmond placed in the record a letter from Mr. Hanna, vice president of Carbon Fuel Co., of Carbon, W. Va. That letter contains certain data concerning moneys received by Mr. Pentecost under the compensation law of West Virginia, from an insurance policy and from the Carbon Fuel Co. during the period 1942 to 1948. This data was introduced into the record because the letter which was part of the testimony of Miss Josephine Roche inferred very definitely that Mr. Pentecost had been injured in 1942 and there was no effort made to indicate that he had received any income since that date. We felt that the letter had been introduced to infer that the man, with his large family, had been without any means of support during that entire period. As indicated in Mr. Thurmond's testimony, Mr. Pentecost's total compensation during the period March 20, 1942, to March 8, 1948, was $4,352.86. His earnings as a coal loader during that same period were $20,458.27. In addition to these sums, the Aetna Life Insurance Co. paid a group insurance policy amounting to $1,000. The statement has been made that these earnings were not the earnings of Mr. Tom Pentecost, but, the combined earnings of Mr. Pentecost and his two sons. On further investigation we found that in addition to the abovereported earnings, David Nathaniel Pentecost, born October 15, 1928, social security No. 233-42-2331, worked at Carbon Fuel Co. from October 17, 1946, until October 17, 1947. In 1946 he earned $460.46. In 1947, until he left, he earned $2,565.68. James Daniel Pentecost, another son, born December 31, 1929, social security No. 299-34-0061 started to work January 17, 1948, and worked until August 11, 1948, and during that period earned $2,049.17. These earnings of the two boys, although belonging to them, added $5,075.31 to the income of the family, which if the need was as great as indicated in Mr. Pentecost's letter, certainly would have been used to alleviate some of the hardship. The Southern Coal Producers' Association is not contending that, at the moment, Mr. Pentecost and his family are not in dire need or that he may not at this time, as alleged by Miss Roche, be completely disabled. We have no information as to his present whereabouts or what he is doing and, therefore, cannot testify in this matter. However, we do want to point out that Mr. Pentecost did not exist from 1942 until the welfare fund was established, without means of support. The Southern Coal Producers' Association offered on June 8, 1949, to include in a new contract, full provision to take care of miners injured in their work and, therefore, if Mr. Pentecost is disabled and unable to work as the result of injuries received by him at Carbon Fuel Co., then he would be justified in receiving aid from any properly administered welfare fund and would be fully taken care of if the proposal of Southern Coal Producer's Association were to be incorporated in a new contract. In order to further clarify, I wish to quote from our proposal of June 8, 1949, to the United Mine Workers of America: "Present welfare-fund provisions are vague, indefinite and subject to grave abuses. The Southern Coal Producers' Association is on record in favor of a fund that will take care of the need and distress of our employees, when that need and distress results from and occurs during the course of employment at our mines. We agree that it is our responsibility to help take care of workers injured in the course of their employment. So limited, the burden of the industry, while great, would be such as could be reasonably calculated. We are opposed to the present scope of the welfare-fund provisions. That distress which is common to all men without regard to employment, is properly the concern of all society through a broad social-security system and it is not proper that the cost of alleviating such distress should be imposed on any one industry." It is our sincere hope that this further testimony will clarify our position in this matter and the purposes of introducing the testimony as we did. Respectfully submitted, JOSEPH E. MOODY, President. Mr. ROBERT D. L'HEUREUX, Committee on Banking and Currency, VAN ARKEL & KAISER, Washington 6, D. C., August 2, 1949. Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. L'HEUREUX: Enclosed please find statement of Mr. Woodruff Randolph, president of the International Typographical Union, in reply to the testimony given the Senate Committee on Banking and Currency by Mr. Thurman Arnold on July 26, 1949. Very truly yours, HENRY KAISER. STATEMENT OF WOODRUFF RANDOLPH, PRESIDENT OF THE INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION My name is Woodruff Randolph, president of the International Typographical Union. I submit this written statement in reply to certain false and misleading testimony about the union given to this committee on July 26, 1949, by Mr. Thurman Arnold. And this statement is submitted in written form in lieu of a personal appearance and testimony only because at present I am en route to Oakland, Calif., to make arrangements for the annual convention of the union, which begins next week. I shall, if the committee so desires, be pleased to appear in person after the close of the convention. The statements of Mr. Arnold to which I am compelled to take exception deal with the alleged practice of the International Typographical Union of requiring employers to adopt and maintain inefficient printing methods and extra labor, thereby crushing the small newspapers who are in a very inferior competitive position with the large papers. Such a practice is very obnoxious to Mr. Arnold and he would brand it as an illegitimate objective of a union and hence outlaw it. The short answer to Mr. Arnold's complaint, at least insofar as it rests upon the actual practice of the International Typographical Union, is that he has peddled this allegation about for years and has yet to back it up with any reliable facts or figures. This failure on his part, of course, can be traced to the complete nonexistence of any such supporting facts or figures. The simple fact is that the International Typographical Union has no policy, past, present or future, which justifies the maintenance of inefficient printing methods or the crushing of small newspapers. On the contrary, the union has been in the forefront of those interested in the improvement of the efficiency of the printing trade. And, in common with all other liberal trade-unions, we abhor any tendency to increase the power of giant monopolies-newspaper or otherwise at the expense of the small entrepreneurs. I might point out that we have had numerous occasions before to refute Mr. Arnold's false charges concerning the Typographical Union. One such occasion occurred on May 7, 1947, at the hearings before the Special Senate Committee to Study Problems of American Small Business, Eightieth Congress, first session, pursuant to Senate Resolution 20. The various officers of the union, including myself, there testified in detail as to the policies and practices of the union. Included in this testimony was a detailed refutation of the allegation now made by Mr. Arnold, an allegation which he had also made during the course of that hearing. Because of the direct relevancy of this prior testimony (particularly at pages 512-518, 555-557, 561, and 585), I am attaching hereto a copy of the testimony and request that it be made a part of this statement by reference. As was emphasized in these 1947 hearings, the International Typographical Union is not opposed to the introduction of labor-saving devices. Its firm policy has always been, Mr. Arnold notwithstanding, to encourage the development of new processes and new methods and to help wherever possible to perfect and develop new devices. The union keeps abreast of the times by preparing its members, especially in its apprenticeship courses, to operate all new machinery. and to be able to work with all machinery introduced into the mailing and composing rooms. We have taken the position that if a new and better method of printing can be discovered we want to have the know-how to get the best possible results from the new machine or process. Among those new, labor-saving machines which have been introduced in composing rooms since 1890 with the blessing and cooperation of the International Typographical Union have been the linotypes, monotypes, Ludlows, Elrods, power saws, power proofpresses, and a host of other devices. Earlier models of these machines have been continuously improved and their versatility and productivity greatly expanded. Indeed, very little work is done in today's composing room by hand. The last few years have seen the introduction of the teletypesetter and semagraph, which operate standard typesetting machinery automatically from tape prepared on other units of these machines. We have accepted the introduction of these two new devices, just as we accepted the introduction of the typesetting machinery in the late 1880's. As yet, these newest devices have not proved adaptable to every composing room and have had rather limited use. But their failure to revolutionize the printing process cannot be said to flow from any opposition on our part to their use. We stand ready and willing to operate any new devices which publishers wish to install and to aid in bringing about the most efficient use of them. As to Mr. Arnold's intimation that the fancied anti-labor-saving policy of the International Typographical Union has so increased printing costs as to crush small newspapers, I call your attention to the uncontroverted statistics which we presented at the 1947 hearings referred to above. First Vice President Taylor there showed (pp. 535-539) that the mortality rate of newspapers over a period of 71⁄2 years from 1930 to 1938 was only what might have been expected from the normal course of the newspaper business. With one or two exceptions out of over 300 instances, there was not the slightest indication from the publishers of suspended newspapers that the wage demands of the printers had anything to do with the decisions to cease publication; and there was not even a hint from any publisher that the International Typographical Union ever failed to approve the installation of labor-saving devices or that such failure, assuming it did occur, ever was a factor leading to the death of a paper. I can assure you that our experience with suspended newspapers subsequent to the time of this careful survey has revealed no different facts or conclusions. It would be far more profitable for Mr. Arnold or anyone truly interested in the causes of newspaper fatalities to investigate the monopolistic practices of newspaper owners, feature syndicates, wire services, and newsprint and equipment manufacturers. What is really troubling Mr. Arnold is not the imaginary policy of the International Typographical Union as regards efficient printing devices. Rather it is something far removed from any so-called union monopolistic practices. It is something which is integrally related to the partisan position which he is forced to take as counsel and apologist for the newspaper publishers. That factor to which Mr. Arnold is opposed is the unswerving insistence by the International Typographical Union that it be granted jurisdiction over the work performed in the composing room by means of new labor-saving devices. In other words, we do not intend to commit suicide by permitting publishers to assign the operation of new devices to those other than qualified journeymen and apprentices. Many publishers have traditionally been in opposition to this firm policy of ours. Some of that opposition, I fear, comes from a desire to take the work of printing away from the printers, thereby bringing about the eventual demise of our organization. I do not think it necessary for me to go into detail at this point as to the justification for our refusal to permit our destruction. As Senator Capehart said in regard to this policy at the 1947 hearings (p. 561): "Certainly no one can complain about that." Unfortunately, many publishers, as well as Mr. Arnold, do complain about it. But the important point for your present consideration is a realiaztion that opposition of this nature is often cloaked in the garb of allegations that the International Typographical Union is standing in the way of efficiency and progress in the printing trade. The fact of it is that all the union is doing is insisting that it be allowed jurisdiction over the work performed on new devices-a problem which is currently being ironed out under the Labor-Management Relations Act and which does not call for any further treatment by your committee. When Mr. Arnold's statements to you concerning the International Typographical Union are seen in the light of fact rather than fancy, I am certain that you will agree that our organization has always cooperated in the expansion of the printing trade and stands ready to help make that trade even more efficient. The Honorable BURNET R. MAYBANK, WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER CO. Chairman, Committee on Banking and Currency, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR MAYBANK: Wisconsin Electric Power Co. generates electricity for transmission and distribution to approximately 1,250,000 people in the southeastern portion of the State of Wisconsin over an area which comprises about` 4,000 square miles. The energy is generated in five steam-electric stations which burn coal exclusively. During the year 1948, a total of 1,914,000 tons of coal were consumed in the plants of the company at a cost of approximately $15,000,000. Coal is obtained from mines in the eastern fields and also from mines in the midwestern fields, the former being conveyed to the plants by a rail and water movement, and the latter by an all-rail movement principally. Because of the long distance that the company's field of operation is removed from the mines, coal shipments are en route many days longer than is the case where the areas served are nearer. the mines. This means that the ability to properly schedule trains and boats is of utmost importance to it. Uniformity of deliveries from the mines at a relatively constant daily rate is necessary to good scheduling. Coal is the largest item of expense in the total operating costs of the company. Coal costs at the mines for the types of coal burned have increased 200 percent in the last 10year period. This is a larger percentage increase than any other of the company's expense items. The objective of the company has always been to produce the most reliable electric service at the lowest possible cost. There has been a continual downward trend over the past 25 years in the price which the company has charged for its service. This has been made possible through the installation of the most modern and most efficient power generating equipment obtainable. The Port Washington power plant, largest of the company's five stations, has held the world's efficiency record for the past 10 years. In spite of the continued efforts of the company to thus produce electricity as efficiently as possible, costs have risen to the point where they are now of considerable concern and coal is first among these. We believe that the 3-day workweek will have an adverse effect upon the efforts of the company in striving for operating economies. We further believe that increased costs are bound to follow, not only because of higher costs for the coal at the mine, but also because of the uncertainty in being able to schedule coal shipments. Difficulty in making up cargoes at the lower lake ports has |