Mr. SPROUL. As an attorney and a man who has been a judge, if I came into your court and there was a written contract submitted to you you would say, in all fairness, that I had to live up to the contract?

Mr. BLANTON. Yes. If I was trying a case involving this big issue, I would let every relevant fact come into the record that had any bearing upon the great issue. I have tried hundreds of cases in court, and that is the method I have pursued, and I have always tried to do full justice to all concerned.

Mr. WHEELER. If the concern that suffered by this would come here and testify that they gave in because they were threatened that the place would be picketed and work would be stopped, then this evidence would be pertinent, but the owners of the building were not a party to it at all. Mr. Sproul says that it is a contract between the union and the contractors themselves, and that the owners of the building were not a party, but if the owners of the building would come in and say that they had threatened them and would not permit anybody to work

Mr. BLANTON (interposing). Do you gentlemen contend that these men did not?

Mr. SPROUL. No; it sounds a good deal like a story a "kid" made up.

Mr. BLANTON. The Washington Star is not in the habit of giving that much space to kid stories. That much space would cost about $300 if you put that much advertising in the Star.

Mr. SPROUL. I am perfectly satisfied that the chairman of this committee thinks we should not go into strikes, lockouts, and all such subjects, and I am perfectly satisfied that everything should go in if we are going to go into those subjects, but to consider this bill as introduced by you and referred to this committee, why, that is different. If we are going to broaden the scope of the hearing, I am going into the whole matter of unionism and take up the engineers and firemen on the railroads.

Mr. BLANTON. The question of picketing involves the question of the open shop. You can not get around it. Picketing is to prevent the open shop. Picketing is to force the closed shop. The question of the closed and open shop is so intimately connected with the question of picketing that you can not exclude one without excluding the other. If there were no open shop, there would be no picketing. It is the American open-shop principle that I am fighting for in the District of Columbia as well as in the rest of the United States. I think it is pertinent. I hope you gentlemen will allow these facts to go into the record. They can not hurt anybody. If they are not pertinent, nobody will pay any attention to them. It is for the benefit of the rest of our colleagues; the only thing they can pass upon is the record that we make here. I hope you gentlemen will allow them to go in. I am perfectly willing to let Mr. Wallace come here and testify for two days, to any extent that he wants to; you will not find me stopping him.

Mr. SPROUL. I shall withdraw my objection, Mr. Chairman in order to save time.

Mr. BLANTON. I offer from this morning's paper, the Washington Herald, May 23, 1921, on page 1, in large headlines, the following:

STRIKERS BURN MINE PROPERTY IN MINGO FEUD-MATEWAN HAS INCENDIARY FIRE WHEN STATE POLICE RETIRE-STATE TROOPERS RUSH TO SCENE-CITIZENS CONTINUE VIGILANTE" ORGANIZATION TO STOP LAWLESSNESS.

WILLIAMSON, W. VA., May 22.

The head house of the Stone Mountain Coal Corporation at Matewan was burned by an incendiary fire this morning, an echo of the battle at Matewan a year ago. May 19. 1920, in which 10 were killed. The battle last year grew out of evictions from Stone Mountain Co. houses.

The mine has been running with nonunion men who were run off the property during the outbursts 10 day ago. Last week superintendent of the mines, S. P. Smith, was beaten over the head with a rifle by Sid Hatfield, chief of police at Matewan, and is just now getting out of the hospital. Smith had refused an order from Hatfield that he take the nonunion miners our of town. Matewan is accounted the toughest spot in the Tug River Valley.

Mr. BLANTON. The following illustrates the injustice done and discrimination against ex-service men by the Federal Employees' No. 2, here in Washington:

AN EX-SERVICE MAN, MEMBER OF AMERICAN LEGION WITHDRAWS FROM THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES BECAUSE OF OPPOSITION TO EX-SERVICE MEN.

Mr. BURD W. PAYNE,

President Federal Employees Union No. 2.

NORTHBROOK COURTS, Washington, D, C.. April 11, 1921.

Washington, D. C.

DEAR SIR: The undersigned herewith submits his resignation as a member of the board of representatives, as a collector, and as a member of the National Federation of Federal Employees Union No. 2, to become effective on the 15th of April. 1921. All property of the Union now in the possession of the undersigned will be given to the secretary of the union, Mr. J. A. Q. Braden, on or before the 15th of April.

This action, which the undersigned will not reconsider is taken due to the apparent opposition by the Federal Employees Union to the veterans' preference law, and the ex-service men in general as civil employees of the Government.

Second. Because of the objectionable publicity campaign waged by the union, and the national organization as well in all of these three instances, against Representative Thomas Lindsay Blanton, of the seventeenth Texas congressional district.

Third. Due to the also objectionable publicity campaign of the National Federation of Federal Employees against Hon. Herbert D. Brown, chief, United States Bureau of Efficiency.

A copy of this is now being forwarded to Representative Thomas Lindsay Blanton and one to Hon. Herbert D. Brown. A copy each is being mailed to Mr. Joseph G. Gurley, editor of the Federal Employee, and Mr. A. G. Brown, editor of the Rainbow Reveille, which publication is the national organ of the Rainbow Division Veterans. which I pride myself in being an active member.

Very truly.

J. BENTLEY MULFORD.

Mr. BLANTON. Mr. Wallace, did you bring from the American F-1eration of Labor those oaths that you said you would bring?

Mr. WALLACE. I have brought the entire oath of the typographical Am I on the witness stand?

union.

Mr. BLANTON. No; I just wanted it myself.

Mr. WALLACE. I want to call particular attention to the words preceding.

Mr. BLANTON. Yes

Mr. WALLACE. I want that included, if you please.

Mr. WHEELER. Read it, Mr. Blanton.

Mr. BLANTON. This is from the constitution of the International Typographical Union. It is from Mr. Frank Morrison's own personal book and has his name, "Frank Morrison," on the front and "1921" on it, he being the secretary of the American Federation of Labor. On page 15, under the heading "Obligation for members," this appears:

Every person admitted as a member of this union shall subscribe to the following obligation, which shall apply only to matters pertaining to the printing industry: I give name) hereby solemnly and sincerely swear (or affirm) that I will not reveal any business or proceedings of any meeting of this or any subordinate union to which I may hereafter be attached, unless by order of the union, except to those whom I know to be members in good standing thereof; that I will, without equivocation or evasion, and to the best of my ability, abide by the constitution, by-laws, and the adopted scale of prices of any union to which I may belong: that I will at all times support the laws, regulations, and decisions of the International Typographical Union, and will carefully avoid giving aid or succor to its enemies, and use all honorable means within my power to procure employment for members of the International Typographical Union in preference to others; that my fidelity to the union and my duty to the members thereof shall in no sense be interferred with by any allegiance that I may now or hereafter owe to any other organization, social, political, or religious, secret or otherwise; that I will belong to no society or combination composed wholly or partly of printers, with the intent or purpose to interfere with the trade regulations or influence or control the legislation of this union; that I will not wrong a member, or see him or her wronged, if in my power to prevent. To all of which I pledge my most sacred honor.

This part, gentlemen, which I now quote from the oath just read is word for word identical with the excerpt I put in the record the other day, to wit:

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, political, or religious secret or otherwise.

That is word for word just as it appeared the other day; and you will remember that Mr. Wallace then contended that it was not authentic. Have you now the obligation or the oath of a printer? Mr. WALLACE. Of a printer?

Mr. BLANTON. Is it any different from this obligation?
Mr. WALLACE. That is the obligation.

Mr. BLANTON. That every printer takes?

Mr. WALLACE. Yes.

Mr. BLANTON. Have you the oath of the miners?

Mr. WALLACE. I have not the official miner's oath. I thought the easiest thing for me to do was to have the initiation proceeding of the American Federation of Labor.

Mr. BLANTON. I want the oath of the miners.

Mr. WALLACE. I have not got it. I tried to get it and if these hearings continue I shall continue to try to get it.

Mr. BLANTON. Mr. Wallace, that oath is on file down there in the American Federation of Labor Building, and Mr. Morrison could give it to you in five minutes.

Mr. WALLACE. Mr. Blanton, you believe that, no doubt; but you are mistaken, because I have tried to get it.

Mr. BLANTON. Gentlemen, there is a Mr. Emery I want to put on the stand.

Mr. WHEELER. Is Mr. Emery here?

Mr. BLANTON. As I told you before the hearing, it was impossible absolutely for him to be here this morning. He will give you a citation to the various decisions of the courts wherein they uphold the

53203-21-6

power of any State or any city under their ordinances where it does not conflict with State law and naturally the power of our Congress concerning matters in the District to pass laws prohibiting picketing, and he will show you the constitutionality of it and the various court decisions along that line.

Mr. SPROUL. Several States have passed that law already.
Mr. BLANTON. Yes; numbers of them, about 28 in all.

As

Mr. SPROUL. Do you know what States have passed that law? Mr. BLANTON. I haven't the list here, but will submit it later. I told you, the appellate court has just sustained the trial court in issuing an injunction to prohibit it in my own State, and in a number of other States you will find that is the situation. We have decisions enough to show that. The only decisions holding that men can walk back and forth in front of establishments are in places where they have no law against it, like the District of Columbia, and in two States which attempted to authorize it by statute. We have no law against it here, and that is the necessity for having this picketing bill passed. It is to prevent this continual walking back and forth in front of a man's business. Now, Mr. Roberts

Mr. SPROUL. Just a minute. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Blanton, made a statement here about the assessments that have been made on union men, and at that time he agreed to let Mr. Wallace answer that and show what the assessments were for. I withdrew my objection to having that published on account of Mr. Wallace being allowed to make that statement. Is that all right? Mr. WHEELER. Oh, yes.

Mr. SPROUL. I think he should be entitled to do that.
Mr. WALLACE. What is the question, Mr. Sproul?

Mr. SPROUL. What do you use the money for that you assess your men during a strike? For instance, they get a regular assessment, they claim, of 5 per cent, and you have increased that to 10 per cent. For what purpose is that money used?

Mr. WALLACE. We pay as much as we can to each man who is on strike to sustain him and his family. We generally divide it according to the number of dependents each man has; for instance, $3 for the man, $1.50 for the woman, and possibly 50 cents or 75 cents a week for each child dependent upon him. There may be instances where men have been paid for picketing, but in nearly all cases that I know of the pickets have been selected or have volunteered and did not receive anything extra.

Mr. WHEELER. Am I to infer, then, that in a number of strikes you have not paid pickets?

Mr. WALLACE. In the number of strikes I have knowledge of, the picketing done was done by men or women, where it was a women's strike, who are receiving benefits as strikers only, and they were receiving no other remuneration because of the fact they were picketing. Now, that is generally the case. There may be instances where they have been paid to picket.

Mr. SPROUL. That is, outsiders who do not belong to the union? Mr. WALLACE. I have never known of any. The only case I have ever heard of was that one quoted and the advertisement read by Mr. Blanton in the case of the hotel.

Mr. SPROUL. Then, occasionally, you do hire scabs to picket scab shops?

Mr. WALLACE. I do not know that they are scabs. They may be union men who are not directly interested in that particular strike, men from other places, or men from other shops who were not directly interested in the strike, but they are the exceptions. I do not know of my own knowledge or of my own experience of a case where any one picketed except those directly interested in the strike.

Mr. BLANTON. Mr. Wallace, right after this picketing, this barker who was employed to picket the Raleigh Hotel and paid $25 a week and given instructions, according to the way he testified in court, that he must tell everybody who entered there that they were not decent if they entered that scab hotel, he testified to that under oath in court, and you knew that as soon as it happened, did you not? Mr. WALLACE. We heard of it or read of it in the papers.

Mr. BLANTON. And you sent and got a copy of that decision? Mr. WALLACE. And in addition we have the decision of the judge who said that the evidence of the general picketing, not this one who was fined, and justly fined for doing what he had no right to do that there was no proof that they even had instructions to do anything except that which they had the right to do, and here is the decision.

Mr. BLANTON. He was probably just hedging, just like other people hedge sometimes, to square himself probably with some of his union friends. That was dicta in the case. He was not trying anybody else but this one man. He was trying just one man and if he went outside to say something about something else he was hedging in behalf of some of his union friends, possibly.

Mr. WALLACE. I would not say that the court was influenced by his love for union men any more than I have the right to say that another court is influenced.

Mr. BLANTON. That is just merely a construction that somebody could place on it, if it was dicta and did not have any relevancy to the case he was trying, then he was simply going out of his way. What I am asking about, Mr. Wallace, is that you knew about that transaction, did you not?

Mr. WALLACE. We read it in the paper that a man had so been charged and had so been convicted. As to the truth of his statements, we know nothing, and the evidence we have is that the people who hired him absolutely denied the assertion.

Mr. SPROUL. Mr. Wallace, did the union pay the fine?

Mr. WALLACE. I think not.

Mr. SPROUL. Oh, don't you know?

Mr. WALLACE. I do not know.

Mr. BLANTON. Has the American Federation of Labor ever taken any steps to punish this waiters' union for advertising for barkers with loud voices and stating that they would pay them $25 a week, and telling them to tell good women they were not decent when they went into that hotel? Have you ever taken any steps to punish

them?

Mr. WALLACE. The American Federation of Labor has no evidence that that is so, and they have not.

Mr. BLANTON. Have you ever had a trial to determine whether that was so or whether the court proceedings were false?

Mr. WALLACE. Between the American Federation of Labor and this case there is the international union, of which the particular local was a par