The CHAIRMAN. Well, members of your organization. Did you not publish thousands of pamphlets, your organization, which went to manufacturers in almost every place in the country in connection with the interference of legislation with economic laws, during that campaign?

Mr. SARGENT. We published then, as we had before, and as we are doing now, literature bearing on those subjects; yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Did you not publish many thousands of pamphlets and documents? I am not criticizing you for it.

Mr. SARGENT. I appreciate that.

The CHAIRMAN. That is your right as a citizen. But I did not think that there would be any question about that, because I happened to see some of them, and some of them were well written on that side. I did not agree with them. Do you not also recall that you published some of the Brookings Institute statements and circularized them to the manufacturers throughout the country, on the question of hours and wages?

Mr. SARGENT. I don't believe we published any of them. We quoted from some of them in our publications, Senator.

The CHAIRMAN. Did you not know that they were sent out all over the country as an argument to the manufacturers against the Democratic Party getting in control because it did propose to bring about that legislation which you considered, and many people do, that you considered an effort to interfere with the economic law?

Mr. SARGENT. I can assure you, Senator, that we sent out no literature over our own name or anyone else's, which had any relation to the program of the Democratic Party in reference to the campaign.

The CHAIRMAN. It did not have a reference to the campaign, but it did have references to the hours law and the wages law, the socialsecurity law, and the Wagner bill?

Mr. SARGENT. As I say, Senator, we sent out literature then as we had before and as we are doing now, dealing with those subjects.

The CHAIRMAN. Didn't you send out a great deal more between June of 1936 and November 3 of 1936 than you did in 1935?

Mr. SARGENT. I think possibly we added to our campaign during the whole year of 1936 more than 1935, and I hope we will do more this year than we did last year.

The CHAIRMAN. And you were waging an active campaign were you not I am not talking about a political campaign-you were waging an active campaign to try to convince the people who received this literature that this effort legislatively to interfere with hours and wages and collective bargaining was all wrong and economically unsound?

Mr. SARGENT. I would not say that we expressed opposition to collective bargaining as a principle.

The CHAIRMAN. I am talking about the Wagner bill.

Mr. SARGENT. The Wagner bill in particular; yes; we have opposed that.

The CHAIRMAN. You do know, do you not-a man testified before our committee 2 or 3 days ago-he is a manufacturer, and he stated that in January of last year he employed 150 new employees because he wanted to get ready for a law providing for minimum wages and maximum hours, knowing that it was coming, because of the issues

that had been raised in the campaign and the direction in which things were going. That was discussed all over the Nation, was it not, in the campaign? Wages and hours?

Mr. SARGENT. Generally, the general problem; yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Of wages and hours?

Mr. SARGENT. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. That was one of the real issues in the campaign, wasn't it?

Mr. SARGENT. I think the problem of hours, perhaps more than wages, but certainly there was discussion of that; yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. There is no question from your viewpoint as an economist and as a man connected with a semipublic agency, that that matter has been under careful and painstaking discussion and scrutiny over a period of a number of years, hasn't it?

Mr. SARGENT. It has been under great scrutiny and discussion; yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. And you realize, of course, that if Congress carries out that platform which was submitted to the people, that it needs all the assistance it can get? I understood you to say that you considered it perfectly right to come up here and criticize the bill, and I fully agree with you.

Mr. SARGENT. I think it is constructive, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, may I ask you this, approaching it from just a little different method. This committee has this bill, and my belief is that there is a real honest intention on the part of a great many Members of Congress and the Senate-probably in both parties-to try to enact legislation. If your organization would accept that as a reality, just as you said, and you would aid to try to make it the most workable bill possible, not only by the criticisms which you have offered but by cooperating with Mr. Emery and the other members of the organization and trying to aid us in not falling into some of the pitfalls which you have mentioned with reference to a too-widespread delegation of authority, but at the same time having that delegation which you have stated you believe would be absolutely essential, I think if you do make this effort, I think that you could really be of great assistance in that manner.

Mr. SARGENT. Well, Senator, as you have stated, well-intentioned people may disagree about the merits of different things. We can accept that as a premise. From that premise, if we proceed on the assumption that you as the chairman of the committee or the other members of the committee ask us, knowing our belief about the intrinsic economic merits of the bill, to nevertheless assist you in devising a bill that would be as workable as possible, in our opinion, I am sure we would esteem it a privilege to cooperate with you.

The CHAIRMAN. I mean this, and I am really sincere about it. We are going to begin to consider after our hearings, the type of bill that the committee will report. If we could have from those who know something about business and labor and who recognize the fact that the probability is that a measure will be passed, a real bona fide effort to try to make it the best possible to accomplish the purposes, and coming from a number of different sources with different men trying their skill at draftsmanship-and I am not one of those who object to having any kind of a lawyer or anybody else help to draw a bill, because I have had experience in trying to. I

know it would be very helpful in the consideration of the matter, and I know as you know, that the task of properly drafting a bill of this kind is a big task.

Mr. SARGENT. That is correct.

The CHAIRMAN. I don't know just exactly the type or what changes will be made, if any, or what alterations could be made that would come nearer bringing about legislation to accomplish the purpose. May I ask you just this one other question? Someone has suggested, and you suggested in connection with the difficulty of the administration of the law over a widespread territory-someone has suggested that the bill should provide for some kind of regional boards to act before final action is taken by the Board in Washington. Would you consider that that would be a helpful thing in connection with the administration of the act if it should be passed?

Mr. SARGENT. I should imagine that in practice, whether it was provided in the bill or not, that the operation would have to be set up in some such way if the bill were enacted, as to provide for regional groupings or zones of the Board or divisions of the Board or something of the sort.

The CHAIRMAN. You do not believe, do you, Mr. Sargent, that you and the economists of the Federation of Labor-I am just using you as illustrations-just as I might use myself, for instance, and Dr. Multon, of the Brookings Institution-you do not think that you and the economists for the American Federation of Labor would be much closer on the effect of legislation or legislative declarations on wages and hours if we waited 6 months than you are now, would you? I am not talking about the details of the bill, but I am talking about the general principles of application.

Mr. SARGENT. I think if we were to have 6 months-if we had 6 months' conferences with the economists and representatives of the American Federation of Labor, for example, that we might at the end be quite as far apart as we are now on the hours problem, but we probably would be pretty close together as to the effects of the wage limitations.

The CHAIRMAN. Your idea is that it should clearly provide that the purpose is to fix a minimum wage-with which all of us, I think are in accord-and not attempt to fix all wages up and down the scale. That is what you oppose?

Mr. SARGENT. I believe it would be impractical for Congress to try to establish hundreds of differentials such as exist throughout industry, certainly.

The CHAIRMAN. As I understood your objection, it was that you construed the bill to be an effort to carry fixed wages all up and down the line.

Mr. SARGENT. Well, no. The bill itself does not do that. What I said, Senator, was that if you tell an employer, for example, who has a 38-cent minimum hiring wage, for illustration, that that should be 45 cents, and the men in the next grade above that are now receiving 48 cents, then they would want to get 55 cents to maintain their differential, and that would cause the employer in his practical operations to have the problem of reviewing all of the wage classification up the line. I did not say the bill itself did that, Senator.

The CHAIRMAN. As a matter of fact, whether we act on this legislation next week or next year, you and I know that there would still be the sharp conflict of opinion that we have had over this.

Mr. SARGENT. I imagine even after the bill had been in operation, there would still be differences of opinion as to how the bill was working and would work.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Mr. Emery, did you say you have another witness?

Mr. EMERY. Yes, sir. Mr. Robert B. Dresser.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Dresser, this statement says that you are the acting chairman of the Committee on the Relation of Government to Industry of the National Association of Manufacturers?

Mr. DRESSER. That is right, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. In what business are you engaged, Mr. Dresser? Mr. DRESSER. I am a lawyer.

The CHAIRMAN. A lawyer.

Mr. DRESSER. And I am a member of the board of directors of the National Association of Manufacturers.

The CHAIRMAN. Where do you come from?

Mr. DRESSER. My home is in Providence, R. I.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well. You may proceed with your state

ment.

STATEMENT BY ROBERT B. DRESSER, ACTING CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE ON RELATION OF GOVERNMENT TO INDUSTRY OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MANUFACTURERS

Mr. DRESSER. I am appearing before you in my capacity as acting chairman of the Committee of the National Association of Manufacturers on the Relation of Government to Industry.

With the broad objectives of the Black-Connery bill we are in entire accord. Our statement of principle, adopted last December, opens with the following pronouncement:

Better living, better housing, more of the necessities, comforts, and luxuries of life, steadier work, more certainty of a job, more security for old age these are the natural desires of every human being. They are the progressive objectives of American industry.

This embodies the same aims and purposes as the proposed legislation which we are considering today. Therefore, there is no disagreement between the sponsors of this bill and the manufacturers of the Nation as to the goal toward which we are heading.

We agree that there is no place in this country for the exploitation of children in gainful employment; a survey of the association's membership made last year revealed virtually no child labor; you are aware that the National Association of Manufacturers has twice this year urged upon the Congress enactment of child-labor legislation based upon the Prison-Made Goods Act.

We agree, too, that there is no place in this country for the exploitation of adult labor in what has popularly become known as "sweatshops", and the association at its last annual meeting pledged itself to support legislation against sweatshops.

Yet, while agreeing 100 percent upon objectives, it often happens that men differ upon the means of accomplishing the desired ends. With the methods proposed by the Black-Connery bill, we must

respectfully differ. Since the introduction of this bill in Congress, our board of directors has expressed its disagreement with the methods by which it is proposed to reach our objective. There has not been time, as you are aware, for us to hear from our entire membership, but from the expressions that we have received I have no hesitancy in stating that the views which I shall express are representative of a preponderant majority of those who operate the manufacturing industries of the Nation,

In this connection, I should like to quote to you the pronouncements of our last two annual conventions upon the principles involved in this bill.

In the declaration of principles, adopted last December, it was stated:

Under our industrial system wages have been raised, working hours lowered, and living standards at the same time have greatly advanced. This has been made possible by improved methods in manufacturing, in agriculture, and in the service industries. We believe this improvement will continue under the American system of free entereprise, and that wage and hour changes will be made as the improved production methods make them possible. Should arbitrary reduction of working hours limit necessary production, the unavoidable increasing cost will reduce the consumer purchasing power we desire to enlarge. We dedicate ourselves to further improve methods to the end that the advance may continue both in working conditions and in living standards.

And in the 1935 Platform of American Industry several factors were listed as hampering progress toward the goal of better living for all. These included:

"Attempts, by centralized decisions, to regulate or control production." It was pointed out that these discourage initiative, and the incentive to improve methods and products, and to reduce cost, and thus perpetuate inefficient methods, uneconomic production, and high costs.

It was further pointed out that national "attempts to regulate * * hours of work, rates of pay, and other working conditions in industry" must inevitably in practice ignore varying local and other conditions and the economic factors resulting therefrom.

I wish that it were possible to come before this committee and urge the enactment of this bill, because of its high purposes and intent. But we who have seen N. R. A. fail cannot believe that success can be found by going even further in the wrong direction. Public opinion, which had lost its faith in the old N. R. A. even before the Supreme Court acted, will not, I believe, find encouragement for future progress through the revival of old experiments in a somewhat different garb.

To those who seek to belittle the objection to the present bill that it confers on the Federal Government powers that should be exercised, if at all, by the States, I quote from an address by President Roosevelt made in 1930 when he was Governor of New York:

The preservation of this home rule by the States is not a cry of jealous commonwealths seeking their own aggrandizement at the expense of sister States. It is a fundamental necessity if we are to remain a truly united country.

Gentlemen, the decision which you will make upon this bill will be one of the most historic in the history of the United States. For 7 years now we have sought to meet emergency conditions with emergency measures. The recovery period is now well under way. If, as