the responsible head of the organization. He never intimated to me, or to Mr. George O. Pratt, his superior, any such thought. After a request last Friday that he be allowed for his private convenience to do his work away from his post of duty, had been refused by his acting superior officer, he seems to have flown into a rage on Sunday which he indulged by writing the Board calling that superior officer and other persons communists. His out-givings are such obvious nonsense that one is surprised that they should have been noticed.

Mr. TOLAND. Mr. Davidson, do you have any comment at all to make to the committee about the statement of Mr. Madden?

Mr. DAVIDSON. Yes, sir. I would say that the statement was conceived in hypocrisy and released in evasion of the real issues. Nobody knows better than Mr. Madden that if I had ever made any remark about the Board having Communists in its employ or practicing communistic doctrines, that I wouldn't have been around long, not any longer than it would have taken them to discharge me, and like a great many other men in the employ of the Board, I just kept my mouth shut because I wanted the job, I wanted to work. There are scores and hundreds of employees who would say what I have said, only they feel that they can't afford to do so, and I didn't fly into any rage, and my request to go home was not refused. It definitely was referred to my superior, chief superior, Mr. Pratt, who had never refused such a request when I made it and whom I confidently expected would grant the request on Monday.

Mr. TOLAND. Now, in your testimony, you stated that you received a letter from Mr. Witt, confirming the telegrams that you had received after your letter of resignation. I ask you if this is a true and correct copy of the letter you referred to?

Mr. DAVIDSON. It is, sir.

Mr. TOLAND. I offer in evidence this letter.

(The letter referred to, dated March 19, 1940, was received in evidence, marked "Exhibit No. 1103," and is printed in the appendix of this volume.)

Mr. TOLAND. Mr. Chairman, in connection with the letter of resignation, the telegrams, and the letter just offered in evidence, I would like to offer in evidence the original of the minutes of the Board, dated March 19, 1940. I will read it into the record because it is the original document of the Board.

MINUTES OF EXECUTIVE MEETING OF THE BOARD

Present for the Board: Mr. Witt, Mr. Robert B. Watts, Mr. David O. Pratt, Mapes Davidson, trial examiner.

The Board decided to dismiss Mr. Davidson immediately with prejudice and without accrued annual leave, for addressing a false and scurrilous letter to the Board, dated March 17, 1940. At this point Mr. Watts and Mr. Pratt left the meeting.

The balance of the exhibit I won't read because it has no reference to the matter that is now before the committee. It is dated Washington, D. C., March 19, 1940, signed Nathan Witt, secretary, and approved by J. W. M.. E. S. S., and W. M. L.

Mr. TOLAND. Now, Mr. Davidson, did you thereafter, on the 21st day of March, 1940 address another communication to any member of the National Labor Relations Board?

Mr. DAVIDSON. I did, sir; a communication to J. Warren Madden, chairman, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D. C.

Mr. TOLAND. Do you have the original copy of it?

Mr. DAVIDSON. I do, sir; this is it.

Mr. TOLAND. I offer in evidence as committee exhibit, the document just identified by the witness.

(The letter dated March 21, 1940, was received in evidence, marked "Exhibit No. 1104," and follows:)

J. WARREN MADDEN,

Chairman, National Labor Relations Board,

Washington, D. C.

DEAR SIR: I understand from the newspaper that you have sought to convey the impression that my letter of resignation as Trial Examiner was probably an act of rage caused by Frank Bloom's alleged refusal of my request for leave to work at home during Holy Week. Nothing could be farther from the truth, but I have learned that corner bureaucrats, especially those with radical tendencies, are not greatly concerned with the verities of life.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Bloom did not refuse my request. Upon the contrary, he politely suggested that I seek the desired permission from the Chief Trial Examiner on the following Monday, March 18. This occurred on Thursday, March 14 last. I readily agreed to the correctness of Mr. Bloom's attitude, the more so because the Chief Trial Examiner never had refused any request of mine in this respect.

On Friday afternoon, March 15, occurred the outrage which finally resulted in my resignation, and this consisted of a lecture to the Trial Examiners by Dr. David Saposs, a known Red, who is your Board's chief economist, on what should be gotten into the record at a Labor Board hearing to convict an employer of dominating an alleged company union in cases where there is no direct evidence. If his remarks were not an invitation to sabotage justice and fair play, I don't understand English. Doubtless I should have resigned then and there, but selfish thoughts of home security prompted me to reflect.

I walked the streets of Washington on Saturday, March 16, until nearly nine o'clock before making up my mind to part company with the Board. Returning home, I wrote the letter of resignation Sunday evening, March 17, but not without further consideration of the step.

Let me repeat that I resigned in order to keep my self-respect. Regardless of future consequences, I refuse to work for a Labor Board which employs Red radicals and practices Communistic doctrines. The time of departure draws near for you also, though for a different reason. The handwriting is on your wall. You have been weighed in the balance and found wanting.

Mr. TOLAND. Mr. Davidson, I show you a mimeographed communication dated January 31, 1940, addressed to yourself and signed by J. C. Shover, director of personnel, and ask you if you have seen this communication or the original before?

Mr. DAVIDSON. Yes, sir.

Mr. TOLAND. I offer in evidence the document identified by the wit

ness.

(The mimeographed letter dated January 31, 1940, was admitted in evidence, marked "Exhibit No. 1105," and follows:)

JANUARY 31, 1940. Mr. MAPES DAVIDSON: You are hereby notified that you have been given the following efficiency rating as of May 15, 1939.

P-5: GOOD

In order to receive consideration, any appeal from the rating given above must be received in the Personnel Office not later than 4: 30 P. M. on February 7, 1940. Very truly yours,

J. C. SHOVER, Director of Personnel.

Mr. TOLAND. Mr. Davidson, can you tell the committee what efficiency rating you recall that you received in 1939? Mr. DAVIDSON. Well, that is as of 1939, you will notice.

Mr. TOLAND. Or for the year 1938?

Mr. DAVIDSON. You never got your efficiency ratings until a year afterward, when they were about to issue new ones. There is some deep, dark reason for that but I never found out what it was. In March of 1939 I got a letter that, as of May 1938, my efficiency rating was very good.

Mr. TOLAND. Now, Mr. Davidson, during the period of time that you were employed as a trial examiner by the National Labor Relations Board, did there come a time when any case that you heard as a trial examiner, and after the case had been heard, you prepared the intermediary report, were you required to submit that report and the record to another trial examiner for his review of your proposed intermediary report as well as the record and exhibits in the case?

Mr. DAVIDSON. Well, that happened in a number of cases, sir. Mr. TOLAND. Did it ever happen that Mr. Bloom was assigned to review any proposed intermediate report that you had prepared?

Mr. DAVIDSON. Yes, sir; and that was the only occasion upon which a superior officer acted as reviewing trial examiner, in my experience. The case was that of the Weyerhauser Timber Co., which I heard in Everett, Wash., on October 30 and 31, 1939.

Mr. TOLAND. Will you tell the committee briefly the issue involved, not going into any great detail?

Mr. DAVIDSON. The issue was a very narrow one. It was what the Board calls an 8 (3) case. Of course, everything is deemed to be 8 (1), too; but the specific allegation in this complaint was that one Paul Moore, head of a union, a C. I. O. union, had been demoted on a certain day and that thereafter, several months later, was laid off from another job, and all because of union activities. That was the case, if there was one.

There was no other charge made against the employer.

Mr. TOLAND. Now, will you go ahead and tell the committee, after you completed the hearing and prepared the proposed intermediate report, what, if anything, happened concerning your activity or conversation with Mr. Bloom?

Mr. DAVIDSON. Well, as I recall it, I wrote in from the Pacific coast saying that the case had absolutely no merit and would have to be dismissed. I cited the fact that one of the witnesses against the Board and the union had been a former C. I. O. member, a straw boss, who had recommended that this man be laid off for lack of interest in his work. When I returned to Washington, I drew the report, very short; I don't think it was over seven or eight pages, and instead of a fellow trial examiner getting the case for review, I found that Bloom, as an assistant trial examiner, my superior, had it.

In due time he read my report and he sent for me and he didn't like the report and said so. Of course, that didn't surprise me, because Mr. Bloom had never liked anything that I had done as far as I can recall, and he said, "Why, this is as plain as the nose on your face that this man was fired for union activities. Look at this statement here about somebody having told somebody that he was on the blacklist over at Ludlow (another plant);" somebody having told somebody. It wasn't even hearsay; it wasn't honest hearsay; it was hearsay twice removed, I suppose you might call it.

And I said, "Well, Frank, I have very fixed convictions about this case. There is not an iota of substantial evidence in that record upon which to find this employer guilty of having violated the act. There is not a scintilla, there isn't even decent hearsay, and I won't change my_report."

Well, he talked some more and I refused again to change my report, and then, of course, he did slip in a protecting sentence. He said, "Well, of course, after all, you heard the case and it isn't my business how you dispose of it," and then he started to talk again, to try to persuade me to change my report; and finally, out of the side of his mouth, he said, "For Christ's sake, Mapes, what do you want--a resolution from the board of directors that the guy was fired for union activities?" That's just the way he spoke; I am imitating his manner.

Now, I said, "Frank, we could stay here all day, if you want to, and you can bring the devil himself down here and I won't change this report, because I am of the honest conviction that the employer is wholly innocent of any wrong. The substantial evidence shows that he is innocent, and there isn't an iota of evidence upon which to adjudge him guilty."

Well, I went back-"well," he said, "All right, but the form of the report's wrong. I don't like the form. You didn't discuss some evidence here that you should have discussed to show that you considered it."

"Well," I said, "If you are talking about that double hearsay, it isn't worth considering."

"Well," he said, "nevertheless it has got to be in the report." So I said, "Well, you're the doctor." I rewrote the report and I cited that hash, as he required me to, and then said that it wasn't of any value evidentially and discarded it.

He came into the room after that report was written, and he said, "I still want to ask you," he said, "whether you want a resolution from the board of directors of the Weyerhauser Timber Co. that that man was fired for union activities?" He said, "Can't anybody see on the face of it that he was?"

I said, "No; I can't see it, and I don't think anybody else that is fair-minded could."

"Well," he said, "of course, you were the trial examiner; you have got to sign the report. I can't tell you what you're going to sign." I said, "You certainly cannot, but I think you have been trying to." So, the report went out as I had written it the second time, recommending dismissal of the complaint against Weyerhauser.

The next thing I knew, a couple of weeks later, while I was at home, in a batch of press releases I got a copy of a review report that he had written. I don't know whether it was ever intended for my eyes or not, because it was mixed up with a lot of Board decisions and press releases.

Mr. TOLAND. I show you a copy of a memorandum from Mr. Bloom to Mr. Pratt, dated the 11th day of December, 1939, subject: Weyerhauser Timber Co., C-382, and ask you if that is the memorandum or the report that you now refer to?

Mr. DAVIDSON. That is, sir.

Mr. TOLAND. I offer in evidence the document identified by the wit

ness.

(The review report referred to, dated December 11, 1939, was received in evidence, marked "Exhibit No. 1106," and is printed in the appendix of this volume.)

Mr. TOLAND. What, if anything, did you do after you received the report just offered in evidence?

Mr. DAVIDSON. I wrote a rather bitter letter of protest to Mr. Pratt, a personal letter, in which I denounced this review report as being sheer untruth, and I pointed out to the chief trial examiner that on page 5 of my report, I had considered and mentioned this evidence which Bloom refers to, and discarded it as being worthless, and the report so shows, and I further protested against his comment that I should refrain from making too many comments in the course of the hearing.

He said, "I refer especially to his habit of commenting on whether or not evidence means anything." Now, it has always been Bloom's pet doctrine that a trial examiner should sit on the bench like a stuffed shirt and say, "Objection sustained, "or "Objection overruled," as the case may be, and anyone who knows anything about court procedure knows that a man on the bench cannot conduct a hearing decently within those limitations. There are many times when a mere abrupt ruling would injure the sensibilities of the man making the objection, whereas on the other hand, if you explain why you are making a ruling in a courteous manner, and then make the ruling, it keeps the hearing running smoothly and everybody feels nicely; and that is one of the chief functions, as I see it, of a trial examiner, to keep a hearing running smoothly and with everybody feeling that they are being given courteous consideration, and I protested against that comment of his. It was nothing but spite because he had not been able to change my report and because he disliked me personally to a very marked extent. Mr. TOLAND. Do you know what happened in the Weyerhauser case from the standpoint of action by the Board thereafter?

Mr. DAVIDSON. As far as I know, there has been no disposition, generally speaking, by Board order, unless there is some special hurry-up reason that doesn't come out for about a year or two after an intermediate report.

Mr. TOLAND. So that as far as you know, the matter is still pending? Mr. DAVIDSON. As far as I know, sir.

Mr. TOLAND. Did there come a time when you were also hearing a case as trial examiner for the Board, and a request for continuance was made by counsel or parties to the cause, and you took the matter up with Mr. Bloom?

Mr. DAVIDSON. I think, sir, you are referring to the case of the Davidson Granite Company, heard in Atlanta, Ga., or partly heard, in July 1939. That case-I might add by the way that the Davidsons connected with the company were no relations of mine; complete strangers.

We hoped to finish that case in a week, and on a Wednesday or Thursday morning, a partner of respondent's attorney, Mr. Cooper, came in and made a motion for a 30-day continuance, on the following grounds: First of all, during the night, Mr. Cooper's aged and ailing mother had suffered a stroke which was certain to bring about her death in a matter of hours. Mr. Cooper, according to his partner, was where he should have been, at his mother's bedside. The moving attorney said that Mr. Cooper, under no circumstances, would