Announcement of the supreme court decisions was a stiff blow to the dozen or so lawyers representing the shippers' association, but that did not keep them from giving Edises a good deal of trouble the first week. He could not avoid putting on the stand early in the game a union official who on cross examination was harried for several days. The effect was to take the play away from Edise, But on the 16th Edises called Charles S. Brooks, secretary of the association, and since then he has had things his own way. The truth is that Edises has pretty well made out his case with his exhaustive and painstaking examination of Brooks. On the afternoon of the 13th, Henry R. Sanborn, a red-baiter who was "coordinator" at Salinas during the September trouble, appeared in response to a subpoena. He refused to answer questions propounded to him on the ground that as a peace officer of the state of California he is outside the jurisdiction of the Board. He had a lawyer along, whom I had to squelch by telling him that he was an intruder. After that, Sanborn's automatic response to all inquiries was a refusal to answer on the advice of counsel. He went to the most stupid lengths in order to preserve this attitude, and he preserved this attitude despite warnings about possible consequences. Edises' questions were based on an interview he had had with Sanborn. It is my hope that respondent's counsel will agree to a stipulation making it unnecessary for Edises to take the stand. I think I should tell you that Edises had worked so hard to make ready for the hearing that he was quite worn out when the test actually came. This has probably slowed things up to a minor degree. Also I wish to report that the reporting has been pretty terrible. For the first few days, this fact kept us from moving with adequate speed. Edises has been doing a fine job. He has been somewhat hampered by the presence of a lawyer for the union, who means well but who is not easily kept in line. At this writing, there is prospect of a settlement during the weekend. Both sides, shippers and union, would be happy if an adjustment could be worked out. The foregoing is a most incomplete picture, but will suffice for the time being. I trust. With best wishes, I am, We have just rounded out an exhausting third week. Edises needs, he tells me, only 2 more days. Then the union attorney wants several days. Respondents' counsel have indicated that 3 to 4 days will be required for their showing. This last week, particularly, I have been harassed by tactics of the union's attorney. He seems to be proceeding upon the theory that he has an independent case to make out. He is a Leftist, eager to prove that a number of A. F. of L. people involved in the Salinas situation have not been on the level with the union. That motive impels him to insist on asking questions which are either objected to or grudgingly acquiesced in by Edises. The result is that not only is the hearing being protracted but in several ways the public impression and, I fear, the strength of the case itself may be weakened. I shall be greatly obliged if you will wire me in care of Mrs. Rosseter what I am to consider the role and function of the union attorney. Mrs. Rosseter will then convey to me by telephone your instructions. This roundabout course is necessitated by conditions in Salinas, Edises has, as I see it, virtually completed his case in handsome fashion. He still has some individual cases of blacklisting to present. The slowness with which we have proceeded is partly due to his technique. He has, of course, had to rely on hostile witnesses to a considerable extent. But he has, without intending to do so, failed to keep the thing going at a rapid tempo because of his failure to subpoena certain witnesses in advance. He followed this course because he wished to keep the opposition guessing. Also, it is to be remembered that he is not strong physically and that the wear-and-tear of the hearing has at times told on him severely. I have had to consider that with reference to the length of our sessions. My understanding is that Col. Sanborn may yet decide to go on the stand. If he does not, Edises wishes to hold the hearing open formally until the question of Sanborn's recalcitrancy can be settled. This plan does not con template my remaining on the scene. I am awfully glad to have had this glimpse of California anti-unionism, but I look forward to the end of the hearing with a great longing. Being trial examiner in such a case is quite a strain and staying in Salinas is a purgatorial experience. I am afraid that you will find the transcript thoroughly padded. Until about a week ago, I was able to keep out extraneous and argumentative material. Then respondents' counsel began to complain about my restrictions. Edises is so much afraid of the Court of Appeals here that he asked me to ease up. The truth is that I have been guided by his suggestions touching such and other matters because I did not wish to imperil his case. The shadow of the Circuit Court lies heavily upon this hearing. With best wishes, I am, CHARLES N. FEIDELSON. EXHIBIT NO. 1613-G NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD TENTH REGION Ten Forsyth Street Building, Atlanta, Georgia SALINAS, CALIFORNIA, May 8, 1937. To: Mr. Benedict Wolf. From: Charles N. Feidelson. Subject: Salinas Hearing. Yours of May 4th has just reached me. You will be glad to hear that, after I conveyed the substance of your instructions as to the role and function of the union attorney to Mr. Edises, the situation improved materially. Mr. Gladstein had an explosion early in the week but since then has been a rather consistent spectator. He has been content with only occasional sallies. Edises closed his case yesterday afternoon, giving notice of his intention to ask for a reopening in order to compel Col. Sanborn, Sheriff Abbott, and a blacklist expert, Pete Taylor, to testify. That means, as matters stand, that Sanborn will have to be cited for his behavior on the stand, and that the other two will be subpoenaed whenever they can be located. The sheriff has been hiding out for weeks in order to dodge a subpoena. Taylor is also concealing himself, though in his case a subpoena which was served lapsed through some misunderstanding about train fare. Respondents have begun to make their showing, after announcing that they would vigorously oppose a reopening. From all I can gather, they are likely to finish their case next Wednesday. They did not fare so well with their first witness, whom Edises disposed of in excellent style. I am afraid that the transcript is entirely too greatly padded with stuff which should have been excluded. The fault may be altogether mine, but I don't think so. We did very well the first two weeks, and then respondents' counsel began to complain about my insistence on the elimination of immaterial matter. They were not specific, and they have not been specific, despite prodding from me. But they scared Edises, who asked me to go easy in view of the known hostility of the circuit court of appeals. Obviously, opposing lawyers have been mainly interested in making up a record of bias and error for use in appeal. May I suggest that the case should go directly to the Board without an intermediate report? I urge this course, because it is most desirable that the workers have the benefit of the Board's decision with the least possible delay and because, in view of the certainty of an appeal, no time should be lost in establishing ultimate relief. With best wishes, I am, Sincerely yours, CHARLES N. FEIDELSON. Instead of coming to a close today, as I had expected, the hearing bids fair to proceed through Saturday. I have been putting on all the pressure at my command. But the situation is delicate, and Mr. Edises' painstaking style of cross-examining does not make for speed. This morning, Naus, chief counsel for the respondents, after charging Edises with deliberate suppression of facts it was his duty to bring out, demanded that Edises take the stand. This was clearly an effort to embarrass Edises, because the information sought was available from other sources. I did my best to keep Edises from testifying. I thought it was a bad precedent. But, because of peculiar conditions, he went through with it. The development served to give a special edge of bitterness to the hearing. I am hopeful that we can round out the case on Saturday. The Western Growers Association expects to put on a witness or two, after the Grower Shippers finish their showing Thursday afternoon. Then Edises has a couple of witnesses in rebuttal. You will bear with me if I fail to include a number of observations which should be made concerning the conduct of this case. That will have to be reported on later. With best wishes, I am, CHARLES N. FEIDELSON. SALINAS, CALIFORNIA, May 15, 1937. To: Mr. Benedict Wolf. From: Charles N. Feidelson. I regret to have to report that the case is not yet finished and that it is not likely to be finished until Tuesday afternoon at the earliest. Furthermore, this is true despite my most strenuous efforts to close up this business. On Friday, counsel for the Western Growers Association began a most tedious form of inquiry. Were this not California, I would have insisted on a different approach. As it is, with Edises constantly conjuring up the ghost of the Court of Appeals, I have acquiesced in a limping procedure. You have sat in this state but I am sure you did not have to deal with a lawyer as ruthless and overbearing as this man Naus, chief counsel for the respondents. I have not hitherto felt that lack of authority to hold for contempt was significant. But that was before I came across a pirate from San Francisco. I have employed every device for keeping him in line, but without much success. The worst of it is that he seems to me to have been pursuing deliberately a line of belittling and derogation. It has been hard to contain oneself. My impression is that we would have been much better off if Edises had had at his elbow an experienced trial lawyer. The boy has done a remarkable job. But he was worn out when the case opened and the hearing itself has been a most grueling test for him. It is not surprising that he has found even such a union attorney a source of comfort. Pierce Williams, Hopkins' chief consultant on trends in unemployment, got in touch with me this morning. He said that he regards this hearing as a most vital investigation. He is to spend Monday in Salinas as an observer. You can imagine how happy I will be to return to my own bailiwick. Sincerely, CHARLES N. FEIDELSON, Attention: Mr. Hawes. From K. EXHIBIT NO. 1613-I NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Mr. O'Keefe of Los Angeles, called on the phone-8/18/37 to speak to youwill write from the Coast. Attention: Mr. Hawes. From: db. Date: 8-11. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Mr. Witt singled these out of material given me for Edises. Rest sent on. SCHAUER, RYON & MCMAHON ATTORNEYS-AT-LAW 26 East Carrillo Street, Santa Barbara, California BERTRAM EDISES, Esq., AUGUST 3, 1937. Regional Attorney, National Labor Relations Board, 20th Region, 1095 Market St., San Francisco, California. Re: XX-C-30 Grower-Shipper Vegetable Association of Central California and Fruit and Vegetable Workers' Union of California No. 18211. MY DEAR BERTRAM: I am in receipt of your letter of July 31, 1937, together with a copy of the petition in connection with the above entitled matter which you enclosed. We find no authorization in either the Act or the Rules for the filing of this Petition, after the case has been submitted. In behalf of our clients, we do wish to offer opposition to the Petition, and would appreciate your advising us whether the Board will set a time upon notices to all parties for a hearing of the Petition, and whether it will be necessary for us to file formal written opposition. We would also appreciate the information you may have as to when a decision may be anticipated upon the entire proceedings. With best personal regards from the writer, we are Yours very truly, Subject: Grower-Shipper Vegetable Assoc. of Central California and Fruit and Vegetable Workers' Union of California No. 18211 XX-C-30, etc. Enclosed is a letter from Leo T. McMahon, Attorney for Western Growers' Protective Association and A. Arena & Company, Ltd., in the above entitled matters. As you will note, the letter states the unwillingness of the respondents represented by McMahon to acquiesce in a petition filed by the union. BERTRAM EDISES. BE EXHIBIT NO. 1613-J To: Mr. Bertram Edises, Twentieth Region. From: Nathan Witt. Subject: Grower-Shipper Vegetable Association, C-178. AUGUST 9, 1937. 1. I have read the Petition to compel Sanborn to testify and the Order to Show Cause, and have no suggestions to make. I wish you would let me know, however, whether you wish to hold up the decision until Sanborn's testimony has been obtained. Personally I doubt whether it will add very much. 2. The Board is nearly ready to issue its decision. I am enclosing a copy of the first, very rough draft of the opinion. Since the record is so long and the case an important one, I would appreciate your examining this draft and submitting your criticisms and suggestions. 3. As to the reopening of the hearing to take testimony on the subject of the successorship of the union involved, I agree with your suggestion. I do not think we need hear any opposition to an order for a reopening. The Board will issue its order when you are ready. The reopening should be soon, since, as I have said above, the decision is nearly ready to go out. 4. Our attention has been called to a letter printed as Exhibit 864 in the La Follette Committee Report, Part 7. This is a letter dated December 3, 1936, from George F. Cake to Lester Stirling. I am enclosing a copy. I suggest that it might be well to have the parties to the Grower-Shipper case stipulate that a copy may be made a part of the record. To: Bertram Edises, Esq. EXHIBIT NO. 1613-K N. W. AUGUST 14, 1937. From: D. Bolse, Secretary to Mr. Witt. Subject: Grower-Shipper decision Your telegram, August 13th. Receipt is acknowledged of your telegram of August 13th to which I am replying in Mr. Witt's absence from the office. Please be advised that only that portion of the decision which had been completed was sent you, for the purpose of getting your suggestions and criticism as early as possible. ᎠᏴ. EXHIBIT NO. 1613-L [Telegram] SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF., August 17, 1937. NATHAN WITT, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D. C.: Re Grower-Shipper Vegetable Association case urgently request Board take no action re issuance of decision in above case until you receive my report on draft decision raising issues of highest importance. Re Edises. EDISES, San Francisco. EXHIBIT NO. 1613-M NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Attention: Mr. Fahy. From: N. U. Date: 8/19. I think we should turn this down because it will amount to a far-reaching advisory opinion. My guess is that this is filed in the light of the recently launched C. I. O. drive among ag. wkrs. I'm keeping a copy of the petition for Hawes on Grower-Shipper, |