2822 The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from IIli- nois? There was no objection. Mr. SABATH. Mr. Speaker, I also congratulate, not only those who have served here for 25 years, but also those who have served longer—among them, as I recollect, ROBERT L. DOUGHTON, our be- loved Speaker, Mr. RAYBURN, CARL VIN- SON, ROBERT CROSSER, DAN REED, ROY WooDRUFF, EARL MICHENER, CLARENCE CANNON, EMANUEL CBLLER, JOHN KERR, ALFRED BULWINKLE, E. E. Cox, CHARLES EATON, JOE MarTIN, Mrs. MARY NortTON, and Mrs. EDITH ROGERS, and these who are now in their twenty-fifth year of service—CLIFFORD HOPE, our majority leader, JOHN McCorRMaCcK, RICHARD WIG- GLESWORTH, CHARLES WOLVERTON, and AUGUST ANDRESEN. But above all else, Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the President of the United States for the splendid judgment he has exercised in the extremely trying conditions that confronted him and the country; that he did not permit himself to be forced one way or to act the other way. I think his action was that of the prudent and courageous man that he is. I realize that the President has been subjected to tremendous pressure from both sides. Even his greatest critics, in- cluding my Republican friends who were trying to nake political capital out of the coal strike must concede that when it became necessary for him to act, he did not hesitate, but acted. I am pleased to see he has brought about « satisfactory solution to this vexing problem, and that in the years to come I know the histo- rians will credit him with extraordinary resourcefulness and sound judgment. I wish to again congratulate him and the country upon the splendid judgment he has used. Mr. Speaker, I have been here 44 years. If the Constitution had not been changed, setting a new date for the termination of the old Congress and the convening of the new, I now would have completed 44 years of service. Notwithstanding the Taft-Hartiey Act that tried to enslave American labor, it has not affected me in my position in this body. I have been enslaved here for 44 years. I am sometimes asked how it is that I can come back, and come back, and come back. I tell these friends who ask me, “Do right by the people, and you can come back as many times as you desire as long as you honestly represent your people.” That is my advice, ‘Do right and fear nothing.” I know that most of those who have served here a quarter century or more have, at all times, had the interest of the people at heart, and I hope some who have not will follow their course in the future. To these right-thinking col- leagues of mine I extend the hope and wish for many more years of continuous service, and that they may equal or sur- pass my length of service which now has reached the forty-fourth year. THE COAL STRIKE Mr. CHRISTOPHER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and ex- tend my remarks. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Mis- souri? There was no ob,ection. Mr. CHRISTOPHER. Mr. Speaker, I think our President deserves the com- mendation of every Member of this House on both sides of the aisle, and of all the people of the United States individ- ually and collectively. He has shown that he has great patience, a thing a man at the head of this the greatest nation in the world must have. I think he has demonstrated that he has force of character. He has handled this coal situation in a firm and dignified man- ner. In my opinion the Taft-Hartley law is the reason for this strike, and the Taft-Hartlcy law has worked a lot of harm in the United States: but the greatest harm it has worked is to the Republican Party. In my opinion the Taft-Hartley law is one reason the gen- tleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Mar- Tin} is not Speaker of the House today, and one reason that Mr. Dewey is still in New York The SPEAKER. The time of the gen- tleman from Missouri has expired. PERMISSION TO ADDRESS THE HOUSE Mr. SIKES. Mr. Speaker, I ask unan- imous consent to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend my remarks The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gcntleman from Flor- ida? There was no objection. (Mr. Sixes addressed the House. remarks appear in the Appendix.] EXTENSION OF REMARKS Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, and I shall not, I should like for some of these hilarious speakers boasting about the settlement of the coal strike to tell us just how it was settled. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Oklahoma that he may extend his re- marks in the Recorp as indicated? There was no objection. COMMISSION TO STUDY THE COAL INDUSTRY Mr. BIEMILLER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend my remarks. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Wis- consin? There was no objection. Mr. BIEMILLER. Mr. Speaker, earlier this week I introduced a joint resolution calling for the creation of a bipartisan commission to make a study of the long- range problems of the coal industry and to report in January 1951 to the Con- gress with its recommendations. I was delighted to note that yesterday the President included a similar recom- mendation as part of his message to the Congress. All of us must recognize, I believe, that part of the difficulty we are in today is because the coal industry is in economic distress. The workers in the coal in- dustry frequently get less than 200 days His MARCH 4 work a year. The mine owners, in many instances, find they have grave problems caused by the inroad of other types of fuel. These developments are having grave effects on this great basic industry. I hope the Congress will proceed to consider this proposal forthwith and set up a commission similar to the Hoover Commission, a truly bipartisan commis- sion which will bring to the Congress recommendations that may do away with the misery and distress which exist in the coal fields, eliminate the recurring crises in production, and prevent future dis- location of our economic life. THE ECONOMIC SITUATION Mr. O'SULLIVAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend my remarks The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Nebraska? There was no objection. Mr. O'SULLIVAN. Mr. Speaker, I feel rather favorable toward the adop- tion by Congress of the bill which the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Rivers] has introduced. I believe you must fight fire with fire. I believe that one must always in any real fight give back as good and, if possible, bettcr than one receives. I do not believe you can kill a skunk by kissing him to death. Here is another thing I want to men- tion: I can probably tell Dr. MILLER, my good colleague from Nebraska, just why that man came to him to have a pimple on his nose treated when he was dying of cancer. The man told me that he thought Dr MILLER was more capable of curing the pimple than in handling a cancer. THE HONORABLE SAM RAYBURN, SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REP- RESENTATIVES Mr. PATMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend my remarks. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Texas? There was no objection. Mr. PATMAN. Mr. Speaker, it is a wonderful and inspiring thing to con- template the record of public service rendered by our distinguished and able Speaker, the Honorable Sam Raysorn. It was 37 years ago today that he entered upon his first term in the Congress of the United States. That period of time spans a substan- tial and eventful portion of the modern history of our Nation, and in the mak- ing of that history Mr. RayBurn has Played a significant and influential part. But, with the true modesty that is the hallmark of his greatness, his accom- plishments in the field of statecraft have not been shouted from the housetops. That he attained the position that President Truman himself describes as “the second most powerful office in the United States” without fanfare, without publicity seeking, and without self- glorification, is evidence that his prog- ress was due to work and not to words, Speaker itayeuR is a docr and not a talker,
1950 The people of the Fourth Congres- sional District of Texas must have real- ized that long ago, because they have returned him to Washington every 2 years for 19 consecutive elections. And, in doing so, they have not only assured themselves of faithful representation of their affairs at the National Capital, but have given to the Nation a public servant of the highest order. It is a little difficult today to reorient ourselves to March 4, 1913, the day that Sam Rayegurn first took the oath of office as a Member of the House of Repre- sentatives. But let us glance backward a moment. Through the Mexican border inci- dents, through the First World War, through the so-called era of normalcy which followed it, through the dark days of depression in the early thirties, through the period of relief, reform and recovery, through the crisis of Pearl Harbor and the momentous national ef- fort and ultimate victory of World War II, and now through the postwar prob- lem period—through all of this Sam RaYBuRN has served his country; served it faithfully, effectively, and modestly. A whole panorama of national events, of political upheavals, of personalities appearing and disappearing from the scene could be recalled in connection with the period of Speaker Raysurn’s career. It embraces the term of Woodrow Wilson, his creation of the Federal Re- serve System and other notable domestic contributions, as well as the tragic fail- ure of America to accept the League of Nations. It covers the era of Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover, the calm before the storm of economic disaster. It includes the thrilling and active days of the early and later New Deal under President Franklin D Roosevelt, the close and daily application to vital problems of war and war production on which the fate of the Nation itself hung in balance. Thus five Presidents have come and gone since Mr. Raysurn first came to Washington, and, in the House of Rep- resentatives, his term of service has en- compassed the regimes of seven Sprak- ers before him, none of whom served longer continuously in that office Only two Members in the House to- day—the venerable dean, ADOLPH Sa- BATH, Of Illinois, and our friend Bos DovenrTon, of North Carolina, have been here longer than Mr. RAYBurN. Even before his clevation to the speakership, Mr. Raysunn left a solid im- print on the pages of Icgislative history of this country. He was for long the chairman of the Committee on Inter- state and Foreign Commerce, and later majority leader. He was responsible for the enactment of a number of major laws having a basic effect upon the wel- fare and economy of the Nation; among them the Rural Electrification Act which brought to the farmers of America the benefits of the electrical age, the War Risk Insurance Act which gave protec- tion to the servicemen and their kin, the Utility Holding Company Act, the Fed- eral Securities Act, and the Stock Ex- change Regulation Act, which for the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE first time imposed safeguards for the public investors in stocks and bonds, and a host of other measures I could men- tion. The years he has spent in Washington have been years of accomplishment, of increasing responsibilities and burdens of office, and of growing influence in the councils of the Nation. Yet Mr. Raysurn, with all his success, with all his high position, with all the high respect and esteem in which he is held, still is unchanged in character from the young man sent here by his neighbors and friends in Bonham and the surrounding area. He is straightforward and honest in his dealings with his fellowman, just as in his personal life he is simple in his tastes, without affectation or pomp. The greatness of this man is in his plain dignity, the restraint with which he exercises power, the respect he holds for an opponent’s views, the humility with which he carries his responsibilities, and, in his deep and abiding faith in our democratic processes and in the collec- tive wisdom of the Congress as the direct representatives of the people. Mr. Raysurn comes of pioneer stock. As a boy he labored in the fields. Wecan be thankful that this sturdiness and strength maintains him in good health to be with us to observe this anniversary today, and this also makes us hopeful that we can continue every year to cele- brate many more such occasions. I believe it was Alexander Hamilton who said: The amelioration of the condition of man- kind and the increase of human happiness ought to be the leading objects of every po- litical institution, and the aim of every in- dividual according to the measure of his power, in the situation he occupies. Sam Rayeurn has always acted toward those noble ends. EXTENSION OF REMARKS Mr. HOLIFIELD asked and was given permission to extend his remarks in the Recorp and include a short statement ACCUMULATION OF STORAGE CHARGES ON COMMODITIES Mr WHITE of California. Mr. Speak- er, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Cali- fornia? There was no objection. Mr. WHITE of California. Mr. Speak- er, In answer to the gentleman from Mas- sachusetts [Mr. HESELTON] as to the storage charges accumulating on com- modities which are being held by the Department of Agriculture, may I point out that these charges are accumulating mainly on the so-called basic or non- perishable commodities such as cotton and wheat Those commodities have never cost the taxpayer of this Nation one red cent in the final analysis. Very few people seem to realize that. I have before me the statement of the Com- modity Credit Corporation from Octo- ber 1933 through November 1949. The program to date on those basic com- modities shows a net profit of $83,000,000 to the Government, So this pimple the 2823 gentleman has been talking about really is not a pimple after all. It is simply part of a constructive program which has worked out with a profit to the Govern- ment of the United States. This pro- gram has provided a stabilization of American agriculture, and in turn, has produced a large measure of prosperity for the entire Nation in addition to help- ing us win the war and the postwar peace up to now. WORKERS DEFENSE LEAGUE LIES ABOUT THE SOUTH Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend my remarks and include excerpts from a newspaper article, The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Mississippi? There was no objection. Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Speaker, the Com- munist advocates of a world government are using mysterious ways their wonders to perform. Yesterday the Associated Press carried a story of a representative of the so- called Workers Defense League who went to the United Nations, that communistic set-up in New York that wants to domi- nate the American people and the peo- ple of every State, and told them that in the South the share croppers, cotton pickers, and others were reduced to a state of slavery. A more miserable lie could not have been uttered at any time. He went on to say that the turpentine workers are in the same predicament, and that the fruit gatherers in the Southwest and in California are in the same predicament. Then he went so far away as the Pribilof Islands and said that they are reducing the Eskimos who help to gather the sealskins on the Pribilof Islands to slavery. Now, that is just one of the few Com- munist fronts that are trying to use this set-up in New York to take over the Government of the United States and dominate the people of every State of this Union It is time the American people knew the truth about that would-be world government and that Conercss woke up and withdrew from it. The American people are capable of conducting their own affairs under the Constitution, without any help from peo- ple who have shown that they are incapable of governing themselves. The SPEAKER. Under previous order of the House, the gentleman from In- diana |Mr. Mappen] is recognized for 5 minutes, THE COAL STRIKE Mr. MADDEN. Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate President Truman on his masterly settlement of the coal strike. The devastating coal strike is now 99 percent settled. Informed sources say that the miners will be back to work Monday. This unnecessary tie-up of coal pro- duction and its repercussions on other industry should be classified by a mili- tary term as “Operations Taft-Hartley.” Cyrus S. Ching, Federal Mediator and former rubber executive, publicly stated several weeks ago that thcre had not been
2824 any honest effort at collective bargaining since contract discussions started last summer. The response of the coal oper- ators to all collective bargaining pro- posals was anemphatic “No.” The Amer- ican people were compelled to endure the inconvenience of a coal crisis because powerful interests in this country insisted that President Truman be compelled to use the injunction provision of the Taft- Hartley Act. At a terrible cost, a crisis developed wherein the President was compelled to use the Taft-Hartley in- junction. This un-American provision in the Taft-Hartley Act proved to be a 100-percent failure. Approximately 450,- 000 miners refused to go back to work in spite of the injunction. As soon as the operators discovered the monumental failure of the Taft-Hartley law injunc- tion they quickly proceeded to collective bargain with the union and coal produc- tion should be back to normal in a short time. During the last 18 months there have been more serious strikes, labor disputes, and work stoppages than any year in our history. The only exception might be the first year after the war, when thousands of labor contracts that had been status quo for 5 years during the war period came up for renewal. Had the Thomas-Lesinski bill been substituted for the Taft-Hartley Act a year ago, 90 percent of our labor trou- bles in the last 12 months would not have taken place. Every Member of Congress should re- view President Truman’s veto message of the Taft-Hartley Act which was read on this floor, June 20, 1947. I hereby quote just a few sentences from that prophetic message: The Taft-Hartley Act will prove unwork- able, create chaos in industry, and lead to bitterness between management and labor * * * Its provisions would cause more strikes, not fewer. * * * I find that this pill is completely contrary to our national policy of economic freedom. It would re- quire the Government to become an un- wanted participant at every bargaining table. * * ® Cooperation cannot be achieved by force of law. We cannot create mutual respect and confidence by Icgisla~ tive flat. * ® * I Rave concluded that the bill is a clear threat to the successful working of our democratic society. * * . By ratsing barriers between labor and man- agement, it would invite them to gain their ends through direct political action. The President, in that veto message, made numerous other statements and predictions that have come true. The Taft-Hartley Act has already proved the greatest legislative mistake since the Volstead prohibition law. This Congress must immediately re- consider legislation to repeal the Taft- Hartley law and substitute therefor the Thomas-Lesinski bill which was up for consideration last April. The great ma- jority of the American public, and, I firmly believe, of this Congress, are now convinced that the Taft-Hartley law is a monumental flop. On next Monday I am filing a bill asking that a special committee be set up by the Congress to hold hearings and completely investigate the extent of good-faith collective bargaining which has taken place during the recent coal- strike dispute, This committee should CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE also investigate the extent of the good- faith collective bargaining in other labor disputes which have tied up our economy since the Taft-Hartley Act has been in force. I am satisfied that the report of an investigation of this kind will reveal the necessity for the immediate repeal of the Taft-Hartley Act. Our American economy cannot afford to wait for the Eighty-second Congress to repeal this unworkable law. Mr. MCCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. MADDEN. I yield to the gentle- man from Massachusetts. Mr. McCORMACK. While many of his critics and opponents were talking and creating straw men for the purpose of knocking them down, President Tru- man, the only man whose constituency is the entire country, was thinking and acting and not talking. This is evi- denced by the settlement of the coal strike and also by the settlement months ago of the steel strike. We remember when the steel strike existed how many of the opponents, and our Republican friends, condemned President Truman, but he was acting in the interest of the entire people. He insisted upon col- lective bargaining with individual] com- panies. That is what prevailed. Under the present situation, the Pres- ident recognized that if the mines were taken over again it might be difficult to get the mines back into private hands. Many of the opponents of nationalization of industry, which both parties oppose, in their desire to get political advan- tage were urging the President to take this premature action. There are many mine owners who have high-cost pro- ducing mines who would like to unload them onto the Government. They do not care so long as their pocketbooks are taken care of. It is Just the same as 20 years ago, when the railroads had a drive to try to have the Government take them over. They did not think about nationalization of industry when their pocketbook was involved. They were against it academically then, but from a practical angle if the Government took them over it would have meant the nationalization of industry. The Pres- ident knew that, and anybody with com- mon sense knew that. He hesitated to take the final step. The one thing, in my opinion, that contributed more in the final stages of the consideration toward the solution of the coal situation was the provision of the bill that the President sent up and which the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. LEsINSKI} introduced, that while the President might make terms with the workers, if the Government had to take the mines over the President could not make a contract. They knew that there cculd not be any contract made by the President or any one of his representa- tives, by the Government, and that, more than anything else, in my opinion, in the final hours of the negotiations was the powerful factor that brought about the successful conclusion, The President of the United States is entitled to the commendation of the people of America for the outstanding manner in which he met the situation and contributed toward its solution. Marcu 4 Mr. MADCDEN. I thank the majority leader for his constructive remarks. COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture may have until midnight tonight to file a conference report on the bill H. R. 2023. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from North Carolina? There was no objection. REPEALING THE TAXES ON OLEOMARGARINE Mr. COOLEY, from the committee of conference, submitted a conference re- port and statement on the bill (H. R. 2023). The SPEAKER. Under previous or- der of the House, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Horrman] is recognized for 10 minutes. THE TAFT-HARTLEY LAW Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, it is my hope that some of the gentlemen who voted for the Taft-Hart- ley Act—two-thirds of the Members of the House voted for the act—will stick around today, or take occasion Monday to reply to statements which have been made today criticizing the act. I listened to the gentleman from Nebraska, Dr. Mutter, tell his little story about the pimple and the cancer, and to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. O’SuLLIvAN] comment on that story. It occurs to me that the gentle- man from Nebraska [Mr. O’Su..ivan) is & little lacking in medical knowledge. I understand a pimple is sometimes a symptom of a canccr. That is to say, sometimes a pimple will develop into a cancer. Is that not right, Dr. MILLER? Mr. MILLER of Nebraska. Mr. Speak- er, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan, I yield to the gentleman. Mr. MILLER of Nebraska. While the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. O’SuUL- LIvAN] I thought was perhaps reflecting on my ability, Iam a life member of the American College of Surgeons, and have treated cancer. Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. What I want to know is whether sometimes a pimple may possibly develop into a cancer? Mr. MILLER of Nebraska. Yes. Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Sure, that is right. So I say to my good friend, and he is my good friend I hope, the gentleman from Nebraska, you want to watch those pimples, the first thing you know you may have a cancer where first you only saw a pimple. So do not ridicule the doctor. He knows what he is talking about. In our nationai life, what may seem to be just a little pimple—oh, so very small a one—may turn out to be a cancer. The refusal, in a comparatively little matter, to enforce the law of the land may lead to insurrection and civil strife. The President, by his conduct, has condoned in labor disputes violations of the law. In the coal dispute, he refused to use the law available; then asked for law to seize privave property.
1950 Seizure of private property without authority of law—and what right has the Congress to take either the right to work or the right to do business—may result in socialism, a cancerous growth in any free society. It is rather strange and disturbing to me to hear from the well of the House praise of an executive officer whose duty it is to enforce the law—praised because he did not enforce the law. I recall the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. CHRISTOPHER] was telling us about the things they celebrated at the Jeffer- son-Jackson Day dinner. I will com- ment on that at a later date. Now, I learned this morning that to the list of events which on the same theory might be celebrated by the Dem- ocratic Party is added this failure of the President to enforce a law of the land—the Taft-Hartley Act, which it is his sworn duty to enforce. You say the law is a failure. One even said it is the cause of the strike in the coal industry. That statement is ri- diculous. If the law has failed, it is because of the lack of enforcement. The court did find that the men, according to the evidence produced before it, were not on s.rike. Now, you go out in the sticks and tell that to the people who lack coal. Tell them that the miners were not on strike, and that the failure was due to the Taft-Hartley Act. The failure of the law, you say? It was not a failure of the law. There was a failure of the enforcement officers of the Department of Justice. Did the law of the land against extor- tion fail because five gangsters were turned loose on the public by a parole agency of the Government? Oh, no; it was a corruption of justice. That is what is the matter. You might just as well say that there is no virtue in the law against assault and battery because while two or three fellows were beating me up on one cor- ner, the policeman who was standing over on the other corner could not see them do it because he was blinded by some politician. The President, for political reasons, did not want the Taft-Hartley Act on the books. The President, for the same reasons, vetoed that law. More than two-thirds of the Members of each House, at the demand of their constitu- ents, enacted that law over his veto. He did not want the law; hence he has done many things to prevent its being successfully applied. He has openly and publicly condemned it, even though he took oath to uphold the law. One of his campaign promises was that he would have it repealed. That he was not able to do. Since then, in the coal strike, he has followed a course until, from a practical standpoint, the effect is somewhat similar to a repeal. Although he was forced to use the law some six times, and although in each case it served the purpose for which it was written, contributed to the solution of a labor dispute, in this particular case the President, by permitting either ineff- client or dishonest enforcement officers to ignore the facts, has made that law ineffective. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE The President waited. He knew there would be suffering because he waited, but he waited so that he might create a sit- uation where he could ask the Congress for authority to seize the mines; when it would be embarrassing for Congress- men to refuse him that arbitrary, to my mind, unconstitutional, power. The President is a clever machine po- litical maneuverer, and, while his clever- ness may be of advantage to him from a political standpoint, it places upon him the responsibility for a great deal of unemployment, for suffering and for hardship endured by our people while he has been playing politics. You know very well that if the Presi- dent had proceeded under the Taft- Hartley Act, if the Justice Department had been worth its salt, you would have had a case of a violation of the injunc- tion. While it is true that you cannot dig coal with bayonets, the use of bayo- nets may enable others to dig coal. I will tell you what is the basic fault in this situation. This situation grows out of the fact that we granted certain privileges and benefits, special in their nature, to organized labor. Organized labor took advantage of the things we gave them, these special benefits and privileges, and, ignoring the rights of other citizens, ignoring the rights of the public and endangering by their acts the public health, safety, and welfare, they worked themselves into a position where they had a monopoly of production in the coal industry. To work their will they deprived citi- zens of the country of a necessity, and the situation had developed so that fac- torics were closing. There was unem- ployment. So what do youdo? You praise a man who refuses to enforce a law which is on the books, the enforcement of which would have given relief. How long do you think you can get away with that? You will create in this country the same sort of sentiment that was back of the enactment of the Taft-Hartley Act. People eventually are going to say to all these organized-labor groups, “Yes, you can have the r.ght to bargain col- lectively; you can have your jobs under certain conditions; you can have a mini- mum wage; you can have overtime, and all these other beneficial things, but when you go so far as to say that any group’—I do not care whether it is A. F. of L., CIO, or the machinists’ union, I do not care which group it is—‘can threaten the public health,” finally the people are going to say, “Now you fel- lows are playing in a game, but you are going to abide by the rules of the game. You are not going to be permitted at your will to take possession of plants and de- stroy property. You are not going to be permitted by mob violence to walk into my town or the other town and say, ‘We take over’,” as they did in the sit-down strikes and as they did in other instances in the last 2 years. “You are not going to be permitted to come in, as you did in Kalamazoo with 200 people, blockade the streets and grab innocent people and beat them, burn cars and trucks of men and women whose only offense was that they wanted to work.” Eventually the people will say, “That is going to stop.” 2825 Now, I will say to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. MAppDEN] if that is the sort of procedure you are going to advocate, you will be met by laws which will use lawful forces to meet the unlawful force. Mr. MADDEN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Yes; I yield. Mr. MADDEN. Long before the Taft- Hartley Act, long before the Wagner Act, we always had a remedy where hoodlums who beat up anybody were taken into the courts and prosecuted. It does not require the Taft-Hartley Act. Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Yes; that is correct. But then the laws were enforced. I want to answer that right there. That remedy has been lost. Why? Because of its voting power, or- ganized labor has either intimidated or converted a sufficient number of con- gressional representatives in both branches of the Congress, so that they will not insist upon enforcement of the law, I will say it goes further back than that. It goes back to the cities and towns. Violence and _ destruction of property by organized labor is not pun- ished the way violence and property damage by other citizens is punished. If I am on the picket line—and I can cite hundreds of instances—if I am on the picket line I can crack another man’s head and I will not be prosecuted. A citizen doing the same thinr in his own behalf will land in the jug. I know you will say that in years gone by it was the employer who instigated the violence. But that was outlawed, and it was stopped, and now the unions and their representatives do it and they escape prosecution. Mr. MADDEN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Yes; I yield. Mr. MADDEN. In Gary, Ind., we had a steel strike that lasted 3 weeks. There was only one case where some hoodlums beat up somebody and they were taken up and prosecuted. That was the only instance during that 3 weeks’ strike. Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Oh, the daily press is full of accounts of vio- lence and destruction of property in con- nection with strikes. Down in Indiana the union did pull some people off a bus when they were going to work. The union did have to pay $76,000 in civil damages. You know the suit. And Murray, as head of the international, sent a check of that international for $46,000—$46,000—to apply on _ those judgments. The gentleman knows that; does he not? Mr. MADDEN. Will the gentleman yleld there? Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Yes; yes. Now, the trouble is that the law is a little bit different in Indiana than it is in Michigan. In Michigan I cannot sue the international in a local court, I can- not get them into court. In Indiana they can be brought into court. If all the States had that kind of a statute, there probably would be some relief from unlawful activities. The situation wh:ch we have before us today is this:
2826 The power to legislate is vested in the Congress. So reads the Constitution. The Coneress, lawfully assembled, its Members having been duly elected and sworn as the people’s representatives, passed a bill. The President of the United States, under the Constitution, had the power to veto that bill—the Taft- Hartley Act. Mr. Truman, as President, dishking the law, vetoed the bill. As provided by the Constitution, it went back to the people’s representa- tives. The people’s representatives in the Congress assembled passed it over the President’s veto, and it became the law of the land. Mr. Truman, elected as President, took the oath to perform his duties as Presi- dent. Under the Constitution he is the executive head of this Government, and it is his duty to enforce the law. Disliking the law—the Taft-Hartley Act—the President has ridiculed it; in his campaign called for its repeal; done much to discredit it. At the first session of the E ghty-first Congress the people's representatives again refused to accept his views, refused to repeal the law. The coal strike came on. The Presi- dent refused to publicly declare that a national emergency existed. He sat idly by until coal was a scarcity. He refused to act until he had created a situation which he thought would enable him to either force mine owners to agree to a setilement with the union’s representa- tives or give him an opportunity to ask for authority to seize the mines. The President may or he may not be using this situation to give us a socialized Government. He may or he may not have in his mind a plan to seize and oper- ate the mines; to let the threatened strike in the telephone industry develop into a situation where he can ask for power to seize it. In the back of his mind there may or there may not be a plan to let the dispute between management and labor in the transportation industry develop into a situation which will threaten the welfare of our people and then ask for the power to seize and operate the railroads. With the coal industry, the telephone systems, the transportation system, un- der his contro] and management, him- self in a position to increase wages and benefits for millions of employees in those three great industries, the Presi- dent will be a dictator, and not such a little one either. Whatever may be his plan and pur- pose, one thing is beyond dispute. Charged with the duty of enforcing the law, having sworn to perform that duty, he nevertheless has miserably falled, neglected, and refused to enforce the Taft-Hartley Act. His refusal to act must be encouraging to all those who have an inclination to violate any law. Each and every law violator can, as justification for his own violation, hereafter point to this exam- ple set by the Chief Executive of the Nation. The SPEAKER. The time of the gen- tleman from Michigan has expired. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE THE COAL STRIKE Mr. HALLECK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 5 min- utes. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from In- diana? There was no objection. Mr. HALLECK. Mr. Speaker, every- one, of course, must be happy, as I am, that the coal strike which has paralyzed this country and brought the Nation to the brink of disaster has been settled, or at least is in the process of settle- ment. Certainly, we should be very happy, in view of the fact that the set- tlement is being made, that the Congress of the United States is not being called upon today or next Monday to enact leg- islation for Federal seizure of the mines, a@ process which Mr. Truman himself labeled as extreme legislation. Of course, it is extreme legislation, because seizure in peacetime carried on time after time could well result in nation- alization of industry, or of major seg- ments of industry; and that, certainly is not a thing to yield much comfort to anyone other than the commties and the fellow travelers, and the folks who would like to make the country over in that pattern. I have been just a little astonished at some of the statements that have been made by some of my good friends on the Democratic side of the aisle Their statements have been completely defen- sive and apologetic. They must know, as I know, that the people of this coun- try who have been suffering because of the long-continued work stoppage in coal production are holding the administra- tion lable for its mishandling of the whole affair. Defensive and apologetic? Yes. Seeking to escape that responsi- bility? Yes. The people of this coun- try who have seen their schools closed, their hospitals threatened, their libraries closcd, who have seen their trains stopped, all of the other functions of their communities stopped, who have themselves been cold, who have been robbed of their jobs, are not going to be misled by any such defensive, apolo- getic statements here today. Mr. WHITE of California. Mr. Speak- er, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HALLECK. No; I refuse to yield at this point. Out in my State months ago when the governor was talking about rationing coal, the President was still saying there was no emergency. The Fresident of the United States should have known a long time ago that not only was the crisis, the emergency, threatening, it had actually arrived. In spite of all that, he procrastinated. Why did he procrastinate? Because starting in the last campaign he threw the whole problem of labor management relations into the arena of partisan politics. Mr. Speaker, there is a lesson to be drawn. What sort of example is set, for instance, for observance by union Jead- ers of the processes of the courts of the land—what example for respect for our courts? What sort of example was set by the President of the United States in his at- titude toward the law, in his constant criticism of the law, in his excoriation March 4 and scorn of the law, yes; and in his failure to obey the dictates of the law and the Constitution in respect to his responsibility under the law and invoke ils processes a long time ago when they should have bcen invoked? The SPEAKER. The time of the gen- tleman from Indiana has expired. Mr. HALLECK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for five additional minutes. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from In- diana? There was no cbjection. Mr. HALLECK. Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the people who have spoken here in this defensive and apolo- getic manner want to see governmental seizure made the method by which we deal with national-emergency strikes. If you do, stand up in your place and say so, because you prate about collec- tive bargaining. I believe in collective bargaining as the very cornerstone of our competitive-enterprise economy; but, Mr. Speaker, whenever the day comes that these strikes are handled by Government seizure, collective bargain- ing is out the window and governmental decision is substituted for free agree- ment. If any man is a true friend of labor, that ought to be the last thing he would want. We have struggled here in the Con- gress through the years to try to find the answers to these propositions that con- stantly confront us. Quite some time ago the Railway Labor Act was put on the books. What has been the history of that? And may I say parenthetically that the national-emergency provisions of the Taft-Hartley Act are modeled on the Railway Labor Act. The Railway Labor Act was regarded as the model for handling labor-man- agement relations and it worked success- fully until the very Government itself, time after time, went out against the findings of the emergency fact-finding boards and in that process the Govern- ment itself destroyed the effectiveness of thelaw. Noonecandeny that. And, in like manner, the provisions of the Taft- Hartley Act, insofar as the processes for dealing with national-emergency strikes are concerned, worked effectively and well for 2 years, having at different times been invoked by the President of the United States and with effect. They, too, worked well until their effectiveness was destroyed—and I say deliberately destroyed—by the Government itself. Why, who are you to complain about the injunctive processes of the Taft- Hartley Act? Have you forgotten, you who have spoken here, that in the sub- stitute you offered in the first session of the Eighty-first Congress when the mat- ter of repeal of the Taft-Hartley Act was up, in the Sims substitute for which you all voted, you included the very pro- visions of the Taft-Hartley Act in re- spect to injunctive processes? Of course you ought to remember that. Your memories are not quite that short, and you know why you voted that way. You did not dare to leave the country with- out some method by which these great national emergency strikes might be
1950 dealt with. That is the truth of the matter. So, why all this talk here today? The plain fact of the matter is, may I say again, and you know it, and everyone else knows it, is that this coal] situation was deliberately allowed, yes, even en- couraged, to go from bad to worse. Edi- torial comment all over the country, the statements of enlightened and fair news commenators and radio commentators should be and is almost universally to this effect, allowed to go from bad to worse until, even with the settlement now belng effected, tremendous damage has been done this country, and to the individual people of this country, and to our economy as a whole, the extent of which damage no one can at this mo- ment determine. Now, of course, you folks have under- taken to throw this matter into the arena of partisan politics again. And may I say at that point that a lot of us have struggled here in recent weeks and months putting the welfare of our coun- try above any partisan advantage to try to avert the disaster into which the country was plunged. Well, in that same manner, if you are going to talk about what we ought to do with this problem, if you are right about that and the Taft- Hartley Act is all wrong, and the prob- lem is yet unsolved, I do not believe a one of you would get up here and say that the Government ought to seize pri- vate property in peacetime and operate it as a governmental operation. You know under the provisions of the bill that the President sent up here, if the de- mands of either side had continued to be so unreasonable that no agreement could be reached, the Government would have operated the mines for a period of 16 months, to June 30, 1951. And if an agreement had not been reached, what would you have done? The SPEAKER. The time of the gen- tleman from Indiana has expired. Mr. HALLECK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for three additional minutes. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from In- diana? There was no objection. Mr. HALLECK. So, I assume that no one would throw his hat in the air and stand up and say that we want seizure as the answer. Now, here is the problem that con- fronts us. I said the other day on the floor, and I say it again, that the ap- proach set up in the Railway Labor Act and the Labor-Management Relations Act of 1947, by which we undertook to maintain the status quo while the proc- ess of mediation was being carried for- ward, is the best method that has yet been devised. It is the best of anything I have seen up to date. It certainly is a lot better than a continual resort to seizure. Mr. PERKINS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HALLECK. I yield to the gentle- man from Kentucky. Mr. PERKINS. I would like to have the gentleman tell the membership of this House what provision there is in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE Taft-Hartley law that would require management to bargain in good faith. Mr. HALLECK. Well, I was here when the Wagner Act was enacted. When the Wagner Act was passed, its primary requirement was that the em- ployer should bargain collectively with his employees. The burden, the respon- sibility, the requirement, was put on the employer to bargain, and the Taft-Hart- ley Act did not make one single change in that responsibility and that require- ment. Now, then, if you heard the Pres- ident’s message it was something of a plague on both your Houses again, was it not, in respect to the current coal strike? Did he hold the unions free? Did he say the unions had all along dem- onstrated a willingness to bargain col- lectively in good faith? Of course he did not; he said exactly the opposite. The Taft-Hartley Act also put upon the labor organizations a requirement, since we were guaranteeing the right of labor to organize and bargain collectively, that they, too, must bargain in good faith. I do not see how anyone can challenge the rightness of that position. Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HALLECK. I yield to the gentle- man from Mississippi. Mr. RANKIN. It seems to me, and a great many Members feel just as I do, that there has been somewhat of a con- spiracy between the owners and the min- ers to try to unload these coal mines on the Government of the United States. They tound they had to face Congress, and probably that accounted for reach- ing some kind of an agreement last night. Mr. HALLECK. I referred earlier to what I believe was a maladministration of the law of the land, the failure to in- voke its processes at a time when they should have been invoked. I spoke the other day and had something to say about the manner of the presentation of the evidence in the court here in the Dis- trict of Columbia. Since I made that statement I see that in the other body a definite charge was made, which I have never seen refuted, that there were sixty- some affidavits that might have been pre- sented there in evidence, or the people who made the affidavits might have been called to establish very definitely the fact that there was contempt of the court’s order. So up to date, you see, you can- not be very sure about how those proc- esses will operate except, let me say again, that six times the processes were invoked and with success. The SPEAKER. The time of the gen- tleman from Indiana has again expired. Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentle- man from Indiana may proceed for five additional minutes. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Mas- sachusetts? There was no objection. Mr, HALLECK. The gentleman from Massachusetts is always very kind to me. I do not know whether he ts getting me more time in order to try to chop me down or not, but if that is it, it is perfectly all right, because he and I may disagree but certainly there ig no personal differ- ence between us, 2827 Mr. McCORMACK. May I say that I made that unanimous-consent request with the purest motives? Mr. HALLECK. I am very sure of that. I want to take just a moment to discuss the matter of national emergency strikes as the issue appears to me, but before I do that I want to pay my re- spects to one other contention that has been made here, particularly by my very dear friend from Indiana |Mr. MappEN], whose friend I am, and I am quite sure he is my friend. He talked about how the Taft-Hartley Act had done so much to generate strikes and trouble. If the gentleman will look at the figures he will discover that in 1946 there were 5,000 strikes in this country, and in the first year of operation of the Taft-Hartley Act that number was reduced to about 3,600. The fact of the matter is that a better climate for collective bargaining was created and the processes of collective bargaining went forward much better. Work stoppages were reduced. The country benefited by the production we so badly needed. That continued until the leadership in the gentleman's party undertook to destroy the law, undertook to create in the country a disrespect for the law that could do nothing other than to lead to more strife and to more trouble. Mr. MADDEN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HALLECK. man from Indiana. Mr. MADDEN. In answer to that statement from my good friend south of me in Indiana, in 1949 we had more strikes than any year in our history with the exception of 1946, and that condi- tion in 1946 was due to the fact that all the labor unions in the country post- poned contract negotiations during the war. Immediately following the war thousands upon thousands of labor con- tracts were up for negotiation. That ac- counts for the fact that we had numer- ous strikes in 1946. Eliminating 1946, however, the Taft-Hartley Act in 1949 has brought about more strikes and work stoppages than any year in our history. Mr. HALLECK. That reminds me of the fellow at home who said he caught a 5-pound bass. If you did not believe it, he would show you the hook. May I say to my good friend from Indi- ana that it is not just coincidental, in my opinion, that in the year 1949 con- troversy continued to increase and strikes to increase. It is not coincidental that that year followed the coming about of the very things I have been talking about. Do you not understand what you have just said proves I am right? Now, let us consider philosophically this matter of national emergency strikes. First of all there is a provision in the Constitution that no man can be forced to involuntary servitude. Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, will the gentieman yield? Mr. HALLECK. I yield. Mr. McCORMACK. The gentleman says, “Let us discuss this philosophical- ly.” Does he mean by that he is now getting into the field of statesmanship? Mr. HALLECK,. Well, you Know, out in Indiana everybody is supposed to be a@ poet or a politician. I have always claimed to be a siatesman, but there I yield to the gentle-
2828 seems to be some question about that in some quarters. Mr. McCORMACK. ing that question. Mr HALLECK. I appreciate that. Mr McCORMACK. But once you start discussing a thing philosophically that is when you are approaching the prob- lem in an attempt to arrive at the truth. Mr. HALLECK. Furst of all, before I get to this philosophical discussion—I shall be very happy to accept the gentle- man’s definition, because, whether or not it is philosophical or worth anything, I shall leave to the good judgment of my friends here in the House and the Speaker of the House. For a long time you have called the Taft-Hartley Act a slave-labor act. We have denied it. As a matter of fact, the undeniable fact is that you have a mil- lion more men in labor unions today than you had when the act was passed, and wages of factory workers have jumped from $121 an hour to $146 an hour. I started out to say here, philosophi- cally, that on the one side is the right of an individual to guit if he wants to. On the other side, in an enlightened civilization in a complex society such as ours, I think it is recognized by every- one that society just cannot be brought to complete disaster by organized and concerted work stoppages in essential industries. As I pointed out, in the Railway Labor Act, and in the Taft-Hartley Act, the Members of Congress have struggled for the answer. In my opinion there must be some answer. There must be. I do not know of any responsible Member of the Coneress who would say that every method by which the country might pro- tect itself when these great crises arise should be taken off the books. I remem- ber one time when there was a work stoppage on the railroads, and there was a demand for immediate action The President of the United States, Mr. Tru- man, rushed up to the Congress with a bill to draft the workers in the Army and make them work at the point of a bayonet. A lot of the people who today complain of the fair processes of exist- ing law try to bring about peaceful ad- justment voted for that iniquitous meas- ure, I was not rais- Mr. WHITE of California Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HALLECK. I yield. Mr. WHITE of California That was during the war emergency. The fighting was not still going on, but the emer- gency was still on. Mr. HALLECK. You know you had Mr Lewis on strike once during the war when the Government had the mines. Mr MADDEN Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yicld? Mr. HALLECK. I yield. Mr. MADDEN It did not take long to settle Mr. Lewis’ strike when the Eight- ieth Congress was in session. I remem- ber they brought him up to the Capitol in an automobile and the then Speaker of the House and two distinguished Sen- ators in the other body settled it in 10 minutes—or 5 minutes. Mr. HALLECK. Whatever the mott- vating factors may have been, it was settled a lot quicker than this strike, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE Mr. WHITE of California. Mr. Speak- er, if the gentleman would yield, I would like for him to tell us what he would have done in the instant case, since I interpret what the gentleman says to mean that he would compel men to mine coal with bayonets. Mr. HALLECK. I never said or even intimated that I would be for using bay- onets to make men mine coal. I will tell you what I would have done. First of all, a long time ago when everyone in the country apparently, except Mr. Truman, knew that not only did the crisis threaten, but that it was actually here—I would have invoked the proc- esses of the law. Even before that, I would not have gone around criticizing the law and inferentially indicating that no citizen was under any obligation to obey the law or respect the processes of the courts under it. Then I would have gone into court and presented evi- dence. You know, I hesitate to criticize the Department of Justice, or anyone, but there come times once in a while when you just goad an easy-going, peaccful person like mysclf to the point where we get up and say what we be- lieve. So that 1s what Iam doing If I had tried that case, I would have had the evidence there that would have sus- tained the court; that would not have made it necessary for Judge Keech to say that possibly there might be some evidence that is not in the record about inducing, or instructing, or permitting, or advising, but he could not decide the case on conjecture. I would like to have seen those processes tried, and tried fairly. I would like to see the Govern- ment so handled that they would be given a fair trial. Let me say to you, if you advocate leaving the country in the grip of one of these work stoppages which, if carried on, can become national disaster and even mass murder, if that is what you advocate, get up and say so. If you do not believe in that, then you come in here with your ideas as to what you think ought to be done as a substitute for what we now have. Up to date you have not brought it in. The SPEAKER. The time of the gen- tleman from Indiana [Mr. HaLLecKk] has expired. EXTENSION OF REMARKS Mr. WHEELER asked and was given permission to extend his remarks in the Recorp and include a resolution. YOU CANNOT MINE COAL WITH GUNS Mr. HAYS of Ohio, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 5 minutes, and to revise and extend my remarks. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Ohio? There was no objection. Mr. HAYS of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I do not come here to apologize, but I would like to answer a few of the remarks made by the two preceding gentlemen, and I would like to recite a little history to them about the business of mining coal with bayonets. The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Horrman] reminds me a little, in some of his dissertations, of an old Quaker in my home town who one time went home to his wife and said: “Sarah, you know I Marcu 4 think practically everybody in this coun- try is wrong except thee and me, and sometimes I am a little doubtful about thee.” I represent 75 percent of the coal pro- duction in the State of Ohio, which is the fourth largest coal-producing State in the Union. I have lived all my life in the coal fields, and I have seen coal mined at the point of a bayonet. As a matter of fact, the last time the Republican Party was in power was the last experience we had mining coal at the point of a bayonet. When the Jacksonville agree~ ment expired, back in the late twenties, the operators and the unions were un- able to come to an agreement, and a strike ensued, Finally, after a period of time, the operators brought in some out- siders to operate their mines, and they brought in troops to protect them. The coal was mined, such as was mined, under the eyes of soldiers. What happened? The men had been getting $7 a day be- fore that time. The people who were brought in from the outside were work- ing in the mines under the protection of bayonets and machine guns. Isaw them every morning on my way to school and on my way home. The men who went down into those pits had no safety in- spection, no protection, and worked for $1.50 a day. Subsequently the strike was broken. I will tell you a few more things that happened then. If you will pardon me for being personal, I personally know about it. My father happened to be in the grocery business in a mining town. Prior to the strike he had sold to the coal miners. Many of them were his customers. At that time he had a whole- sale and retail outlet for Pillsbury flour. After the union was broken the opera- tors set up company stores. They would not permit any employee of theirs to buy any place but at the company store. In his retail store my father was selling fiour at that time at 95 or 93 cents, or somewhere thereabouts, at retail. How- ever the employees of the coal companics wer. no longer allowed to patronize him. He was selling flour at wholesale, about 10 cents less on the 25 pounds, He sold to this company store at wholesale for about 85 cents, and they were selling it to the miners and compelling them to buy at their store for $2. They were compelling them to live in company houses, and they were compelling them to pay whatever arbitrary rents they had set upon this property. What hap- pened? Many and many and many a pay day a miner would get a shp which told him how much he owed the com- pany more than he had made for work- ing 10 and 12 hours, 6 days a week, under the earth. Before bringing you up to date a little, let me refer to the early twenties for a moment. My first experience with death was one day when I was dismissed from school in the first grade to attend the funeral of the fathers of two boys who were in the first grade with me; men wha were killed in a stone fall in a coal mine. In 1940 and 1941, in my county, Belmont County, Ohio, there were three major disasters which wiped out the lives of %2 people, 38 people, and 90 people, all within seconds. Those people were all heads of families; they were fathers;
1950 they were husbands, and their lives were taken. Coal mining is not a pleasant occupation. Mr. McCORMACK. the gentleman yield? Mr. HAYS of Ohio. Mr. McCORMACK. were human beings. Mr. HAYS of Ohio. Yes; I thank the majority leader; I was coming to that. Some people apparently forget in this discussion that coal miners are human beings. Coal miners are people, and some of those who advocate mining coal by injunction are willing to seize physi- cal human beings and force them to work at the point of a gun, but they get a little perturbed when it is suggested that the properties of the coal operators be seized The SPEAKER. The time of the gen- tleman from Ohio has expired. Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentle- man from Ohio may proceed for five additional minutes. The SPEAKER Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Massachusetts? There was no objection. Mr. HOLIFIELD, Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HAYS of Ohio. I yield to the gentleman from California. Mr. HOLIFiELD I think the gentie- man from Ohio made a very pertinent point in his last sentence. The Taft- Hartley Act provides for injunctions to force the men back to work; in other words, it seizes their personal hberty and forces them into involuntarv servi- tude through an injunctive process; but when the Iegal process of seizing the mine owners and confiscating any of their property 1s suggested, it then be- comes a matter of great and deep con- cern to the proponents of the Taft- Hartley Act. Mr. HAYS of Ohio _ I thank the gen- tleman; he 1s exactly right During debate on the FEPC Icgisla- tion, we heard the statcment reiterated time and time aguin that you could not enforce fair-employment practiccs by legislation; that it must be done by edu- cation, by arbitration, and by persua- sion. I believe there is some substance to that argument. I have always main- taincd that persuasion and education is better than force. But, for the life of me, I cannot understand why vbose same people who make that argument about FEPC argue that you can enforce labor relations with troops and guns. Either they act inconsistently, deliberatcly, or they fail to see the inconsistency of their arguments Mr. MILLER of Nebraska. Mr. Speak- er, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HAYS of Ohio. I yield. Mr. MILLER of Nebraska. I believe the ReEcorp will show that the majority of the Members on the gentleman’s side, including the gentleman now speaking, voted for the Sims amendment, which included injunctive procedure. Mr. HAYS of Ohio. All that I can say about that is that the gentleman had better recheck the Rreconrp I do not hke an injunction to try to force people to work, because the very XCVI——178 Mr. Speaker, will I yield. And all of them CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE fact that when an injunction is obtained it causes resentment, bitterness, and ill- feeling, and stops any genuine good will toward an agreement, Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield at that point? Mr. HAYS of Ohio. Yes; I yield to the gentleman. Mr. RANKIN. I asked the gentleman from Indiana |Mr. HaLLeckK] a question a while ago, and want to ask you. Iam serious about it. Watching this thing from the side lines I have come to the very definite conclusion that somewhere there was an undercurrent of under- standing between the miners and the owners of these coal mines to try to unload them on the United States Gov- ernment at an exorbitant price. But when they found they had to come to Congress, and that the pitiless sunlight of merciless publicity would be turned onto them, they arrived at this tempo- rary agreement. Has the gentleman any comment on that suggestion? Mr. HAYS of Ohio. Yes, I will be glad to comment on that. I want to say to the gentleman that I do not know of any such agreement, but I do feel that some of the marginal operators, and I have heard it said, would like to unload their property on the Government. I do not know that the mmers were a party to that. I do not think they were I have no evidence one way or the other. I do not think that owners of the more profit- able coal operations wanted to unload their property on the Government I think the gentleman is partially correct, and this is merely my own opinion, that some mine owners would like to get rid of their property because some of the submarginal operations are not profit- able, I would like to agree with what the gentleman from Indiana |Mr. MappDEN] said—that the coal business is sick. I would like to endorse the idea of setting up a comfmission to examine how this Conercss dispassionately, without trying to hurt either side, can do somcthing to put this basic industry in a position where it can operate under the American free-cnterprise system at decent wages for the men who go down into those dirty, dangerous pits to bring the coal to the surface Mr. MADDEN. Mr Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HAYS of Ohio. gentleman from Indiana, Mr. MADDEN The gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. RANKIN! asked a ques- tion a while ago, Who settled the coal strike? What brought about the settle- ment? I believe the answer to that is in conjunction with the statement of Cyrus Ching a few weeks ago when he stated no effort on the part of the op- erators was made towards collective bar- gaining since last summer and, further- more, that they were trying to press President Truman into the Taft-Hart- ley injunction. Immediately when the operators saw that the Taft-Hartley in- junction failed and that thy could not put 450,000 miners in jail, they sat down and collective bargaining settled the coal strike The SPEAKER. The time of the gen- tleman from Ohio has expired. I yield to the 2829 Mr. HAYS of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for one additional minute. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Ohio? There was no objection. Mr. HAYS of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is correct, the operators did not bargain in good faith because they were trying to force the President to use the Taft-Hartley law to put the miners over a barrel. When they found that the Taft-Hartley law was a complete failure because the miners refused to be coerced and would not go back to work at gun-point, they got together and bar- gained in good faith. Mr. PERKINS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HAYS of Ohio. I yield to the gen- tleman from Kentucky. Mr. PERKINS. If the Taft-Hartley Act had not been on the books, does the gentleman think that an agreement would have becn reached months ago be- tween the union and operators? Mr. HAYS of Ohio. Ido. I think an agreement would have been reached a long time ago. The SPEAKER. The time of the gen- tleman from Ohio has again expired. THE COAL STRIKE Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House ior 5 minutes. The SFEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Ohio? There was no objection. Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I have been sitting here at this extraordi- nary Saturday session of the House for the last hour and a half listening to this nonpolitical discussion. I had thought I would not get into it, but I have come to the conclusion, after hearing the amazing statements made by my good friend the gentleman from Ohio {Mr. Hays], who I note from the Conegres- sional Directory was born on May 13, 1911, and who, by the time he was 10 or 12 years old, had become a great ex- pert on labor relations, that I should add my 2 cents worth to this discussion. Mr. HAYS of Ohio. Will the gentle- man yleld? Mr. BROWN of Ohio. gentleman from Ohio. Mr. HAYS of Ohio. Ing about 1929. Mr. BROWN of Ohio. The gentleman referred to the early twenties. I believe 1929 was in the late twenties. Mr. HAYS of Ohio. The Jacksonville scale was put in at that time. Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I am sure I know the gentleman’s district perhaps as well as he does. For many years I served in State office. I served in the State house most of the time from 1916 to 1933. I was elected to State office with and served under more Democratic Governors than Republican Governors. I have known personally and well every Ohio Governor of the last 35 years, and I arise to defend their records and their good names, regardless of their party affiliation. In all friendliness let me say to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hays] that never once in his lifetime have the armed I yield to the Well, I was talk-
2830 troops in our State ever been used to force any citizen to work at the point of a@ bayonet. The gentleman's statement refiects upon the State of Ohio, and I do not be- lieve the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hays] really wants to make it. I hope he will correct his remarks. T can remember when a great Demo- cratic Governor of Ohio, James M. Cox, whom the Democratic Party honored by nominating him for the Presidency, did protect private property from vandal- ism and from destruction by lawless per- sons. I can remember when another great Democratic Governor, Governor White, of Ohio, who served in this body, and who was the chairman of the Demo- cratic National Committee, protected private property from damage, just as it was his duty as a public official to do. I can remember when another Demo- cratic Governor, Martin L. Davey, used the National Guard to protect citizens and private property from mob violence. But none of these men ever used armed force to compel any citizen to work. In their names I protest such an unfair and untruthful charge. Neither do I recall, and I think I can remember as far back as yesterday, that President Truman blamed only the mine operators for fail- ing to settle the present coal dispute. If you will turn back to the message the President sent to the Congress yester- day, you will find he gave both the oper- ators and the represertatives of the mine workers’ union equal blame. He held them both equally responsible. He charged them both with failure to bar- gain in good faith. And, of course, I think I know the reason why. I hope that we have reached the end of this nonpolitical discussion, of which should be a very onpolitical problem. Somehow or other we are secmingly forgetting that there are a great many people in Amcrica who do not care so much about politics as they do about keeping warm and employment so0 they can earn their livelihood. Like the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. HALLEcK], whom I want to compliment upon a great speech—and it was an hon- est speech—-I agree we should all be grateful that this great and tragic coal dispute has at least been solved, at least temporarily, and, I hope, permanently. I am not so much interested as to who does or does not get the credit as I am in the fact that once more we have met & great emergency and solved it. From the remarks of my Democratic friends—and the only thing I can as- sume and accept from their statements— they seemingly feel the Taft-Hartley Act was so weak that it did not work and must be strengthened. I presume, there- fore, they will immediately introduce legislation to strengthen Taft-Hartley so as to make {t more powerful and ef- fective, so as to meet--——. Mr. MADDEN, To repeal it. Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I thank the gen- tleman from Indiana (Mr. MADDEN]. I look for him to introduce a bill Monday morning for that purpose. I will join with him in the Committee on Rules in reporting his bili out promptly so that he can get the relies he seeks by strengthening the Taft-Hartley Act. I hope in the meantime we may all join in CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE taking a little more interest in the wel- fare of our country rather than just in political parties. WITHOUT SEIZURE AND WITHOUT INQUIRY Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to extend my remarks at this point in the Recorp and include a bill which I intro- duced more than a week ago proposing emergency action, The SPEAKER, Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from South Dakota? There was no objection. Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Mr. Speaker, under permission just granted, I place in the Recorp at this point the text of H. R. 7417, which I introduced Thursday, February 23, as one approach to solving the coal emergency. It may or may not have worked—but the point will be clear, I think, to those who read the text of the bill, that it recognized the emergency, that it recog- nized that miners are human beings, that it gave both miners and operators credit for being patriotic Americans who would respond to the country’s urgent needs, that it did not require or propose seizure, and finally that it did propose to have a study made of the underlying causes of the sickness in this industry, and to have that study result in recom- mendations in time for this Congress to take remedial action. I might add that the bill had been called to the attention of the responsible Jeadership of the House and I feel cer- tain that it would have been among the possibilities considered, had the House found it necessary to proceed with legis- lative action. I mention this and insert the bill at this time, simply to keep the record clear on the point that Congress has not been indifferent to the develop- ing crisis. The text of the bill follows: H.R. 7417 A bill to declare an emergency and to create the National Coal Emergency Act of 1960 Be tt enacted, etc., That the Congress finds a stoppage of coal production and a shortage of fuel at this time of the year have seriously and adversely affected the flow of commerce between the States and have created a na- tional emergency seriously endangering the national welfare, public health, and safety. Sec.2. The President is hereby requested to call upon all persons normally engaged in the production of coal immediately to re- sume their normal duties and to make a special effort to produce the coal needed to alleviate the dangers to public health and safety now existing and to restore the normal flow of interstate commerce. Src. 3. The President is further requested to ask the governors of the several States to employ such components of the National Guard as may be necessary to afford full protection to those workers, mine owners, and operators who seek to comply with the requeéats made pursuant to section 2 of this act. Src.4. The President is further requested to direct the Attorney General immediately to institute efforts to determine whether there is any concerted effort on the part of any persons or organizations to interfere with the production of coal in this emer- gency and to take such legal steps as may be necessary to end such interference. Sxc.5. The President is authorized and directed to name a Coal Mine Inquiry Board MARCH 4, 1950 of five persons to look into all phases of conditions affecting the production or non- production of coal and to make a report of findings with recommendetions to the Con- gress not later than June 1, 1950. 8rc. 6. The President 1s authorized and di- rected to utilize such facilities and person- nel of the executive agencies of the Govern- ment as may be needed to carry out purposes of this act. S2c.7. The President is hereby authorized as the agent of the Congress to make such rules and regulations as may be neceasary to carry out the purposes of this act: Pro- vided, however, That the emergency declared and the powers and duties created by this act shall expire not later than May 31, 1950, unless as otherwise provided herein, or un- less Congress by joint resolution shall other- wise direct. Sxc. 8. This act may be cited as the “Na- tional Coal Emergency Act of 1950." SPECIAL ORDER GEANTED Mr. IRVING asked and was given per- mission to address the House for 20 min- utes on Monday next, following any spe- cial orders heretofore entered. EXTENSION OF REMARKS Mr. JENISON asked and was given permission to extend his remarks in the Recorp and include a resolution. SENATE ENROLLED BILL SIGNED The SPEAKER announced his signa- ture to an enrolled bill of the Senate of the following title: 8.204. An act for the relief of Eugenio Maisterrena Barreneche, ADJOURNMENT Mr. MADDEN. Mr. Speaker, I move that the iZouse do now adjourn, The motion was agreed to. Accordingly (at 1 o’clock and 34 min- utes p.m.) the House adjourned until Monday, March 6, 19F0, at 12 o'clock noon. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES ON PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS Under clause 2 of rule XIII, reports of committees were delivered to the Clerk for printing and reference to the proper calendar, as follows: Mr. COOLEY: Committee of conference. H. R. 2023. A bill to regulate oOleomargarine, to repeal certain tuxes relating to oleomar- garine, and for other purposes (Rept. No. 1781). Ordered to be printed. PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS Under clause 3 of rule XXII, Mr. RIVERS introduced a joint resolution (H. J. Res. 433) to provide that the United States shall withhold from representatives of foreign nations privileges which such na- tions withhold from representatives of the United States, which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. PRIVATE BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS Under clause 1 of rule XXII, Mr, WICKERSHAM introduced a bill (H. R. 1564) for the relief of Maria Margareta Ries and Konrad Horst Wilhelm Ries, which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. PETITIONS, ETC. Under clause 1 of rule XXII, 1959. The SPEAKER presented a petition of M. W. Clark and others, Miami, Fla., re- questing passage of House bills 2136 and 2136, known as the Townsend plan, which was re- ferred to the Committee on Ways and Means.
PROPERTY OF UNIVERSITY - OF WASHINGTON LIBRARIES GRADUATE READING ROOM NON-CIRCULATING