brotherhood officials at the local and higher levels as to whether or not men should go through picket lines or should not go through picket lines in regard to the individual factual circumstances of a local yard

situation.

Is that true?

Mr. GREENOUGH. That is true, and particularly important.

Senator MORSE. It is also going to result in great controversies between the carriers and the Government in regard to a point that we have not said much about but; namely, who is going to pay the bill, the carriers or the Government.

Mr. GREENOUGH. That is true. I have avoided mention of that except passing on it very briefly. But it would involve terrific economic complications.

Senator MORSE. But it is involved in the problem?

Mr. GREENOUGH. Yes; it is.

Senator MORSE. Do you agree with me that the Federal Government by a mandated order cannot under our constitutional system confiscate property without due process of law?

Mr. GREENOUGH. Yes, sir; I do.

Senator MORSE. Would it not be expected that following such a program if the Government tried to put it into operation by legislation, that the stockholders are entitled as a matter of right to have the presidents and their board of directors proceed to bring whatever necessary legal action is warranted to protect the constitutional rights of the stockholders?

Mr. GREENOUGH. I would strongly suspect that that would be the

case.

Senator MORSE. I mentioned this yesterday in passing and I will mention it in detail probably in argument rather than on the record, the Supreme Court's holding, for example, in the steel seizure case, and don't forget we had a Korean crisis then.

I happen to believe that the Government has the power to seize if the facts meet the criteria that the Court laid down in that case justifying seizure but it found in that case that the fact did not warrant it. Now it is true that was a Presidential order. But it does not change the constitutional rights simply because the seizure is under legislation. There are great differences in the two cases but not on this point. Therefore, we have to take a look at the facts in this case and for whatever it is worth it certainly determines my judgment. It is my opinion that if we passed a seizure law it would be thrown out on its ears on constitutional ground by the Court eventually on the basis of existing fact.

Now this situation can worsen to where a seizure can be justified. Now, Mr. Greenough, you have made some comment about the possibility of a long strike. Suppose you were confronted with either the Leighty plan or the suggested general seizure plan, do you think there would be a tendency on the part of some of your colleagues running the railroads of the country to take out their pencil and figure up the cost and reach the attitude, "Well, if that is the way the Government feels about it, the Government wants this kind of capitulation, if it is willing to go this far we might as well throw in the sponge and surrender and then proceed with litigation and with request be

for the Interstate Commerce Commission to try to recover some of our losses"?

Do you think there is a danger that this proposal for either one of these types of seizures might be interpreted by the management of the railroads as in effect a capitulation to the brotherhoods on the part of the Government that instead of fighting it you would surrender and go ahead and try to get your legal remedies in other forms?

Mr. GREENOUGH. Senator, I can only answer for the Pennsylvania Railroad but I would reluctantly confess that we would probably have to look at the whole situation in those terms. We would not like to. We consider it wrong, we consider it bad for our employees, for our stockholders, for our company. But to be realistic I am afraid we would have to.

Senator MORSE. I think that is a very important answer. I think it makes it doubly hard if a fellow says to me and my colleagues on this committee, it really puts it right up to us to try to do our best to work out a legislative solution here that will keep to the minimum the socalled mandatory approach, and make available to the maximum the approach of voluntarism.

We are not a group of Solomons but I submit that you will have a hard time finding a solution that offers more than this solution and at the same time places the public interest where it belongs right there on top, to be protected at all costs.

So, Mr. Greenough, I want to say to you as a railroad president, and I am not a preacher, nobody ever charged me with that, but I think this gets in a sorry situation that will flow from any type of seizure if the Congress should make a bad mistake in judgment and go that route.

I don't think it will but we never know what Congress will do, but I think that will create for some years to come a worsening in labor relations within the industry that ought to be avoided.

All I can say is that I plead that if this legislation is passed and I think the odds favor its passing, that there be worked out a mediated settlement within that first 30-day period and get this behind us and get on with the job of meeting the emergency needs of the country.

I have met with a good many railroad presidents in times gone by on very difficult railroad cases such as the 1941 crisis. I have found them when the chips were down, as we put them down, and the heads of the brotherhoods the same attitude, when they really understand this is it, they usually can be counted upon to reach a mediated settlement.

We reached one in 1941. It was tough going but we reached one. I don't mean that you railroad presidents all liked it and you don't need to be told that the railroad brotherhoods didn't like it. When it was all done and the decision was rendered there was a consensus of opinion under the circumstances that was the best that could be done and they were kind enough to say to me that they were willing to accept it and that they appreciated at least the effort.

I think you are just about in the same situation now. I think we have to have the same kind of industrial statesmanship exercised on both sides. I don't know what this panel under this legislation is going to do. That is going to depend on the parties.

But I do know that it has to confine itself, and I shall make this legislative history perfectly clear before this is passed, if it is passed, that it has to stay within the collective bargaining and mediation framework the parties have constructed for themselves.

It is their house, and this panel as far as legislative intent is concerned has to live within that house and not seek quarters elsewhere. I appreciate your testimony. I am sorry that I have taken as much time as I have but it may very well be that this discussion this morning could be a turning point in this case. I want you to know that I have the same high regard for you as I have for the chiefs of these brotherhoods who at the present time are very unhappy with the Senator from Oregon but that is not going to deter me from carrying out what I think is my clear public trust, and I hope that you in conference with your colleagues at the presidential level will give some consideration at least to the plea that I have just made to try to get a mediated settlement.

I think everyone involved in this dispute knows that your final settlement will be different from anything that has been proposed yet. I am not going to sit here and give you any false encouragement that it will not be. You are all realists in labor relations. I think there will be some changes. I can't imagine a panel coming out with no changes after it has heard you all. But I don't know what those changes will be. You are realistic enough I think to know that.

I overlooked one matter that I want to raise. In Mr. Gilbert's testimony this morning he says, "In March 1966 the B.L.F. & E. struck eight railroads for 4 days. All defense trains that were requested to move were moved. This is a matter of court record from carrier officials. Therefore the shopcraft unions' promise of defense transportation is not an idle or empty one."

Do you have a comment to make on that statement?

Mr. GREENOUGH. Yes, sir, we were one of the eight railroads Mr. Gilbert alludes to. My recollection is that we didn't move a thing on the Pennsylvania Railroad except a few cars of perishables that we moved by supervisory crews. It is my recollection that we had no request from the Defense Department to move any specific trains and that we made no requests upon the brotherhood to move any.

Senator MORSE. I want counsel for the committee to proceed to prepare a memorandum and check the memorandum when he finishes it with the chiefs of the brotherhoods and with the presidents of the companies concerned, said memorandum to give the committee a factual analysis of what happened during these 4 days on the railroads concerned.

Time is of the essence in the conducting of these hearings. I think we can handle it by a memorandum with the parties supplementing it to any degree they want. I want counsel to notify the chiefs of the brotherhoods that they are welcome to file a memorandum on the point that the acting chairman has raised.

I want the presidents of the railroads concerned to be notified that they are invited to file a memorandum. I want to know what happened during those 4 days.

Mr. Prince, I want you to cooperate with counsel for the committee in helping to supply him whatever information he needs to have from the standpoint of the railroad.

Mr. PRINCE. I will be happy to do that.

Senator MORSE. Now I am in a very embarrassing position.

Is Mr. Lamprecht in the room? I am in a very embarrassing position. We have just reached the end of the hearing road for today. There is no chance of continuing the hearing this afternoon because of Senate obligations.

I think it is very important that you testify. Can you possibly stay over and appear before the committee at 9 o'clock tomorrow morning?

Mr. LAMPRECHT. Yes, sir.

Senator MORSE. We will stand in recess until 9 o'clock tomorrow morning at which time we will hear Mr. Lamprecht, the vice president of system operations of the Southern Pacific Lines.

(Whereupon, at 1:30 p.m. the subcommittee recessed to reconvene at 9 a.m. Wednesday, May 17, 1967.)

RAILROAD SHOPCRAFT DISPUTE

WEDNESDAY, MAY 17, 1967

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON LABOR OF THE

COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE,

Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 9 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room 5302, New Senate Office Building, Senator Ralph Yarborough (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Senators Yarborough (presiding), Morse, and Griffin.

Committee staff members present: Robert O. Harris, counsel to the Labor Subcommittee; Gene Godley, professional staff member, and Eugene Mittelman, minority counsel.

Senator YARBOROUGH. The Subcommittee on Labor will come to order and we will resume hearings on Senate Joint Resolution 81 to provide for the settlement of labor disputes between certain carriers by railroad and certain of their employees.

Mr. Lamprecht, vice president of system operations for the Southern Pacific Lines is the first witness. He kindly consented to stay over. He was to testify on an earlier date but the time ran out for the subcommittee.

Will you come around, please, Mr. Lamprecht? We thank you for staying over.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM D. LAMPRECHT, VICE PRESIDENT OF SYSTEM OPERATIONS, SOUTHERN PACIFIC LINES, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF.; ACCOMPANIED BY GREGORY PRINCE, ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN RAILROADS

Mr. LAMPRECHT. My name is William D. Lamprecht. My associate is Gregory Prince of the Association of American Railroads. I was not notified of this assignment until Monday. Consequently, I have no written testimony, it will have to be verbal.

Senator YARBOROUGH. You may proceed in your own way, Mr. Lamprecht.

Mr. LAMPRECHT. Thank you, sir.

My address is 65 Market Street, San Francisco. I am vice president of system operations of the Southern Pacific Co. The Southern Pacific Co. and its affiliates largely extend from Portland, Oreg., to New Orleans, east to Ogden, with a connection with the Transcontinental Lines to St. Louis through the Cotton Belt Railroad with lines through Dallas, Fort Worth, and northern Texas points.