Mr. ELLENBOGEN. But actually the employees did not have an opportunity to work 40 hours throughout the year, did they? Mr. BESSE. I can only give you that for the last month. As I recall it it was around 36. Mr. ELLENBOGEN. That was for 1 month? Mr. BESSE. Yes. Mr. ELLENBOGEN. As an average for the year it would be less, would it not? Mr. BESSE. Yes; it would be less than that. The early part of the year was less active than the last part of the year.. Mr. ELLENBOGEN. Then 35 hours would be a pretty good amount, would it not? Mr. BESSE. Not as a maximum; no, sir. Mr. ELLENBOGEN. You did not work 35 hours in 1935 as a yearly average? Mr. BESSE. No. But you are losing sight of two factors. The first is the difference between some mills who have a very small amount of business and others that have a large amount; and second, the fact that a mill that fluctuates as between seasons. Mr. ELLENBOGEN. I am not losing sight of that at all. You still have unemployment in your industry. Mr. BESSE. We employ more people than we did in 1929. Mr. ELLENBOGEN. But you have a lot of these Government contracts from the C. C. C. camps, have you not? Mr. BESSE. We have had some. Mr. ELLENBOGEN. But you could not sell any of those under this bill unless you would live up to the standards of the bill. I was over in Japan a few months ago, and I want to tell you that the woolen industry is just developing in a tremendous way, and they can sell for much less than you can. And, as you said in your direct testimony, they are just beginning to show samples of Japanese woolens here. They are making sweaters, coats, and all kinds of woolens, and very good ones. Do you think the members of your association are in favor of going before Congress and asking for protection against that condition? Mr. BESSE. Yes; if it becomes an item of importance. Mr. ELLENBOGEN. You believe in Government aid in that respect but you are not so sure that you believe in it in other respects? Mr. BESSE. If I were prepared to accept the definition of "aid", yes. Mr. ELLENBOGEN. Isn't that Government aid? Mr. BESSE. What you think might aid the industry, Mr. Congressman, I might or might not think would aid the industry. If it aids the industry, my answer is "yes." Mr. ELLENBOGEN. If you were in my place and if you were a public official, a member of Congress, and would endeavor to find out what is good for the textile industry and for the United States as a whole, would you consult only the employers or would you consult the employees also? Mr. BESSE. You might also consult the customers. Mr. ELLENBOGEN. You would consult all three of them, would you? Mr. ELLENBOGEN. That is exactly what we are trying to do. The right to strike should, of course, be retained but only as a last Obviously, nothing would interfere more with trade in textile products than a strike by the employees. It is pertinent to inquire why the Commission which, it is proposed, will determine whether a licensee is engaging in some act which may tend to obstruct trade and commerce, should not also determine whether or not a strike, which obviously restricts trade, is justified or not. So long as there is no way by which there can be a determination of the reasonableness or justification of a strike and no means for terminating a strike adjudged unfair and unreasonable, just so long will manufacturers oppose prejudicial legislation which has for its obvious purpose the limitation of the manufacturer's freedom of action as respects his relations with his employees but which at the same time imposes no restraint or responsibility upon the employees or those who presume to speak for them. Without in any way quarreling with the aspiration of the employees to better their economic position, with which I heartily sympathize, I want to point out that the most important element in considering employee relations is fairness, whether we are considering aids of an economic or of a legal nature. In their zeal to help the employees to secure steadier and more satisfactory conditions of work, their protagonists have lost sight of the fact that no proposal can long endure and no system can operate properly unless it is based upon a fundamentally honest desire to protect the rights of both parties to a dispute with equal energy. The entire bill has been drafted by theorists who, I believe, are not familiar with conditions in the textile industry. It is based upon a proposed legislative determination of the existence of conditions which so far as the wool textile industry is concerned, do not obtain. Its avowed purpose is to promote trade between the States, but each and every action designed to enforce the provisions of the proposed bill does exactly the opposite and prevents commerce across State lines. This point is important. How can restriction of the right to ship merchandise across State lines possibly promote interstate commerce? The proposed regimentation of hours, wages, and tasks is entirely impracticable, both from the standpoint of mill operation and of administration. The problems of the textile industry are many and varied. I hope that from time to time proposals for solving some of them may be advanced and adopted. I am personally certain, however, that the answer is not to be found in the attempt to force such a varied group of industries into a single iron mold. Nor do I deem it prudent to try to remake the industry by a single legislative stroke which would blandly assume that the processes and methods of the industry, imperfect though they may be, are without foundation in, or relation to, general economic conditions. This bill proceeds from an incorrect premise and adopts mistaken means which will lead to most unfortunate results to all concerned. In my opinion the point of view from which the bill has been written precludes the possibility of adequately amending it. There are, as I have pointed out, countless provisions which are unnecessary and which are either unfair or unworkable or both. On the other side of the ledger I find nothing which will benefit the owners of the industry, the employees, or the public which buys its products. The bill is without merit. I pray that you gentlemen will give sufficient consideration to the bill to apprehend its implications and probable results and that you will not report favorably upon it, nor lend yourselves to its endorsement in any manner. Mr. RAMSPECK. I have no questions. Mr. LUNDEEN. That means you want things to remain as they are now? Mr. BESSE. Conditions in our industry, for one reason or another, are, compared to the more recent past, extremely satisfactory. We would naturally like them to be better, but conditions, both from the manufacturers' standpoint and from the employees' standpoint are better than they have been for some time. Mr. LUNDEEN. Did I understand you to say that the hours have been shortened from 53 to 40? Mr. BESSEE. Fifty-three was the average hourly wage obtaining in the industry prior to the introduction of the code. Mr. LUNDEEN. What happened to the wages between those two periods? Mr. BESSE. The provision of the code was that no one should receive less than $14 in the North or $13 in the South, and that anyone who received higher wages than that for a longer week, whether it was 48 hours or 50 hours or 53 hours, should receive at least equivalent wages for the 40-hour week. That was carried out. That, of course, is shown in the statistics of the average wage rates, which show that hourly rates jumped from 32 cents an hour to around 50 cents an hour. Mr. LUNDEEN. I think that is all. Mr. Wood. Do you represent this National Association of Wool Manufacturers? Mr. BESSE. Yes. Mr. Wood. Are you an executive of any of the textile mills? Mr. BESSE. No. Mr. WOOD. What is your position? Mr. BESSE. I am president of the association. I am not engaged in manufacture. Mr. WOOD. Were you ever engaged in textile manufacture as an owner? Mr. BESSE. No. Mr. Wood. Are you a lawyer? Mr. BESSE. I am not a lawyer. Mr. WOOD. But you know all about the business? Mr. BESSE. I would hesitate to claim any great knowledge of the business, Mr. Wood. I think possibly I know more about the business than some people in Washington who have claimed a rather complete knowledge of the operations in the textile industry. Mr. WOOD. You know more about it than some of these employees who have testified, who were in the business? Is that what you mean? Mr. BESSE. Not in the least. Mr. WOOD. You are referring to the other people, and they are the only ones who have testified so far except one man, who testified Monday, from the South, who stated he represented 14 States down there. Mr. BESSE. I might point out that an employee in the textile industry and the same thing applies somewhat to an employerthinks of conditions naturally, only in his own plant. Mr. WOOD. How did you acquire this knowledge? Mr. BESSE. How did I acquire it? Mr. WOOD. How did you acquire it; by actual experience in the working of the business or by conference with executives? Mr. BESSE. That makes even Mr. Gorman laugh. As far as I have been able to acquire it, Mr. Wood, I acquired it because it was my business to acquire it. Mr. WOOD. Observation? Mr. BESSE. I have been in this position only 2 years. Naturally, the amount of information I have been able to absorb is limited. I am quite free to confess to my lack of information and knowledge on this subject. Mr. WOOD. You are just representing an association as its secretary, then? Mr. BESSE. I happen to be president; that is immaterial. Mr. WOOD. Do you draw any salary as president? Mr. BESSE. I do, sir. Mr. WOOD. How much salary do you draw? Mr. BESSE. Is that germane to this inquiry? Mr. Wood. You can answer or not, as you please. The employees have been very frank in telling about their wages and working conditions. Of course, you do not have to answer it. Do you think $15 a week is too much for any mechanic to receive? Do you think that will foist a great burden on the industry, for a skilled mechanic to receive a minimum of $15 a week? Mr. BESSE. Our average wage is considerably higher than that. I do not think $15 a week is an adequate wage. I certainly do not. Mr. Wood. Your figures here in this exhibit do not indicate that the average wage was more than that. Mr. BESSE. Have you multiplied 47.7 by 40? Mr. WOOD. No. This is the hourly-wage schedule here. Is that just the mechanics and the working men or does that include the superintendents, foremen, and executives of the plant? Mr. BESSE. That includes people who are subject to the 40-hour limitation and excludes all supervisors and foremen. It includes only actual factory employees. Mr. WOOD. How do you feel about the Hawes-Cooper law? Mr. WOOD. The textile industry and the garment industry were two of the prime movers in the enactment of the Hawes-Cooper law. They carried on many years of work and effort to have passed a law similar to the Hawes-Cooper Act, which divests convict-made goods of its interstate character when it crosses a State line. Do you think that is a good law or a bad one? Mr. BESSE. I am not qualified to express an opinion. I have not read the law. We have no such problem in the wool textile industry. Mr. WOOD. Do you think, then, that convict-made goods should be shipped promiscuously throughout the United States without any regulatory legislation? Mr. BESSE. NO; I do not think so. I am simply saying, Mr. Wood, I have no knowledge of those particular conditions. They do not exist in our industry. We have substantially no prison-made woolen goods. Mr. Wood. There has been a great deal, not now, of course, but previously. You would not, then, hazard a guess whether the Hawes-Cooper law was a good or bad law? Mr. BESSE. Not until I read the law. Mr. WOOD. You do not understand the meaning of the law at all? Mr. BESSE. I have never read that particular law. I understand from you that it has reference to the shipment of prison-made goods in interstate commerce. Mr. Wood. It divests the goods of its interstate character when it is shipped from one State to another. When it is shipped from one State across the line of another, it comes within the purview of the law of the State to which it is shipped. Mr. BESSE. If I understand you correctly, I should say most decidedly I would not be in favor of the provisions of the act. Mr. WOOD. You would not be in favor of a State being able, then, to protect itself against the influx of convict-made goods? Mr. BESSE. Yes; I would. It is apparent that I did not understand your description of the act. I would be opposed to that. Mr. WOOD. That is what the Hawes-Cooper law is. It enables the States to protect themselves against the shipping of convictmade goods, made under the prison laws or system by private contractors, into another State, coming in unfair competition with free labor. If the law is good, then why would not the law work both ways? Why would not a law divesting the goods manufactured by the free manufacturer of its interstate character when it crosses the line be proper, to eliminate unfair competition? Mr. BESSE. I am still very hazy about this law. It seems to me that you have to have in mind what you propose to accomplish and whom you are going to protect. I think any free workman should. be protected against prison-made goods, whether he lives in one State or another State. Mr. WOOD. What is the reason they should be protected? Mr. BESSE. That is a pretty big question. I cannot see that any penal institution should be allowed to interfere with the opportunity of free workmen to earn their living. Mr. WOOD. That is it, unfair competition. That brings us right back to the Ellenbogen bill. All this bill seeks to do is to eliminate unfair competition, which was engaged in so extensively, from 1929 up to and including the early months of 1933, at which time the textile industry was on its back. What do you mean by "extensive coercion"? This law elicits extensive coercion, you say. Mr. BESSE. That is decidedly the impression I get from reading this bill. Mr. WOOD. Would you mind explaining what coercion you mean? Coercion by the Government, or by whom? Mr. BESSE. Coercion by the Government through the Commission. Mr. Wood. What do you mean by "coercion"? Mr. BESSE. I mean the utilization of power which may or may not be properly and judicially applied. Mr. WOOD. You made the assertion at the outset, I believe, if I remember right, that a great deal of evidence and testimony submitted here was based not upon actual knowledge of the operation of the business; that the allegations as to reduction of wages and stretching |