Mr. BLANTON. And he defied the court to put the sentence into execution?

Mr. WALLACE. He did not.

Mr. BLANTON. Do you say that the newspapers of Washington did not so report?

Mr. WALLACE. Mr. Gompers said that if the court thought he should be placed in jail on that charge he could go to jail; they had the power. How could he defy the court when he was under the jurisdiction of the court?

Mr. BLANTON. You admit he defied the New York court?

Mr. WALLACE. I admit he criticized it

Mr. BLANTON (interposing). Do you deny this statement in the paper that he defied that court-that he defied this judge to cite him before the court?

Mr. WALLACE. I have not any direct evidence that those were his words, but on the ground of what that judge said, "that the courts. of the country were only intended to defend capital-was there to support capital as against"-not stated-but as against the human rights, he had a right to criticize that court.

Mr. WHEELER. Pardon me a moment, will you?

Mr. BLANTON. Yes.

Mr. WHEELER. What the newspapers say and what are the facts are often diametrically opposite.

Mr. FOCHT. Absolutely.

Mr. WHEELER. And you can not take it for absolutely certain that the newspaper articles are true.

Mr. BLANTON. I am going to get away from newspaper articles. Mr. SPROUL. May I make a suggestion, that in the case of the other two witnesses you let them tell their own story. Why not let Mr. Wallace tell his story?

Mr. BLANTON. We have not gotten to him yet.

Mr. WHEELER. My understanding is that Mr. Wallace is not on the witness stand.

Mr. SPROUL. If he is not on the witness stand, it is all right.

Mr. BLANTON. I asked him if he would subject himself to a question.

Mr. WALLACE. Mr. Chairman, I wish to say this: I will answer any question Mr. Blanton asks, but I object to being asked to answer categorically yes or no when the explanations will change the meaning of any answer.

You do

Mr. BLANTON. I am going to ask you a question now. recognize that the American Federation of Labor, of which you are an affiliated member and its representative here, and the chief of union, Mr. Gompers, have admonished the affiliated members of all unions that they are not bound by an injunction of the Supreme Court of the United States?

Mr. WALLACE. Providing that injunction is calculated to restrain them from exercising their legal and constitutional rights.

Mr. BLANTON. And that they are to determine what those rights are and not the Congress and courts?

Mr. WALLACE. There are certain things we know are fundamental. Mr. BLANTON. And when you have decided you have certain rights, you are to disobey the injunction of the Supreme Court?

Mr. WALLACE. We have found some of those judges are men, and they are influenced by their environment.

Mr. BLANTON. And whenever you consider they have violated your rights, then you disobey the injunction?

Mr. WALLACE. When we consider that by obeying the dicta of a court we give up our constitutional rights and injure our cause irreparably, then we will disobey it.

Mr. BLANTON. The main clause I wanted to get before the gentleman was in regard to the International Typographical Union. A member of the International Typographical Union furnished me with a printed blank of what purported to be the oath.

Mr. WHEELER. May I read it aloud?

Mr. BLANTON. Yes.

The International Typographical Union requires its members to take, before an officer qualified under the law to administer oaths, an oath containing the following: "That my fidelity to the union and my duty to the members thereof shall in no sense be interfered with by any allegiance that I may now or hereafter owe to any other organization, socal, political, or religious, secret or otherwise."

Mr. FоCHT. He denies that means his country.
Mr. WALLACE. I am not sure it is in the oath.

Mr. BLANTON. Will you say it is not in the oath?

Mr. WALLACE. No, sir.

Mr. BLANTON. Then do not say anything about it. You have the oath on file.

Mr. WALLACE. I will get a member who will give the whole of it. Mr. BLANTON. And if you will get what you say is the oath and the above is not in it, I will withdraw this and insert what you bring in, provided you swear to it.

It covers just what that man said it did-fraternity, church, and

state.

Mr. FOCHT. Does it say "State?"

Mr. BLANTON. Listen [Reading:]

That my fidelity to the union and my duty to the members thereof shall in no sense be interfered with by any allegiance that I may now or hereafter owe to any other organization, social—

That is fraternity-"political," that is the State; "or religious," that is the church; "secret or otherwise", fraternal organizations. It covers fraternities, it covers the church, it covers the State; it covers everything.

Mr. FоCHT. Let me give you an illustration of the word "otherwise." In Pennsylvania we passed a law that the State should rebuild bridges "swept away by fire, flood, or otherwise." What happened, was, Creasy said, "suppose we put in 'otherwise' covering everything?" At his home town within three months a cyclone come along and blew a bridge up the river, and he got a new one on the word "otherwise."

Mr. BLANTON. Some of the best men in the United States have taken that oath. One of the best men in my district, George S. Anderson, when a county judge defaulted in my home county, while I was a circuit judge, and I sought to find the best man in the whole county to appoint county judge, I picked out George S. Anderson, who is a member of the typographical union. He took that oath. Lots of men have taken it who do not even know how far-reaching it is. I am not condeming the men who have taken it; I am condemning the oath.

Mr. FOCHT. It is a renunciation of everything?

Mr. BLANTON. It is awful.

Mr. SPROUL. You go on the theory that the man administering it knows what it is, but that a lot of men take that oath who do not know what they are taking?

Mr. BLANTON. Yes.

Mr. SPROUL. If that is the oath, they have to take it or they will not become members?

Mr. WALLACE. Yes, sir.

Mr. BLANTON. The difference between that and the so-called K. of C. oath, the spurious one mentioned by Mr. Wallace, is that when that purported K. of C. oath was put into the record the organization immediatly produced ample proof to show it was spurious and that it was not their oath: that it did their organization an injustice. But this particular Typographical Unions' oath has been in the Congressional Record, undenied, since July 28, 1919. I put that oath myself in the Congressional Record on that date, and no member of the Typographical Union has ever denied it.

I also published it in the Dallas New, of Texas; I have published it in other papers, trying to get my friends, who are splendid American citizens, who belong to that organization, to change that oath. I have been trying to get them to do it, in the interest of loyalty to the Government. But getting back to the evidence:

When Alexander Howat was cited before that court, he practically acknowledged that he was an outlaw.

In November, 1920, about 1,300 miners, United Mine Workers of America, American Federation of Labor, struck in defiance of their contract at the Markle Colliery, Hazelton, Pa., because a coal inspector refused to join the union. During the coal strike last year it was the open-shop coal mines that kept the public from freezing. The closed-shop miners boasted that the public would freeze and suffer unless their demands for the closed shop were granted.

In Macon, Ga., in September, 1920, closed-shop strikers, union pickets, followed Mrs. Alice Wheeler from the mill where she worked to her home on Hazel Avenue and brutally beat her and her daughter. They then attempted to attack Mrs. W. T. Crosby, wife of a foreman in the mill, but she opened fire on them and scattered them. These rioters were A. F. of L. unionists.

Local 732 of the Amalgamated Association of Street and Electric Railway Employees of America dynamited the street cars in Atlanta, Ga., in 1916. The sworn testimony showed that Louis P. Marquardt, president of the Georgia Federation of Labor, advised the use of violence by the labor union members to win the strike, and that the labor union paid for the dynamite with which that murder was attempted.

In a closed-shop strike in Kansas City in August, 1917, strikebreakers and members of the public who rode on the cars were injured by missiles. In the closed-shop strike in Chicago, September 17, 1917, cars were fired into and passengers hurt.

Mr. SPROUL. I have been on the cars where that happened.

Mr. BLANTON. Members of the Detroit local, Automobile, Aircraft, and Vehicles Workers of America, were forbidden to hold membership in the American Legion by an amendment to the by-laws of the union in December, 1919. This was apparently because the American

Legion is a patriotic organization, and this closed-shop union did not propose that that sympathy which usually exists should interfere with their business relations.

Mr. WALLACE. Mr. Gompers, president of the American Federation of Labor, and Col. Galbraith are in splendid accord, and we have documentary evidence to prove that.

Mr. BLANTON. I will state that, regardless of the splendid feeling that should exist between all men, and which I hope exists between the gentleman and myself, that I have evidence here from members of organizations who served in France at Chateau-Thiery and Belleau Wood who testified they are discriminated against by the unions in Washington.

Mr. WALLACE. May I state, Mr. Blanton

Mr. BLANTON (interposing). Were you at Belleau Wood and Chateau-Thierry?

Mr. WALLACE. No; I was too old for the American Army, and joined the Canadian Army.

Mr. BLANTON. In the statements I have it is asserted that there is discrimination, and that the unions now say they are fighting the preference clauses given the ex-service men by Congress; that the union organizations do not deny that is a fact.

Mr. WHEELER. Is that a matter of record with the unions that they are discriminating?

Mr. BLANTON. The unions are taking a stand against the preference clause.

Mr. WHEELER. As a union or as individuals?

Mr. BLANTON. That is what I am informed.
Mr. SPROUL. They have always done that.

Mr. BLANTON. That is my information from certain members.
Mr. SPROUL. That information is right.

Mr. WALLACE. We protest against discrimination when it is evident that the discrimination is against union men. We prefer and we have taken steps so that some of our people or people who are injured, even though they are not members of the organization, shall have the opportunity to be rehabilitated, and we are working to encourage that, and that means they shall be placed in industry.

Mr. BLANTON. Here are two men seeking a job in Washington through the civil service. One is an ablebodied union man with no defects at all; the other is an ex-soldier, who has seen service, been injured, and rehabilitated. The union man stands a little better examination than the ex-service man, and would come first ordinarily, but by a law Congress has passed preference right is given to the injured man. Do you take the position that that should not be

done?

Mr. WALLACE. I do not, personally.

Mr. WHEELER. Do you as an organization?

Mr. BLANTON. Does your organization claim that the union man should have the job or not?

Mr. WALLACE. No.

Mr. BLANTON. It does not claim that?

Mr. WALLACE. No.

Mr. BLANTON. I will put in a statement of a young man who had service in France, who resigned as an officer because he says that discrimination existed in Federal Employees Union No. 2, here.

Mr. WALLACE. That would require the presence of Mr. Stewart and his statement on that matter.

Mr. WHEELER. Then your position, Mr. Wallace, is this, that your national organization has taken no steps in that direction at all? Mr. WALLACE. To the contrary

Mr. WHEELER (interposing). And is it possible some of these locals have, to your knowledge?

Mr. WALLACE. Not to my knowledge, but that is within the realm of possibility that some local might have taken the wrong stand. We cover a whole lot of territory, and it is possible some affiliation, with certain causes surrounding, have taken the wrong stand.

Mr. WHEELER. But your national convention or national executive committee have taken no action at all?

Mr. WALLACE. The organization I belong to have 77,000 men who were inducted or who enlisted in the United States Army during the war. We are glad to get them back. We give them every opportunity; we paid their dues while they were abroad. We kept their benefits up.

Mr. BLANTON. I do not want my evidence in the case interspersed too much.

Mr. WHEELER. What I was getting at was whether the national organization had taken any steps discriminating against any exservice men in favor of union labor.

Mr. BLANTON. In that connection, have you ever read the testimony introduced before the Educational Committee of the last Congress on the question of rehabilitation, where union placement officers, it was shown by witness after witness, discriminated against ex-service men in favor of union men?

Mr. WALLACE. I have not read that.

Mr. BLANTON. You ought to read that; it is very enlightening. Mr. WALLACE. It is not the policy of the organization, by any means to discriminate against ex-service men.

Mr. BLANTON. Concerning such placement officers credible witnesses so testified under oath before the Educational Committee. Mr. SPROUL. As a union man and the head of a union organization, if I was an ex-soldier and this gentleman here [indicating Mr. Blanton] belonged to your union you would give him preference over me, would you not?

Mr. WALLACE. No, sir. My experience in the hiring of men

Mr. SPROUL (interposing). Is not that the general rule that the union is going to give their men belonging to their organization the preference?

Mr. WALLACE. In the union where I belong the boss insists and maintains the absolute right to hire whom he pleases, and we in turn ask that he then become a member of our organization. But the boss or the manager hires whomever he pleases, whether he is union or nonunion.

Mr. SPROUL. But if he is nonunion he does not work in that shop? Mr. WALLACE. He joins. If he will not join the union in line with an agreement which has been reached between the operators and miners or the employers and employees we refuse to work with him.

Mr. SPROUL. That is to say, all over the country they do not ask the man whether he is a union man or not, but there is an unwritten law that if he does not join the union and the employer does not go security for his initiation fee he does not work; is not that so?