Mr. WOOD. In all probability it almost goes without saying that the bill remained there a sufficient length of time so that some of the foremen and superintendents had knowledge of it? Mr. TAYLOR. There is no doubt in my mind they knew it was there. Mr. WOOD. It would seem to indicate that this attack was in order to discourage organization of its employees or the organization of a real union, an American organization. It would seem they were attempting to mislead those of foreign extraction in the plant to join some sort of a dual organization and thereby defeat the efforts of the employees to organize a bona fide trade union. Mr. TAYLOR. That is something we have not been able to find out. Mr. WOOD. If they organized one of these communistic unionsand there are some 154, I am informed; that is, there are that many names attached to various offshoot organizations in opposition to real trade-union movements. It would seem that it would be to the interest of the company or someone connected with it to get the workers interested in some other kind of organization, and especially a communistic organization, to give them the opportunity as the workers got thoroughly organized into this union that had some leanings toward the Russian Communistic State, so that it would better enable them to destroy your organization. Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Congressman, I believe I can answer that in this way. While we are trying very hard to find out how it got in there, in the back of our minds we still have the suspicion that someone of the bosses or someone connected with the mill had it put up. Mr. HARTLEY. Do you make that statement seriously? Mr. TAYLOR. I take it seriously in my own mind. I cannot prove it, but I believe that it was done not by a worker in that mill unless the boss or the mill owners knew of it. your Mr. HARTLEY. Frankly, without knowing any worker in organization, I would not make any such contention. Do you mean to say you have so little respect for your employer and his intentions as to intimate that he or any subordinate of his with his knowledge and consent would be guilty of doing such a thing? Mr. TAYLOR. No; I would not make that contention. I was only bringing out the fact that we don't know. Every worker inside of that plant is an organized, labor man. Mr. HARTLEY. I think any employer who would do anything like that would be a fool. Mr. WOOD. Mr. Chairman, I know a little something about the tactics of certain employers. They go even further than that. I myself was termed a radical or troublemaker in 1913. Mr. KELLER. You were termed that way, you say? Mr. WOOD. Yes; I was. Mr. KELLER. You must have been a good one. Mr. Wood. The Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. owned the politics of Jefferson County, Mo., and we passed an 8-hour law in the 1913 session of the Missouri General Assembly for glassworkers and silica miners. That company was working their employees 12 hours a day when the law went into effect June 23, 1913, following the session of the general assembly. The man who introduced the bill was a resident of Festus, Mo., a dentist, Dr. Wolfe, who was later a Member of Congress for one session. When the law went into effect the men came and wanted to know what to do to compel the company to comply with the State law. And the doctor, not knowing anything about organization, advised them to show either their disapproval or their approval of the law by striking. There were 1,200 people in that plant, and 800 of them went on strike. I was president of the State federation of labor at that time, and I was called in there by the men and by Dr. Wolfe. He wired me to come in, and I stayed there 3 days, and on the third day I left between suns and I escaped the wrath of two mobs. The second one came to the hotel about 9 o'clock or 9:30 and was composed of about 350 or 400 people who were led by the city officials of Festus, the police judge and a great many or most of the business men of the town. The mistake they made was that the businessmen led the mob; they did not stay behind. They got the men drunk. It was a clear-cut conspiracy on the part of the Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. to have me murdered in order that they might continue to work their men 12 hours a day at $1.75 a day. And I would not be here today had it not been for Mrs. Miller and her family, who was the proprietor of the hotel in Festus, who defended me, and 25 or 30 of the men in the mob who went home to see what they were going to do at the meeting. They went home and got their guns and followed me to the hotel, and they turned against the mob and said, "If you get in you will have to get us first." There is nothing they will not do. There is nothing on the calendar the employers will not do to keep men from organizing. They deliberately plan murder; they mislead people. And many of these northern and southern textile manufacturers, and many other business organizations, are not too good to encourage a conspiracy where a man would be misled to go into the wrong kind of an organization so that they could tell the general public, "We are opposed to dealing with these people because they are Communists." There are many good employers; and most of them are, thank the Lord. But if there is anything on the calendar that some employers have not done, I would like to know what it is. Mr. HARTLEY. I agree with you that there is plenty of stuff going But the witness himself says he does not accept the interpretation which you were making there. Mr. WOOD. Well, Mr. Hartley, any manufacturer who will work children 6, 7, or 8 years old for 12 or 14 hours a day, as they have done in the past, grinding the blood and bones and lives of children out in the operation, will do anything else. Mr. HARTLEY. Have they done it in his plant? Mr. WOOD. They did it in all of the plants in the South in those days. I don't know whether they did it in his plant. Mr. Chairman, I am not trying to convict any employer here but I am just giving my own impression as to why this handbill was tacked on the door where the employees going in and out would see it. And it was allowed to remain there a sufficient length of time so that the hall was crowded and packed and jammed with the employees of that plant. Mr. KELLER. On the other hand, I think you will agree with me that when we come to do social justice there will be no such thing as communism in this country. Mr. WOOD. No; there will not. Mr. KELLER. There is no basis for it and there never will be, because we are going to do social justice here in the long run. And, when we do, communism cannot exist and will not exist. Mr. WOOD. The only incubator for communism is misery and suffering. Mr. KELLER. Certainly. And as soon as we do away with that there will not be any. I confess I did not mean to interrupt in this way, but I have heard so much ballyhoo about communism that does not exist that I do not have a great deal of patience. Perhaps I ought not say that, but I have but little patience for the introduction of the idea of communism in labor unions. I am glad they do not stand for it, because they are Americans and are members of American institutions, and they are going to go on believing that way as they have in the past. All of us know that. What I think you are really driving at much more particularly is to cure such conditions so that men will feel they are getting justice and a square deal. Then communism disappears entirely. Mr. TAYLOR. That is all I wanted to bring that in for. Mr. HARTLEY. As matter of fact, anybody with common sense who knows anything about the American Federation of Labor knows that it is opposed to communism. Mr. KELLER. We all know that. Mr. HARTLEY. Any employer who comes out and tries to tack that label on them certainly does not get a response from any intelligent citizen. But I cannot conceive I know that flag was waved up in Paterson. of any intelligent employer doing any such thing. Mr. KELLER. I have seen little things done; but what do they amount to? What is the use of quarreling about them? I have seen the officials and I have seen the other fellows do things. We are all just human beings. And if some official did that, he did it on his own account. There may have been some fellow small enough to do it. And I have seen it, and so have you, in some cases. Mr. WOOD. In connection with this discussion of communism may I say that the American Legion and the American Federation of Labor are two organized forces which have been consistently and persistently fighting communism. Those are two great organizations. Mr. KELLER. I want to repeat here that it is not going to depend upon the fighting that we do against communism, but when we remove the cause, then communism will disappear. Mr. WOOD. That is what these organizations are attempting to do. Mr. HARTLEY. With reference to this discussion about this circular, which is nonsensical on the face of it-that is, the circular is nonsensical-I call your attention and that of the other members of the committee to the fact that in a hearing we held in this very room a year ago there was more communistic literature circulated than I have ever seen in this or in any other room. That was when the subcommittee of the House Labor Committee was holding its hearings. Mr. KELLER. And nobody paid any attention to it. Mr. TAYLOR. I did not bring up that matter with the intention of hurting the manufacturers. But I would like to have the security of the Government and have the working hours regulated by the Gov ernment so that we would have a chance to eliminate any opportunity of its getting any place. Mr. KELLER. I will not call upon Paul R. Christopher. STATEMENT OF PAUL R. CHRISTOPHER, VICE PRESIDENT, NORTH CAROLINA STATE FEDERATION OF LABOR Mr. KELLER. Will you please state your name and your position? Mr. CHRISTOPHER. My name is Paul R. Christopher. I am an organizer for the United Textile Workers of America and am vice president of the North Carolina Federation of Labor. Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, I do not want to try to discuss such a bill and all of the good that the textile workers will receive from its enactment and enforcement, because that has all been brought out by others. But I do want to say that we are heartily in favor of it. I come from North Carolina, the State wherein the second largest number of textile workers are employed. More textile workers are employed in the State of Massachusetts than in any other State of the country, as I understand it. I would like to make some statements here, but I do not want to be offensive to any of the employers. But I defy successful contradiction of the remarks that I have to make. First of all, when the Cotton Textile Code first came into effect on July 17, 1933, there must have been in the State of North Carolina not less than 95 percent of the mills that violated the code the first day or the first 2 weeks of the code. I refer mainly to section 13 of the code, concerning the stretch out. The less-experienced workers were laid off then and there because they could not learn the new job that was given to them, which was an increased load. They could not run the new job. Older people, those who were 50 years and more, were told that they could not make the grade any more, and they were laid off. Then, as regards the minimum wage, our mills all over the State of North Carolina at that time were not charging the employees rent for the shacks in which they were living. But in numerous instances I might say that on the first pay day after the code became effective that 15 cents, 25 cents, 35 cents and 50 cents a room was charged. I might say here that I do not want to be sarcastic, but it is a fact that most all of the houses that the textile workers live in in the State have running water in them when it rains. Mr. KELLER. Only at that time, am I to understand? A few days ago I was amused when the representative of the Southern States Industrial Council spoke in opposition to the bill and when he talked about the inexperienced Southern workers in the cotton textile industry. It is absurd to say any such thing as that, and it cannot be proven. It is true that we do not have in all of the mills the utmost efficiency at all times. When our drive toward unionizing the textile workers began after the N. R. A. became effective, many of the workers were working and other members of their families were working. But the bosses began laying off all of the members in the family, in many instances, except one man, experienced workers though the other members of the family were. And they began importing farmers and teaching them to work. You will remember the code contained a clause where learners could be brought in. And sometimes they paid them nothing, sometimes they paid them $6 a week, and sometimes $12 a week. The manufacturers did not live up to the Cotton Textile Code even during the duration of the code, when there was supposed to be a real spirit of cooperation existing throughout the textile industry among the workers, the employers, and the public. There were somewhere near 4,000 complaints that were in the hands of the Cotton Textile National Industrial Relations Board that were never settled. That was one of the main things that led up to the general strike of 1934. Another thing, Mr. Gilbert, representing the Southern States Industrial Council, among others and one of the others is David Clark, editor and publisher of the Textile Bulletin, Charlotte, N. C.-sent out notices and printed discourses on the very harmful effects that the National Labor Relations Act was going to have on the workers. It pointed out how harmful this Ellenbogen bill would be to the workers. Notices were posted in mills all over the South. In places where our workers were organized as soon as one of the notices would go up they would tear it up. But now they have glass-enclosed bulletin boards which they lock up and you cannot get into it without breaking the glass. All sorts of insidious propaganda is gotten out— radio addresses and all of that tommyrot. A member of the Textile Labor Relations Board stated that there were only 21 cases that had not been adjusted. Now, I do not want to convey the thought that the textile workers in the industry are not appreciative of the efforts that the Textile Labor Relations Board has devoted to helping the textile workers, but I would like to say here that the number of complaints that have not been settled in my territory in North Carolina alone is nearer 121 than 21. There is quite a difference between adjusting a complaint and getting the workers back on their jobs and just saying "We have reached a settlement here." After the N. R. A. was declared unconstitutional the manufacturers had a meeting at Charlotte, N. C., in the Charlotte Hotel. One of the employers told me a story of what happened there. The mills were represented by men who were going to get a lot of free advertising and publicity. They were going to continue complying with the code, they said. And even as late as now we see statements that come from the heads of the various State manufacturers' organizations to the effect that 97 percent of the mills are still abiding by the code in letter and in spirit. A man who represents the Burlington chain of mills, which chain has mills in North Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia, was at this meeting. His name was Spencer Love. This employer told me that in this meeting when the subject was introduced to the effect that they were going to abide by the code that Spencer Love walked out of the meeting after telling them that they were going to do just as they pleased; that the code was no more, that he would treat his employees as he wanted to treat them; that he would spread them out when he wanted to do it, and would lengthen the hours whenever he got ready to do it. And he did it, |