That is the principal work which we do. There are, of course, many miscellaneous things attached to it, interlocutory steps of various kinds, motions and petitions and oppositions, but the bulk of the work consists of the main briefs in our enforcement and review cases in those reviewing courts.

Mr. FAHY. Is it true that you yourself review first all the briefs filed in the circuit courts of appeals and in the Supreme Court of the United States?

Mr. KNAPP. That is true.

Mr. FAHY. And in connection with the briefs in the Supreme Court of the United States what is the relation of the Board to the work on those briefs?

Mr. KNAPP. The Solicitor General of the United States represents the Federal Government and its various agencies in the United States Supreme Court so that technically he has final responsibility for the conduct of all such litigation, including that of the Board. As a matter of practice, what happens in those cases is that the Solicitor General leaves to the Board the initial preparation of all briefs in those cases, and I think it fair to say that the great bulk of that work is done by our staff with a review by the Solicitor General and his staff as the date for filing the brief approaches.

Mr. FAHY. Now, in connection with the court work that you have to do yourself, do you also make the assignment of attorneys to argue cases in court other than the Supreme Court?

Mr. KNAPP. Yes; that is true. The final designation of persons to argue such cases is made by Mr. Fahy and Mr. Watts. Ordinarily there are substantial groups of those cases to be argued, and in that connection I prepare a tentative list of possible assignments, depending upon the importance of the case and the abilities of the various attorneys, and submit those to Mr. Fahy and Mr. Watts, at which time a final assignment of the oral argument is made.

Mr. FAHY. Have you yourself been assigned to argue the cases in the courts since you have been with the Board?

Mr. KNAPP. Yes, I have; and I have argued a good many of those

cases.

Mr. FAHY. Could you mention some of them?

Mr. KNAPP. My first arguments were in the injunction cases, and I argued three of those in the district courts, two in the southern district of New York, one before Judge Patterson, now a circuit judge, and one before Judge Murray Hulbert. A third in the district of New Hampshire, before Judge Morris, and a fourth in the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. Thereafter as our enforcement and review cases began to come along, I argued a number of those, including the renowned stove case in the sixth circuit, two cases involving the Oregon Worsted Co. in the ninth circuit, one involving the Sands Manufacturing Co. in the sixth circuit, the Serrick Corporation case in the Court of Appeals here, Greenbaum Tanning case in the seventh circuit, Sterling Electric and Swayne and Hoyt cases in the ninth circuit. And there may be one or two more that escape me. Mr. FAHY. Do you have any responsibility in connection with the legal branch of the Board, known as the review section?

Mr. KNAPP. None whatever in the matter of supervision.

Mr. FAHY. Mr. Knapp, I call your attention to the fact that at page 5251 of the record there was introduced as exhibit 400, a memorandum of Miss Boyls. Now, do you know Miss Boyls?

Mr. KNAPP. I do.

Mr. FAHY. Concerning a telephone call made to you December 15, 1938, with regard to the Schwarze Electric Co. Who is Miss Boyls? Mr. KNAPP. She is an attorney in the review division of the Board. Mr. FAHY. Do you recall such a conversation?

Mr. KNAPP. I recall the fact of the conversation.

Mr. FAHY. Will you please explain to the committee what the conversation consisted of and what you said or did?

Mr. KNAPP. Miss Boyls telephoned me and stated, in the abstract, two legal problems or questions which were in her mind and upon which she desired my advice in view of my experience in similar procedural questions in the reviewing courts. I had no knowledge of the case then and none since. The general facts were not outlined to me. As a matter of fact, my independent recollection of the instance is rather poor because it is of the sort which occurs with frequency, but I have read the transcript of the testimony. I have no doubt that the questions which she said she asked me were the ones which she did put to me, because over the telephone it was very brief. The record shows that she inquired, first, with respect to a problem of discrepancy between dates alleged in the complaint of the Board and the dates shown in the proof of the hearing, and whether that was the sort of thing which, in the absence of the motion to conform, might be prejudicial.

Mr. FAHY. Did the question have anything to do with the merits of the Schwarze Electric case or the facts of the case?

Mr. KNAPP. None whatever.

Mr. FAHY. That is all.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you finished?

Mr. FAHY. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Any questions?

Mr. TOLAND. Mr. Chairman, I have no questions to ask my good friend Mr. Knapp.

Mr. FAHY. Mrs. Stern?

TESTIMONY OF BEATRICE M. STERN, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, WASHINGTON, D. C.

(The witness was duly sworn and testified as follows:)

Mr. FAHY. Mrs. Stern, please state your full name.

Mrs. STERN. Beatrice M. Stern.

Mr. FAHY. And your residence?

Mrs. STERN. 2762 Chain Bridge Road, in Washington, but I am a legal resident of the State of California.

Mr. FAHY. What is your present occupation?

Mrs. STERN. I am assistant secretary to the Board.

Mr. FAHY. How long have you been connected with either the present Board or its predecessors?

Indicates page reference to verbatim transcript of committee proceedings, January 11,

1940.

Mrs. STERN. I came to the first National Labor Board in 1933, in October, and was assistant executive officer of that Board. I remained with the successor Board, which was the first National Labor Relations Board, under the chairmanship first of Mr. Lloyd Garrison and next of Mr. Biddle, and was transferred with the staff of that Board to the present National Labor Relations Board.

Mr. FAHY. When did you first go with the first Board-what year? Mrs. STERN. In October of 1933.

Mr. FAHY. And who was Chairman of that Board?

Mrs. STERN. Senator Robert F. Wagner.

Mr. FAHY. How long have you been assistant secretary of the Board? Mrs. STERN. I was appointed assistant secretary, I believe, in the term of the middle Board, the first National Labor Relations Board. Mr. FAHY. Would that be the Garrison board?

Mrs. STERN. Yes.

Mr. FAHY. So you have been with the work now almost 7 years?
Mrs. STERN. That is right.

Mr. FAHY. Now, Mrs. Stern, do you know Theodore Freter?

Mrs. STERN. I remember him.

Mr. FAHY. Please state what you know about his first connection with the Board.

Mrs. STERN. As I recall it, his first connection with the Board was on an authorization for temporary employment as an auditor in the accounts section. I say temporary authorization because he was not then eligible for a civil-service appointment. He had, however, taken an examination, and it was during the time when the Civil Service Commission was examining the papers of those who took that examination that he was certified to us on a temporary basis.

Mr. FAHY. That was in the auditing branch of the work?

Mrs. STERN. In the auditing branch.

Mr. FAHY. Did his services there terminate?

Mrs. STERN. His services there terminated when he failed to qualify for a permanent position by passing the examination.

Mr. FAHY. Then thereafter did he have any further appointment with the Board?

Mrs. STERN. Thereafter he applied for the position of field examiner and was given a temporary appointment or a probational appointment. Mr. FAHY. In the Indianapolis office, as he testified?

Mrs. STERN. That is right.

Mr. FAHY. What occurred with respect to his employment in the Indianapolis office on a temporary or probationary period?

Mrs. STERN. He did not qualify for a permanent appointment.

Mr. FAHY. Then could you state whether or not, after he was not continued in Indianapolis, you had a conversation with him in Washington?

Mrs. STERN. I did.

Mr. FAHY. In the record now, Mrs. Stern, he says that in a conversation that he had with you after his employment in Indianapolis had been terminated, and I now refer to the record, that there was nothing in the record against him or his work except that the Board felt that his family background was not such as would fit him for this sort of work, and he attributed that statement to you. What do you have to say to the committee about that statement which he attributed to you?

Mrs. STERN. I made no such statement as he attributed to me. I didn't know anything about his family background and would not have mentioned it under any circumstances.

Mr. FAHY. There is also, at page 5361 of the record, an exhibit numbered 427, which consists of a telegram from you to Philip G. Phillips, regional director at Cincinnati, Ohio, concerning the Sorg Paper Company case. The telegram is dated June 21, 1938, and was an inquiry as to whether the C. I. Ö. desired to proceed with the election on the prior case. Do you recall that such a telegram was sent and signed in your name?

Mrs. STERN. Yes; I do.

Mr. FAHY. Please state to the committee the circumstances under which it was sent and the reasons why it was sent.

Mrs. STERN. In February of 1938 there had been a hearing on a petition filed by the United Paper Workers, affiliated with the C. I. O. In May of 1938 a charge was filed by that same union which alleged that the employer was dominating two associations, one known as the Superior Lawrence Employees Association, if I recall the name correctly, and the other as the Sorg Employees Association. The Board wanted to ascertain whether or not the petitioning union considered the unfair labor practices which it alleged as being of a nature which would prevent a free and untrammeled choice by the workers in an election, therefore the wire was sent out to find out whether or not the petitioner desired to proceed with the petition in view of the unfair labor practices which had allegedly intervened.

Mr. FAHY. Was that consistent with the Board's usual practice in such cases?

Mrs. STERN. Entirely consistent.

Mr. FAHY. That is all.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any questions?

Mr. ROUTZOHN. Are you a married lady?
Mrs. STERN. Yes; I am.

Mr. ROUTZOHN. And your husband's name?
Mrs. STERN. Max Stern.

Mr. ROUTZOHN. What official post, if any, does Mr. Stern hold with the United States Government?

Mrs. STERN. Mr. Stern, in June of 1938, became director of information of the Social Security Board.

Mr. ROUTZOHN. And he is still retaining that position?

Mrs. STERN. Yes; he is.

Mr. ROUTZOHN. What salary does he make?

Mrs. STERN. Seventy-five hundred.

Mr. ROUTZOHN. And may I ask your salary?

Mrs. STERN. Fifty-eight hundred.

Mr. ROUTZOHN. That is all.

Mr. FAHY. What was Mr. Stern's occupation before he accepted his present position?

Mrs. STERN. Mr. Stern was a member of the Scripps-Howard Newspaper Alliance staff in Washington, D. C., from 1933 on until 1938, when he decided to go to the Social Security Board.

Indicates page reference to verbatim transcript of committee proceedings, January 11,

1940.

Mr. FAHY. Do you recall who the editor of the Scripps-Howard papers in Washington was at that time?

Mrs. STERN. The editor of the Washington Daily News was Mr. Lowell Mellett at that time, and he was also, I believe, editor of the Scripps-Howard Newspaper Alliance.

Mr. TOLAND. I had proposed and planned to call Mrs. Stern as a witness on behalf of the committee. In view of the understanding with Mr. Fahy that he would present his witnesses, I shall not interfere with his time and will not cross-examine Mrs. Stern now on matters that I would like to but will do so in the future. The CHAIRMAN. You will recall her at a later time?

Mr. TOLAND. Yes, sir.

Mr. FAHY. Except for the fact that Mrs. Stern is preparing for a hearing, I believe, before the Appropriations Committee, or in view of that, I would prefer that it wait.

Mr. Halliday.

TESTIMONY OF MALCOLM F. HALLIDAY, ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL, IN CHARGE OF TRIAL SECTION, LITIGATION DIVISION, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, SILVER SPRING, MD.

(The witness was duly sworn and testified as follows:) Mr. FAHY. Will you please state your full name?

Mr. HALLIDAY. Malcolm F. Halliday.

Mr. FAHY. And your residence?

Mr. HALLIDAY. 8327 Draper Lane, Silver Spring, Md.

Mr. FAHY. What is your present position, Mr. Halliday?

Mr. HALLIDAY. Assistant general counsel of the National Labor Relations Board in charge of the trial section in the litigation division. Mr. FAHY. How long have you been a member of the staff of the Board?

Mr. HALLIDAY. Since the inception of the Board.

Mr. FAHY. Will you please state, in outline, a little story of your experience, beginning with your age and coming down to the time that you became an employee of the Board?

Mr. HALLIDAY. I was born in Lewiston, Maine, on April 10, 1906. My early schooling was in Maine, though I finished grammar school in Florida. I attended five high schools in various sections of the country, graduating in San Antonio, Tex. I attended so many high schools because of the occupation of my father. He is an Army officer and traveled from post to post.

I attended Dartmouth, graduating in 1928, and thereafter attended New York University Law School, graduating in 1931. I immediately took the New York bar and was admitted to practice in New York, and became associated with the firm of Smyth Meleney in New York, which is a small firm of general practitioners. The firm handled anything and everything in the legal line, and I had an opportunity to join in such handling, including trial work.

On October 6, 1934, I came to Washington with the old National Labor Relations Board, under Public Resolution No. 44, as assistant to Mr. Watts, who was then handling the litigation of the old Board. Mr. FAHY. What year was that?