He objected to documents that were offered on behalf of the committee; the same objection was made to him because it was 6 of 1 and half a dozen of another, and the ruling was made as to both groups. Mr. WATTS. But the other hearings were printed. Mr. TOLAND. Subsequent to that, with the exception of last Friday, when the exhibits were held up on that day. I would like to dispose of and have last Friday's exhibits printed right away without these. The CHAIRMAN. Any objection to that? Mr. WATTS. Not at all. Mr. TOLAND. Then have these printed with the balance of the exhibits to be printed that we filed on the 1st of August. The CHAIRMAN. After Mr. Toland makes his collection, how long will it take you to go through it? Mr. WATTS. Any reasonable time. The CHAIRMAN. A couple of days? Mr. WATTS. That is getting down pretty short. Mr. TOLAND. He has been through most of them. Mr. WATTS. You don't need much time. Is a week too long? The CHAIRMAN. I don't know that it makes any material difference. Mr. TOLAND. How about next Monday? Mr. WATTS. When am I going to get your selections? Mr. TOLAND. We will give you these-today is Tuesday-by Friday. How about Tuesday? Mr. WATTS. Are you going to mark them so I will know? Mr. TOLAND. We are going to take out what we are going to print and give you the balance. The CHAIRMAN. Better give him that and the balance. Mr. TOLAND. We will separate ours and send them over in two bunches, those we designate. Mr. WATTS. Is a week following that too long? I will do it as quickly as I can. The CHAIRMAN. Does that dispose of everything? Mr. WATTS. That disposes of this batch of documents. Then we have the matter on August 1. Mr. TOLAND. No; the whole thing is going to be disposed of by a week from next Friday. The CHAIRMAN. We are going to give you all by Friday of next week. Mr. WATTS. We can't answer, I am afraid, the material of August 1 within that time. Mr. TOLAND. Let me tell you this. Judge. Rosenberg has gone through with somebody else up there, in a day and a half or 2 days, all of the things that were offered in evidence on the 1st of August to be printed. Mr. Fahy agreed that he withdrew his objection as to certain of them. On this question alone there has been a question of delay, delay, delay, delay, so that these things have not been printed. The CHAIRMAN. I know it has, the subject has come up a number of times and I want to dispose of it now. Mr. TOLAND. We are perfectly willing to go ahead and pick out everything and give it to him by Friday. The CHAIRMAN. I think, Mr. Watts, to give you a week to do that, in view of the time you have already had, will be adequate. Mr. WATTS. We will do the best we can under whatever your ruling is, Mr. Chairman. Mr. TOLAND. Of course, if by next Friday they aren't ready, we can go ahead and print the committee exhibits. The CHAIRMAN. I have no objection to that. Mr. WATTS. I assume that does not debar us from any request to question the material as distinct from supplementing it with documents. That is not here under discussion, I understand. I don't want to be understood as foreclosing that issue. The CHAIRMAN. You meant you don't want to be foreclosed from coming to the committee and saying, "We want to submit material in addition to the material already submitted." That would be, then. a new question. Mr. WATTS. Yes. Mr. TOLAND. There isn't a great deal, Judge. The CHAIRMAN. I have no doubt you all can get together. Mr. TOLAND. I would rather have it this way. We have tried that and that has not met with any success. We will turn over to them all the things on Friday that we want printed. The CHAIRMAN. And they will turn over to you— Mr. TOLAND (interposing). On the following Friday. Otherwise, go ahead and print them. Are you adjourned until further notice? The CHAIRMAN. Yes. (Whereupon, at 4:05 p. m., the hearing was adjourned, to meet upon the call of the Chairman.) NOTE: Certain documents offered in evidence on August 1, 1940, were inadvertently described as "withdrawn." Cf. Volume 24, Part I. pp. 5000, 5001, 5002. In accordance with the ruling of the Chair these documents are on file with the committee as a part of the record. All comments and conclusions of committee investigators appearing therein have been expunged. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 28, 1940 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SPECIAL COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE THE The committee met at 10:40 a. m., pursuant to adjournment on Edmund Toland, general counsel to the committee, ex officio. Robert B. Watts, associate general counsel, appearing for the National Labor Relations Board. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will be in order. Mr. TOLAND. Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer in evidence the file of the National Labor Relations Board, furnished to the committee, entitled "United States Civil Service Commission," bearing the names "Gordon" and "Prince," and I would like to offer all of the documents, which I will read. I offer them as separate exhibits. (Communication from L. A. Moyer to Chairman, National Labor Relations Board, dated October 16, 1940, was recieved in evidence, marked "Exhibit No. 1796," and follows.) (Communication from L. A. Mover to Chairman, National Labor Relations Board, dated October 16, 1940, was received in evidence, marked "Exhibit No. 1797," and follows.) (Communication from J. C. Shover to United States Civil Service Commission, dated July 2, 1940, was received in evidence, marked "Exhibit No. 1798," and follows.) (Copy of communication from J. C. Shover to United States Civil Service Commission, dated July 27, 1940, was received in evidence, marked "Exhibit No. 1799," and follows.) (Communication from J. E. Hatcher to Director of Personnel, National Labor Relations Board, dated June 24, 1940, was received in evidence, marked "Exhibit No. 1800," and follows.) (Copy of communication from H. Ringrose, dated May 30, 1940, was received in evidence, marked "Exhibit No. 1801," and follows.) (Document entitled "Minutes of Executive Meeting of the Board, signed by Nathan Witt, dated October 23, 1940, was received in evidence, marked "Exhibit No. 1802," and follows.) (Document entitled "Minutes of Executive Meeting of the Board," signed by Nathan Witt, dated October 23, 1940, was received in evidence, marked "Exhibit No. 1803," and follows.) (Document entitled "Minutes of Executive Meeting of the Board," signed by Nathan Witt, dated October 21, 1940, was received in evidence, marked "Exhibit No. 1804," and follows.) Mr. TOLAND. Mr. Chairman, I am reading from exhibit of the committee No. 1804, which is a copy of the minutes of an executive meeting of the Board on the 21st day of October 1940: Present: Mr. Smith, Mr. Leiserson, Mr. Witt, Mr. Shover. Letters from the Civil Service Commission regarding Marie Prince and Sara Steinberg Gordon: The Board deferred action until the next meeting. (Signed) NATHAN WITT. Exhibit 1803 is as follows. This is a copy of the minutes of the meeting of October 23: Present: Mr. Smith, Mr. Leiserson, Mr. Witt, Mr. Shover. Letters from the Civil Service Commission regarding Miss Marie Prince and Mrs. Sara Steinberg Gordon: These letters, indicating the concern of the Civil Service Commission regarding the political activities of these two employees, were considered again by the Board. Dr. Leiserson recommended that the letters be referred to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, in line with the letter of August 17 from Mr. McReynolds, Administrative Assistant to the President. Mr. Smith objected, leaving no decision. (Signed) NATHAN WITT. I am reading from Exhibit 1802, which is another copy of the minutes of the executive meeting of the Board on the 23d day of October: Present: Mr. Smith, Mr. Leiserson, Mr. Witt, Mr. Shover. Letters from Civil Service Commission regarding Miss Marie Prince and Mrs. Sara Steinberg Gordon: The Board again considered the letters from the Civil Service Commission, dated October 16, 1940, concerning Mrs. Sara Steinberg Gordon and Marie Prince, respectively Dr. Leiserson proposed that the letters be referred to the Department of Justice, pursuant to the procedure set forth in the circular letter from Wm. H. McReynolds, Administrative Assistant to the President, dated August 17. 1940. Mr. Smith disagreed, since the letters from the Civil Service Commission showed on their face that the two cases came within the class described in the McReynolds circular as "based on mere vague rumor," and were thus of the type which the McReynolds circular suggests be eliminated without reference to the Department of Justice. Mr. Smith further pointed out the anonymous source of the information in each case as an additional factor bringing the cases within the class which the McReynolds circular suggests the Department of Justice should not be burdened with. As an alternative, Mr. Smith proposed the Civil Service Commission be advised that the Board is prepared to look into the matter further if the names of the persons who supplied the information were furnished to the Board. Dr. Leiserson did not agree with this proposal, as the Board had previously adopted the policy of not itself investigating such matters but referring them to the Department of Justice in accordance with the circular of Mr. McReynolds. Dr. Leiserson believes that the Civil Service Commission would not make such reports to the Board if they did not want attention, and he thinks that the reason the Commission did not complete the investigation is because another Governmental agency has been designated to make such investigations. Because of disagreement, no action was taken. Dated: Washington, D. C., October 23, 1940. I read from committee Exhibit 1801, which is a copy of a letter from the law office of Hyacinthe Ringrose, 135 Broadway, New York City: MY DEAR SIR: I ask that you address me at my residence, 265 Henry Street. Brooklyn, N. Y., instead of at my law office, because my office is filled with communists. I write to inform you that MARIE PRINCE, of about 30 years of age, an expert stenographer, now or recently in the employ of the Veterans Administra tion, is an extreme and active communist. While I do not wish the persons at 135 Broadway to know I am sending you this information, I am willing to testify personally as to Miss Prince. She was working until she passed the civil service examination, and secured Federal employment for Harry Hausknecht, lawyer. Hausknecht's law specialty is tax lien enforcement. Very truly, (Signed) H. Ringrose. I am reading from committee Exhibit 1800, dated June 24, 1940, from the United States Civil Service Commission, addressed to the Director of Personnel, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D. C.: DEAR SIR: Transmitted herewith is a letter from Hyacinthe Ringrose of New York and Brooklyn, New York, pertaining to Marie Prince, formerly employed by the Veterans' Bureau and who now, it is believed, is in the employ of the National Labor Relations Board. Very truly yours, J. E. HATCHER, Associate Chief, Investigation Division. I am reading from Committee Exhibit 1799, being a copy of a letter from Mr. Shover, dated June 27, 1940, to the Civil Service Commission, for the attention of Mr. Hatcher: DEAR MR. HATCHER: We have noted your letter of June 24 and the transmitted letter from Hyacinthe Ringrose of New York and Brooklyn, who discusses a Miss Marie Prince, formerly employed by the Veterans' Bureau and who is now employed by this Board in the Cleveland Regional Office. Although we have no reason to believe that there is any basis for the statement of Mr. Ringrose, we feel that an investigation should be made. Our agency is not equipped to make such an investigation as it should be handled. None of our people are trained or skilled in this type of investigation, and we do not have the funds or facilities for training a staff to conduct such investigations. Under the circumstances we wish very much that the Commission would conduct the investigation for us. The Commission is already equipped for making special investigations, for interpreting the findings, if any, and to advise our Board in such matters. It is therefore requested that the Commission make whatever investigation the circumstances warrant. Very truly yours, (Signed) J. C. SHOVER, Director of Personnel. I am reading from committee Exhibit 1798, being a copy of a letter from Shover to the Civil Service Commission, attention of Mr. Hatcher: DEAR MR. HATCHER: We are enclosing the original letter from Hyacinthe Ringrose, 265 Henry Street, Brooklyn, N. Y., concerning which we wrote you under date of June 27. We have made a copy of this letter for our files. I am reading from committee Exhibit 1797, being a communication from L. A. Moyer, executive director and chief examiner of the United States Civil Service Commission, marked "Confidential," and addressed to the Chairman of the National Labor Relations Board, and for the attention of Mr. Shover, dated October 16, 1940: Reference is made to your letter of July 2, 1940, and to earlier correspondence regarding Marie Prince, a stenographer employed by your Board at Cleveland, in which information was furnished regarding allegations to the effect that Miss Prince was an extreme and active Communist. It appears that Miss Prince first entered the service as a stenographer with the Veterans Administration July 29, 1937 and was transferred to the National Labor Relations Board March 23, 1938, and that she has been employed at Cleveland, Ohio, under such board since July 5, 1939. She has taken the oath of office three times, in which she solemnly swears to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic and that she will bear true faith and allegiance to same without mental reservation or purpose of eva218054-41-vol. 28-9 |