Mr. REED. Between thirteen and fourteen hundred, paying wages, as has been said here, frequently two and three times the wages paid in union shops in a similar industry, paying them first because it was desired to have competent people, and second because the owner of that business would not employ people at starvation wages.

Mr. TOLAND. Will you proceed?

Mr. REED. There work in that plant today, I think, nearly 100 women that have been there from 15 to 20 years, and they have an organization of their own.

Now let me trace the genesis of this speech, or these remarks. These outrageous occurrences had happened at the other factories only a few blocks away-the stripping of women, the beating of them with no adequate police protection, the threat to come down and invade this company, about all of which there is no dispute in this record.

These girls working down there are not inferior creatures. They are college graduates, some of them; high-school graduates, some of them; mothers of families, sisters that are supporting their other sisters and putting them through schools. When they walk out of that plant you might easily compare it with the exodus from a church. I don't mean that they are pious, but they are dressed the same way. They are fine people.

They didn't want to be subjected to these horrors. They were frightened about it. Emissaries of this union were going to them at their homes and telling them:

You had better join. There is going to be a movement on that plant. It won't do you any good to get into busses and go down. That won't protect you. The busses will be tipped over.

So they became alarmed. They had heard of injunction suits having been brought by these other companies. They were brought in the circuit courts, however, of Missouri, and the strikers paid no more attention to those courts than if they hadn't had an injunction issued. But they went down to consult a lawyer to see about getting an injunction, if they could get any relief that way. They went to one of the most reputable lawyers in Kansas City, a member of the firm of Gossett, Tyler, and some other name I have forgotten, and he started in to see if he couldn't get an injunction for them.

He was working upon his papers, studying his case, when suddenly the Supreme Court sustained the validity of the Wagner Act, and then he saw that there was one way he could protect the people, and that would be to have them organize a union of their own, and then they would have immunity from molestation, and he called them together and advised them of his change of policy and the reasons for it. They proceeded at once, or within a day or two, to organize this union.

Then, following the provisions of the law and their rights, ke represented them and they had a full organization of every kind, and they came to the company for a contract, and a contract was made and entered into.

Now, I have passed over what I meant to introduce. When these people were meeting, after they had been up and consulted Mr. Tyler and they were simply looking for an injunction-that was all they were thinking about at that time-they had a meeting in which they discussed their troubles and their fears, and the danger of these women

being assaulted, and somebody said, "Let's send for Mrs. Reed and see what the company can do to protect us."

Just prior to that there had been circulated in the plant by two of the working girls in the plant a paper in which they said-and I wish I had that paper

We, the undersigned, as members of the Donnelly Garment Company, wish to make it known that we are positively happy and contented with the position which we hold with this organization, and refuse to acknowledge any union labor organization. We are thankful for the real humanitarian interest extended to us by our employer, Mrs. Reed.

That paper was circulated without Mrs. Reed's knowledge, without the knowledge of the officers of the company, by two of the girls that worked on the machines and was signed by every employee in the company that was in town, and subsequently was signed by the few who were out of town. They presented that to Mrs. Reed.

Well, when they called her to make a speech and say what she had to say, this was what she said, and while they had a witness or two to say that she said other things, this examiner in his report puts his finding upon what is in this transcript, and I think it is a pretty good answer to Mr. Fahy's circumlocution in trying to say what they would consider and what they would not.

My colleague here tells me that the Board in its opinion bases it upon this transcript, this stenographic report.

Mrs. REED: I want to say that I am awfully happy to have this opportunity to tell you how proud I was when those girls wrote the petition out, and-Well, I have had lots of nice things happen to me in my lifetime, but I have never had anything that made me so proud and so happy as that list of names that came to my home. Many of those girls I had worked with-and who had really helped to build this business into what it is now.

Over a period of twenty-one years we have built up an institution which anybody can be proud of, anybody connected with it. I had a letter from one of the girls last night telling me that she had worked for the Donnelly Garment Company but she wasn't ashamed to tell anyone that she had worked for a garment company. When Mr. Dubinsky put Mr. Reed into the garment busi

ness

which has reference to a remark of Mr. Walsh that I was now in the garment business, I was now a dressmaker

he didn't know he was in it before-he said he would not be ashamed to belong to the Donnelly Garment Company.

We have an institution

Incidentally, I have never had a dollar of interest, or any other interest, except that I have been their attorney for many years.

We have an institution we can be proud of. You folks are just beginning to be initiated into the knowledge of just what kind of a business we are in, and some of the people that are in it.

A great many years ago when I first started, a man in St. Louis said, "You know you have to have two fires and a failure to stay in that business." We have not had any fires or any failures yet. We are twenty-one years old and we are pretty well grown up, and I think we know how to run our own business.

Just from a practical standpoint, let me say that this business has grown up around the policy of year-around work. Up until the time of the depression we practically kept that up. I increased my business in the fall of the year and I increased my machines, and then we always had plenty of business the next spring.

In the spring when the depression came on I put new machines in with the idea that I had the business and that I could give a certain amount of work to a certain number of women for a few months. You will remember that the old

girls agreed that they would share their work with the new ones that fall if they had to. They did not have to very much, but they did a little. By the time the next spring came along the new ones were the old ones, and they wanted to work, too, so we have made every effort in the world to keep the plant going.

We have built up a Nelly Don garment, and we have built up a Nelly Don trade, and each time we get up a line we try to make something that enough women will buy to keep our plant running. There has been so much talk, "Mrs. Reed isn't interested any more; Mrs. Reed doesn't care anything about it any more, etc.," Mrs. Reed may not work as many hours as she used to, but the burdens on her are bigger now than ever. No matter what anybody else may say, I'll be right here running this business.

I know you are thinking about the threats of violence that the Union is making against you and the company. I want to say that the Company and I intend to do everything possible to protect you in case of any violence. We are now trying to make arrangements with the street car company for its buses to go to certain points and pick you people up and bring you to the plant. We will let you know about this as soon as arrangements can be made.

Many of you have been here for a number of years, and you know that you have never been asked whether or not you belong to a union. The company has not discriminated against anyone on that account and Mr. Dubinsky is not going to make me discriminate against employees because they would not belong to his Union. If you want to belong that is your own business and it is up to you to decide. I will say that neither Dubinsky or any other buttinsky is going to intimidate me or the company into forcing you to join the International Union against your will.

I can't say at this time what will be done to protect you against violence, but the company's attorneys will consider what legal steps might be advisable. In any event, you can understand that the company will not submit to any unlawful attacks lying down.

Mr. TOLAND. Senator, in that connection, I hand you a copy of the decision of the Board in this case, and I ask you to point out and read to the committee the reference in the decision of the Board with respect to the statement of Mrs. Reed that you have just read.

Mr. REED. I want to give one word of explanation and then I will answer the question. That is, this reference to "make me," and "make you." join his "union," that is exactly what had been done in these small factories. They had made the employer who was practically on the point of bankruptcy make their employees join. That is what this refers to.

Now, answering your question, I read from this record; this is the conclusion arrived at by this learned board of disinterested gentle

men:

Mrs. Reed painted the I. L. G. W. U. as the common enemy of both the respondent and its employees, and promised the employees the respondent's protection and assistance against that organization. Mrs. Reed disparagingly labeled David Dubinsky, President of the I. L. G. W U., a buttinsky who was seeking to force the respondent's employees to join that Union. She promised that no employee would be compelled to join any union against his will.

Now, I have been dwelling on the——

Mr. TOLAND (interposing). I am going to interrupt you at this point, Senator Reed. I am interrupting, Mr. Chairman, because of the documents which I have and which I would like to offer. I have a communication from David Dubinsky, dated the 8th day of April 1939 with an attached copy of a letter from Meyer Pearlstein, dated April 7, 1939, addressed to Mr. Frederic F. Umhey, executive secretary of the I. L. G. W. U. I also have a communication from Mr. Witt to Mr. Dubinsky, acknowledging receipt of his letter, Mr. Dubinsky's letter of April 8, and the enclosed copy, and

I have a copy of a letter from Mr. Witt to Mr. Dubinsky, dated June 16, 1939, thanking Mr. Dubinsky for sending him a copy of the Union's statement of receipts and disbursements for June 1 to December 31, 1938.

(Letter of June 16, 1939, to David Dubinsky from Nathan Witt; letter of April 8, 1939 to Nathan Witt from David Dubinsky, and letter of April 7, to Mr. Umhey from Mr. Pearlstein, were received in evidence, marked "Exhibit No. 1360," and follows.)

(Letter of April 12, 1939, to David Dubinsky was received in evidence, marked "Exhibit No. 1361," and follows.)

Mr. TOLAND. I will read the exhibit of Mr. Dubinsky dated April 12, 1939, from Mr. Nathan Witt:

DEAR MR. DUBINSKY: This will acknowledge your letter of April 8, enclosing a copy of a letter from Mr. Meyer Perlstein to Mr. Frederic F. Umhey, dated April 7, concerning the above case.

I want to thank you for bringing this matter to my attention. I recall discussing the question of publicity on authorization of complaint with you the other day and I then pointed out to you the Board's policy of not giving publicity until the complaint was actually issued. I think this will clarify one of the points which Mr. Perlstein makes in his letter.

DEAR BROTHER UMHEY: This morning the newspapers carried the announcement that the Labor Board authorized the issuance of the complaint, the hearing is set for Thursday, April 13.

There is an interesting story in connection with this announcement. You know the pressure we brought on Washington to issue the complaint as quickly as possible. Last week when I called up Mr. Witt about our case we filed in San Antonio against the Halff Manufacturing Company, asking him to set the date for hearing in that case which he did very promptly-it will do us a world of good there because of the injunction Halff applied for.

At any rate, while talking to him about San Antonio, I reminded him of the Donnelly complaint and he promised me that he would act at once. Several days passed by and I did not hear anything about it. When I came back to Kansas City Tuesday, I was wondering why nothing was heard from the Board. The truth of the matter was that the Board in Washington had already authorized the regional board in Kansas City to issue the complaint, but the racketeers here brought the necessary pressure on the regional board to hold it back. I was really dumbfounded.

While in the office of Jane Palmer (the girl lawyer working for us) she told me in an off-hand way that the Board in Washington authorized the issuance of the complaint but that the Board here kept it quiet and that I should keep it under cover. Then, I could not help myself-I had to tell her what I thought of this entire God damn gang here.

I immediately made her get in touch with Mr. Broderick, the regional director, and I personally got in touch with him as well telling him that he had no right keeping the complaint quiet and that the complaint must be issued immediately. I just raised all the Hell I possibly could.

They got to work and began working day and night drafting the complaint. In the meantime, Clif Langsdale, our former attorney, sent a message to me by Ruckert telling me that the complaint was authorized by Washington, and if I called him and asked him, he could arrange that it be issued at once. I told Ruckert, in a polite way, what I thought of all of them. Naturally, I did not call Langsdale, but got in touch again with the Labor Board and they really worked finally this morning, the complaint was issued and the announcement appeared in the newspaper.

The Walshs did not know anything about it, all they knew was that Washington was authorizing the issuance of the complaint, and they were surprised that it was not issued.

The announcement in the newspaper this morning just worked out beautifully. I am going to court to see the expressions on the faces of Jim Reed and company. Yes, our racketeering friends tried another one of the Kansas City tricks on us but it did not work.

Fraternally yours,

MP IC.

The CHAIRMAN. Who is Meyer Perlstein?

(Signed) MEYER PERLSTEIN.

Mr. TOLAND. Meyer Perlstein, who has been mentioned by Mr. Ingraham. I will ask the witness this:

I will ask Mr. Reed if he is not a representative of Mr. Dubinsky in Kansas City at this time?

Mr. REED. He was the regional director in charge of the Southwest. The CHAIRMAN. Regional director of what organization?

Mr. TOLAND. Mr. Dubinsky's union.

The CHAIRMAN. To whom was the letter addressed?

Mr. TOLAND. To the secretary of the union in New York City. Mr. Dubinsky, the head of the union, wrote to Mr. Witt and enclosed a copy of the letter that I have just read and sent it to Mr. Witt. Now will you proceed?

Mr. REED. Now, if the committee please, I would like the privilege of expressing my views as a citizen of this country

Mr. TOLAND (interposing). May I also interrupt you again, Senator, and ask, based upon your long years in public life, based upon your service in the House of Congress, in the Senate of the United States, based upon your long years as a member of the bar of the State of Missouri, and Supreme Court of the United States, will you be good enough to give the committee your opinion as to what you think, if any, are the defects in the present act, in the operation of the act by the Board, and what amendments if any, you think the Congress of the United States should enact?

Mr. REED. That is a pretty large order. In my opinion, with reference to the way this present law has been administered, is pretty well illustrated by the report of the majority of this committee. I would like to deal with that question first, before coming to the other question.

I have practiced law for over 50 years, pretty actively, and in many courts. I claim no superior intelligence or learning beyond that of any reliable, competent lawyer. And I shall try and make my statements as moderate as I can, because in this present hearing I have an interest, but the observations I am going to make now, I make as a citizen and I would make them if I had never heard of this case.

I have never read in my life anywhere such a catalog of improper, unjudicial, unfair rulings, and acts as are set forth in this report. If one-tenth part of the report is true, this Labor Board ought to be abolished overnight, and some kind of tribunal, if one is to exist, set up with proper safeguards for the right of litigants. I read in this report that this Board, supposedly a semijudicial body, and clothed with powers in many respects, or in some respects, greater than the courts of justice possess, institutes boycotts against manufacturers, and that even before that manufacturing company has had a hearing before the Board, a process of condemnation without a hearing,