Mr. Wood. Of course, there is no way by which you can forestall the power of the courts to issue restraining orders or injunctions against the Board. Do you think the collective bargaining feature in the Ellenbogen bill would carry out the purpose of it? Mr. MADDEN. My understanding is that the collective bargaining features of this bill are identical with those of our law. Mr. Wood. It would carry out the purpose of the Labor Relations Act, then? Mr. MADDEN. Yes. Mr. WOOD. Would it not tend to strengthen the hand of the Board? Mr. MADDEN. Of our Board? Mr. WOOD. Yes. Mr. MADDEN. Well, so far as the particular labor features of this bill are concerned, I cannot say that they would add anything in particular to it. Mr. WOOD. They would neither interfere with nor add to it? Mr. MADDEN. That is right. As I read it, it does not trespass at all upon our powers. Mr. WOOD. You spoke a while ago about the difficulties in the textile industry in 1934 and you said something about there being a gesture on the part of the workers in many instances who had become desperate and who desired peace; what were you referring to there? What sort of peace? You mean to be relieved of their burdens in their employment? Mr. MADDEN. I meant the peace of having any kind of a job that the employer would give them at whatever wages he would pay, rather than of being out with all of the hardships of strike conditions and with apparently very discouraging prospects of success. Mr. WOOD. When you said the workers made this gesture, did you mean that the workers went back to work or desisted from the strike because they wanted peace, or what was it you had in mind? I did not exactly get the drift of your statement. Mr. MADDEN. That, of course, is just a matter of history; but, as I understand it, that is what happened. That is, they would drift back. The strike ended. I made that statement in connection with the formation of these good-will clubs, that they were a gesture in that direction. Mr. WOOD. In other words, they thought that if they would form these mutual admiration societies or good-will clubs, it would please the employer and it would probably insure their peaceful employment. Mr. MADDEN. Very often, upon the formation of the good-will clubs, and the presentation of the petition, the mill opened after it had been closed for a good while. Mr. WOOD. Of course, that is the main reason for employees joining these mutual admiration societies; they think that probably they will incur the good will of the employer, not having in mind improvement of working conditions, increase of wages or shortening of hours, but merely an improvement in the sureness of their employment. Mr. MADDEN. I think that statement is correct. Mr. WOOD. Others, of course, join because they are compelled to join; they know that it is dangerous not to join. Mr. MADDEN. That has certainly happened. Mr. WOOD. That is all. Mr. HARTLEY. Did I understand you to say that none of the employers, guilty of a violation of the Wagner-Connery Act, have complied after the Board had ordered them to comply? Mr. MADDEN. That is correct. Mr. HARTLEY. Does that indicate to you that the act is not accomplishing the ends that it set out to accomplish? Mr. MADDEN. It is not accomplishing its ends. As I suggested, I think that our activities and our experiences are not at all normal. I think that all of this advice which has gone out, with reference to the unconstitutionality of the act, has built up a resistance there which ordinarily you do not meet in the application of a law. I think that in spite of the fact that the Congress has spoken and the President has signed the bill, we are still in the lawmaking stage; namely, waiting for the word of the courts as to whether this law is law. Mr. HARTLEY. You do not feel, as far as legislation is concerned, that it requires any more authority than is now granted under the act, do you? Mr. MADDEN. No; for very useful work, it would not require any more authority. We could think of some things, perhaps broader powers of investigation, or something like that, which might be useful. But I cannot say now that it is necessary. Mr. HARTLEY. Up to the moment, it has been more or less ineffective because of the resistance that has been built up; is that the idea? Mr. MADDEN. That is right. Mr. HARTLEY. You said something before about 13,000 employees involved in these different complaint cases that came before your board. How many mills does that involve? Mr. MADDEN. There are 62 separate cases and that would ordinarily mean 62 separate mills. Mr. HARTLEY. That would be 62 mills out of how many? Mr. MADDEN. I am ashamed to say, I do not know how many textile mills there are. Mr. HARTLEY. I believe there are about 1,200 are there not? Mr. HARTLEY. Do you think generally the industry has resisted the right to organize for the purpose of bargaining? Mr. MADDEN. That would be my impression. Mr. Wood. Is it not the purpose of the National Labor Relations Act to avoid strikes and industrial unrest, and make collective bargaining a reality in industry? Mr. MADDEN. Yes; and we have in many directions had very gratifying success in doing so. Mr. WOOD. These cases that Congressman Hartley asked you about, in which you had finally made a decision; I think you said there were four or five cases in which you had finally made a decision? Mr. MADDEN. Yes. Mr. Wood. And the employers complied with that decision? Mr. HARTLEY. He said that they resisted them. Mr. Wood. Oh, they resisted; I thought it was rather unusual that they should comply with them. Mr. MADDEN. I said Mr. Wood. In no case they have complied with your decisions, so far? Mr. MADDEN. No. If they have resisted to the point of putting us to a hearing they have so far not complied with our direction in any such case. Mr. Woop. And if they do not comply with your final decision, what move do they make? Do they enjoin the Board or do they just ignore the order? Mr. MADDEN. They just ignore the order and it is our move. Our move, of course, is to go into the circuit court of appeals and get the court to repeat our order. But then, if it is disobeyed, that is contempt of court, and there is plenty of power to enforce that. Mr. HARTLEY. Have you gone to the courts? Mr. MADDEN. No; not in any textile case. Mr. HARTLEY. Why is that? Mr. MADDEN. One reason is that we do not have enough lawyers to do the litigating which we would be obliged to do in order to enforce our law. We have at the present time 22 injunction suits brought against us in district courts all over the country, and our small staff of lawyers is very, very busy. Mr. WOOD. You cannot utilize the lawyers in the Department of Justice, can you? Mr. MADDEN. Yes; we can. Mr. Wood. You can, in original cases? Mr. MADDEN. Yes. The statute simply says that our own lawyers may represent us in court. The idea there was that this is a rather specialized sort of law; that you need to know not only the law but a good deal about industrial and labor relations in order intelligently to apply this law, and if we went running to the Department of Justice for legal help, the lawyer there would have to educate himself in labor relations before he could do much with our cases. Mr. Wood. I agree with you there. I think it is impracticable to run to the Department of Justice in these cases and ask the services of attorneys of the Department of Justice who know nothing about the particulars in the case; who know nothing about the human relations, the labor relations. Mr. MADDEN. That is what the Congress had in mind. Mr. WOOD. Any lawyer, in order ably to represent his client, must know something about the intimate relations between employer and employee, in these labor cases, do you not think so? Mr. MADDEN. That is true. Mr. Wood. Then you need more attorneys? Mr. MADDEN. We do during this period of rather wholesale resistance. Take, for instance, these 22 injunction suits that I speak about. If the constitutionality of our law were recognized, we would not have had any of those suits; no one of those would have bothered us and yet each one of them is a very important lawsuit which has to be taken care of unless the Government is willing to take it lying down. Mr. WOOD. In other words, you have the wagon loaded, but you have not the horsepower to pull it. Mr. HARTLEY. Could you not have utilized the services of some of these attorneys that are alleged to be doing nothing but drawing pay from the N. Ř. A? Mr. MADDEN. We have borrowed two or three very good attorneys on that basis. I know nothing whatever about your other suggestion. Mr. HARTLEY. I do not, either, but it is alleged that there are hundreds of them that are just doing nothing but drawing pay, and I wonder why you could not have taken over some of them. Mr. KELLER. Where are they? Mr. WOOD. How can you ask the gentleman why they do not take lawyers from the N. R. A., when that is only an allegation and is not a proven fact? Mr. HARTLEY. I have never heard it denied. Mr. KELLER. I deny it. Mr. Wood. Al Smith has alleged that the Democratic Party has torn up the platform; but I do not think that is true. Mr. HARTLEY. I do not think that needs much comment. Mr. KELLER. I can assure you that there are not several hundred lawyers in the N. R. A. at the present time. Mr. HARTLEY. Maybe not at the moment, but they did have them there, did they not? Mr. KELLER. They had quite a large number. But that is aside from the question here. Are there any further questions by members of the committee? If not, we thank you very much, Mr. Madden, for your appearance here this morning. The next witness is the president of the American Federation of Hosiery Workers, Mr. Rieve. STATEMENT OF EMIL RIEVE, PRESIDENT OF THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF HOSIERY WORKERS, PHILADELPHIA, PA. Mr. RIEVE. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee: Before I present my formal statement, I wish to make one observation. One of the witnesses testifying here the other day made it. appear that it is physically impossible to lay down graduated minimas for the various operations of an industry. I want to state that the hosiery industry, during the code era, had a series of graduated minimas, and it required no more than half a day for the committee representing the employers and the committee representing the workers in their industry to reach conclusions on those minimas. I want to submit this part of the hosiery code dealing with the classification of minimas for various operations of our industry as exhibit A, for the committee's consideration. (The statement referred to is as follows:) 1. FULL-FASHIONED MANUFACTURE Class 2: Boarders. Class 3: Toppers, loopers, seamers, skein winders, menders, pairers, finished in- Class 5: Learners (including machine helpers), for the first 3 months of their training. 14.00 $16.25 12.75 Class 1: Machine fixers.. Class 2: Knitters (above 240-needle), loopers (above 240 needle,) boarders. Class 4: Learners (first 3 months' training). The American Federation of Hosiery Workers urges the passage of the Ellenbogen bill because governmental regulation of the textile industry is a practical necessity. We realize that the Supreme Court has recently declared that the Federal Government is one of limited powers and has again demonstrated its inability to face facts by declaring that production is a local matter. This theory of constitutional law is not based upon an understanding of modern conditions. To say that the production of hosiery, for example, is a local matter, is absurd. The workers whose working conditions are determined by national forces and the manufacturers whose markets for the finished products are spread over the country know that the Supreme Court is dealing in theories and not with facts when it makes a decision of this kind. Modern industry is an integrated whole in which each unit conforms to the pattern of the whole. This is so apparent to those engaged in the industry that declarations to the contrary seem to us merely confessions of ignorance or prejudice. The textile industry employs the largest number of persons engaged in any single industry in the United States. The industry itself is basic. It supplies elementary needs. Since it is so vast and fundamental, its well-being is critically important to the general welfare of the United States. If the demoralization in this industry is due to factors of national significance, then remedies can only be applied by a national government. The national power must be invoked because local government, be it State, city or county, are incapable of remedial legislation. The Federal Government has the right, and is duty bound to exert its power to safeguard the welfare of the people. No single State can solve the problem. Its efforts are frustrated by others seeking advantages. The unions are able to do their part of the job in modern industrial society which is to create an effective agency for the education of workers and collective dealings between employer and employees. But we cannot overcome interference by local government officials. We demand that local units cease to compete by exploiting labor and thus disrupting national markets by forcing the downward trend of prices and wages. It is bad economics and poor humanity to permit a lawbreaking governor in one State to use State militia to depress standards. Let us assume that each industrial unit has the right to pay any wage it pleases in its effort to compete for higher profits; that communities have the constitutional right to suck industries from other communities upon promises and sealed agreements to give free plant, tax exemptions, protection against strike, the use of militia and con |