Mr. BLANKENHORN. I think that is likely.

Mr. TOLAND. I show you a statement from yourself to Mr. Madden, dated January 29, 1936, found in the file of Mr. Madden, Chairman of the National Labor Relations Board, and ask you if you did not prepare that?

Mr. BLANKENHORN (examining document). Yes, sir.

Mr. TOLAND. I offer in evidence the document identified by the wit

ness.

(Letter of January 29, 1936, from Mr. Blankenhorn to Mr. Madden, identified by the witness, was received in evidence, marked "Exhibit No. 1230," and appears below.)

Mr. TOLAND. And do you know when that union was formed of the employees of the Board?

Mr. BLANKENHORN. I cannot remember the dates. I know that I advocated it, that I joined it, and like a lot of other union members, I have never yet attended a meeting of my own union there.

Mr. TOLAND. Are you a member of the union?

Mr. BLANKENHORN. Yes; but I have never attended a meeting, unfortunately.

Mr. TOLAND. Mr. Chairman, in this connection, I'd like to refer to committee Exhibit 1000, disclosing that a union was formed during the month of May 1936 of employees of the National Labor Relations Board. Now, Mr. Brock, will you read this exhibit? Mr. BROCK. Reading from Exhibit No. 1230:

To: Mr. Madden, Mr. Carmody, Mr. Smith.
From: H. Blankenhorn.

JANUARY 29, 1936.

Possibly this memo may help the Board as an employer. In that belief, I am taking Government time to put it down.

A little while ago I walked over to the pool looking for some work to be done and found that a girl had fainted. Going out I heard "And this is a National Labor Relations Board." I made an inquiry or two and was told among other things "We do need a union here." It is regrettable and a loss of time for Board members to be troubled by details of office administration. That is why I, in some position of management in the past, have preferred to deal with a union. I knew that whatever complaint was brought to me by a union committee had been gone over and subjected to some scrutiny by an organization of some responsibility. I would not have to dig into all the little details myself. There is as yet no union here and I do not know whether the working girls will take the natural course of sending a committee up to the Board but if they should here are some background facts, as I see them.

When a two by four (in point of size and equipment) Government agency like this tries to carry a 100 by 100 load there are bound to be strains. It is likely to be worse if the Board and its higher staff members are enthusiastic about their job. Wanting to get things done, spending day and night thinking about it, they put an unconscious pressure, which like dynamite exerts its force downward. It is easy to dictate something that takes hours to do, hours of overtime. I have been one of the worst offenders many a time I suspect by ordering something that "I must have" and realizing the next morning that I have wished that the extra exertion beneath would be compensated, but I have not taken precautions to see that it will be.

May I illustrate by a little past history, which may also, as a demonstration, show how unionism comes about. In the autumn of 1933 when the N. R. A. was normally working up to 16 hours a day, overworked girls suddenly formed a union. General Johnson, speaking of his willingness and ability to work unlimited hours blew up like the typical employer. When the union committee could not find a place to meet I gave them my office upstairs. Simultaneously a union formed in the National Labor Board, due to long hours and to grievances over pay. In particular one girl, Miss Murphy, secretary to the press section,

had been refused the "classification” promised her by Mrs. Stern. The then Executive Director, Mr. Miller, refused all negotiations saying, "I'm here as a volunteer, giving my services, and I don't see why these girls can't give a little something." Result was a union committee suddenly confronted Senator Wagner, the chairman, and some fun in the newspapers about the Labor Board having "A case of its own." Senator Wagner was sufficiently startled that he told me "We have got to have a happy family. Now you tell Battling Murphy, who is a good girl, to lay off." I told him that I did not believe in throwing monkey wrenches into unions, especially as I knew the girl was right, and that the matter of hours could not be settled that way. It is typical of Wagner that not only did he instantly say "Don't say anything to her," but he telephoned me from his office to make sure that I did not interfere with the union committee. After hearing the committee he ordered Miss Murphy paid and ordered the staff put on standard Government hours. But it took the union committee several weeks more effort to get Miss Murphy her pay and to get the beginnings of a solution of the hours question installed-which is of course compensatory overtime, which schedules regularly kept. There are several members of the old union left. It is characteristic of union histories that the local practically died during the slack time last summer but I see signs of it springing up again because this Board is now working under emergency conditions and naturally some organized way of dealing with these will be pressed for.

Mr. TOLAND. Now, Mr. Blankenhorn, isn't it the fact that while you have been employed by the Board, you have also aided unionization of the C. I. O.?

Mr. BLANKENHORN. Oh, no.

Mr. TOLAND. Is it a fact, or is it not a fact, that you

sponded with Mr. Murray?

Mr. BLANKENHORN. Yes.

Mr. TOLAND. And Mr. Irwin?

Mr. BLANKENHORN. Yes.

Mr. TOLAND. And Mr. Clinton Golden?

Mr. BLANKENHORN. Yes.

have corre

Mr. TOLAND. And isn't it a fact in connection with the correspondence that you had with those men, that you stated how you were pushing Mr. Lewis to a certain action?

Mr. BLANKENHORN. I don't know

Mr. TOLAND (interposing). Along with other people?

Mr. BLANKENHORN. In regard to organizing?

Mr. TOLAND. Yes. In regard to any union activity.

Mr. BLANKENHORN. No; I have no recollection of that.

Mr. TOLAND. Did you ever discuss with Mr. Lewis or with officials of the C. I. O. their proposed plans for unionization of any particular industry?

Mr. BLANKENHORN. I have discussed the question of steel unionization with labor leaders going back for 20 years, from Samuel Gompers

on.

Mr. TOLAND. I am not questioning you about that. I am asking you now, while you were employed by the Government of the United States as an employee of the National Labor Relations Board, if you did not interest yourself in the activities of union organization, and participate by communicating in writing with labor leaders.

Mr. BLANKENHORN. I certainly did interest myself in it, and studied it closely. I did not participate in any union drives.

Mr. TOLAND. Did you ever make any speeches since you have been employed by the National Labor Relations Board?

Mr. BLANKENHORN. One.

Mr. TOLAND. When was that, and where was it?

Mr. BLANKENHORN. At the conference, I think it was called, of social workers, in Indianapolis, I believe May 28, 1937.

Mr. TOLAND. Do you know who it was, and can you tell the committee, who arranged the conference and who was connected with it?

Mr. BLANKENHORN. I don't know who were the officers of the conference. I know that the invitation to me was extended by Miss Anderson, of the Department of Labor, and that I refused it because I am not a speech maker, and then it was renewed and I went out and talked to them.

Mr. TOLAND. Before you went and talked with them did you submit your proposed speech to the Chairman of the National Labor Relations Board for his approval?

Mr. BLANKENHORN. I sent him a copy of the speech just before I went out there and suggested that perhaps I had better make it plain that this was a purely personal statement, and drafted a statement to that effect and sent that to him, and he said that that was all right.

Mr. TOLAND. Would you tell the committee while you were employed by the Board and were paid by the Government of the United States, how it is possible for you to appear and speak in your personal capacity on matters that you are engaged in during your occupation for which you receive compensation from the Government of the United States?

Mr. BLANKENHORN. It was at the invitation of this organization, and I noticed that they had other speakers there at times from the Government.

Mr. TOLAND. Well, do you have a different view about unions from a personal standpoint than that as an employee of the Government of the United States?

Mr. BLANKENHORN. You mean unions in general?

Mr. TOLAND. No; unionization, labor unions.

Mr. BLANKENHORN. I really do not quite grasp your question, Mr. Toland.

Mr. TOLAND. I will ask you this: Is your view or your opinion of the benefits of one type of labor organization, as against another, different in your status personally from that as an employee of the Government of the United States, or is your opinion the same in either status?

Mr. BLANKENHORN. I have general views about unionization, but they only enter into my work for the Board in the course of investigating particular segments of industry or particular union activities there, and those are from the point of view of information. There is no opinion in those reports.

Mr. TCLAND. Isn't it a fact that you approve sit-down strikes? Mr. BLANKENHORN. No; I never made any statement approving sit-down strikes.

Mr. TOLAND. Did you discuss sit-down strikes in a speech you made in Indianapolis?

Mr. BLANKENHORN. I raised a question about sit-down strikes in that speech, I remember.

Mr. TOLAND. Do you recall what you said?

Mr. BLANKEN HORN. Let's see, I think I raised the question as to whether there was not a better explanation of the cause of sit-down. strikes than the one commonly given, which was a desire of em

ployees to trespass property. I suggested that a study of it might show that there was a desire on the part of employees to put themselves in a safe place. It was a consideration of safety that was part of the thing that entered into the cause of a sit-down strike. I think, as I recall it, it was something like that. Have you got the speech?

Mr. TOLAND. Yes; I will come to it in due time.

Now what is your recollection as to other things that you discussed in that speech?

Mr. BLANKEN HORN. I discussed the work of the La Follette committee and of certain cases of the Board, and because the La Follette committee had made no findings, conclusive findings at that time, and I was not authorized to be a spokesman for the Board, this had to be a purely personal point of view, reporting what it was that the La Follette committee had discovered in industry. As I recall, I summarized the extent of the industrial espionage system, the extent of the strikebreaking system, and cited, if I recall rightly, several specific investigations, one I believe in steel, one the Goodyear case at Gadsden, and then I gave a few general conclusions of my own about the sort of thing that this meant to have armed men, an espionage, planned arsenals, that sort of warfare.

Mr. TOLAND. Now, isn't it a fact, also, that you pretty generally reported both orally and in writing to the Chairman and members of the Board of your activities?

Mr. BLANKENHORN. Yes.

Mr. TOLAND. Isn't it also a fact that you have reported to the Chairman and members of the Board, orally and in writing, what has gone on in the committee of the Senate, the subcommittee of Civil Liberties? Mr. BLANKENHORN. Yes. There are a number of memoranda of mine containing the discussions in executive session of that committee. Mr. TOLAND. Isn't it also a fact that while you were connected with the subcommittee on Civil Liberties, you furnished to the Labor Board and to its employees, material that had been obtained by the Senate of the United States under its subpena powers, and had been not placed in the record before the Senate committee, and was used by the Board and its employees in cases pending before it at that time? Mr. BLANKEN HORN. There were-the material furnished was of two sorts, and

Mr. TOLAND (interposing). Answer "yes" or "no." Did you, or did you not? Mr. BLANKENHORN. Yes.

Mr. TOLAND. Now, tell the committee your best recollection as to the number of times that you furnished material to the National Labor Relations Board that was obtained by a subpena of the Senate of the United States for the use of the Board in cases pending before it when the material that you had turned over to the Board had not been placed in the record before the Senate Civil Liberties Committee.

Mr. BLANKENHORN. I cannot tell you the exact―

Mr. TOLAND (interposing). Well, would you say it was 10 times, or 50? Wasn't it frequent?

Mr. BLANKENHORN. I would say it was occasional. Remember, you said material obtained under subpoena. I am trying to pick out. Mr. TOLAND. Well, let's take it if it was turned over voluntarily to the Senate Civil Liberties Committee.

Mr. BLANKENHORN. Frequently, then.

Mr. TOLAND. Frequently? Now, in addition to your activities of reporting what went on in conferences with members of the Civil Liberties Committee of the Senate of the United States, you also reported, did you not, to the Board about your attendance at conventions of the C. I. O.?

Mr. BLANKENHORN. Of each convention that I went to; yes.

Mr. TOLAND. And it is a fact, is it not, that you reported to Mr. Madden and to the Board on the 18th day of October, 1937 with respect to the attitude of the C. I. O. toward the Board?

Mr. BLANKENHORN. That is correct.

Mr. TOLAND. I show you this communication, found in the files of the Chairman of the National Labor Relations Board, and ask you if you did not prepare it and cause it to be distributed by the Chair

man?

Mr. BLANKEN HORN. That is correct.

Mr. TOLAND. Do you think that the Board will disassociate itself on this report?

Mr. BLANKENHORN. That question will have to be addressed elsewhere.

Mr. TOLAND. You don't see anything harmful in that, do you? Mr. BLANKENHORN. May I explain it?

Mr. TOLAND. You don't see anything harmful or improper in the performance of your duties in submitting that report?

Mr. BLANKENHORN. I wouldn't have submitted it if I thought it was improper.

(The document entitled "Interoffice Communication, National Labor Relations Board, from Heber Blankenhorn to the Board," dated October 18, 1937, was received in evidence, marked "Exhibit No. 1231," and appears below.)

Mr. REILLY (reading from Exhibit No. 1231):

At the close of the C. I. O. conference in Atlantic City, the impression that the Board "came out on top" was discernible even among those who led in criticizing the Board. It was admitted that the Board "might be more set in its mind than ever" as the result of counterbalancing criticism from A. F. L. and C. I. O. This was not exactly what was wanted by those who very much hoped to change the mind of the Board. The C. I. O. criticism then might be written off. But, from my talks in Atlantic City I suspect that it would be very much a mistake to underestimate the feeling against certain Board decisions. To the C. I. O. leaders, their move in criticizing the Board was part of their fight with the A. F. L. They saw themselves throwing brick-bats through the Board's plate glass window straight at Bill Green. Leaders like Hillman were skeptical when told that cumulative criticism might damage the Board's authority and be an excuse for "Amending" the Law. When, on Friday morning, I showed Hillman editorials in the Washington Post and in Philadelphia papers, referring to a Board threatened with discredit and calling for Wagner Act Amendments, he showed only irritation and silence. He and others were emphatic, of course, that they would not tolerate "Amendments" to the Law and that they had so indicated. I suggested their indication was mighty feeble.