of the Interstate Commerce Committee themselves visited various mining regions. Nothing resulted in the way of legislation. In 1932, we renewed our effort, with the introduction of the so-called "Davis-Kelly bill" which was also considered for some time by the mining committee of the Senate, and hearings on which, and the urgency of which, ceased with the passage of the National Recovery Act. Under the National Recovery Act, a measure of sobriety with the code and stabilization came to the industry. Prices were stabilized under the direction of the National Recovery Administration. The mine workers secured an organization of the employees in almost every field of the country until practically 97 percent of the men had joined the union of their craft. That was followed by collective bargaining, thus fixing standard wage scales. But along in the fall of 1934, as Mr. Snyder has graphically said, the old market psychology of the industry broke out. The struggle began for tonnage contracts. The prices set up by the code authorities began to be cut. In some districts 50 percent of the tonnage was being sold below the prices fixed by the code authorities, and a state of demoralization set in again in the industry. It was because of this fact that the miners at that time insisted that there should be some special legislation that would undertake to regulate the coal mining industry under a Government commission. About that time the report of the Natural Resources Board appointed by the President last July appeared and was forwarded to Congress by the President. Its mineral section was carefully studied by the miners and operators, I assume as well, and the part dealing with the bituminous coal industry became the model for the bill that was drafted and introduced by Senator Guffey in the Senate and Congressman Snyder in the House. It has been generally recognized, even in quarters that are more or less hostile to organized labor-and I am speaking here for the United Mine Workers of America, as you understand, that whatever might be their own peculiar attitude to the Recovery Administration and the codes established under it, the bituminous industry, for reasons that were notorious and well known, was an industry that deserved special treatment, special legislation, and regulations that might violate some of the canons that the chamber of commerce and the National Manufacturers Association, for instance, thought ought to prevail in any regulation of industry. For instance, they had their meeting, as you recall, at White Sulphur Springs, in December of last year. Mr. HILL. Who had their meeting? Mr. WARRUM. The Chamber of Commerce-the United States Chamber of Commerce, a joint meeting with the National Manufacturers Association, at which they announced their program. It was rather caustic, as you may recall, of the N. R. A., and proposed certain changes. But, when they came to the bituminous coal industry, they made a special exception of that, and suggested there ought to be special legislation dealing with it. A consumers' advisory board was set up under the N. R. A. for the protection of consumers, and to enable the consuming public to find articulate expression as to codes and code prices. They made their report to the President and that was transmitted to Congress. In that, there was a special brief dealing with prices, price control, price fixing, and the consumers' board, although they were presenting a special brief for the consumers, dealt especially with the bituminous coal industry and suggested special legislation was needed for it. This bill, therefore, was drawn in accordance with the outline suggested in the minerals section of the report of the Natural Resources Board, particularly that part dealing with the bituminous coal industry. It was introduced, as I said, in January by Senator Guffey in the Senate, and by Congressman Snyder in the House. The bill has undergone changes, but they are not fundamental. On the original bill introduced by Senator Guffey in the Senate, committee hearings were had lasting over 2 weeks. Some of the hearings occupied both the forenoon and afternoon and some of them at night. They were exhaustive hearings. There is a volume of the hearings, I notice, on the table, and I suppose they have all been printed and are available for the use of this committee. In the beginning, the United Mine Workers were, so to speak, substantially the proponents of this legislation. But gradually the operators began to study the subject, and as the enforcement of the code began to be weaker and weaker, and code prices crumbled and became demoralized, cutthroat competition began again even under the Bituminous Coal Code, so that operators commenced forming associations for the purpose of securing amendments to or pushing this special legislation. Eventually, those associations of operators met at the Shoreham Hotel. They held a meeting that lasted some 2 or 3 weeks and proposed certain amendments to the legislation which did not alter its fundamental character, which still contemplated a regularization or stabilization of the industry under a government commission. The miners, desiring, as always, to get along with the management side of the industry, discussed their proposed changes, compromised on some of them, accepted others, and this bill represents, as Congressman Snyder has told you-the present bill, H. R. 8479-substantially the agreement as it was reached between the operators, known as the "Shoreham Association and the United Mine Workers." I am informed that these operators who represent the management side of the industry, the capital side of the industry, who have proposed the changes that find expression in this bill, had registered some 200,000,000 tons of production based on the 1934 output. That is substantially three-fourths of the commercial soft coal production of the United States for 1934, because there are about 50,000,000 tons of so-called "captive coal." I thought that perhaps I should go through this bill and suggest briefly the different features of it. Mr. VINSON. While you are on the subject of the Shoreham Association, can you give us for the purpose of the record, the names of those operators who were part and parcel of that Shoreham Association? Mr. WARRUM. They will be referred to here, I think, by the next two or three witnesses. They will be the spokesmen for that association. Mr. VINSON. Could somebody set forth the operators who were represented in these conferences of which you speak? Mr. WARRUM. The witnesses following me will speak for them and represent them, and they ought to be able to give you that informa tion exactly. We, of course, did not participate in those conferences at all. They brought to us, who were representing the labor side of the industry, the conclusions at which they had arrived. But they can give you the exact tonnage they represent and the conditions under which they met, what fields were represented, and all of the particular information on that score that I think ought to come from them rather than from me, if that is satisfactory to you. In fact, I am not prepared to give you that information at this moment. Mr. VINSON. I see. I thought the Shoreham conference was par ticipated in by representatives of the miners. Mr. WARRUM. No. They held their own meetings. Then a committee, representing them, met with a committee of the miners, and we threshed out the differences. For instance, one of the differences and it was not exactly satisfactory to us but in a desire to join with them and have them join with us as far as possible in presenting a case to the Congress of the United States, we agreed that the term of title I which deals with the regularization of the industry should be 4 years. We thought it ought to be permanent legislation, but there was some hesitancy on the part of the operators to accept legislation that did not have at least an experimental period attached to it. We accepted the 4-year limitation knowing, or believing at least, as we believe, that with 1 year or 4 years of legislation of this kind, the operators themselves will never want to go back to the old cutthroat warfare. Mr. COOPER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask a few general questions before the Judge proceeds to an analysis of the bill, which I understand you are about to do, Judge. Mr. WARRUM. Yes. Mr. COOPER. It has not been my privilege to enjoy a personal acquaintance with the distinguished gentleman. That leads me to ask a few questions for the purposes of the record as well as for my own information that might properly be termed a further introduction. You are listed here as Judge Warrum, general counsel, United Mine Workers of America. What is your address, please? Mr. WARRUM. Indianapolis, Ind. Mr. COOPER. Would you be kind enough to give us a brief statement as to your past experience? Mr. WARRUM. Qualifications? Mr. COOPER. Qualifications; yes. Mr. WARRUM. I would have to disclaim any right to the title of judge. It has been imposed upon me as a sort of brevet, I suppose, a good deal like, perhaps in your own State, Congressman, a colonel may not be one who has had regular military service at all. Mr. COOPER. That sometimes happens to distinguished lawyers, even though they have never occupied the bench. Mr. WARRUM. Well, they cannot help it. Mr. COOPER. You have not served as a judge at any time? Mr. WARRUM. I have not. I have been counsel for the Mine Workers for more than 25 years. I have been a resident of Indianapolis substantially for 40 years. I was born in Indiana, and am a native Hoosier. I do not know whether you are interested in all these details. I am a member of the various bars of the Federal courts, wherever Federal courts sit in coal mining areas, having been dragged in by the hundreds of injunctions that have been issued against the United Mine Workers of America. I am a member of the bar of the Supreme Court of the United States. I do not know that I can qualify any further. Mr. COOPER. Just one other question, if you will permit. How long have you been a member of the bar? Mr. WARRUM. Of the Supreme Court of the United States? Mr. WARRUM. Well, I am 68 now, and I was admitted to practice when I was 21. Mr. COOPER. For the last 25 years I assume your practice has been confined, to a very great extent at least, to representation of the United Mine Workers, is that correct? Mr. WARRUM. For the last 15 or 20 years; yes. Mr. COOPER. Have you had a rather wide experience in the general practice of the law? Mr. WARRUM. Well, before my time was occupied altogether with the legal concerns of the United Mine Workers I practiced generally. I have kept my office in Indianapolis, still. For instance, I have been here practically since the first of the year. Mr. COOPER. Here in Washington? Mr. WARRUM. Of course, that destroys any possibility of a private practice, as you well know. Mr. COOPER. You have been here in Washington practically all the time since the first of the year? Mr. WARRUM. That is right. Mr. COOPER. Did you draft this bill that is now before us, Judge? Mr. WARRUM. I helped to do it. I drafted the bill that is before you very largely with such suggestions as I could get, and after such conferences as I could hold, not only with operators, but with members of the union. That was the original bill. This bill represents to some extent drafting done by the attorneys for the operators in those respects in which the original Snyder bill and the original Guffey bill has been amended. Mr. COOPER. If I may be clear on this one matter, who drafted the original coal bill? Did you draft the original coal bill, Judge? Mr. WARRUM. It is fair to state that for any purpose that I imagine you have in mind. Mr. COOPER. The bill now before the committee, H. R. 8479, embraces a considerable part of your original draft and some changes have been made. The language embraced in those changes has largely been drafted by the attorneys for the operators, is that correct? Mr. WARRUM. That is with this modification, that where I thought the language was not satisfactory or the change was not proper, it was not made then following the lines of the original bill. Mr. COOPER. The others made suggestions to you and in some instances you accepted the suggestions and in some instances you rejected them? Mr. WARRUM. The markets provisions, as to those, the operators have drawn the entire section. Mr. COOPER. So then it is fair to assume that this bill as it now appears before us is very largely your product. Mr. WARRUM. Yes, sir. Mr. COOPER. Of course, I assume you are familiar with the holding of the Supreme Court in the Schechter case relating to the N. R. A. Mr. WARRUM. I have tried to be. Mr. COOPER. Has this bill been revised so as to try to conform to that decision of the Supreme Court? Mr. WARRUM. Yes; it has. I think the original bill can be fairly regarded as anticipating that decision of the Supreme Court. Let me just suggest, Mr. Congressman, that the philosophy of the original bill, is this: I think the theory is that whatever regulations are imposed, whether it be called a code or otherwise, should be regulations laid down by Congress; and the code set up in this bill and in the original bill, is the legislative code, in which all the trade practices, in which all the regulations, in which all the standards for the conduct of the Commission are set out by Congress. There was in the original bill, as I conceived it, a minimum of delegated power, perhaps less delegated legislative power in this bill than in any act creating any commission now functioning in the Government. But it has been carefully revised since the poultry-case decision to see whether or not there were any bald or open delegations of legislative power in it. Mr. COOPER. Briefly, in what respect can you point out that this bill has been changed since the Supreme Court decision in the Schechter case? Mr. WARRUM. Take the marketing provisions. There are I think, 16 pages covering the marketing provision, in which every step that is taken in determining minimum prices, in correlating prices in the consuming markets, in fixing the maximum prices-every step is taken that standardizes formulas, set up in the bill itself, and not a delegation of authority to the Commission to act at all. Provisions relating to trade practices are all set out. If you will notice on pages 21, 22, and 23 you will see that it is not left for any board or any executive officer to determine what are fair trade practices, but they are itemized, they are described, they are prescribed, and it is known by reading the bill exactly what Congress intended should be done in the matter. Mr. COOPER. I will say to you I have tried to give rather close study to this bill; I worked until after midnight on it last night. I I am really prepared to agree with the general statement you make, insofar as it relates to the question of the delegation of power. Í think the bill does seek to meet the difficulties that might be encountered in that direction. But I invite your attention to the fact that, as I undersand it, there were three general grounds laid down in the Supreme Court decision. Mr. WARRUM. That is correct. Mr. COOPER. One was the unlawful delegation of power. Mr. WARRUM. The other was in reference to congressional authority. Mr. COOPER. And the other was the question of interstate com merce. Mr. WARRUM. Congressional authority over the subject under the interstate commerce clause. Mr. COOPER. My view of it is that you have sought to meet the question of the delegation of power, but I am somewhat disturbed 144204-35 |