There are many other provisions which probably would have bearing of more or less importance, but the above are the outstanding provisions in the contract to which your attention is particularly directed. I enclose a complete copy of the contract above mentioned in order that you may have the fullest possible information with respect to the matter. I am enclosing also a contract between the New York Shipbuilding Corporation and the United States of America, represented by the Secretary of the Navy, dated August 3, 1933. It does not seem to be as specific in its details as the provisions in the first-mentioned contract to which I have referred. However, on page 1, under article 1, there is a requirement that there shall be a maximum amount of work within the first and second year, reading as follows: "Owing to the national emergency existing making it imperative that the maximum number of men be returned to gainful employment without delay, and to effectuate the purpose of the National Industrial Recovery Act, approved June 16, 1933, the contractor hereby expressly agrees that from the beginning he will prosecute the work with the utmost vigor and dispatch and will make every possible effort, without reference to the otherwise normal rate of progress, to accomplish the maximum amount of work within the first and second year thereof." It will be readily seen from a reading of these contracts that there is a clearly defined purpose in the national emergency now existing to provide work for the unemployed. The provisions of the contracts are adequate and appropriate to enable the Secretary of the Navy to require that work shall proceed and thereby effectuate the purpose of the contracts. If there is any further assistance that I can give in the matter, do not hesitate to call upon me, as I will be glad to respond. Very sincerely yours, CHAS. A. WOLVERTON. Mr. GRISWOLD. If there is nothing further this morning, the committee will adjourn, to meet at the call of the chairman. (Thereupon, at 12:15 p. m., Friday, July 25, 1935, the subcommittee adjourned, to meet at the call of the chairman.) RELATING TO LABOR PRACTICES OF EMPLOYERS MONDAY, JULY 29, 1935 HOUSE OF REFRESENTATIVES, Washington, D. C. The subcommittee this day met at 10:30 a. m., Hon. Glenn Griswold presiding, for further consideration of House Joint Resolution 331. STATEMENT OF JOHN F. METTEN, PRESIDENT OF THE NEW YORK SHIPBUILDING CORPORATION Mr. GRISWOLD. The committee will please come to order and resume hearings on House Joint Resolution 331. Mr. Metten, president of the New York Shipbuilding Corporation, is here this morning, and at the pleasure of the committee we will hear him at this time. Mr. Metten, you are aware, probably, of the general intent of this hearing? Mr. METTEN. Yes. Mr. GRISWOLD. To determine whether or not the Secretary of Labor should be empowered to investigate the labor troubles at the New York Shipbuilding Corporation's plant at Camden. We will be glad to have you make a statement, if you care to do so, as to conditions there connected with this trouble. Mr. METTEN. I have prepared a statement which I think is necessary in order to understand the situation, and I should like to present it for inclusion in the record after reading it. Mr. GRISWOLD. Without objection, that may be done. Mr. METTEN. In appearing before this committee I wish to express appreciation for the opportunity that has been given the New York Shipbuilding Corporation to present its side in the labor controversy which has tied up the Camden yard for 11 weeks and caused great suffering to the people of Camden and vicinity. I consider this strike of the first importance to the Government and the American people generally because it is impeding work on 3 cruisers and 4 torpedoboat-destroyers under construction for the United States Navy. These vessels are needed for the national defense. That, in my opinion, is the reason why we are having a strike. Our wages are higher than those paid by any private competitive shipyard and they are the best paid for comparable work in the Philadelphia area. Conditions in the yard are the best I have known in more than 40 years of active shipbuilding. The men themselves, in large majority, want to return to work. Nevertheless the yard is idle, the community is being deprived of one of its largest pay rolls, relief expenditures continue in heavy 25507-35-6 volume, and the needed warships are delayed. To me, the cause seems obvious. The union, which terminated its contract with the company and called this strike, is dominated by a small radical element anxious to defeat the purposes of our national defense program and keep this shipyard tied up as long as possible. In making this statement I want to emphasize that there are a great many loyal citizens who belong to the Industrial Union of Marine and Shipbuilding Workers of America, which called this strike, and no doubt other loyal Americans who are assisting in the direction of the strike, but there is sufficient evidence, I believe, to warrant the assertion that the strike has been fomented for the purpose of advancing communism and that it is being prolonged by many of the insidious tricks of the Communist doctrine. I would like to call to the committee's attention, as the first exhibit of the manner in which communism has entered this strike, the peculiar verbiage of the preamble of the constitution of the Industrial Union of Marine and Shipbuilding Workers of America, which rings with the temper of a soviet manifesto. It says: We, marine and shipbuilding workers of America, believing in the solidarity of all workers, irrespective of race, color, creed, or national origin, hereby declare our purpose of joining in one strong union to win our just demands for a fuller life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These rights are today denied us. Experience of the past has taught us that rights are not won without struggle. Through our union we prepare ourselves for the workers' struggle, not merely to win concessions of higher wages and shorter hours, but to abolish forever the system of exploitation that compels us to support with our labor an idle owning class. The national president of the Industrial Union of Marine and Shipbuilding Workers of America is a former shipyard employee named John Green, who is also executive secretary of the Camden local of this union and the leader of the present strike. Green has been a speaker at Communist meetings. Although he is described as a member of the Socialist Party, he was among those selected to welcome a group of labor delegates who hailed the Soviet Republic upon their return from Russia. The notice of this meeting was contained in Soviet Russia Today, which describes itself as the "Official Organ of the Friends of the Soviet Union." Green was also a speaker at a meeting of Socialist and Communist groups on August 1, 1934, held on the courthouse steps at Camden to protest against, among other things, national preparation for war. The Camden Courier-Post of August 2, 1934, indicated that the various speakers on this occasion conveyed the same message. It said, in part: The speakers all warned of the dangers arising under the " war preparations being made by our capitalistic government", with especial emphasis being laid upon the building of naval armaments at the local shipyards. Green is a naturalized American citizen, having come to the United States from Scotland or England in July of 1923. He obtained employment as a sheet-metal worker at the New York Shipbuilding Corporation, Camden, in 1931, and worked for the company about 2 years before organizing his union. In this connection it is interesting to note the statement made by Matthew Woll, vice president of the American Federation of Labor, as published in Liberty Magazine of July 21, 1934. Mr. Woll's comment was made a part of a letter from George Biehl, director of the American Research Bureau, published in the Woodbury (N. J.) Times of August 8, 1934. This letter, which was addressed to Attorney General Cummings, mentioned Green and Donald Henderson, described as the South Jersey organizer of the Communist Party. The letter said, in part: The American Research Bureau is of the opinion that the activities of these two men merit a rigid investigation by the Department of Justice as it is apparent that they are both acting as agents of the Soviet Government of Russia and are attempting sabotage of the United States naval defense plans. Writing in the issue of Liberty of July 21, Matthew Woll, vice president and legal director of the American Federation of Labor, exposed this man John Green and other communist labor agitators and strike incitors. Mr. Woll stated: "On March 27 communists struck at our national defense plan. A walkout at the New York Shipbuilding Co.'s Camden yards held up work on nine warships. John Green, union head, promptly refused N. R. A. code mediation. This strike was called by the Marine Workers Industrial Union, Communist, a branch of the Trade Union Unity League and of the Red International of Labor Unions. National representatives of this Red union walked out of a Washington code hearing declaring they would 'write their own code in strikes and blood"." Mr. Woll is certainly qualified to appraise labor leaders and as Green is now attempting to incite another strike at the yards, it is apparent that he is not sincere in his capacity of a so-called "labor leader" by denouncing building of battleships by our Government at a communist mass meeting. Henderson is the superior of Green in the Communist movement for a revolution here, and is now endeavoring to force a strike at all South Jersey canneries to prevent canning of the State's huge tomato crop. Only a few weeks ago Henderson was almost mobbed by his own workers when he tried to prevent them from settling the Seabrook Farms strike at Bridgeton. * * * Henderson and Green merit action from your office, as the American people are growing tired and alarmed over the coddling of Communists and other radicals. Free speech is free speech, but treason, sedition, and sabotage are something else. According to the public press, John Green has stated that the Communist Party has contributed funds toward the support of the strike. I would also like to call to the attention of the committee a copy of a "special strike edition" of the Shipyard Workers' Voice, which bears the statement "Issued by the Shipyard Unit of the Communist Party Members who work in the New York Shipyard." This issue from the Communist Party shipworkers contains the statement that— A mass picket line must be maintained at all times sufficient to prevent any scab from entering the yards. We should state right now that no arbitration boards, Government or otherwise, shall enter into the settlement of this strike and that conciliators, be they Government agents, preachers, or any other socalled "outside" peacemakers, are out, and that all negotiations for settlement shall be made by the strike committee on the basis of our proposed contract, and that any terms for settlement must have the approval of our membership expressed by a majority vote. Mr. GRISWOLD. Is this bulletin or newspaper owned or published by the Union of Marine and Shipbuilding Workers of America? Mr. METTEN. We have copies of the papers containing the remarks quoted. Mr. GRISWOLD. I am just asking you whether the publication is owned or published by the Union of Marine and Shipbuilding Workers? Mr. METTEN. It is not, as I understand. Mr. GRISWOLD. Therefore, my personal opinion is that such would have very little relevancy. Mr. METTEN. We have copies of those articles with us. Mr. GRISWOLD. But you could not bind the workers by what somebody else has said. Mr. LESINSKI. Have you copies of those articles or publications? Mr. METTEN. Yes. We can show them to you. Mr. LESINSKI. There may be some things that we will forget as we go on. Mr. GRISWOLD. I just want an understanding and your understanding of what this was. Mr. METTEN. I wish, further, to submit a copy of a Communist circular handed to shipyard workers and bearing the name of the Communist Party, which circular undertook to prevent a fair expression of opinion by the shipyard workers as to whether they wanted to return to work under the company's proposed agreement. That the Communists consider the shipyard strike their own is indicated by a leaflet distributed on Monday, July 22, 1935, which I request permission to make a part of the record. This leaflet denounced the plans submitted by Major von Nieda of Camden and the Department of Labor to end the strike. It asserted that "We have demonstrated our solidarity by mass picket lines * * * "" As a farther exhibit I desire to submit an article entitled "The Camden Shipbuilding Strike", by Francis G. Hunter, an active New Jersey Socialist and former shipyard employee, written in the form of daily comments. He tells of the addresses made by Comrade Adolph Silver of New York among the strikers. His story for Tuesday, June 25, 1935, said: At today's strike meeting the hall was filled to capacity, many having to stand. After short reports by the different committees Comrade Silver was introduced as the principal speaker. Silver's appearance brought forth prolonged applause and his remarks were closely followed. In line with his previous addresses before the union he emphasized the necessity of organizing both industrially and politically for the abolition of the capitalist system, the root evil of all the misery and privations that now harass the worker and make of his life a hell on earth. Strikes he repeated, while they are necessary and are to be resolutely fought to a victorious finish, are at best merely stopgaps while the workers permit the system of private ownership of the means of production and distribution to continue. There is only one final solution to the labor question and that is the abolition of capitalism and the rearing of the Socialist Industrial Republic. Hunter's comment for June 28 called attention to a march of shipworkers who were led by Hunter in the singing of Solidarity, which I understand to be some kind of a Communist song. As a further evidence of the effort of well-known agitators to sustain the strike, I would like the committee to note the announcement of the mass meeting addressed by Robert Minor and David Levinson, who obviously have no interest in furthering the naval defense program. I desire also to submit one of the strike circulars sent out in mimeograph form bearing the familiar Communist phrasing of Yours in Solidarity. But perhaps the most impressive evidence of Communist activities was the violence that was carried on in a concerted and well-planned campaign when the company resumed operations in response to the request of the mayor of Camden after the vast majority of employees, at least three-fourths of them, had indicated in writing that they wished to return to work. When employees tried to report to work last Tuesday morning they were confronted by from 2,000 to 3,000 men wearing red buttons who were massed in compact picket lines in front of the yard. These pickets were pressed solidly one against another, although New |