Mr. TOLAND. The Court amendment? Mr. BLANKENHORN. Yes. Mr. TOLAND. Would you mind telling the committee what the substance of the amendment that you advocated referred to in your letter to Mr. Howard, consisted of. Mr. BLANKENHORN. There were various proposals for amendments to the Constitution to change the Court. Mr. TOLAND. I don't suppose you advocate it now, do you? Mr. BLANKENHORN. I can't remember what the amendment-the various amendments that were discussed then. I can't remember which one I might have had in mind. Mr. TOLAND. Well, do you have any view of your own now that there should be any amendment to the Constitution with regard to the Supreme Court of the United States as constituted? Mr. BLANKENHORN. I haven't been thinking about that. Mr. TOLAND. Now I show you your letter to Mr. Madden together with a copy of the speech that you made in Indianapolis, dated May 20, 1937, with Mr. Madden's initials thereon, and ask you if that isn't your handwriting, and if it is not a copy of the speech that you made? Mr. BLANKENHORN. That is my note. Mr. TOLAND. I offer the document identified by the witness in evidence. (Document to Mr. Madden from Blankenhorn, subject "Attached Literature," was received in evidence, marked "Exhibit No. 1243," and is printed in the appendix of this volume.) Mr. TOLAND. Now I show you a copy of a letter dated May 14, 1936, addressed to Mr. Irwin, and ask you if you did not dictate and cause to be sent the original of that communication? Mr. BLANKENHORN. Yes, sir. Mr. TOLAND. I offer the document in evidence. (Document to Clarence Irwin, marked "Confidential," dated May 14, 1936, was received in evidence, marked "Exhibit No. 1244," and follows.) Mr. BROCK. Exhibit 1244, dated May 14, 1936, to Clarence Irwin, 465 West Dewey Avenue, Youngstown, Ohio (reading): DEAR CLARENCE: Have followed, as closely as possible, your momentous convention. Have just heard from both Brophy and Golden, Brophy and Murray believing the way is clear for going ahead and Golden pretty skeptical in view of the fact that the initiative still rests with the A. A. executive council. What's your view? I understand the officials all opposed the C. I. O., yet the resolution is pretty much C. I. O., with the execution handed over to a joint committee which cannot be started except with the hostile officialdom. That, at least, gives the opportunity for delay, and delay at this stage is mighty important. Can you drop me a line on what you think the situation offers, and the next moves you have in mind? You have certainly had an extraordinarily difficult role to play. Cordially Initials "H. B." Mr. TOLAND. Now, Mr. Blankenhorn, did you ever advocate to the National Labor Relations Board or to any of its members, employees, or to the C. I. O. or both, that John L. Lewis be placed on a ballot in any election to be conducted by the National Labor Relations Board? Mr. BLANKEN HORN. Advised the Board? Mr. TOLAND. Or suggested to anybody? Mr. BLANKENHORN. Be placed on what kind of & ballot? 218054-40-vol. 21- -7 Mr. TOLAND. A ballot involving an election where an independent union was a party. Mr. BLANKENHORN. I have no recollection of Mr. TOLAND (interposing). Would you say that you didn't? Mr. BLANKENHORN. I don't know. I don't Mr. TOLAND (interposing). Well, isn't it a fact that on the 18th day of May 1936 that you made this statement? "Would not the best lead that the C. I. O. can give them be to suggest that every where possible voters write in the name of John L. Lewis on the ballot as employee representative?" Mr. BLANKENHORN. Is that a-you said something to the Board? Mr. BLANKENHORN. I don't recall that. Mr. TOLAND. Well, isn't it a fact that your memorandums that you wrote were to the Board on your activities as to what you were doing, and didn't you make suggestions to them in writing, both orally and in writing? Mr. BLANKENHORN. Not to my recollection on the conduct of elections. Mr. TOLAND. Well, you made suggestions in other matters, didn't you? You made suggestions to the C. I. O., didn't you? Mr. BLANKENHORN. I have made suggestions to the Board about the policy Mr. TOLAND (interposing). And you made suggestions to the C. I. O., didn't you? Mr. BLANKENHORN. No. Mr. TOLAND. Well, didn't you admit that you recommended to Brophy, that you recommended Mr. BLANKENHORN (interposing). Recommended to people; yes. Mr. TOLAND. Well, isn't that a suggestion? Mr. BLANKENHORN. That is in answer to a question from them. Mr. TOLAND. I show you this memorandum, prepared on the 28th day of May 1936, which is during the month when all of the correspondence which you had has been offered in evidence, and ask you if you didn't prepare this memorandum? Mr. BLANKENHORN. I have no recollection of that. Mr. TOLAND. Well, would you say you didn't prepare it? Mr. BLANKENHORN. I just can't say whether I did or didn't, but it's Mr. TOLAND (interposing). Well, you were interested, were you not, in the Carnegie Steel situation? You did make the reports to the Board, did you not, about the Carnegie Steel situation? Mr. BLANKENHORN. You mean as involved in that convention, delegates from it? Mr. TOLAND. Or involved in any matter. I am asking you, You did not make reports to the Board about the Carnegie Steel situation? Mr. BLANKENHORN. I made some reports, some suggestions. I recall nothing whatever of this and do not believe that this was a part of that at all. Mr. TOLAND. Well, tell this committee whether or not you prepared that? Mr. BLANKENHORN. I do not recall preparing it. Mr. TOLAND. I will offer in evidence, Mr. Chairman, this memorandum found in the files of the witness at the National Labor Relations Board, dated the 28th day of May, 1936. Mr. HEALEY. Mr. Chairman, just one moment. The witness failed to identify the particular Mr. TOLAND (interposing). I am offering it with his answer. Mr. HEALEY. Fails to identify that as being anything that he prepared, and the counsel now offers it in evidence, but it hasn't been properly identified. It may have been The CHAIRMAN (interposing). I suppose that is on the theory that it was taken from his file. Mr. TOLAND. He doesn't deny it. He hasn't admitted it. Mr. HEALEY. The mere fact that it was in his file Mr. TOLAND (interposing). May I mark it for identification? Mr. TOLAND. Let me mark it for identification and I will show him something else. Mr. BLANKENHORN. See, I just don't know what it is. (Communication dated May 28, 1936, was marked for identification, "Exhibit No. 1245," and is on file with the committee.) Mr. TOLAND. Well, if you don't, I show you a report dated the 7th day of January, 1937 concerning the Carnegie-Illinois hearings, and ask you if you didn't prepare this and submit it to members of the Board? Mr. BLANKENHORN. Yes; that is a memorandum of mine. Mr. TOLAND. This report, Mr. Chairman, relates to the same company involved in the exhibit marked for identification. I offer this one in evidence. (Communication to J. W. Madden, E. S. Smith, D. W. Smith, from Heber Blankenhorn, subject, "Carnegie-Illinois hearings," was received in evidence marked "Exhibit No. 1246," and follows.) Mr. WHITESELL. "The National Labor Relations Board," with the initials "J. W. M." Memorandum. To: J. W. Madden, E. S. Smith, D. W. Smith. From: Heber Blankenhorn. Subject: Carnegie-Illinois Hearings. George A. Patterson of Chicago, Steel Workers representative (also La Follette Committee witness last spring) sent to me his files of company union minutes today for use in our Carnegie-Illinois hearing. Also a letter, which gave no indication whether he expected to come here to meet our Patterson as a prospective witness. I therefore called our Patterson, who said George Patterson and Ostrowski, witnesses I had suggested to him, will confer with him in Pittsburgh tomorrow and then come on here. Our Patterson also said that Hurd, of opposing counsel, had told him today that they would expect to cross-examine our witnesses. Subsequently Patterson will put on his new witnesses, who are very good. This looks like two weeks hearings at least before Carnegie-Illinois will open up. They are sending around missionaries, in the shape of company union representatives, to address the men in various plants. It looks like getting ready for a line-up of witnesses before the Board (much as Arthur Young dragged in a carload of company union witnesses before the Senate Committee on the first Wagner Bill in 1934). Patterson has subpoenaed three of these missionaries as adverse witnesses. He asked me to suggest to the Board the advisability of subpoenaing Ross Loeffler, labor relations man for Carnegie-Illinois; President B. F. Fairless of Carnegie-Illinois; and Vice President Arthur Young of United States Steel Corporation. Patterson sees added reasons for this in addition to those we discussed previously. My suggestion that we subpoena company records now, Patterson still thinks had better be left "to be drawn out of the company official's testimony and the records demanded in open hearing." Fairless and Young, it seems to me, will "make" the Board's hearings, at a most useful time. Patterson asked me about the question of John L. Lewis being summoned. I suggested holding Lewis in reserve to be called after Fairless and Young, if they appear, had had their say. (I did not tell Patterson that I had talked this over with Lewis the other evening suggesting to Lewis that he "repeat his New Year's Eve speech in the shape of testimony before our Board." He said he would do what the Board thought best but doubted the advisability "unless I can go after some really big fellows." I told him that the meeting of "big fellows" that I hoped to see was Myron C. Taylor and Lewis before the La Follette Committee. Since that was unpredictable at present I suggested that if Arthur Young responded to the Board's subpoena, the Board might, with good reason, want to hear from Lewis "as an expert witness.") Supposing compliance with the subpoenas it would make impressive hearings: Loeffler to be examined on his dealings with the Employees' Representative Committee the past two months, then served with a demand for his files; Fairless to be examined on his written notices to the men and his meeting with the Representatives' Committee, then a demand on him for his instructions from his superiors; Young to be examined on his two years of telegrams and communications to the employee representatives, then requested for his records of instructions from his superiors (Finance Committee of United States Steel Corporation). Following this, Lewis as expert witness, representative of the complaining workers and personal testimony, which can include three years of dealings with United States Steel Corporation's subsidiaries. That would be January 11 to the end of the month at least. Concurrent steel hearings would be La Follette Committee, U. S. Steel subsidiaries January 14 to 19; Weirton Steel Company toward the end of the month. If Fairless and Young resist the Board's subpoena, that lays the ground work La Follette could seize on to issue Senate subpoenas. If they comply that invites La Follette to summon Myron C. Taylor. Patterson, who will be here Saturday morning, requests a wire regarding subpoenas for Loeffler, Fairless and Young. Н. В. P. S. Is it still impossible to get a decent hearing room, say a vacant court room for sessions like the above? Mr. TOLAND. Now Mr. Blankenhorn, the report that you prepared on the 7th of January, 1937, concerning the Carnegie Steel Co., refreshed your recollection as to the memorandum prepared wherein the statement is made, "John L. Lewis' name should be placed on the ballot"? Mr. BLANKENHORN. No, sir. Those suggestions in regard to the conduct of that hearing were rejected by Mr. Patterson, our attorney. I know nothing about the Mr. TOLAND (interposing). Mr. Chairman, with respect to the exhibit of the committee, No. 1245, I would like to renew the offer, to be admitted only on the basis that it was found in the file of the witness, and to be admitted in connection with the answer that the witness gave, namely, that he does not admit nor does he deny writing the same. The CHAIRMAN. You have shown it to the witness? Mr. TOLAND. I have. Can you tell the committee whether or not you prepared that? Mr. BLANKENHORN. I just don't know what that is about. It speaks about a ballot, and an election, and I have no idea what; I cannot think of any ballot or election that was held at that time. The CHAIRMAN. You have the original? Mr. TOLAND. The witness has the original. The CHAIRMAN. And you have no recollection of it? Mr. BLANKENHORN. None whatever. It is dated May 28, 1936There was no election that I know of in the Carnegie Steel Corporation plants at that time. The CHAIRMAN. In view of the fact that there is no identifying mark on it, and the witness does not identify it, I will rule it out. Mr. TOLAND. Now, Mr. Blankenhorn, did you recommend to the Board that mass complaints or mass charges be filed against the steel companies? Mr. BLANKENHORN. I did make a suggestion of joining a number of companies together. Mr. TOLAND. And was that suggestion taken? Mr. BLANKENHORN. That was rejected. Mr. TOLAND. Let me ask you this question: Was that suggestion based upon a conference that you had with officials of the C. I. O.? Mr. BLANKENHORN. No; not that I recall. Mr. TOLAND. Well, let me refresh your recollection again. Didn't you so report to the Board on the 14th day of July, 1936, that you had a conference with Mr. Philip Murray and Mr. Clinton Golden? Mr. BLANKENHORN (examining document). Yes; they asked me this question. Mr. TOLAND. They asked you if mass charges should be filed by the Board against companies? Mr. BLANKENHORN. I remember it. It was Mr. TOLAND (interposing). Then you made the recommendation to the Board as a result of that conference; is that right? Mr. BLANKENHORN. I don't recall the recommendation to the Board. I remember talking it over with Mr. Patterson. Mr. TOLAND. I offer this in evidence. (Letter to Mr. Madden, Mr. Carmody, Mr. Smith, from Heber Blankenhorn, subject, "Possible Mass Complaint in Steel Industry," identified by the witness, was received in evidence, marked "Exhibit No. 1247," and follows.) Mr. TOLAND. With whom did you talk it over? Mr. BLANKENHORN. With Mr. Patterson. Mr. TOLAND. This memorandum I have just handed you, and then which you identified, was a memorandum prepared by you for Mr. Madden, Mr. Carmody, and Mr. Smith? Mr. BLANKENHORN. That is correct. in that, then If there is a recommendation Mr. TOLAND (interposing). This is dated July 14, 1936 (reading): POSSIBLE MASS COMPLAINT IN STEEL INDUSTRY Philip Murray and C. S. Golden of the Steel Workers' Organizing Committee asked me in Pittsburgh as to the possibility of the Board entertaining charges of interference by a number of steel companies. If the number of complaints increases, as they threaten to, the Board may wish to consider a sort of "mass charge" against the steel industry. Their data in hand at present cover the following: Discharge of 14 union members at Aliquippa by Jones and Laughlin; distribution of anti-union leaflets, also at Aliquippa; coercion of hall owners at Aliquippa; shadowing of union officers by Aliquippa police. U. S. Steel Corporation, McDonald and Ohio plants at Youngstown, calling |