every time we were assured that the Labor Board would read the record.

Now, gentlemen, we finally got an opinion, and that opinion is signed by Senator Wagner. I am confident Senator Wagner did not write that opinion, but that it was written by Handler. The reason I say Senator Wagner did not write it is because I understand he was at one time a judge, and there is an implied criticism of the Supreme Court of the United States in that opinion. That opinion does not decide anything, so far as we know, and the gentleman

Senator DAVIS. What opinion was that?

Mr. HALL. The opinion of the Labor Board. But, gentlemen there is this

The CHAIRMAN. You mean it is not enforcible because of no power in the law to authorize this Labor Board to enforce any of its decrees? Mr. HALL. I mean that, and then I have another thing I want to refer to a moment, to show you more of what I mean.

It says there that the company secured two drastic or hard injunctions against the employees. Gentlemen, the first one was so mild that the employees did not obey it. The second one is in the exact language in which the Supreme Court of the United States directed the lower court to issue an injunction in a case almost like it, and for the Labor Board to say that those were harsh or otherwise, I think they are taking a great deal upon themselves.

The only difference between the injunction that was granted by our circuit court in Winnebago County, and the one that was ordered by the Supreme Court of the United States, is that the Supreme Court of the United States directed the lower court to enjoin the strikers from congregating within a reasonable distance of the plant. Our circuit judge fixed the distance at one half a mile. Otherwise, it is in the exact language, but this Labor Board, I think Mr. Handler writing the opinion, criticizes us for using the court, and using the models that the courts have fixed for us.

The CHAIRMAN. On February 23 this board issued a decree?
Mr. HALL. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. In which it ordered, first, that the strike should be called off at once. Did you do that?

Mr. HALL. We had no strike. The men were all back, all but about 150 of them, and, Mr. Chairman, we were employing those men just as fast as we could.

The CHAIRMAN (reading):

All the employees on the pay roll on August 31, who are now without permanent employment, and who manifest a desire to be reinstated, shall be placed by the company on a preferential list, and shall be reinstated in order of seniority, without discrimination, before any new employees are engaged.

Was that complied with?

Mr. HALL. We have not employed people since then.

The CHAIRMAN (reading):

An election shall be held under the supervision of the National Labor Board for the selection of representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining. Was that done?

Mr. HALL. An election had been held shortly before that for the employees, and it has not come time to hold another one.

The CHAIRMAN. Proceed.

Mr. HALL. Now, Mr. Green, who spoke here before this committee a week or two ago, called attention to our case, and very shortly after that we received from the Labor Board notice to come in to show cause why we should not be sent to the Compliance Board, and have our Blue Eagle taken away, and to the Department of Justice for appropriate action.

Now, I went there late yesterday afternoon, when I found I could not be heard before this board, and saw Mr. Handler and told him I could not come there today until I got through here, and then I would come. He said that I would have to be there this morning because he was going to New York this afternoon.

Now, when he goes to New York, I cannot be heard before the board. That is why we think Mr. Handler is writing these opinions and sending these notices.

Now, I am going to reply to them-he is here I am going to reply to them that if we violated any law, we will not ask them not to enforce that law against us, but to proceed immediately. As to the Blue Eagle, we desire to do everything we can to maintain every avenue that the Government has for creating jobs, and we will do everything we can to work with him on that.

Senator DAVIS. Winnebago County, Ill., is the county seat in Rockford?

Mr. HALL. Yes, sir; not very far from Mooseheart. You have been there? We are very fond of Mooseheart, ourselves.

Mr. Chairman, I get from all this, told as ramblingly as I have told, this thing that I want to call to the attention of this committee:

1. Small industries located in small communities and employing not over 2,000 persons should not be handled in the same manner and subjected to the same treatment as those engaged in mass production, requiring mass labor, such as the coal mines, the steel mills, even the automobile industry.

Some of the reasons for the above are:

(a) The inability of the small manufacturer to pay the tremendous overhead made necessary.

(b) In a small locality and in a small business, the affairs of a company are more or less public property.

(c) Public sentiment automatically regulates to a very large extent the action of the employer and the employee.

(d) In the present system, the Labor Board seems obsessed with the idea of holding elections-if they can just hold an election they have settled something. These elections cause turmoil and uncertainty, and many times are of no value, and this is nearly always true in small industries.

(e) The expense to the Government of supervising such elections is enormous. You cannot successfully American federationize all labor and create in one organization a monopoly without compensating responsibilities. Particularly in small plants.

Senator DAVIS. May I ask you if you give the right to your employees to join a labor organization?

Mr. HALL. Yes, sir. We have never asked a man if he belonged to it, and when these men who walked out came back and wanted work, we took them one at a time and never asked whether they belonged to a labor organization or not. We live in a small community where our shops are not unionized, where they could not very well be and have the manufacturers succeed.

Senator DAVIS. You said they did come back one at a time. Why was not a general order made to let them all go back who could have worked?

Mr. HALL. That is true; all who could have worked, came back. Senator DAVIS. You did not have them sign any agreement?

Mr. HALL. They signed nothing, except they made application. We asked each man if he was willing to come back, and if his family was satisfied to have him come back. We want men who are contented, and we cannot have men coming in and going out all the while. That is why it was done individually. Many times we went to the home of the man, and asked his wife if it was satisfactory for him to come back.

Senator DAVIS. There was nothing in the application he signed to go back which pledged him not to join any organization?

Mr. HALL. No, sir; nothing at all. That has never been our policy, never in the world.

Then, the second thing I have is this:

The American Federation of Labor officials should be removed from all key positions insofar as they affect what ought to be judicial hearings and findings. Some of the reasons for these are:

(a) They assume to speak for labor whereas they represent but a small part of labor.

(b) Those officials are privately paid by organized labor, yet they are supposed to be serving the public for no compensation. Those supposed to represent other interests on these boards do not have, and do not give, time to the work. The union labor man is there at every turn. It is his very life. He therefore dominates.

(c) It gives them undue influence in trying to federationize labor. Senator DAVIS. Just a minute; do I understand you to say that those who represent the business interests of the country on the Labor Board do not attend meetings?

Mr. HALL. I am giving you this based on my experience. Mr. Dupont was there the first afternoon for a little while, and from then on, Mr. Haas attended part of the time, Mr. Handler a part of the time, and the red-headed gentleman the other part of the time.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Hall, you will have to excuse me.

Mr. HALL. I am very sorry. I wanted to finish while you were here.

Senator DAVIS. Are you opposed to the so-called "bi-partisan boards?"

Mr. HALL. Yes, sir; absolutely. Why, they do nothing but put on people to bargain against each other. Why not have men of judicial turn of mind, who are not interested in either side? Why should we have boards made up half one way and half the other? I don't think there is anything to that at all, and I never saw that work yet.

In the hearings before the present Labor Board, the union labor officials seldom appear openly, but their fine hand is seen in the acts and decisions of the Board.

Take our own case

Senator DAVIS. I might say for Senator Wagner, the author of the bill, that he stated here that all he wanted to do was to give men the right of collective bargaining. He was not trying to federationize, as you point out, to put everybody into the Federation of Labor.

Mr. HALL. Well, now, Senator, if that is what he wants, you, I, practically every man in this room, can take a sheet of paper and on one sheet we can free the laboring man from any supposed slavery

he is under, and we can make it an offense for any man to try to enslave him, and we can put it in the courts to decide when a man has done that, and send him to jail if he does it. You do not have to set this great monster up that is suggested for going into every little hamlet in this Nation of ours, and laying his hand on the employer, and dragging him around from place to place, and have young men like Handler writing your decisions. You do not need that at all. This is just a monster that is set up.

Senator DAVIS. I think what Senator Wagner is trying to do, is prevent the company from dominating the union.

Mr. HALL. Very well. Make it an offense for both of them, the company or the laborites, to do it, either of them, and have it punishable.

Senator DAVIS. I would sort of like to take issue with you on Senator Wagner not being able to write a report. I do not think he would take anybody's report if he did not approve of it.

Mr. HALL. Do you mean to tell me that 353 pages of that record, that Senator Wagner sat down and read that, with all of the records that there are? I cannot believe it.

Senator DAVIS. I should think he would if he attached his signature to it.

Mr. HALL. Well, I think he did not. If he did, Senator, why did he say those were severe injunctions when the United States Supreme Court directed the issuance of one just like it? Will you tell me that? He is a lawyer and has been a judge, I understand.

.

Senator DAVIS. I am not a lawyer, but is it true that because a man is a lawyer, he cannot comment upon a decision of the Supreme Court?

Mr. HALL. I should not think he would set up his own small labor board in defiance of the Supreme Court of the United States, and that is just the reason I am opposed to this legislation. You will have a board here trailing all over this country, setting at defiance the principles of more than government. That is just what they will do. Take our own case. Mr. Green was a witness on March 15 for this committee-I have stated that.

Men elected to hold office in the legislative branch of the Government, or appointed to the judicial branch, should not sit on commissions of the executive branch. Some of the reasons for this are:

(a) It has a tendency to give more weight to acts of such persons than otherwise would be given.

(b) The object is, or at least the tendency is, to influence them in their acts on the legislative or judicial side.

(c) It tends to confuse the branches of Government, whereas, they were intended to be separate, coordinate branches, not mixed together. To the best of my ability, that is the thing I have in mind, and I have just this to say in closing

Senator DAVIS. Have you concluded?

Mr. HALL. Yes.

Senator DAVIS. It is not customary, unless it is agreeable with those who make statements to the Board, to let outsiders ask them, but if you wish, I will be very glad to request Mr. Handler to make a statement following yours, and if you wish, you may question him, inasmuch as Senator Wagner is not here.

Mr. HALL. Senator, I do not care to hear from Mr. Handler. I have heard from him more than I want to hear from him now, and I am taking the time of the Illinois Manufacturers' Association. I have this to say

Senator DAVIS. I should think it would not take him more than 10 minutes.

Mr. HALL. I don't know; I don't care to hear it. Unless you put him on, I don't want him.

Senator DAVIS. It is perfectly all right with me if you want to say something, Mr. Hall.

Mr. HALL. I will just say this, it is all right with me, because I don't care to mix into it, and when I say this, I am through.

I want to say that I regard this bill of Senator Wagner's as a primer from Moscow, and I think that this committee and the Senate, which they represent, should turn their backs on it, pick up the American flag, and walk in the other direction.

Thank you very much.

Senator DAVIS. A request has been made to have, following the remarks of the last witness, the decision of the National Labor Board of the National Recovery Administration. That decision will appear in the record at this point.

(The decision of Feb. 20, 1934, of the National Labor Board in the matter of the National Lock Co., and Federal Labor Union, 18830, is as follows:)

(Release No. 3433.) In the matter of the National Lock Co., Rockford, Ill., and Federal Labor Union 18830. Case no. 52, February 20, 1934.

A strike of the employees of the National Lock Co., at Rockford, Ill., occurred on August 31, 1933. The efforts of a mediator of the United States Department of Labor and the National Labor Board having been unavailing, the matter was referred to the Chicago Regional Labor Board. The attempts of that board to mediate the dispute and to ascertain the facts of the controversy were thwarted by a court injunction which the company obtained, restraining the Chicago board from conducting any hearing or making any report. The National Labor Board, in the exercise of its original jurisdiction, conducted a hearing in Washington. As the facts are in dispute, it is essential that the evidence submitted to the Board be examined in detail.

The National Lock Co., which manufactures hardware, has been operating under the fabricated metal industry code since its effective date, November 13. According to the office of the national recovery director for the State of Illinois, the company signed the President's reemployment agreement on August 31, although counsel for the company at the hearing before this board stated that the agreement was signed on the afternoon of September 1.

On

On August 25, several days before the signing of the President's reemployment agreement, the company inserted in the pay envelopes of all its employees a statement which read "In conformity with the N.R.A. program, we have subscribed to the fabricated metal industry code." This statement contained the minimum rates provided for by the code and announced that they would become effective on September 1. During August many of the employees formed a Federal labor union, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor. August 11, James Marsh, who had been elected temporary president of the union, and on August 30, Reuben Potter, who was also active in the union, were discharged. The employees contend that the discharges were for union activity, whereas the company insists that Marsh was an uncooperative, and Potter an inefficient workman. On the evening of August 30, a meeting to discuss the discharge of Potter was attended by about 200 employees. Those present at this meeting decided to urge their fellow employees to refrain from working on the following morning.

No demands were presented to the company at this time. It is contended by the employees that there had never been any satisfactory means of adjusting differences and that on several occasions, employees who brought their grievances to the attention of company officials were discharged. The employees claim that