activities of one Maurice Howard, and we sh only as the result of the investigation made b R RELATIONS ACT received after his activities were brought home is the reason that I de Howard let go, and then the member from Mascussed in an executive tionary period. So that the presentation of ad such a request from t evidence that was to be adduced at the hear working for the C. I. O. He told them he committee who was prese itical way should be permitt by attorneys for the Government of the committee considerable lati course of conversation with those witnesse of the committee that ever He told them to take the stand and say it the time they should be 1 some of them refused he threw them ou be at the discretion of the of inquiry by respondent's counsel. The exd be put on the witness stand and the man that was trying the case, Mr. called the chairman of this Board, and 1 no lock-out. Mr. Davis wasn't called by every time a witness make itself, to come here at the proper Then the Board went further than theatement or a Mr. MURDOCK. My only question wasMr. TOLAND (interposing). I said stand Mr. MURDOCK (interposing). Here ld be so far from anything I in continual confusion. I might of the chairman has been to here to make individual com explanation of any Imake it at this time to the committee, requests to appear here and the fact that we had Mr. Freter hertion of this Board. It has out, but we don't get the other side of referred will show that whenever e records themselves and not ill put the evidence in the at the Board as to why he was let ou from record data as near as before that committee, then the otselves, as far as possible, accorded the privilege of giving th their own conclusions as to the case. Now, that is the criticisn, have a further discussion about it and fair about it. I thi hould take place in execuMr. Freter was discharged, if th will add to the facility of when counsel went into this file of the hearing. Madden should have been inter? to the Chairman, that I thing, was done with reference peaks of and it was my called this morning from the B out there and not be con was detained there for a very Mr. TOLAND. I am going to til this morning of the The CHAIRMAN (interposin man make a statement. Mr. TOLAND. All right. ject of whether somebody ink that when an episode mittee Friday is brought ,then before that episode or a month later. The CHAIRMAN. I think before it passes out of committee, rather than wit to it, the answer should every 15 minutes and deill be accorded a full Mr. MURDOCK. May 1ve the opportunity to tive session and discussed. discussed in my presence ced been adduced at the up to that time. ber the ers of ager of to the n action nting the handled a Organizing the Board, Davis. -39, LABOR RELATIONS ACT letter from Drivers Salesmen Union to Mr. the manner in which he had handled a -sted. that is the reason that I do it a rs from the file that Mr. Davis was a as trial examiner, and was recomnber of Congress from New York. now the chronology of the American 1937, as I stated heretofore, the plant ges were filed by the S. W. O. C. of the 7, the Board authorized the issuance of 7, 1937, the complaint issued. The hearExaminer Wenzel in Litchfield, Ill., from 5. The intermediate report was February discussed in an executie f lly said, to give everybody an to make individual wm ts to appear here and f this Board. It has rinning that what re themselves and t ord data as near as duct of the Buri evidence in the far as pe molishers as to ler dushe ristopher Hoey to Mr. Fahy, general coun37, "Report on cases in Region No. 14": uis office are ready for immediate hearing. Armour & can Radiator, No. XIV-C-64; Solomon Mfg. Co., No. aweinitz received late today authorization from the a hearing in the Armour case on August 30. There me 250 membership cards in the Armour case. The wired for permission to put this case down for hearing The Board has received the complaint in the American wire has been sent requesting authority to issue notice case for September 2. Mr. Davis can handle the Armour e care of the American Radiator case. Mr. Davis is fully cases and can try either one. of the letter has nothing to do with the case before us. py of a letter taken from the files dated August 30, 2. Fahy to Mr. Hoey (Exhibit No. 308) : have your memorandum of the 25th. It gives me just the kind a I like to receive from the attorneys in the field. I am checking tus of these cases and will probably talk with you on the telephone eceive this note. citer of the letter to Mr. Fahy was the regional attorney urteenth region. r in evidence, Mr. Chairman, the documents just read. communication from Christopher Hoey to Charles Fahy August 25, 1937, was received in evidence, marked "Exhibit and included in full in the appendix of this volume. The munication from Charles Fahy to Christopher Hoey dated gust 30, 1937, was received in evidence and marked "Exhibit 85.) Mr. TOLAND. I have a letter, Mr. Chairman, taken from the files, dated September 27, 1937, to David Shaw, from Robert B. Watts, associate general counsel (Exhibit 309): It has come to my attention that in the course of trying the American Radiator case, considerable testimony was to be offered bearing upon the activities of Jack Davis while in your region. While I do not wish to interfere with your time during the trial of this case, I am very anxious that when an opportnuity presents itself you should give me a fairly complete outline of just what has happened in that particular. I should also like to have your report on any matters which have come to your personal attention in connection with Davis' actions in your region, which would assist us in evaluating his usefulness to the Board. Sincerely, 218054-40-vol. 5- -7 (Signed) ROBERT B. WATTS. activities of one Maurice Howard, and we showed raises that he received after his activities were brought home to the chairman, and only as the result of the investigation made by Mr. Pratt was Mr. Howard let go, and then the member from Massachusetts, Mr. Smith, wrote a letter, and my recollection is that he recommended a probationary period. So that the presentation of this matter is that here. was an attorney for the Board investigating this case, assembling the evidence that was to be adduced at the hearing and to be presented by attorneys for the Government of the United States, and in the course of conversation with those witnesses he told them he was working for the C. I. O. He told them he would get them back pay. He told them to take the stand and say it was a lockout, and when some of them refused he threw them out or told them to leave; and the man that was trying the case, Mr. Shaw, objected to this line. of inquiry by respondent's counsel. The examiner sustained him. He called the chairman of this Board, and the chairman of the Board said let it in. It was let in. The trial examiner found that there was no lock-out. Mr. Davis wasn't called by the Board to take the stand. Then the Board went further than the trial examiner; the Board found there was a lock-out. Mr. Davis is still there. Mr. MURDOCK. My only question was Mr. TOLAND (interposing). I said when Mr. Madden is on the stand Mr. MURDOCK (interposing). Here is the objection, and I want to make it at this time to the committee, and I want to call attention to the fact that we had Mr. Freter here Friday. We went quite thoroughly into the fact that he had been discharged by the Board, or let out, but we don't get the other side of the picture from any person down at the Board as to why he was let out. Now, I think that a reference to the proceedings of the La Follette committee to which counsel has referred will show that whenever an instance like that was brought before that committee, then the other side immediately followed, was accorded the privilege of giving their side of that particular phase of the case. Now, that is the criticism that I have, and I want to be frank about it and fair about it. I think that somebody should have been called this morning from the Board so that we could find out why Mr. Freter was discharged, if there was any reason. I feel here that when counsel went into this file here and found what he did, then Mr. Madden should have been interrogated to find out just what, if anything, was done with reference to Mr. Davis. That may not coincide or harmonize with counsel's attitude of procedure, but I wanted to state mine. Mr. TOLAND. I am going to The CHAIRMAN (interposing) Just wait a minute. Let the chairman make a statement. Mr. TOLAND. All right. The CHAIRMAN. I think that Mr. Murdock's quarrel is with his committee, rather than with counsel for the committee. This subject of whether somebody is to be permitted to jump on the stand every 15 minutes and deny something has been taken up in executive session and discussed. Mr. MURDOCK. May I say this, Mr. Chairman, it has never been discussed in my presence, and I have never had an opportunity to give you my views on it, and that is the reason that I do it here this morning. The CHAIRMAN. It has been discussed in an executive session of the committee. I am not sure, I think this was the day probably Mr. Murdock hadn't arrived, we had such a request from the Board. It was a decision of the committee-if I am incorrect, I want to be corrected by some member of the committee who was present-that we had to allow counsel for the committee considerable latitude in this matter and it was the opinion of the committee that everybody whose name was used here in a critical way should be permitted an opportunity to be heard, but that the time they should be heard was a matter that necessarily had to be at the discretion of the committee. We cannot go on here and every time a witness makes a statement have somebody pop up and be put on the witness stand to deny that statement. It is our purpose, as I have repeatedly said, to give everybody an opportunity, particularly the Board itself, to come here at the proper time and make a full and complete statement or explanation of anything that they may think is incorrectly stated by any other witness. Any other method of procedure would be so far from anything I have ever heard of that we would be in continual confusion. I might say that one of the most difficult tasks of the chairman has been to restrain numerous people from coming here to make individual complaints. There are just hundreds of requests to appear here and voice some complaint against some action of this Board. It has been the policy of the committee from the beginning that what we were trying to do was to get from the records themselves and not from a lot of hearsay and so forth, but from record data as near as we could, a fair view of the general course of conduct of the Board, be it good or bad. The committee will put the evidence in the record coming from the documents themselves, as far as possible, and let the Congress and the public draw their own conclusions as to the facts. Now if there is any desire to have a further discussion upon that question by the committee, it should take place in executive session and let the matter be thrashed out there and not be continually raised here in the hearing. It will add to the facility of conducting the hearing and the orderliness of the hearing. Mr. MURDOCK. May I say this in reply to the Chairman, that I was not at the executive session that he speaks of and it was my fault probably that I wasn't there, but I was detained in Utah and couldn't be at that meeting. I was detained there for a very serious reason. I have not been advised until this morning of the action taken by the committee, but I do think that when an episode like the one that was brought before the committee Friday is brought up in so far as, I take it, counsel is concerned, then before that episode passes out of the minds of the committee, before it passes out of the minds of the public, if there is any answer to it, the answer should be made at that time, and not 2 or 3 weeks or a month later. Mr. HEALEY. Mr. Chairman, I understand that the committee has agreed that at some later date the Board will be accorded a full opportunity to meet all the evidence that has been adduced at the hearing. They will at different intervals have the opportunity to meet and answer evidence which has been adduced up to that time. The CHAIRMAN. Yes. It is the purpose of the committee that the hearings shall not be closed until the Board has a full opportunity to discuss every incident that has been discussed here in the records. As to the incident on Friday, it will be recalled that the testimony of the witness was followed by an exhibit of the documentary personnel record of the witness himself. That was as far as the record of the Board went; namely, that there was no charge against his service or his character at the time he was discharged. Mr. FAHY. Mr. Chairman, may I make a statement? Mr. HALLECK. I would like to say something first. May I as a member of the committee? Everybody else has made a speech here. Mr. Chairman, I have tried to go along as fairly as I know how in the conduct of this hearing. Now, the immediate controversy that seems to be involved here has to do with the attitude of the Board toward what a man by the name of Davis did. The first thing Mr. Toland read into the record was a direct quotation from Madden criticizing Davis for the thing he had done, if I understand it correctly. Now, I don't see where it could be said that there is any failure to at least expose what the facts were; maybe it wasn't a criticism but at any event it was word from Mr. Madden through Mr. Shaw that the testimony should not be excluded and Mr. Shaw for the Board certainly made as fair a statement as anyone could possibly make. I didn't see any evidence of any efforts to keep that out. Now, there is just one other thing I want to comment on since this business of how we are going to conduct this hearing is up. Most of the requests, Mr. Chairman, that have emanated from the Board or from its representatives in my view of this matter are predicated on the theory that this is an adversary proceeding. Now, I have never acceded to that view, but if it is an adversary proceeding and if they are correct in that contention, then certainly I never heard of an adversary proceeding under which the plaintiff introduced certain items of evidence and then the defendant introduced certain items of evidence and then the plaintiff introduced some more and then the defendant some more. The plaintiff introduces his case, if it is that kind of a proceeding, and then at the proper time the defendant comes forward with his testimony, and then there is a rebuttal and a surrebuttal. I am not contending by that statement that this is an adversary proceeding, because, as far as I am concerned, I don't so construe it, and I don't construe my obligation to the Congress of the United States and the House of Representatives under this resolution to include that sort of activity. I think on the whole, while it might be said that we are on one side of this thing or the other on occasions, some people have suggested to me maybe we have been too fair. I don't believe that; but I think we all want to be fair and I think that we can go ahead and do the job so that everyone, when we are finished with it, will feel that they have had a square deal, and that is the way I want to feel. Mr. MURDOCK. May I ask the gentleman from Indiana this question: While he has stated very fairly and very explicitly court procedure, he does recall, however, I am sure, that when the plaintiff gets through with direct examination, if this is to be considered an adversary proceeding, then the other side is accorded full oppor |