Mr. WEISENBURGER. That is right; I admit that.
Senator THOMAS. Why deny a thing like that?

Mr. WEISENBURGER. The point I am denying is that we do not participate in these practices that are circumstantially accredited to

us.

Senator THOMAS. We were not talking about that then. We were talking about the advantages. I do not want you to let it go out to your members that you are not interested in their welfare, because I do not think that is right.

Mr. WEISENBURGER. Certainly; we certainly appreciate your interest in our membership.

Senator THOMAS. I am intensely interested.

Mr. WEISENBURGER. That is the greatest show of interest we have had in some time.

Mr. WOHLFORTH. I think that is all I have at this moment. I believe I offered this tabulation for the record.1

Senator LA FOLLETTE. The committee at this point will take a recess until 2 o'clock.

Mr. WEISENBURGER. I do not want to interrupt the adjournment, but I have a chart on the same thing which I would like to introduce to complete it. Do you want it now or after lunch?

Senator LA FOLLETTE. I would rather have it after lunch. It is nearly 12 o'clock now.

(Whereupon, at 11:50 a. m., a recess was taken until 2 p. m. of the same day.)

AFTERNOON SESSION

The hearing was resumed at 2 p. m., pursuant to recess.)

Senator LA FOLLETTE. Mr. Weisenburger and Mr. Sargent, please.

TESTIMONY OF WALTER B. WEISENBURGER AND NOEL
SARGENT-Resumed

Senator LA FOLLETTE. Mr. Weisenburger, I think at the time we recessed you mentioned that you had a chart or an exhibit that you would like to enter. Will you do so now, please?

Mr. WEISENBURGER. Yes, sir.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. Let it be given an exhibit number.

(The chart was marked "Exhibit 3800" and appears in the appendix on p. 7541.)

Mr. WEISENBURGER. May I briefly explain it?

Senator LA FOLLETTE. Yes; if you please.

Mr. WEISENBURGER. This is to show the distribution of our membership, Senator, according to employee groups. We have 1.6 percent of our membership employing from 1 to 24 men; 4.3 percent from 25 to 49; 9 percent from 50 to 99 employees; 24 percent from 100 employees to 249 employees; 19.8 percent from 250 to 499 employees.

The point that we are illustrating there is that in this group of employees of less than 500 we have 58.7 percent of our membership. We also have 17.8 percent in the group from 500 to 999 employees and from 1,000 to 4,999 we have 19 percent of our membership, and 4.5 percent of our membership employing 5,000 and over.

See p. 7386.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. Have you any figures to show the total employees in those groups?

Mr. WEISENBURGER. Yes, sir. We have a survey that we can offer to you showing that, from a survey of 2,400 of our members, which gives you a pretty good idea of the membership; not the whole. Senator LA FOLLETTE. For example, could you tell us how many men were actually employed by the group in the 5,000 or over, or 1,000 or 4,999 ?

Mr. WEISENBURGER. I think we could get it.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. And all the way down, as I think it would make it more complete.

Mr. WEISENBURGER. If you are interested, we would be glad to file it.1

Senator LA FOLLETTE. Yes; if you will, please.

LABOR POLICIES

EARLY STATEMENTS OF LABOR POLICIES

I offer for the record the copy of declarations of the National Association of Manufacturers, labor principles, which, as I understand, was adopted at the New Orleans convention of the association in 1903.

(The document was marked "Exhibit 3801" and appears in the appendix on pp. 7542–7546.)

Senator LA FOLLETTE. Is that correct?

Mr. WEISENBURGER. Mr. Sargent will have to answer that.

Mr. SARGENT. That is correct, with the exception of item 9, which was adopted at our 1904 convention and subsequently inserted. Senator LA FOLLETTE. Is it fair to say that this declaration of principles is a broad statement of the labor relations policies of the association?

Mr. WEISENBURGER. That is covered in our general statement that we wish to offer.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. Could you answer that question that I have just asked you?

Mr. WEISENBURGER. I am afraid I could not, Senator. I do not believe it would adequately cover the situation. I do not want to be obstinate about it, but I do not think going back to that would cover it through all the years.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. Can you tell me whether or not you regard this general statement of principles as one which has been the guiding document so far as the labor relations policies of the association are concerned?

Mr. WEISENBURGER. I think, Senator, that you will find the 1937 declaration on employment relations is a much more current statement upon that subject, predicated largely upon this previous statement but not wholly.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. Do you remember whether or not Mr. Chester once referred to this as being the "Bible of the association"?

1 Under date of July 15, 1938, R. S. Smethurst, associate counsel of the National Assoiation of Manufacturers, advised the committee: "This chart (exhibit 3800, see p. 7541) & based upon specific replies received from 2,052 members of the association. It was Issumed that the remaining 951 members would have membership classifications in the same proportions. For this reason the chart purports to give the grouping of N. A. M. members by number of employees."

Mr. WEISENBURGER. To what?

Senator LA FOLLETTE. The declaration of labor principles.
Mr. WEISENBURGER. The New Orleans declaration?

Senator LA FOLLETTE. Yes.

Mr. WEISENBURGER. I could not answer that; I am not familia with it.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. At this point I will enter for the record a copy of a letter from Mr. C. M. Chester, president of the association to Mr. E. C. Stevens, president of the International Silver Co. Meriden, Conn., dated July 22, 1936. I read one paragraph from it; the entire letter may be printed as an exhibit.

(The document was marked "Exhibit 3802" and appears in the appendix on pp. 7546-7547.)

Senator LA FOLLETTE (reading):

I think you are aware that in 1903 the association adopted a set of labor principles which is still officially our "Bible" in this field. The Employment Relations Committee in 1926 at the request of our board of directors made ar attempt to revise these principles, but the board found itself unable to agree or the wording of any suggested revisions.

That would seem to indicate that it was the bible of the organiza tion in the field of labor relations at least as late as July 22, 1936 would it not?

Mr. WEISENBURGER. I think the letter will have to stand as it states.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. I should like to call your attention to a few statements of labor policies which have been made by representatives of the association in the past.

I offer for the record a statement published in a magazine entitled "American Industries."

(The document was marked "Exhibit 3803" and appears in the appendix on p. 7547.)

Senator LA FOLLETTE. "American Industries" was a magazine pub lished by the association, was it not?

Mr. WEISENBURGER. That was before my time, Senator.

Mr. SARGENT. There was such a magazine; yes, sir.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. The date of this exhibit was 1904, which would be just a year after the adoption of the principles just referred to in the previous question in 1903. It reads as follows:

We are not opposed to good unionism, if such exists anywhere. The American Federation brand of unionism, however, is un-American, illegal, and indecent. because their constitution is simply based on the plan that "We will rule you or ruin you." The manufacturer, therefore, has a right to discriminate against an employee who is affiliated directly or indirectly with an organization that resorts to these methods.

That is dated August 5, 1904.

Mr. GALL. Mr. Chairman, may I offer a statement just to clear up the relationship of the association with the magazine "American Industries" to which you have referred?

Senator LA FOLLETTE. Certainly.

Mr. GALL. That was not published by the National Association of Manufacturers. It was published by the National Manufacturers Co which was a separate corporation organized partly for the purpose of publishing a magazine. We had an arrangement with the National Manufacturers Co. under which that magazine went to the members of the aduring the period for which it was published.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. Who owned the publishing company? Mr. GALL. The stock was owned by the National Association of [anufacturers. I am simply making the statement as to the legal elationship. This was not what I would call a house organ or an ficial publication of the association published as such, by its staff. - was published by a separate staff employed by the National Manuacturing Co. Just as many companies are holding companies in arious companies.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. But as a matter of fact, getting away from he legal technicalities for the moment, the magazine was published y a company the stock of which was owned by the association? Mr. GALL. That is true; there is no question about that.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. You would not say that anybody else was esponsible for the publication, would you, under those circumstances? Mr. GALL. Well, just as the relationship of a parent company and a bsidiary.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. A wholly owned subsidiary?

Mr. GALL. That is true, but the circulation of the magazine was not onfined to the membership of the association.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. I had not asked that; I was just trying to and out who actually ran the paper. Now, Mr. Weisenburger, has he policy of the association changed since that interpretation placed n the declaration of principles was made in 1904?

Mr. WEISENBURGER. Well, I cannot answer it as definitely as that. think you will have to take the records of the association as they how stand and its pronouncement on employee relations as it came ut of the 1937 convention recently, for particular years. You have hose records.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. You were saying in response to my question, f I understand you, that there has been some change in the policy of the association since that time?

Mr. WEISENBURGER. Well, I would hate to think that the association lid not progress with the conditions as they found them.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. I have just simply tried to bring out whether r not the association has changed its policy since this declaration vas printed.

Mr. WEISENBURGER. The reason I hesitate to answer that is that ny connection has been recent with it and I cannot answer that ntelligently.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. Can you answer that question, Mr. Sargent? Mr. SARGENT. I would hesitate first to answer on the basis of the etter that you submitted, or the quotation from American Indusries, because the very title of the article would seem to indicate that t was an article by some one individual, and that it itself was conrary to the declaration of principles which you presented in the revious evidence, Senator.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. Is it customary for an individual to write n the plural "we"?

Mr. SARGENT. I do not know who wrote the article; I have no vidence of that, Senator. May I request that the whole article be put n the record?

Senator LA FOLLETTE. Certainly, it will be printed as an exhibit.

Mr. SARGENT. I mean not only the part that was presented here, but that your investigators put in the entire article as well as the

extract.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. Yes; the article itself will be printed. I merely read an excerpt from the exhibit. Now, I want to call your attention to a statement made by John Kirby, Jr., who was president of the association in 1911, which I offer for the record:

The American Federation of Labor is engaged in an open warfare against Jesus Christ and His Cause. . . . Let the American Federation of Labor and all those who are for it stand as a unit by themselves, and let all those who are against it stand as a unit by themselves, then right will be pitted against wrong, the right will prevail and every man will get that which is his-a square deal.

(The document was marked "Exhibit 3804" and appears in the appendix on p. 7547.)

Senator LA FOLLETTE. Has the policy of the association changed any, would you say, Mr. Weisenburger, or Mr. Sargent, since Mr. Kirby was president?

Mr. WEISENBURGER. I can only refer you to our more current statement which must reflect the present attitude which is involved, and stated plainly in all the material supplied to you, and which we are glad to offer in our statement when we get to it.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. I also offer at this same time a contemporaneous statement made in 1911 by Mr. J. Philip Bird, general manager of the National Association of Manufacturers:

The National Association of Manufacturers is not primarily a labor-busting organization. It is true we have done much preventive work along that line, but we claim to be and are a boosting organization.

(The document was marked "Exhibit 3805" and appears in the appendix on p. 7547.)

Senator LA FOLLETTE. If I am to understand you correctly, in response to the questions, it is that the policy of the association as it exists today has to some extent repudiated the policy of the organization in this field.

Mr. WEISENBURGER. I would not so broadly state it. I simply say you have to take the present policy of the association as the present policy of the association reads, Senator.

Senator THOMAS. You would not want to leave the impression that you stand today on the principles that have just been read, do you? Mr. WEISENBURGER. I have not any reason to know that those statements are accurate or that they were the policy of the association, Senator. That is the reason I cannot personally comment.

Senator THOMAS. That is, you think that the association was out of harmony with its general officers?

Mr. WEISENBURGER. I was not a general officer at that time.
Senator THOMAS. Do you think that it was?

Mr. WEISENBURGER. I could not comment on that; I have no way of saying.

Senator THOMAS. The first statement was made by a president of the association, and the second statement was made by a general manager of the association.