Mr. FITZGERALD. I do not believe we are that bitter against each other.

Senator THOMAS of Utah. It is more or less a friendly fight now, then, is it?

Mr. FITZGERALD. That is all it is.

Senator THOMAS of Utah. Is it accomplishing any good?

Mr. FITZGERALD. The fight, you mean?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; the fight between unions. Is it accomplishing any good?

Mr. FITZGERALD. I do not know. I do not think it is having a very good effect on the unions.

The CHAIRMAN. Is it not a sort of Donnybrook Fair matter? I think it would be a great thing if some way could be found by which to get all these people united.

Senator THOMAS of Utah. Is there any great principle at stake in this fight between the rival unions?

Mr. FITZGERALD. Yes. There is a principle at stake in it. More than anything else, we want more democratic control in the progressive labor movement, which we who represent the progressive labor movement do not think we are given under the A. F. of L. set-up.

Senator THOMAS of Utah. Is it bigger than a matter of personal leadership?

Mr. FITZGERALD. No.

Senator THOMAS of Utah. It is personal leadership, then, that you are thinking about more than anything?

Mr. FITZGERALD. No; not personally. We interpret the rank-andfile leadership not as personal leadership. The right of the rank and file to have something to say in the conduct of their organization has heretofore not been granted them under the old A. F. of L. set-up. Senator THOMAS of Utah. The fundamental principle of the rankand-file unions is democratic control?

Mr. FITZGERALD. Democracy.

Senator THOMAS of Utah. By quick referendums?

Mr. FITZGERALD. Well, no.

Senator THOMAS of Utah. How would you express your democratic control?

Mr. FITZGERALD. The free and open discussion of any policy or program affecting the organization, it in turn instructing the leadership under such organization to act for the majority of the membership. Senator THOMAS of Utah. The instruction, then, comes from below instead of above?

Mr. FITZGERALD. It comes from the majority.

Senator THOMAS of Utah. In the other union do you have the theory of following the leader, without consulting the majority of the members?

Mr. FITZGERALD. You mean in the A. F. of L.?

Senator THOMAS of Utah. Yes.

Mr. FITZGERALD. The A. F. of L. credo usually comes from the top down. In other words, a vast majority has been ruled by a very small minority.

Senator THOMAS of Utah. Since your particular objection is to mediation as it is conducted by the national railway organization— I have forgotten its particular name

The CHAIRMAN. The Railroad Mediation Board.

Senator THOMAS of Utah. The Railroad Mediation Board. How do they get opinions among the railway laboring men?

Mr. FITZGERALD. How do railway men get their opinion?

Senator THOMAS of Utah. Yes. How do they assert their opinion? Mr. FITZGERALD. I do not suppose they have very much to say about it.

Senator THOMAS of Utah. Do you think that is a matter of following leaders entirely in the four great brotherhoods?

Mr. FITZGERALD. No. I believe it is merely a case of where they are in subjection due to something that has been imposed on them. Senator THOMAS of Utah. Do you really believe that?

Mr. FITZGERALD. I certainly do, Senator. There is no use lying

about it.

Senator THOMAS of Utah. So far as the four big brotherhoods are concerned, there is no opportunity for the rank and file in those brotherhoods to express their will?

Mr. FITZGERALD. There cannot be when they have this compulsory mediation.

Senator THOMAS of Utah. Has the right to strike been taken away from railway employees?

Mr. FITZGERALD. It has.

Senator THOMAS of Utah. In what way?

Mr. FITZGERALD. By the act itself.

Senator THOMAS of Utah. Since when? What provision of the act takes away from them the right to strike?

Mr. FITZGERALD. All matters concerning the brotherhoods must first be submitted to arbitration, from one board to another, and then it goes on for 2 or 3 or 4 months, and then, of course, it is probably forgotten by that time.

Senator THOMAS of Utah. Has it been successful in accomplishing its purposes for the laboring men?

Mr. FITZGERALD. In my opinion, I do not believe it has.

Senator THOMAS of Utah. You do not think so?

Mr. FITZGERALD. No.

Senator THOMAS of Utah. Has the pay gone up since the act came into existence, and have there been better hours and better working conditions established?

Mr. FITZGERALD. No. I would not commit myself on that, Senator. I do not know.

Senator THOMAS of Utah. Have you better discipline? Is labor better disciplined by its own efforts?

Mr. FITZGERALD. Well, I imagine the discipline is really what it should be.

Senator THOMAS of Utah. That would be one of the aims of your rank and file, ultimately, would it not, to bring about self-discipline? Mr. FITZGERALD. Absolutely. That is what we are striving for, and that is what we propose to do.

Senator THOMAS of Utah. Another witness, in objecting to mediation provisions in this law, objected to them only for the present. He did not take a stand against mediation as such, but he objected at the present time, while this interunion war is going on, and these interunion difficulties.

Mr. FITZGERALD. I imagine that that witness had in mind some. particular type of mediation which the unions will inaugurate themselves after harmony has been established in the labor movement. I imagine that was the reason for his stand.

Senator THOMAS of Utah. You say, though, that your committee, meeting with the employer, has such relations? They surely use the theory of mediation, do they not, in coming to their conclusions?

Mr. FITZGERALD. Yes. But this is so much quicker than mediation action would be. For instance, as I have said, on a couple of occasions under the Railway Labor Act, it has dragged out over a period of time; and then the parties who are concerned in the dispute are disgusted with it, and they lose faith in the whole thing, itself.

Senator THOMAS of Utah. But is there not just as great a weakness in this quick action as there would be in slow action?

Mr. FITZGERALD. I do not think so.

Senator THOMAS of Utah. You do not think so?

Mr. FITZGERALD. No; I do not, Senator. For instance, let me cite an example, in this manner: A vessel comes in today, and there is a dispute, say, about 10 hours' overtime for a certain type of work. The official representing that particular company that operates that vessel disputes that overtime. The patrol man down there, who represents that union, cannot adjudicate it, due to the stand taken by the operator of the vessel; and then it is submitted to the port committee. And then we call a meeting; and within 24 hours the meeting is arranged. We sit down and discuss it, and iron the differences out. And in the event that the dispute is really covered in the agreement signed between the employer and the employees, there is no reason in the world why it cannot be straightened out in 5 or 6 hours before the port committee.

Senator THOMAS of Utah. What if the committee representing the workers loses?

Mr. FITZGERALD. Well, we argue on the merits of the man's claim, you see.

Senator THOMAS of Utah. Yes.

Mr. FITZGERALD. And in our opinion, if we think the man's merits are good, we stand on it; and the employer then has to give us his side. And in the event we cannot agree, then we hand it to a referee. The CHAIRMAN. How many of those referee cases do you have? What proportion of the number of disputes are those referee cases? Mr. FITZGERALD. In San Francisco we have only had one, so far, under this particular set-up.

The CHAIRMAN. In how long a time is that?

Mr. FITZGERALD. That is in a year and a half's time now. That was with the steam schooner operators, Mr. Ralph M. Myers. A dispute came up as to the interpretation of a certain clause in the agreement, regarding the setting of sea watches and departure of the vessels on that particular day, and rate of payment of overtime for oiling winches. The union contended one way, and the operators contended the other way; and we arrived at a deadlock on it. So we submitted it to a third party, a Mr. Dickinson, who handed down a decision on it.

The CHAIRMAN. Who was he?

Mr. FITZGERALD. I think he is some professor in one of the universities, or something.

The CHAIRMAN. But not associated with shipping?

Mr. FITZGERALD. No; not associated with shipping or with the union in any way.

The CHAIRMAN. Did you have any difficulty in agreeing upon him? Mr. FITZGERALD. No; the man seemed to be acceptable to the employer and to the union; and his decision was final and binding, and we went along on that decision. It was handed down in writing by Mr. Dickinson.

Senator THOMAS of Utah. You are pretty well feeling your way, are you not, Mr. Fitzgerald? You realize all these things are more or less experimental, are they not?

Mr. FITZGERALD. As far as port committee set-ups in respect to the marine firemen's organization, it is something new.

Senator THOMAS of Utah. Or are you following some plan that has been tried somewhere else?

Mr. FITZGERALD. No; I do not know of any plan. I heard Harry Lundeberg say he had it in 1921 and 1922, but I did not know it, and we never had it in connection with the marine firemen, as far back as I can remember.

Senator THOMAS of Utah. Do you think you are making progress? Mr. FITZGERALD. I do; yes.

Senator THOMAS of Utah. Are you making progress for the industry-and by "the industry" I mean the welfare of everyone connected with it. Are you going to make it stronger?

Mr. FITZGERALD. Of course, Senator, I may be of a suspicious nature, and probably do not wholly trust the actions of the ship operators at some times, especially in view of some legislation they would like to have passed.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you think the legislation that has been handed to me to present here, by the different departments, has been set up by the ship operators?

Mr. FITZGERALD. No; but they would like to make an impression upon Congress for the necessity of such legislation, and they have ways and means of doing it. I have come in contact with them, Senator, and I know what they do at times.

Senator THOMAS of Utah. Do you think the Railway Mediation Board was set up at the request of railway operators? Mr. FITZGERALD. No; I would not say that, Senator. I do not know who was responsible for setting it up. I know why it was set up.

Senator THOMAS of Utah. It has always been interpreted as something for the benefit of railway labor, has it not?

Mr. FITZGERALD. Not always; I do not think so. contended that it was something for the benefit of us. Senator THOMAS of Utah. That is, now?

We have never

Mr. FITZGERALD. Yes; that is now. But it has been the same ever since it has been set up.

Senator THOMAS of Utah. But you did not oppose the setting up of the railway mediation system, did you? Your people were not opposed to that principle, were they, and were you?

Mr. FITZGERALD. We had no right to oppose it, because it did not affect us.

Senator THOMAS of Utah. But you are American citizens.

Mr. FITZGERALD. No; we did not oppose it at the time. Of course, it was something new, and we thought it might have been workable in the interests of the workers. But we have subsequently learned that it is not.

Senator THOMAS of Utah. It was assumed by another witnessand that is why I am asking this question, in order to get the connection with the testimony-that after your organization has become effective and after you are all working, then, of course, there will be a place for mediation on that score, squarely as you have it in the railways.

Mr. FITZGERALD. Not enacted into law. We think we can set up a fair type of mediation between the employer and employees without going to the extent of enacting it into law.

Senator THOMAS of Utah. Do you think you can take care of the public interests?

Mr. FITZGERALD. I think so.

Senator THOMAS of Utah. Then you are in complete disagreement with the mayor of Portland on that, are you?

Mr. FITZGERALD. Of course I disagree with the mayor, Mayor Carson-on a good many of his statements. I should like to cite a little incident wherein I sent six men up to Portland, to relieve a situation that existed up there last fall. I sent the men up there from San Francisco headquarters, just because there was a minor insurrection in my own organization, and the agent up there did not supply the crew to the vessel.

Senator THOMAS of Utah. Would it be hard to show your organization the theory of public interest in these things?

Mr. FITZGERALD. No; I think it would be very easy to instruct them.

Senator THOMAS of Utah. Do your members ever ask you concerning whether certain matters are in the public interest, or do they say "it is our interest?"

Mr. FITZGERALD. It has always been my ambition to instruct the men along the lines of public interest.

Senator THOMAS of Utah. Is that developing?

Mr. FITZGERALD. It is our purpose to instruct the men along such lines, in our membership. Of course, I am vitally interested, myself. (Following a pause:)

The CHAIRMAN. Is that all now?

Mr. FITZGERALD. That is all I have to say, sir. Thank you.

(Mr. Fitzgerald submitted the following for inclusion in the record :)

STATEMENT MADE BY SAMUEL COHEN, DELEGATE, STEAMSHIP "HOOVER," TO E. F. BURKE, SECRETARY, MARINE COOKS' AND STEWARDS' ASSOCIATION

JANUARY 7, 1938.

Q. When did ship strike rocks?--A. A little after 12 midnight. Q. Was there any danger?-A. Passengers all on deck, ship resting on beach; nothing to get excited about. Boats were lowered in the morning, taken safely ashore; told to go to bed, and served them coffee; most of crew up all night.

Q. During this time, did you see members drinking?-A. No.

Q. No drinking while crew was on board?-A. No. Not by crew.

Q. Not while passengers were being taken off ship?-A. None at all.

Q. Passengers were landed safely on beach?-A. Yes.

Q. Please make a statement regarding men breaking into bar.-A. Absolutely not true.