Mr. HEALEY. Well, did you ever state to anyone that you had a great deal of confidence in Mr. Pratt?

Mr. DAVIDSON. Oh, yes; I have said that I thought he was a kind and understanding executive, and I will say now, Congressman, that in all of his dealings with me he was just that.

Mr. HEALEY. Did it ever occur to you to acquaint Mr. Pratt with some of the matters that you have since testified to? Did you ever go to him and make these statements or complaints to him?

Mr. DAVIDSON. No, sir; I did not.

Mr. HEALEY. Or to Mr. Leiserson?

Mr. DAVIDSON. Now, let me qualify that, Congressman Healey. What I have said is not accurate. I made a very bitter protest to Mr. Pratt about Frank Bloom's criticism of my intermediate report in the Weyerhauser case, as my testimony here last week shows.

Mr. HEALEY. Well, now, did you ever complain to him about any of these other matters which you have since complained about, while you were employed by the Board?

Mr. DAVIDSON. Of course, I never complained to him about the Saposs incident, because he wasn't in town.

Mr. HEALEY. Or did you ever take that up with any member of the Board?

Mr. DAVIDSON. No, sir.

Mr. HEALEY. All right.

Mr. DAVIDSON. The Board knew what it was doing.

Mr. HEALEY. Well, of course, that is your view, but to what do you attribute that last statement you made?

Mr. DAVIDSON. Why, just ordinary common sense.

Mr. HEALEY. You said in your testimony when you were here in January (reading):

I have no personal connections who are interested in union work or anything else. With me it is the principle of the thing that is to be considered.

You made that statement, did you not?

Mr. DAVIDSON. Well, I can't say whether I made that statement verbatim, but I

Mr. HEALEY (interposing). Do you recall that you so expressed yourself in terms of that sort?

Mr. DAVIDSON. Substantially.

Mr. HEALEY. Now, by "the principle of the thing that is to be considered," what did you mean by that? What did you refer to by those words?

Mr. DAVIDSON. Well, I would want more than one sentence read to me, sir, if I am going to give an interpretation.

Mr. HEALEY. Well, of course, if you care to, you can refer to the testimony you made at that time, but this appears in the verbatim. record, page 63 of volume II,1 this quotation (reading):

I have no close personal connections who are interested in union work or anything else. With me it is the principle of the thing that is to be considered. If you haven't a full and clear recollection of the statements you made in the testimony when you were here in January, I want you to have the fullest advantage of it, and Mr. Toland has the record now so that you can refer to it.

1 Indicates page reference to verbatim transcript of committee proceedings, January 16, 1940.

Mr. DAVIDSON. Well, if you will indulge me for a moment, I shall look at it (examining the record). That question, sir-I recall it now-was asked by Mr. Halleck, and it had to do with a statement I made in a letter concerning a boycott which is used against an employer in combating a rival union. I said that the rule worked both ways; that was the purpose of my testimony, the intent of it, that I did not think a boycott was right, that I didn't think an employer who was trying to obey a law should be subjected to a boycott, and I didn't care what union exercised a boycott, I was opposed to it under those conditions. That is what I meant by the principle of the thing.

Mr. HEALEY. All right, you have answered my question.

Now, Mr. Davidson, you charge in your letter of March 17, 1940, to the Board, that you were treated fine, but became a poor relation of the Board when, in 1938, you excluded a corporate chart drawn by Saposs from evidence in the New York Times case.

Mr. DAVIDSON. Not the New York Times case.

Mr. HEALEY. Wasn't that the New York Times case?
Mr. DAVIDSON. No, sir; it was the Detroit Times case.
Mr. HEALEY. All right; it was the Detroit Times case.
Didn't the Board affirm your ruling in that case?

Mr. DAVIDSON. No, sir; it did not. I recommended reinstatement of the employee whose discharge was the whole subject of controversy, and the Board reversed me, and I think that the decision was a miscarriage of justice.

Mr. HEALEY. And you have, of course, believed, and you still continue to believe, that that ruling was wrong by the Board, do you not?

Mr. DAVIDSON. Yes, sir; I think the record would clearly demonstrate it.

Mr. HEALEY. This particular chart that was being introduced at that time, wasn't that for the purpose of showing jurisdiction of the Board? Wasn't that the purpose of the introduction of the chart?

Mr. DAVIDSON. That was, sir, and I excluded it because of inaccuracies.

Mr. HEALEY. But it had no relation to the merits of the case at all? Mr. DAVIDSON. Oh, no, no; none whatever, sir.

Mr. HEALEY. And the Board upheld your ruling, did they not? Mr. DAVIDSON. As to that chart, I do not know.

Mr. HEALEY. My information is that the Board upheld your ruling.

Mr. DAVIDSON. It may have done so, and it may not have done so. Mr. HEALEY. In that case you decided in favor of the Newspaper Guild, did you not, and found the company had violated the act, and the Board reversed you and dismissed the case?

Mr. DAVIDSON. That is right.

Mr. HEALEY. That is the case of the Newspaper Guild? That was the guild?

Mr. DAVIDSON. The guild, yes; the Detroit Times. It was the American Newspaper Guild of Detroit, I think, that was the complaining union.

Mr. HEALEY. In that particular instance you were a little more radical than the Board, were you not?

Mr. DAVIDSON. I was not. The evidence was clear and unmistakable that that man was discharged for union activities.

Mr. HEALEY. And the guild was a member of the C. I. O.?
Mr. DAVIDSON. That wouldn't make any difference to me, sir.

Mr. HEALEY. And you still say that was a miscarriage of justice?
Mr. DAVIDSON. Emphatically so.

Mr. HEALEY. You said that back at the time when it occurred, didn't you?

Mr. DAVIDSON. Yes, sir.

Mr. HEALEY. You made that statement, as a matter of fact, to a newspaper.

Mr. DAVIDSON. I don't recall that; but whether I made the statement to a newspaperman or not, I am making it now under oath. Mr. HEALEY. Apparently you made it at that time and you stuck right to your guns then.

Some of the decisions you have made have been reversed by the Board, have they not?

Mr. DAVIDSON. Oh, one or two, I think, if you are speaking about total reversals.

Mr. HEALEY. Yes; that is what I mean.

Mr. DAVIDSON. I recall two, Mr. Healey.

Mr. HEALEY. On practically all of the occasions that the Board has reversed your decisions, they have been decisions by you in favor of a complaining union, which the Board found to be without merit and dismissed; isn't that correct?

Mr. DAVIDSON. In the two cases that I recall, that is so.

Mr. HEALEY. One was the Times Publishing Co.-that is 13 N. L. R. B. 652-a C. I. O. union involved, and you found for the union and the Board dismissed the case; is that correct?

Mr. DAVIDSON. What is the title of that?

Mr. HEALEY. Times Publishing Co.

Mr. DAVIDSON. Yes, surely, as I have already testified.

Mr. HEALEY. Now the E. S. Elan case.

Mr. DAVIDSON. That is right; I recall that case.

Mr. HEALEY. That is 13 N. L. R. B., issued October 6, 1939, a C. I. O. union involved.

Mr. DAVIDSON. I think it was F. S.

Mr. HEALEY. You found for the union in that case and the Board dismissed your case.

Mr. DAVIDSON. Yes.

Mr. HEALEY. And that was a C. I. O. union involved there? Mr. DAVIDSON. I have no distinct recollection of the particular union, except that I know it was a shoe workers' union.

Mr. HEALEY. Let's you and I not have any misunderstanding about that. Do you know whether or not in the Elan case it was a C. I. O. union that was involved?

Mr. DAVIDSON. I would be inclined to say "yes"; but not positively. Mr. HEALEY. I will ask that some member of the

Mr. DAVIDSON (interposing). The record will show, Congressman Healey. I wouldn't be the proper authority anyway.

Mr. HEALEY. I will ask Mr. Fahy if he will verify that so that you and I won't have any misunderstanding.

Mr. DAVIDSON. There is no misunderstanding so far as I am concerned, sir. The record will speak for itself.

Mr. HEALEY (examining the record). I find in that case, 13 N. L. R. B., at page 94, "The United Shoe Workers of America is a labor organization affiliated with the Committee of Industrial Organization."

Mr. DAVIDSON. Whatever the record says, sir, is correct.

Mr. HEALEY. Do you now recognize that this was a C. I. O. union? Mr. DAVIDSON. I accept the record. It doesn't stir my recollection at all.

Mr. HEALEY. You recall the case of the Warren Textile Print Works?

Mr. DAVIDSON. That was a case that I heard in Worcester, Mass., I believe, in July 1938.

Mr. HEALEY. And the complaining union was a C. I. O. union in that case, was it not?

Mr. DAVIDSON. It seems to me, sir-now I can't expect to remember all these details after 22 years.

Mr. HEALEY. I don't expect you to.

Mr. DAVIDSON. That was some sort of a national but a nonaffiliated union.

Mr. HEALEY. We will check the records for that too, so as to establish that definitely, but at any rate your decision was overruled by the Board in that case.

Mr. DAVIDSON. It was not. That was a decision that went partly one way, as I recall it, and partly another.

Mr. HEALEY. Do you recall that the Board dismissed the case there, dismissed five discharge cases in that case?

Mr. DAVIDSON. Yes; but that wasn't the entire case.

Mr. HEALEY. Do you recall that the Board did that?

Mr. DAVIDSON. I do.

Mr. HEALEY. And you found in your report for those five men, didn't you?

Mr. DAVIDSON. I did.

Mr. HEALEY. And you were overruled by the Board.

Mr. DAVIDSON. There is no question about it, sir; the record speaks for itself.

Mr. HEALEY. You recall now, don't you, that you were overruled? Mr. DAVIDSON. I told you before that I was partly overruled, but not wholly.

Mr. HEALEY. But you were overruled in that part of your decision where you had found for five men.

Mr. DAVIDSON. That portion only; yes.

Mr. HEALEY. And the Board overruled you.

Mr. DAVIDSON. The Board upheld the rest of it.

Mr. HEALEY. Now, in the Massachusetts Knitting Mills case, do you recall that case at all?

Mr. DAVIDSON. I do, very well.

Mr. HEALEY. Do you recall that the Board dismissed seven discharge cases in that decision?

Mr. DAVIDSON. I recall the Board did so by a divided opinion; yes. Mr. HEALEY. But as a matter of fact the opinion of the Board, divided or otherwise, was in overruling that part of your report which found for seven men.

Mr. DAVIDSON. That portion; yes. And I think the Board was absolutely wrong in doing it.

Mr. HEALEY. The Atlas Powder case; do you recall that?
Mr. DAVIDSON. Yes.

Mr. HEALEY. And a C. I. O. union was involved in that, was it not?

Mr. DAVIDSON. That is right.

Mr. HEALEY. And do you recall that the Board dismissed two discharge cases in that decision?

Mr. DAVIDSON. That would be my recollection; yes, sir.

Mr. HEALEY. They overruled you to that extent?

Mr. DAVIDSON. Yes, sir; and upheld me on the main portion of the

case.

Mr. HEALEY. The Montgomery Ward case; do you recall that case! Mr. DAVIDSON. Yes.

Mr. HEALEY. That was an A. F. of L. case?

Mr. DAVIDSON. That is right.

Mr. HEALEY. And the Board overruled you and found against you on three discharge cases there?

Mr. DAVIDSON. And upheld me on 12 others, and on the main body of the case, which concerned espionage of employees.

Mr. HEALEY. All right, you have answered my question.

Mr. DAVIDSON. Congressman, I am not going to have an incomplete picture in the record.

Mr. HEALEY. I don't want you to have.

Mr. DAVIDSON. That is what you are, by inference, trying to get in. Mr. HEALEY. You will have a complete picture so there won't be anything unfair about it.

Mr. DAVIDSON. I don't want to testify to half the facts.

Mr. HEALEY. Let's you and I understand each other, Mr. Witness. There is no attempt to put in any sort of picture like that by me. There won't be. I want the whole truth, and all of the truth concerning these matters, and if there is anything you want

Mr. DAVIDSON (interposing). You will get it from me.

Mr. ROUTZOHN. May I ask my colleague from Massachusetts if the Board did not have all of this truth back in January, when this witness was before the committee?

Mr. TOLAND. I would have welcomed their assistance.

Mr. HEALEY. That, of course, is not relevant at this time, and I don't think that that ought to be a subject of consideration.

Mr. ROUTZOHN. But you have accused this witness of withholding the truth from this committee when he testified before. I am wondering if the Board hasn't been withholding some truth from this com

mittee.

Mr. HEALEY. There has been no accusation on my part at all.
Mr. ROUTZOHN. That is the way I interpret it.

Mr. HEALEY. I asked the witness at that time if he had failed to give us all the information he had at that time, which was a perfectly proper question.

Mr. ROUTZOHN. Implying that he was withholding something from the committee at the time he testified before.

Mr. HEALEY. You can place any construction you want on it. That is your opportunity to inquire about.

Mr. ROUTZOHN. I am wondering if the Board hasn't been withholding something. I think it has been withholding a great deal.