I can't tell you what to do with it," and then a few minutes later he'd start all over again.

Mr. HEALEY. But he'd say to you, "You are the trial examiner. You heard the evidence, and, after all, the report should reflect your views"?

Mr. DAVIDSON. No; he didn't say that. He said, "It is your own business what you do about it.”

Mr. HEALEY. What did he say to that effect?

Mr. DAVIDSON. He said what I have quoted to you.

Mr. HEALEY. I think you testified when you were here before that it was preferable, in your opinion, to have a trial examiner review the record and report of each trial examiner; did you not?

Mr. DAVIDSON. Yes; a trial examiner of equal rank with the trial examiner who heard the case.

Mr. HEALEY. You thought that it would be a preferable system to have a trial examiner review a trial examiner's report, rather than a review attorney?

Mr. DAVIDSON. Yes; but I don't think it is preferable to have an executive try to influence a subordinate.

Mr. HEALEY. Well, now, Mr. Davidson, if a reviewing trial examiner reaches a different conclusion than you from the record in the case, after reviewing the record, you don't think that it is wrong to have him convey to you the fact that he has reached a different conclusion than you did?

Mr. DAVIDSON. By no means.

Mr. HEALEY. Do you think he ought to do that if he is fair? Mr. DAVIDSON. I do.

Mr. HEALEY. You testified Friday that you wrote Mr. Pratt a letter complaining of what you considered the unfair criticism of Mr. Bloom, did you not?

Mr. DAVIDSON. And untruthful criticism.

Mr. HEALEY. Now, you talked with Mr. Pratt after that.

Mr. DAVIDSON. I did.

Mr. HEALEY. Did you mention that case at that time?

Mr. DAVIDSON. I certainly did. We talked about it for about an hour. Mr. Pratt was greatly concerned over my feeling to Bloom because Bloom was my superior.

Mr. HEALEY. And you talked with Bloom after that?

Mr. DAVIDSON. Oh, yes; I had to talk with him on occasions.

Mr. HEALEY. And did you at any time characterize the whole affair as a misunderstanding, to Bloom or Pratt?

Mr. DAVIDSON. No.

Mr. HEALEY. You don't recall that?

Mr. DAVIDSON. No; Mr. Bloom tried to say it was a misunderstanding sometime afterward.

Mr. HEALEY. You were on good terms with Bloom after that, were you not?

Mr. DAVIDSON. On the surface; yes. Mr. Bloom didn't like me, Congressman, and had indicated it a good many times, and I am at no pains to tell you I didn't like him and don't like him, based on his conduct.

Mr. HEALEY. I had arrived at that conclusion independently of anything you have said. But on the surface, you pretended that you were friendly.

Mr. DAVIDSON. I had to, to work there.

Mr. HEALEY. Of course, your attitude toward Bloom hasn't been influenced by that feeling that you have against Bloom at all. Mr. DAVIDSON. My attitude toward Mr. Bloom is based solely, sir, on the manner in which he conducted himself, the things that he said. He is a very despicable person, and I am glad to have done with his company.

Mr. HEALEY. Well, you never told him that to his face.

Mr. DAVIDSON. He was my boss, sir. You don't talk that way to your boss if you want to work. If he wants me to tell it to him now, he can soon have his wishes gratified.

Mr. HEALEY. I think probably you would welcome the opportunity to tell it to him now.

Mr. DAVIDSON. And I might say that my opinion of him, sir, is quite unanimous, except in a little clique.

Mr. HEALEY. Í think you have answered my question very fully on that.

Mr. ROUTZOHN. We want the whole truth.

Mr. HEALEY. If that is so, of course he can't testify as to what other people think.

Mr. ROUTZOHN. There has been a lot of hearsay testimony taken into consideration by the Board in its decisions. Mr. DAVIDSON. I'll

say so.

Mr. HEALEY. That is your opinion.

Mr. ROUTZOHN. And I think it is yours, sir.

Mr. HEALEY. I'll make up my own mind. You don't need to express it for me.

You reviewed some trial examiners' reports yourself, did you not? Mr. DAVIDSON. No, sir.

Mr. HEALEY. Did you ever do that?

Mr. DAVIDSON. I was in the midst of reviewing a report or two when I decided to resign. But let me explain just what I did, Congressman, in that connection, if you want to know. I was sent for to come to Washington. Mr. Pratt was away, and of course we always had been told that the purpose of a review report was to check facts for accuracy, and everything else, but Mr. Bloom told me in so many words that I was to do it because I would probably be able to learn something from the work of the men whose work I was supposed to put under scrutiny. That was another way he had of telling me he didn't like me.

Mr. HEALEY. Now, then, you didn't particularly like the assignment of reviewing the other trial examiners' work, did you?

Mr. DAVIDSON. I would say yes and no, Congressman. I liked it. for the reason that I thought the experience was valuable, and I didn't like it because I felt sensitive about probably putting somebody else in dutch. After all, we were all fellow workmen, working there together, and I would have felt embarrassed if I had had to show somebody up, as the saying is.

Mr. HEALEY. Were you assigned to this work just before you resigned?

Mr. DAVIDSON. Oh, no; not just before I resigned. I would say about 3 weeks.

Mr. HEALEY. How long were you engaged in that work?
Mr. DAVIDSON. I was in Washington about 3 weeks at that time.

Mr. HEALEY. How long was that before you resigned?

Mr. DAVIDSON. Three weeks; about 3 weeks.

Mr. HEALEY. Then you were assigned to this work of reviewing the other trial examiners' reports just before you resigned.

Mr. DAVIDSON. Three weeks before I resigned; yes.

Mr. HEALEY. During that whole 3 weeks preceding your resignation, were you engaged in this particular work?

Mr. DAVIDSON. I was.

Mr. HEALEY. And you had dual feelings about the work. In a way, you thought it might be valuable experience?

Mr. DAVIDSON. Oh, I was positive that it would be valuable experience.

Mr. HEALEY. And, on the other hand, you just didn't like reviewing the other fellow's work.

Mr. DAVIDSON. Well, I would have felt sensitive if I had come across something that would have been injurious to one of my friends in the division, but after all it was my job, I was doing what I was told.

Mr. HEALEY. And while you are stationed here, you are not entitled to any per diem?

Mr. DAVIDSON. No; that is true.

Mr. HEALEY. Did you ever complain about that to anyone? Mr. DAVIDSON. You mean, say I should have per diem?

Mr. HEALEY. Did you complain about the fact that you were not receiving per diem while you were assigned to this kind of work? Mr. DAVIDSON. I made no complaint; no. I may have commented that I wasn't receiving any, but I didn't complain or state a grievance. Mr. HEALEY. Did you have any grievance at all because of your assignment here in Washington and your failure to receive per diem! Mr. DAVIDSON. None whatever.

Mr. HEALEY. That didn't in any way have any effect upon your decision to resign?

Mr. DAVIDSON. No, sir, because so far as that was concerned, my work on the review would have been completed in another week, or at most 10 days.

Mr. HEALEY. You have a pretty definite recollection of what Mr. Saposs said to the trial examiners at that time?

Mr. DAVIDSON. Not everything that he said, sir, but what I testified to the other day I recall.

Mr. HEALEY. I think you said the other day that he said:

The Board has been having some bad luck lately in the Circuit Court of Appeals, with company union cases.

Mr. DAVIDSON. That is right, he did say that.

Mr. HEALEY. Do you know of any particular decisions in the court of appeals that he referred to in particular?

Mr. DAVIDSON. I mentioned none, sir.

Mr. HEALEY. Isn't it true that the Board's record in the circuit court of appeals in company-union cases is exceptionally good?

Mr. DAVIDSON. I wouldn't characterize it as good or bad. I don't know. I testified to what Saposs said.

Mr. HEALEY. No; but do you, personally, know of any cases that the Board has lost in this category in the circuit court of appeals? Mr. DAVIDSON. Of course.

Mr. HEALEY. Recently?

Mr. DAVIDSON. I recall one, the Swank decision, that comes to my mind offhand.

Mr. HEALEY. When was that decided?

Mr. DAVIDSON. I don't know; it is not very long ago.
Mr. HEALEY. Is that the only one you can remember?

Mr. DAVIDSON. At the moment. I can't charge my memory with all of those decisions. There are hundreds of them.

Mr. TOLAND. There has been a recent decision in the ninth circuit. Mr. HEALEY. Mr. Davidson, isn't it a fact that the Link-Belt Company case in the circuit court of appeals is the only case in which the Board was reversed on the question of company unions within the 2 months of the talks given by Mr. Saposs?

Mr. DAVIDSON. I don't know; I know what Mr. Saposs said.
Mr. HEALEY. Do you know whether or not that is a fact?

Mr. DAVIDSON. I couldn't testify as an expert on that; no. I don't carry the Board decisions around with me.

Mr. HEALEY. Of course, if you did know that was a fact

Mr. DAVIDSON. I know that that Swank case wasn't long before that.

Mr. HEALEY. If you did know that was a fact, that there was only one case in 2 months lost on this particular question of company unions, then, of course, you couldn't agree with the statement that Mr. Saposs had made at that affair, could you, that the Board was having bad luck lately with their company unions?

Mr. DAVIDSON. I don't know whether that is so. You are asking me to assume something that I don't know.

Mr. HEALEY. Assume that, if you will, please, assume that they had only lost one case in 2 months on that matter of company unions, then you as a lawyer would not believe that statement that Mr. Saposs made was true, would you?

Mr. DAVIDSON. I would if it was the only case decided in that time. I would say it was a record of zero.

Mr. HEALEY. Of course, you know there are many cases that were decided.

Mr. DAVIDSON. Not over a period of 2 months.

Mr. HEALEY. I recall that when you were here before, you were questioned by Mr. Toland about a memorandum you wrote in the Hammond Redwood case, do you recall that?

Mr. DAVIDSON. That is right.

Mr. HEALEY. In which you said in effect, "The respondent is going to be given the business, or the works as others may call it." Do you recall that?

Mr. DAVIDSON. Yes; I identified the letter when I was here before. That is burnt powder.

Mr. HEALEY. No member of the Board influenced you in making that statement, did they?

Mr. DAVIDSON. No, sir; it was the conditions that I found in that town which were an abomination to a free country.

Mr. HEALEY. And that particular statement was volunteered by yourself without any influence by any member of the Board?

Mr. DAVIDSON. Sir, no one ever influences my statement. Good or bad, they are my own authorship.

Mr. HEALEY. When you were here in January you were also questioned by a member in the Armour case in which you stated, "The case is in the bag." Do you recall that?

Mr. DAVIDSON. Yes; and I pointed out, too, when I was here in January, that I decided the case afterward 50 percent in favor of the company.

Mr. HEALEY. But you in making that statement at that time, were not caused to make that statement by anyone on the Board?

Mr. DAVIDSON. It was a transitory thought of my own which represented a passing opinion which did not stay in my mind after I heard the other side of the case.

Mr. HEALEY. But that statement was made voluntarily, entirely free from any influence of any member of the administration?

Mr. DAVIDSON. Why, of course, manifestly; I was in Omaha and they were in Washington.

Mr. HEALEY. Well, let's get that in the record.

Mr. DAVIDSON. Well, it should be obvious.

Mr. HEALEY. And in that case, you were reversed by the Board? You had found for five employees, and the Board reversed that part of your decision?

Mr. DAVIDSON. Sir, the Board upheld my decision as to the company union, upheld me in my dismissal of all 14 which was almost all of the alleged discharges.

Mr. HEALEY. Well, now

Mr. DAVIDSON (interposing). It reversed as to the other few. Mr. HEALEY. Now, the other few amounted to five employees? Mr. DAVIDSON. I say three; that is my recollection.

Mr. HEALEY. All right. And you have since learned that your outbursts, or whatever you want to term those two statements I have referred to in the Hammond and Armour cases were discussed in the report of the majority of this committee?

Mr. DAVIDSON. No, sir; I did not read the report.

Mr. HEALEY. Well, for your information, I will say that the majority referred in their report to the memorandum that you had written in both the Hammond and Armour cases-it was the subject of criticism of the majority of this committee in their report rendered to Congress.

Mr. ROUTZOHN. You missed some very interesting reading, if you did not read that.

Mr. HEALEY. As a matter of fact the majority so characterized those words as meaning that you or disclosing that you had an absence of a purely judicial frame of mind.

Mr. DAVIDSON. That may have been the committee's opinion, but it was not the fact.

Mr. ROUTZOHN. Do you know what happened to the opinion of the minority members of this committee when it filed its report? Mr. DAVIDSON. No, sir; I don't.

Mr. TOLAND. Or when you appeared on the 16th of January, 1940! Mr. ROUTZOHN. I have that record here, Mr. Toland.

Mr. HEALEY. Both of you gentlemen can have the witness when I get through. I won't have him much longer, and when I get through you both can have him.

The CHAIRMAN. I think that is a timely suggestion.