courts to assume jurisdiction where there is no diversity of citizenship (In Re Metropolitan Railway Receivership, 208 U. S. 90, 28 S. Ct. 219, 52 L. Ed. 403). It is therefore concluded that this aspect of the bill constitutes an approach which is of doubtful legality and certainly is both hasty and unwise. It is noted that the bill makes an effort to secure union responsibility for the acts of its agents. Very general language is used. It is submitted, however, that, instead, care should be used in determining what are acts of duly authorized agents acting within the scope of their authority. The question was fully discussed, studied, and argued by the Congress at the time of the passage of the Norris-LaGuardia Act and the language there used limited the liability of the organization to those "unlawful acts of individual officers, members, or agents" where there is "clear proof of actual participation in or actual authorization of such acts or of ratification of such acts after actual knowledge thereof." This is a precise and fair definition of agency and it is believed that the bill should follow the language of the NorrisLaGuardia Act in this respect. The effort of the bill to open up the Federal courts to petitions for injunction in disputes involving violations of union agreements despite the present provisions of the Norris-LaGuardia Act banning injunctions in labor disputes, except after a full hearing and upon certain findings, has been specially considered elsewhere and the complete inadvisability of such action is apparent from that consideration. 3. Registration of Unions and Financial Reports Section 303 of the bill requires annual reports to the Secretary of Labor from labor organizations whose members are employed in industries engaged in commerce. These reports would include information dealing with union receipts and disbursements, names and addresses of employers with whom collective-bargaining relations are maintained, policies and procedures concerning admission to and expulsion from membership, bylaws, constitution, officers, etc. In addition, the bill requires the report to be mailed to each member of the union and provides criminal penalties for violations of any of the provisions of section 303. Immediately questions arise as to whether such legislation is necessary in view of the fact that most unions already publish such material or whether it is fair to impose these requirements upon labor organizations but not on other types of voluntary associations. Publicity concerning union finances is not undesirable. All the international unions in the A. F. of L. furnish regular financial reports either directly to their members or to the public generally. The same is true of the unions comprising the CIO. Section 117 of the Revenue Act of 1943 compels labor organizations to file detailed financial returns with the Bureau of Internal Revenue. Amending the Revenue Act to require publication of such reports would achieve the objective of assuring adequate publicity to the financial affairs and activities of unions. Furthermore, this would obviate the necessity for setting up a new bureau in the Department of Labor, which this bill would necessitate, to collect and compile figures and documents at an unjustifiable added expense to the Government. Thus it can be seen that the provisions in sections 7, 8, and 303 of this bill single out the labor organization for special and restrictive treatment, but impose no limitations at all upon the existence, structure, or internal activities of other forms of voluntary associations. The net effect of these measures, when viewed in conjunction with the other provisions of this bill, is to deprive labor organizations of the right to manage their own affairs, to subject them to an inferior status in the eyes of the law, and to create the impression that millions of adult Americans are untrust worthy, unreliable, addicted to racketeering and corruption, incapable of honest and decent association for the purposes of economic self-protection, and incapable of managing their own affairs justly and democratically. These very same Americans as members of lodges, clubs, fraternal orders, cooperatives, and other types of voluntary associations, too numerous to mention here, have demonstrated their ability to achieve the objects for which they constantly associate, honestly, decently, justly, democratically, and with an absolute minimum of governmental regulation and control. 4. Restrictions on Political Contributions Section 304 of this bill would place all corporations and labor organizations within the provisions of the Federal Corrupt Practices Act forbidding contributions in connection with any election of the President, Vice President, Representative, or Senator. This provision poses a serious policy issue as to the desirability of placing this restriction on political liberties in the absence of a clear showing of opportunity for corruption. Furthermore, the restriction is one-sided. While it includes corporations, along with the labor organizations, it does not include officers in either. Thus, in view of the tremendous sums paid to officials of large corporations, it would seem that they are able to contribute to an election fund as individuals, while officials of labor organizations, because of their moderate salaries, would not be able to do so. Further, it is well to note that the essential purposes of the two types of organizations are not parallel. A corporation of the type in mind here, is an organization for production of goods or rendering of services, organized for profit. The stockholders have a reasonable right to profits and notification of company disbursements. A labor organization is a voluntary organization for the well-being of the individual worker. If he contributes directly to a political party, or if he contributes through a voluntary organization, to facilitate the handling of such sums, the result is the same. Consequently, there seems to be nothing reprehensible in contributions by a union when it is a lump sun made up of small voluntary contributions by individuals. It is not derived from any profits, such as is corporation contributions. It would seem to be a dangerous precedent to make unlawful a contribution by a voluntary organization to an election fund. It might well be that if such precedent is followed, in time all organizations, of whatever kind or nature, might be prohibited from such contributions. It is difficult to see the advisability of setting a precedent for a future pattern that could conceivably encompass organizations which are purely charitable, or religious, or fraternal in their nature and aims. Such a restriction upon a voluntary association, a labor organization, composed of individuals of modest means, who by their very association with a labor organization demonstrate their inability to contribute large sums to an election fund has little or no merit. CONCLUSION This bill is aimed at the heart of American industrial democracy. If it is permitted to hit that target, the working people of this country will not soon recover their status as free men. The Fascists and Communists learned early that a strong trade-union movement was inconsistent with their objectives and an obstacle to the achievement of those objectives. As a means of securing power, the Fascists and the Communists destroyed the labor movement in other countries, because they recognized that trade-unions were a citadel of democracy which they must batter down in order to achieve their evil purposes. Surely the Congress of the United States ought not to be blind to this lesson of recent history. Surely the Congress can find better things to do in this year, when the powers of world reconstruction are in danger of being outrun by the dark forces of chaos, than to throw its energies into a program that can only serve to weaken the weak and strengthen the strong. We at least will have no part in pressing down this crown of thorns upon the brow of labor. We call upon our colleagues of both parties to join us in this battle against restrictive, undemocratic, and unnecessary legislation. Mr. Kennedy concurs with the minority report with reservations as hereinafter set forth in his supplemental report. All of which is respectfully submitted by the undersigned minority members of the Committee on Education and Labor: JOHN LESINSKI. AUGUSTINE B. KELLEY. ARTHUR G. KLEIN. JOHN F. KENNEDY. SUPPLEMENTAL MINORITY REPORT BY I concur in the minority report but have filed this separate opinion because the minority report leaves unexpressed certain views I strongly hold. The testimony of the representatives of management and labor before the Committee on Education and Labor, and the reporting of this bill to the House by the committee do not augur well for the future of America. I had thought that management, labor, and the Government would sense their high responsibilities to the Nation in this critical hour. The simple truth is that management, labor, and Government-insofar as it is represented by the majority of the Committee on Education and Labor-have failed their responsibilities. The nature of the case presented by management and labor and this bill of the committee stand as evidence that selfishness and irresponsibility still characterize labor-management relations and the efforts of the Government to deal with them. Management has been selfish. Labor has been selfish. And the majority of this committee has succumbed completely to the old and deeply rooted antilabor prejudices which delayed for decades the development of a forthright and constructive labor policy in America. I reaffirm my basic faith in the system of private enterprise under which this Nation has flourished and successfully carried the burden of two great wars. But if this system is to work in our complex economic society, there must be a recognition by management and labor that the welfare of each is dependent ultimately upon the welfare of the other. If repressive and vindictive labor legislation is enacted at the behest of management, a tide of left-wing reaction will develop which may well destroy our existing business system. At the same time if labor continues to insist on special privilege and unfair advantage in its relations with management, I have grave doubts as to the future of the trade-union movement. Legislation is needed. But legislation alone will not supply the whole answer because we cannot legislate responsibility. Responsibility entails self-restraint in the exercise of power, and a will to cooperate for the eommon good. This is the ideal of a free competitive system in a democratic state. Nothing which this Congress can do will solve the labor-management problem unless this recognition of responsibility, so lacking in the past, is forthcoming in the future. There are several simple truths which must guide us in our approach to the labor-management problem. The closed shop, the union shop, industry-wide bargaining, free and unrestricted collective bargaining without unfair advantage on either side-all of these I consider fundamental rights of labor. Equally fundamental is the right of each individual union member to a square deal from his union. On this score, there have been serious 113 abuses in the past. I favor democratizing union election procedures and administration. Some of the provisions of this bill are designed to achieve these objectives, and insofar as they do so without seriously hampering the internal operation of the union, I approve of them. Certainly, as the bill provides, officers of unions should be elected by secret ballot: strike decisions should be made by secret ballot; members should not be expelled for the mere expression of views critical of union leadership; and, finally, unions should not be permitted to impose arbitrary and excessive initiation fees and dues. In addition, the bill must provide that no member of a union can be expelled for any cause whatsoever without full opportunity for a fair hearing on specific charges brought against him. The bill is seriously defective in that it fails to make a distinction between the various types of jurisdictional and sympathy strikes and secondary boycotts. The bill in broad terms condemns all of these as unlawful concerted activities. This blanket approach wholly ignores economic realities. There are some sympathy strikes, secondary boycotts, and even jurisdictional strikes which promote a legiti mate economic objective of a union. There are others which are completely indefensible and which injure innocent parties without any direct connection with the legitimate objectives of the individual union involved. I feel that the provisions of the bill dealing with unfair labor practices and unlawful concerted activities must be rewritten to condemn what is truly objectionable in union activities and to preserve those methods of action which are essential to the preservation of strong unions, able to bargain equally with management. There should be a readjustment of the collective-bargaining processes so that collective bargaining will be really free and equal and in good faith on both sides. To this end, employers must be guaranteed the same rights of freedom of expression now given to unions. With the enactment of the new Administrative Procedure Act, I see no need at this time for a reorganization of the National Labor Relations. Board. The Conciliation Service should be strongly implemented and remain with the Department of Labor. If unions are to retain the closed shop and the right to bargain collectively on an industry-wide basis and if, as I feel, the antitrust laws should not be resurrected to harass unions with criminal and severe civil penalties, some method must be worked out to deal with. strikes which cripple the Nation's industrial power. In attempting to solve this most critical problem in the field of labormanagement relations the bill is completely inept. In using the traditional public utility test the approach is too narrow. The word "interest" is weak and indefinite. The procedure set up for handling these strikes is cumbersome and unworkable. But fundamentally the bill is defective in that after a period of time elapses a strike imperiling the national health or safety is free to continue. Whenever a strike imperils the public health or safety it becomes illegal and should continue to be illegal as long as the emergency exists. I propose to submit to the Congress an amendment which I hope will achieve this goal in a simple and direct fashion. This amendment will provide that whenever a strike imperils the public health or safety, the Attorney General, at the direction of the President and in behalf |