same as that to which the men who are directed by the supervisory forces belong. We know that as a fact. To us it is a fact that is self-evident.

Let me just state this to you, gentlemen, and then I should be glad to submit myself to any questions you care to fire at me. We regard these men as, let us say, the policemen who are going around in many instances through the underground passages looking after the enforcement of safety measures which have to do with life, liberty, and property, and to see that efficiency of production is maintained by each man doing what he should do. We know that if these men join a union and transfer their first allegiance to the union as against the employer, so that they accept orders from the union instead of the employer, or subject themselves to dual allegiance, those measures will not be carried out as efficiently, and the production of the coal will not be as efficient. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Merritt, I want to ask you a question or two. I heard yesterday something that I had never heard of before, to the effect that miners who join local unions of the United Mine Workers are required to take some kind of pledge or oath as a prerequisite of membership. Do you know whether that is true?

Mr. MERRITT. I think that is true of every union I have ever heard of, and it must be true of the United Mine Workers.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Costello?

Mr. COSTELLO. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Clason?

Mr. CLASON. Mr. Merritt, are you familiar with this bill? There is something I want to have straightened out in my mind.

Mr. MERRITT. Suppose you start on the assumption that I am, which is contrary to the fact.

Mr. CLASON. Have you read it?

Mr. MERRITT. I have read it.

Mr. CLASON. This is with reference to section 2. I would like to have a good lawyer's opinion on this subject. This is the first chance I have had to get a good New York opinion free of charge.

Mr. MERRITT. I may send a bill yet. [Laughter.]

Mr. CLASON. Section 2 has in it a proviso, which would be an amendment to section 5E of the Selective Service and Training Act of 1940. The proviso is as follows [reading]:

Provided, That none of the provisions of this subsection relating to deferment from service shall apply to any person who violates any of the following provisions of this Act, and every employer shall on or before the 10th day of March, June, September, and December of each year report to the appropriate selective service local board the name of each employee subject to the jurisdiction of each local board who has failed to comply with the following provisions of this Act. Now, are you familiar with section 5E of the Selective Service and Training Act of 1940?

Mr. MERRITT. Perhaps I can answer your question without even looking at the bill. Congressman Costello is, I think, entirely right in his criticism of the bill as drawn.

Mr. CLASON. When it says "any person who violates any of the following provisions of this act," do you in your mind interpret the words "any of the following provisions of this act" as applying to provisions in the Selective Service and Training Act, or have you in mind that that includes the acts included in sections 4 and 5 of this bill, H. R. 2239?

Mr. MERRITT. I did not draw the bill. It is perfectly obvious, it seems to me, that the phrases appearing twice in that quoted provision of section 2 of this bill, to wit, "of this act," are improper, and they should, if they are to be inserted in like purpose in the Selective Service Act, refer to this particular bill if, as, and when it becomes an act.

Mr. CLASON. In testifying here, your testimony is given on the assumption and the understanding, referring to these supervisory persons, that they are to be considered as included within that proviso? Mr. MERRITT. Yes.

Mr. CLASON. In your opinion, this is a question of faulty draftsmanship, so far as your testimony is concerned?

Mr. MERRITT. That is correct.

Mr. CLASON. I think all of us are intent upon getting information. We are studying all the bills together, and we want to get all the testimony it is possible to get together on the subject, if this committee is going to handle this bill at all. You have given us a very brief statement on the subject. Do you consider this question of the supervisory men of such importance that it ought to be made a part of the Selective Service and Training Act?

Mr. MERRITT. I consider it of tremendous importance. I think I would be willing to say that I see no reason why this question of importance should not be handled in this way, through amendment of the Selective Service Act. In other words, the purpose of this act, to sum it up, as I understand this particular phase of it, is to cancel or deny deferment to people who violate provisions of these acts by engaging in force and threats in connection with labor union activities involving supervisory forces, and to those who join labor unions which include in their membership such supervisory forces.

I would say that in our particular industry manpower is short, as it is in many other industries. The efficiency per man is somewhat diminished. Our machinery, of course, is not enjoying the replacements that it once did, because of the limitations of priorities. We need at this time the greatest possible efficiency of production.

Congressman Fenton said he thought this was untimely because of the demands in New York. I say that the demands in New York are untimely and that they have made this particular measure timely. Mr. FENTON. Will the gentleman yield there?

Mr. MERRITT. Let me say one thing more, and then I should be delighted to submit myself to any questions.

I can conceive of no greater need for consideration of this subject than in the time of this great war, when an important labor leader is trying to enforce his demands, which in this instance include departure from all traditional methods of bargaining.

Mr. FENTON. You understand that they are considering renegotiation of the contract. The present contract is about to expire; that is why at the present time they are negotiating in New York. I think it is appropriate that the contract should be renegotiated. That is why they are meeting in New York at the present time, whether there is a war on or not. They are living up to the rules of the game, the rules of the contract.

Mr. MERRITT. No; they are establishing new rules of the game and extending the contract to a field that it has never been extended to

before, a field to which Mr. Lewis himself in the past has opposed its extension. The whole situation involves a revolutionary change in the psychology between management and men in the production of coal, an experiment which is so fraught with danger that you cannot tell how sinister the ultimate result will be.

Mr. FENTON. Of course, the gentleman is getting away from the subject. I just made the statement that there is no reason why negotiations should not be carried on at this time in New York. The reason why they are being carried on is the expiration of the contract. Mr. MERRITT. That is correct.

Mr. FENTON. Necessarily there must be another contract?

Mr. MERRITT. Right.

Mr. FENTON. I have not said whether or not I see eye to eye as far as this particular subject matter is concerned. As I said to the previous witness, I appreciate everything that has been said here this morning. I happen to know something about these mine foremen, assistant mine foremen, fire bosses, and all those other fellows. I really cannot see how they could be loyal to the companies and be in the union at the same time. I realize that. But the question of this matter coming before us at this time, in this particular fashion, when negotiations are going on, and this is one of the controversial points at issue, makes me thing that perhaps some of the other points at issue would be just as germane in this particular committee room as they are in New York at the present time, if this is to be considered ger

mane.

Mr. MERRITT. Of course, as I understand it, Congressman Fenton, I am not passing upon the jurisdiction of this committee or the appropriateness of referring the bill to this committee; that is not my function.

Mr. FENTON. What does the gentleman thing about the question brought up about mine foremen?

Mr. CLASON. I have just a question I would like to ask.

Mr. FENTON. Well, I would like the gentleman to answer my question.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts has the floor. Mr. FENTON. I am sorry. Will the gentleman yield, so that I may finish my line of thought?

Mr. CLASON. I yield.

Mr. FENTON. Do you consider mine foremen, assistant mine foreand fire bosses as State officials?

men,

Mr. MERRITT. I should not so regard them.

Mr. FENTON. I agree with the gentleman on that. Otherwise I, as a physician, having been granted a certificate to practice medicine, would be regarded as a State official.

Mr. MERRITT. I should say something more on that question. I am speaking now from the point of view of my industry and the laws of the State of Pennsylvania. You, Mr. Chairman, spoke of a situation. in another State, which I know nothing about. However, generally speaking, I would say that those men are employed by us and are paid by us to perform specific duties imposed by the statute, under penalties imposed by the statute if they fail to perform them; nevertheless, they are not what I would regard as State officials. They may be made so

eventually, but they are not such at the present time in the anthracite industry, under the mining law as applied to the mining industry. The CHAIRMAN. And perhaps not at all in the State of Pennsylvania. Mr. MERRITT. Perhaps not at all in the State of Pennsylvania. Mr. FENTON. That is all I wish to ask, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CLASON. If I understand you correctly, it is your opinion that sections 2, 3, 4, and 5 of this bill deal directly with the Selective Service Act and should be included as amendments to that act?

Mr. MERRITT. That is correct.

Mr. CLASON. Would you say that these provisions that we have been discussing here at length this morning-

Mr. MERRITT. May I interrupt you, sir? The violation of the provisions you have just enumerated would, under the amendment of the Selective Service Act, become clauses for the denial or cancelation of deferments.

Mr. CLASON. Would you say that this covered only the particular industry in which you are interested, which I understand is the coal industry?

Mr. MERRITT. The anthracite industry.

Mr. CLASON. The anthracite coal industry? Or would you say that it applied to other industries besides the anthracite and bituminous coal industries?

Mr. MERRITT. It applies to a great many. It applies to all industries. I could give this committee an earfull about conditions in other industries, but I have appeared here only for the anthracite industry. Mr. CLASON. That is the one thing I would like to have you bring out, because the questioning and the testimony have been so largely confined to one industry. I should like to have you point out how you consider it would apply to other industries. I think that is important in determining whether this is a bill that generally involves Selective Service or is a bill which has been introduced solely for the purpose of obtaining a certain advantage in a certain industry?

Mr. MERRITT. Well, as I view this bill and its effect and the accomplishment by labor of what this bill forbids as an alternative, I think it involves a principle which extends to every industry in this country that has to do with the war effort or which comes under the definition of contractor in this bill. I do not know at the present time how many industries or how many unions take in foremen. I know some do. I happen to know that Local No. 3 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers takes in foremen. I have had those foremen, and even superintendents, in court on the witness stand, and sworn, say under cross-examination that they regarded their first allegiance to the union and not to the employer. I know that that same local union forbids the contractor or top employer from being on the job more than half an hour a day. So, while you have these foremen taken in, owing primary allegiance to the union, you at the same time have a prohibition running to the electrical contractors that they must not stay on the job any length of time.

The CHAIRMAN. Who is it who does not stay on the job?

Mr. MERRITT. The employer himself, the superintendent, or the electrical contractor is not allowed to stay on the job, notwithstanding the fact that the foreman, who is a union member, declares that his first allegiance is to the union. That is one illustration.

Mr. CLASON. Is that in the mining industry or in other industry? Mr. MERRITT. I said that was in the electrical construction industry. I am giving you one or two illustrations. I do not know, of course, about all industries. I know that it has gone so far that, for instance, we have had this type of situation as reflecting on efficiency: The Federal Government placed an order for lighting fixtures with the Reading Chandelier Co. for the Marine Staten Island Hospital. When the fixtures arrived on the job, it was ruled that they had no right to be brought there fully assembled and wired, although the Government specifications and contract provided that they should be fully assembled and wired in the factory. The result was, under the settlement finally made, that half of them had to be taken down, unwired, disassembled, rewired, and reassembled. The unit cost of doing that work on the job as compared with doing it in the factory in Reading was 8 to 1.

I know that when the General Electric Co. sent its equipment to the Ward's Island sewage disposal plant-and this would be hit by your bill-every bit of it had to be disassembled, unwired, reassembled, and rewired. They would not even use the same wire over again, although it was cut to size and fitted; but they had to cut the other wire and reassemble it, with the net result that a great deal of material was thrown into the North River. When the equipment was reassembled and rewired and put together, it was in exactly the same condition, substantially, as when the General Electric Co. had sent it down.

Mr. CLASON. Have you finished your answer?

Mr. MERRITT. I could go on to the end of time on this subject. Those are illustrations.

Mr. CLASON. Tell us the reasons why that was done. For instance, tell us the reasons in the case of the hospital.

Mr. MERRITT. I am talking as fast as I can.

Mr. CLASON. The one regarding the Federal hospital was carried out pursuant to Government specifications and, I presume, incidentally, under the supervision of an inspector; or was it?

Mr. MERRITT. No; under the supervision of the union.

Mr. CLASON. Was there not a Government inspector on the job? Mr. MERRITT. There may have been before and after; I do not know. The employer was told he had no business on the job, and he could not come.

Mr. CLASON. I do not understand why, if he carried out the Government inspections. The Federal Government would want to allow him to carry those out. Tell us the reason.

Mr. MERRITT. Local No. 3 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers claims it is entitled to all work in connection with electrical equipment which is used in New York City. Let us say, for instance, that in St. Louis there is a local union-let us call it No. 10 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. Lighting fixtures are shipped from St. Louis into New York City bearing that local's union label. Local No. 3 of the same international will not allow them to be used because they insist that their memhership shall have the employment opportunities-that is the reason for it that go with the putting together and manufacturing of every piece of electrical equipment that is used in New York City, unless