Since I could add nothing to my memorandum of February 10 without sounding Googe out further, I had to wait until today to sing a new line. I was fortunate to find him this morning particularly nothing-withholding. After some preliminaries, I had an opportunity to appeal to his vanity. I asked how it was That he knew about activities in Mr. Donald Smith's behalf. His reply was that he is accustomed to receiving information from all possible quarters, that some of our people in the field tip him off, and that much which happens in our Washington office, including inter-office communications, he is put on notice about: not that he is operating a spy system, George hurried to say, but that there are folks who voluntarily keep him in the know. Beyond this point I could not press Googe, for fear that he would realize what I was up to.

He said that virtually the entire legal staff in the Washington office had been working in Mr. Smith's behalf, and he was of the opinion that this could hardly have happened without the knowledge of other members of the Board. I asked him if he could suggest why I had apparently been singled out as a regional director not to be approached in this campaign, and his reply was that those engineering the scheme probably knew that it would be futile to have me attempt anything subversive under his nose.

Last Monday Googe asked that I postpone sending any comments to Washington on his testimony until he could confer with me on Wednesday. Yesterday I had a long conversation with him, running through the afternoon.

I can explain his knowledge that a report from me was forthcoming in this way: As you know, I have been in touch with Gambrell. Nathan was seen in Gambrell's office on Monday. Nathan must have informed Googe that I was on the warpath.

Why Googe came to see me, why he went to such pains to make sure of seeing me, can only be guessed at. His attitude was definitely apologetic. He looked and talked like a worried man. He did his level best to persuade me that he had no intention of attacking me; that what he was aiming at was to free the regional offices from the autocratic grip of the powers in Washington.

Incidentally, I was told today that Googe is personally peeved with me because at our 1937 conference I am supposed to have said something derogatory to him in one of the open meetings. I have no recollection of having done so; I am sure I did nothing of the kind. As quoted to me and as reported to him, I described Googe as a weak little man pitted against the enormous force of the CIO.

I asked him why he had asserted so positively that the Board had sent four investigators to Tennessee to go into complaints of the CIO following the first Tennessee Copper Company election. I pointed out that this office had sent Messrs. Meacham and McRee to make an investigation because they had not participated in the election. He replied that if that was true Nicoson had misled tim. I am beginning to think that Nicoson must have done a tall amount of talking out of school. You have noted, of course, that Googe refers to "four people" on page 3027, and to "a special investigator from Washington" on pages 382-3033. Googe is, of course, not telling the truth when he professes to have been told of the contents of any confidential recommendations sent by us to Washington. The entire hullabaloo about the Board's having sent special investizators to Tennessee turns out to be a conclusion leaped to by local organizers who, because they had not known Meacham and McRee before, decided that they were necessarily spies from Washington. I think that I convinced Googe that he was altogether mistaken, and he expressed his purpose to correct his testimony on this point when he appears before the House Committee.

As to the Nathan letter, Googe insisted that he had intended to read excerpts from it dealing with the Granite cases, and leaving out references to myself. He said he was prevented from taking this course by the attitude of Senator Thomas. Furthermore, he protested that even though the letter went in at his instance, its sentiments were not necessarily his. He found it easier to squirm out of this than out of the stuff which followed. For example, he admitted that his reference to Finch on page 3084 was a hunch. I told him that Finch had left because he could get better pay as a conciliator, and for no other reason. I had an opportunity to talk with Finch today, and learned from hita that he had never felt the pressure or the "prejudice" which, according to Gooze, he escaped from when he left the Board. Furthermore, Finch made it plain that he had never said anything to anyone which would warrant such an interpretation.

In his testimony on page 3117, Googe refers to Paul Styles. Styles was appointed field examiner in September, 1937. Googe got his information as to my seeing Sidney Hillman from a former organized for the TWOC. Googe says that word of my visit was sent down here by Hillman's office. I did see Hillman in New York in advance of the TWOC drive in the South. I was eager to see him because I understood that Nance was slated to be TWOC Director in Atlanta, and because, in view of the coolness then existing between Nance and myself I thought it wise to establish an entente with Hillman himself. As it turned out, Nance and I became close friends, and the work we were both interested in was definitely helped by this new relationship. I saw Hillman after consulting with both Chairman Madden and Mr. Edwin Smith.

Before leaving, Googe said that he had merely scratched the surface of charges he could make against the Board; that he had withheld innumerable affidavits; and that if the Board sought to make it hot for him on the basis of his testimony before the Senate Committee, he would spill everything before the House Committee. He asserted that he knew of instances of the Board's sending back memoranda to regional offices and asking that they be destroyed; of the Board's failure to proceed because of political pressure, notably the Bradley Lumber case, with Senator Robinson acting as a brake, and the ToddJohnson case in which the White House figures. He knows that Mr. Madden asked the Department of Justice for thirty-odd F. B. I. men to be sent to New Orleans. These and other matters he is prepared to testify about if he is pressed too much.

He has a special animus against Mr. Nathan Witt, whom he regards as the head and front of the Board's CIO-mindedness. Mr. Witt is the villain of the piece as recited by Mr. Googe.

These threats strengthen my conviction that Googe is seriously disturbed by a feeling that he has put his foot into it. This is the cold, gray dawn of the morning after a debauch of calumnies he now has reason to regret.

Felix again telephoned me to say the postscript on the Supreme Court's Decision in Fainblatt is in error; that he does not know how it occurred since he did participate; and that correction will be made in the bound decisions. E. S. F. E. S. F.

DEAR MR. WITT: May we acknowledge with many, many thanks the material which you sent to us from the Labor Board the last several weeks. We desire that you particularly express to the Board and to Saposs our thanks and appreciation for the data forwarded, which has been of much assistance in the present legal battle involving the recently enacted anti-labor law in Oregon. We have failed to acknowledge receipt of some of this material simply through inability to find time to dictate a letter. Please do not interpret this lack of response in reply to your several letters and the material seat by Mr. Saposs to any lack of appreciation.

The hearings on the proceedings started last Wednesday. We are still in the midst of the arguments and these will probably continue until some time next week.

statements.

The writer has had time to read only hastily the statements by Chairman Madden and by General Counsel Charles Fahy in the presentation before the committee, charged with consideration of the amendments to the Wagner Act. It is impossible for us to see how any answer can be made to these We agree with you that you should be proud of the presentatous made by your Chairman and by your General Counsel. At this distance it is impossible for us to judge ultimate results, but from day to day we are much embarrassed by the attitude of some of the leaders of the American Federation of Labor, although we note with pleasure that a great many of the internationals have joined in a protest against any particular amendmen's Personally, the writer feels that the tragedy is the failure of President Roosevelt to make the fight for the reappointment of Donald Wakefield Smith, because this gives much consolation to the opponents of the Act, and it is very clear that Don Smith has been sacrificed on the altar of political expediency.

As soon as the arguments in this matter have been completed, we will write you in detail as to the contentions raised by the defendants, and particularly their theories of law as to how the Oregon Anti-Labor Law des or does not conflict with the Wagner Act, since it is openly discussed in court that if this law remains, the state authorities are going to be in conflict with your Board from time to time.

DEAR MR. WITT: I am sending you under separate cover the Oregon Law Review for April, 1939, which contains an address given by Chris Boesen of this office before the Oregon State Bar Association in September, 1938. His address dealt with the National Labor Relations Act. I felt this might be of interest to you because the address does constitute a defense of the act. I feel that his references to Hitler, the ex-Governor of Oregon, and the black widow spider are very appropriate.

I have written Malcolm Ross, your Director of Information, this date, expressing appreciation for the assistance which your Board has rendered to

us in the preparation of our brief for presentation to the three-judge court in the case involving the Anti-Labor Law of Oregon.

The recent decision of the Colorado Supreme Court was very favorable and we are anticipating much consolation from the decision of the United States Supreme Court rendered yesterday in the Hague Case. We expect several copies of this decision by air mail either Wednesday or Thursday of this week.

DEAR MR. GREEN: Thank you for your letter of June 6. I am looking forward to receiving the copy of the Oregon Law Review for April, 1939, which contains the address by Mr. Boesen.

I am glad that the material we have been sending you has been useful to you. With very kind regards,

Sincerely yours,

nw; jeb

NATHAN WITT, Secretary.

Exhibit No. 1613-A-1613-V

[Introduced into evidence in Volume 24, Part I, August 1, 1940]
The Grower-Shipper Vegetable Association Case

EXHIBIT NO. 1613-A

GROWER-SHIPPER VEGETABLE ASSN.

SALINAS, CALIFORNIA

C-178

October 13, 1936: Charge filed by Fruit and Vegetable Workers Union #18211 alleging violations of 8 (1) (3) and (5) of the Act.

July 8, 1937: Supplementary charges filed by Union against same respondents. March 10, 1937: Complaints issued.

March 15, 1937: Amended complaint.

March 15, 1937: Cases against various respondents consolidated.

April 12 to May 18, 1937, incl.: Hearing before Trial Examiner Charles F. Feidelson.

May 29, 1937: Order transferring case to Board.

July 30, 1937: Petition by union alleging its membership had voted to affiliate with the C. I. O.

August 30, 1937: Board notice of reopening record to receive evidence concerning change of union affiliation.

September 10, 1937: Hearing held before Trial Examiner Clifford O'Brien.
July 16, 1938: Board amendment of complaint to conform complaint to proof.
July 14, 1939: Order directing no Trial Examiner's Intermediate Report be
issued.

July 14, 1939: Proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law and proposed order issued.

September 15, 1939: Board Decision and Order.

According to informal file, case has been recommended for enforcement by Board's legal staff.

CHARLES FAHY,

EXHIBIT No. 1613-B

[Postal Telegram]

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF., Mar. 23, 1937.

Natl. Labor Relations Board, 1010 Vermont Ave., Northwest:

Have been furnished with what appears to be a facsimile of the Salinas blacklist Stop There is reason to believe that the list was not obtained legally Stop If this suspicion proves correct please advise what use if any I may make of the list Stop May I use it as basis for examination of witnesses or offer it in evidence.

EDISES, San Francisco.

MARCH 26, 1937.

Regional Labor Board for Region Twenty,

710 Grant Building, 1095 Market Street,

San Francisco, California:

With respect blacklist please advise if you consider use of this necessary to proof of case Stop If not necessary prefer it be not used Stop If considered important to use it please advise how you expect to prove its authenticity and whether or not proof of authenticity would involve anyone in possible criminal action Stop Wire or write similar explanation documents involved Topp case CHARLES FAHY.

To: Mr. Bertram Edises.
From: Charles Fahy.

EXHIBIT No. 1613-D

APRIL 1, 1937.

Subject: Grower-Shipper Vegetable Ass'n. of Central Calif., Case No. XX-C-30; American Hawaiian Steamship Company, Case No. XX-C-69.

In regard to the use of the blacklist in the Salinas case, in view of your telegram of March 27 I should not think you would use it. My opinion as to the dmissibility of the blacklist is that it is admissible provided its unlawful procurement was not at the instigation of the Government. The fact that it is admissible however does not mean that it should be used under the circumstances stated in your telegram of March 27.

With respect to the Topp documents, I can give no opinion because of the meager nature of the information we have as to the documents. If this is a problem with you, please write more fully about them.

CF: few

CHARLES FAHY.

EXHIBIT No. 1613-E

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

TENTH REGION

Ten Forsyth Street Building, Atlanta, Georgia

SALINAS, CAL., April 21, 1937.

Mr. BENEDICT WOLF, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D. C. DEAR DICK: Forgive this informality. I am doing my own typing. It has been impossible to find a public or other stenographer who can be trusted. This Town is completely sold out to the shippers, who have had an undercover man at our hearings and not improbably keeping Edises and myself under Surveillance.