Mr. ROTH. I think it would. Senator TAFT. I wonder if the Senator would mind my interrupting for a moment. Senator PEPPER. No. Senator TAFT. In the first place, you are familiar with the rulings of the court that employers are already required to negotiate with welfare funds, are you not? Mr. ROTH. That is right. Senator TAFT. In the second place, you know that in the case of the mine strike there had already been an agreement negotiated between the parties on the subject of a pension fund for miners, do you not? Mr. ROTH. There was a difference of opinion. Senator TAFT. And the strike arose out of the question of where the miners requested $100 a month, whether that was going to exhaust the funds, so that there would be no money left for pensions. In other words, it was a difference which might arise under any circumstances, no matter what the Government said about negotiations, isn't that the fact? Mr. ROTH. That is true, and the only way you could legislate to solve that was to completely supplant collective bargaining and replace it by Government decision as to what the terms of the agreement should have been. Senator TAFT. Yes. Senator PEPPER. But I am not sure-but the impression I have is that it was the company representative on the board of trustees who refused to agree to setting up these welfare funds. Senator TAFT. No; he refused to agree to $100 a month because he said it would break the fund. Senator PEPPER. Well, later on a Republican Senator broke the tie, and did grant $100 to the miners. Maybe if that had been done in the first instance there would not have been the coal stoppage. Who was the proximate cause of the coal stoppage? Senator TAFT. May I suggest that they changed the age limit, and made various other restrictions before that agreement was made. That was a compromise agreement which was agreed to by arbitration, so to speak, between the parties, so it was proper. Senator PEPPER. Maybe if the management had shown that conciliatory spirit while negotiations were going on there wouldn't have been any strike. I am merely suggesting. Mr. Roth, that after all, good will and an attitude of fairness and a willingness to bargain in good faith collectively, each with the other, is probably after all, rather than Damoclean sword, the threat of an injunction, the most effective way to have labor peace in the country. So, I think it is well to understand that the Taft-Hartley law rather seems to encourage the idea that we are going to hold the sword over your head; whereas, the Thomas law gives authority to this Board to make an affirmative recommendation, and it makes it a duty, a statutory duty, statutorily imposed upon these parties, not to strike within 30 days, and then it is the duty of the President to take such action as he deems proper and within his authority, and to bring the matter, of course, to the attention of Congress, just as he has to do it with the expiration of the 80 days. says Mr. Clark does not purport to circumscribe the rights of the United States in this respect. On this whole paragraph, Mr. Chairman, that I have read, the one after the citation of authority, and I say to the Senator from Oregon, the Attorney General gives no authority, gives no reasoning, gives merely his belief as being based upon an earlier belief which he had. Senator MORSE. The Senator from Missouri, does he object to my inserting at this point in the record article II of the Constitution of the United States which sets forth the powers of the President of the United States? Senator DONNELL. I join in the suggestion that it be set forth. As far as I am concerned, the whole Constitution can be set forth, and I challenge anybody, in the Constitution or the amendments, to find the inherent power which is intimated by the Attorney General, and which the President, with such absolute assurance, tells the Nation that he himself has. (Art. II of the Constitution referred to follows:) ARTICLE II SECTION 1. The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of 4 years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same term, be elected, as follows: Each State shall appoint, in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress; but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector. The electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not be an inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a list of all the persons voted for, and of the number of votes for each; which list they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates, and the votes shall then be counted. The person having the greatest number of votes shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such majority, and have an equal number of votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately choose by ballot one of them for President; and if no person have a majority, then from the five highest on the list the said House shall in like manner choose the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by States, the representation from each State having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the States, and a majority of all the States shall be necessary to a choice. In every case, after the choice of the President, the person having the greatest number of votes of the electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal votes, the Senate shall choose from them by ballot the Vice President. The Congress may determine the time of choosing the electors, and the day on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the United States. No person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of 35 years, and been 14 years a resident within the United States. In case of the removal of the President from office, or of his death, resignation, or inability to discharge the powers and duties of the said office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by law provide for the case of removal, death, resignation, or inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what officer shall then act as President, and such officer shall act accordingly, until the disability be removed, or a President shall be elected. The President shall, at stated times, receive for his services, a compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that period any other emolument from the United States, or any of them. Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." SEC. 2. The President shall be Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several States, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment. He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments. The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session. SEC. 3. He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper; he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers; he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States. SEC. 4. The President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. Senator MORSE. I would not want to assume that the President would claim any powers other than those set out in article II expressly or by clear implication, and I think they ought to be in the record in view of the fact that you have asked the President to tell you specifically where he gets his power. Senator DONNELL. Yes. I think that is very appropriate, and I join in the suggestion. By the way, Mr. Chairman, in this connection, although that portion of the Attorney General's letter relating to the emergency matters has been read into the record by Senator Thomas, the entire letter has never yet been offered into the record, and at this time, if it is agreeable to the acting chairman here, I suggest that the entire letter of the Attorney General, Mr. Clark, be set forth in full in the record of this proceeding. Senator MURRAY. I understood it had been introduced. Senator SMITH. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the witness one or two questions, if I may. Senator DONNELL. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Wixcey, the clerk of the committee tells me that he thinks it has been introduced. If it has been, I withdraw the request. Mr. RoTH. You cannot have good will by legislation, Senator. Senator PEPPER. I thoroughly agree with you, Mr. Roth. I am glad to hear you say that. That is the theory of the Thomas bill, that labor felt that the Taft-Hartley law is a dagger that is behind their back, or the sword that is over their heads. We have come to the time, as has been manifest in questions here where we have regarded it as no longer possible to have free collective bargaining and industrial peace in the democratic way in this country, that you have got to have the power of an injunction always there as a club with which you can hit labor over the head. Now, do you think that is inclined to induce the favorable attitude. and friendly attitude toward collective bargaining, generally, that is most conducive to industrial peace? Mr. ROTH. I say to you quite frankly that I think it is not feared. At least the collective bargaining process has encouraged it. As a matter of fact we have had more good will and more friendliness under this act than we have ever had before. I am realistic enough to appreciate that you have to have something held over the people's heads in order to get public regard, and that is what this law did. Senator PEPPER. If the public interest is in preventing a work stoppage-let's take the coal mines. That is the case usually used. Now isn't it rather strange to you that a lot of people always approach the idea of work stoppage being prevented from the point of view of what coercion is to be applied to the worker to keep him from quitting work because he has an honest disagreement with his employer? It is remarkable how few people ever think about applying some coercion to management to make it meet labor halfway, if necessary by force of law so as to prevent the worker from withdrawing his labor from his employer, and yet if we were to propose an amendment to this law that in any labor dispute where the failure of the employer to meet the demands of the workers threatened a work stoppage which might adversely affect the national health and security, that the President shall have authority to direct the Attorney General to seek a mandatory injunction against that employer to make him grant labor demands, why they would shout radicalism and socialism and communism from the housetops. Yet it it is the other side of the same picture. Mr. ROTH. I don't think it is the other side of the same picture at all. This law doesn't compel labor unions to withdraw their demands or accept proposals of the employer by the wildest stretch of the imagination. Senator PEPPER. Does it give any increase in wages if the dispute is a wage dispute to the laborers during the 80 days they are forbidden by court order to strike? Mr. ROTH. The record will show in most cases they have been very successful in getting their wage increases. Senator PEPPER. Is there any requirement that during the 80 days the men are by court order forbidden to withdraw their labor from the employer, that they are granted any of the demands that brought about the dispute? Mr. ROTH. No; there is no such requirement, and to do that would substitute government edict for collective bargaining. Senator PEPPER. These honorable gentlemen never think about any coercion upon the employer to make him make some amends to these men who feel wronged and want to withdraw their labor. They always think that in order to preserve the public health and security you have got to forbid these men to withdraw their labor from an employer about whom they feel they have been wronged, so it depends considerably, after all, upon whose ox is being gored, doesn't it? Senator TAFT. May I correct what seems to be a misapprehension. The law, of course, says [reading]: Whenever in the opinion of the President of the United States a threatened or actual strike or lock-out affecting an entire industry or substantial part thereof, will, if permitted to occur or to continue to, imperil the national health or safety and so forth upon receiving a report from a board of inquiry the President may direct the Attorney General to petition any district court of the United States having jurisdiction of the parties to enjoin such strike or lock-out or the continuing thereof, and if the court finds that such threatened or actual strike or lock-out affects an entire industry so under this bill there is a parallel power to seek against an employer the same remedy that there is to seek against the union; isn't there? Senator PEPPER. They always try to get Senator TAFT. In the case, the Atomic Energy case, the employer was attempting to change the conditions of employment. I think perhaps the wages and certain conditions of employment in one of his plants, to make it uniform with others, and the injunction was against the employer to compel him to continue the same wages and conditions and go on operating whether he wanted to or not during this 80 days; wasn't it? Mr. ROTH. That is true. Senator PEPPER. The same but not better. Mr. ROTH. That is true. I was going to say, Senator, when you brought this point up, that if employers are locking out the dissenting unions, everybody striking, you would find public resentment against lock-outs just as there is against strikes. Senator DOUGLAS. I believe Senator Pepper has not finished his interrogation, and I should like to ask Senator Pepper if he will be willing to yield to me for a question. Senator PEPPER. Yes. Senator DOUGLAS. Mr. Roth, since the Taft-Hartley law has been passed, has your association and its members hired many more lawyers than formerly? Mr. ROTH. We have not. Senator DOUGLAS. No more lawyers? Mr. ROTH. No; we have not. Senator DOUGLAS. Have you used the services of those lawyers which you had more fully? In other words, has the Taft-Hartley law compelled you to use legal services more fully than before? Mr. ROTH. We have not. We have had very few cases for the NLRB. |