Government agencies have refused to produce confidential files. Private bodies under investigation persistently offer to go into court over the terms of a subpoena on the ground that a confidential exemption attaches to certain files. (The La Follette Committee fought a continuous battle with opposing counsel over this point and gave up no end of requests, under threat of litigation. Of course, courts might not be so anxious to protect the NLRB.)

An immediate study of past congressional investigations is suggested, so that precedents can be cited regarding the limitations of congressional investigators. It is not unlikely that a battle will develop, the congressional committee proclaiming that it cannot get the facts, and the Board stating that it cannot get public hearing for the facts.

If the congressional committee starts holding hearings in different parts of the country, or sends investigators into many regional offices simultaneously, the designation of a Board attorney to control the furnishing of information becomes indispensable. The designation of an additional special counsel from outside the Board staff may have the advantage of relieving Board personnel of the brunt of haggling over compliance with subpenas.

The Board, having the facts on its side, can do a good bit toward overwhelming the committee by furnishing a wealth of documents and corroborating witnesses, i. e., witnesses who participated in Board cases. The press will probably try to act as it did in behalf of the Dies committee. Is it not a mistake for the Board to repeat the procedure it followed regarding the Senate hearings on NLRA amendments? There the Board let weeks of AF of L, NAM, etc., testimony go by while it gathered up one comprehensive reply "when its turn came before the committee." Thus the Board got one poor day's publicity to offset weeks of published criticism. Instead of being bound by such narrow procedure, the Board's attorney should, concurrently with each day's adverse testimony, announce that "the Board will offer the following testimony," and then give to the press such documents as correct the day's testimony.

Thorough study should be made of the record and speeches, especially on labor questions, of each member of the investigating committee. Board witnesses should be able to use e. g., such speeches as Cox's in Thursday debate, "This is a vicious law," etc., etc. The aim would be to bring out the essential absurdity of smearing a Board as cover for repealing a law.

The Board has every reason to convey the impression that "the results of this investigation will be the same as the results of the four months Senate committee investigation of the law and the two-and-a-half months House investigation." We have a world of facts and supporting witnesses but in getting them to public hearings and to publicity will encounter tactics worse than those to which we have been used.

I show you also a communication to the Board dated the 8th of September, 1939, with a pink memo attached bearing the initials of Mr. Madden, and ask you if you prepared this?

Mr. BLANKENHORN. That is correct.

Mr. TOLAND. I offer in evidence the document identified by the witness. I want these last two exhibits printed and spread on the record.

(Communication from Heber Blankenhorn to the Board dated September 8, 1939, together with pink slip memorandum attached thereto, was received in evidence and marked "Exhibit No. 1250" and follows.)

Mr. TOLAND. Pink slip memorandum (reading):

Attention: Mr. Madden.

From: Blankenhorn.

Date: 9/11.

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD.

JWM

This is the season when every patriot should get excited about saving the Board.

* Reading the attached is not obligatory. But I think there is some

thing in it.

Inter-Office Communication

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,

September 8, 1939.

Confidential.

To: The Board.

From: Heber Blankenhorn.

Subject: National Labor Relations Board and "Public Opinion."

The following suggestion grows out of conversations with Senator Thomas, and later Messrs. Fahy, Ross, and Durham.

It is suggested that a new emergency confronts the Board, and that provision should be made for enlarging the budget to deal with "public opinion."

First, as to the past: Has it not been advisable for some time that the Board should abandon the concept that it is a run-of-mine Government agency, whose functional organization should follow an established pattern? This concept is reflected in the present budget—“x” publicity people to care for "y" pounds of work paripassu with other Government agencies.

The National Labor Relations Board is hardly any such thing. The Internal Revenue Bureau, Federal Trade Commission, I. C. C., nor even W. P. A. are subject to no such daily press onslaught as the National Labor Relations Board. The ship among torpedoes ceases to regard its wireless house as an ordinary item of equipment: safety depends first on that ship's ability to yell. This Board has a 2-by-4-foot loudspeaker on an 8-by-10-mile job. We set aside adequate legal personnel to deal with Congressional committees investigating the law, or us. We leave the publicity budget "normal" because a return to normal conditions is expected. I suggest that continuous Congressional investigation, continuous effort to abrogate the National Labor Relations Act, should be accepted as "normal" for us. Also continuous dissension among our one real support, labor, is to be accepted as "normal," and a new normalcy will be a "state of emergency" marked by efforts to immobilize the National Labor Relations Act as "an unstabilizing factor in war time." Accepting these conditions should mean dealing with the one field where the Board's almost spectacular victories have been missing-the field of "public opinion." Accepting this concept means no upset in Board practice in expectation of any miracles. It first means budget-staffing up to the speed of the gale.

It is respectfully suggested that the Board (a) acquire a number of "authoritative spokesmen" and (b) authorize them to act, without Board censorship of the commas, even if they may shoot off their faces sometimes. Hire more than two or three outstanding men in this field, make them "administrative assistants," "economists," "special counsels,"-anything-but assign them to the business of making opinion. That means making news, addressing meetings, interviews, "investigations," writing, organizing cooperating efforts. It means hiring men to do what so far we have only thought of.

Here is a typical instance. We thought of the usefulness of a “public jury,” an unofficial committee of lawyers and economists to sit in, through a designated representative, on the coming House investigation hearings, and examining also last spring's record before Senate and House committees, to bring in public reports coincident with the House investigation results. I sent the memorandum to Lloyd Garrison, who writes back: "Fine, but I intensely regret that I have no time to head it up." That thing could be done if we had people available to work on it. That sort of thing is only a sample in a gamut running from books to an N. L. R. B. exhibit at the World's Fair. Nothing extraordinary--just building up bit by bit defenses against the tide that has been set going, also bit by bit, against us.

After all, even the second World War on the Western Front condescended to open by bombing with leaflets.

The new threat to us is to immobilize unions and collective bargaining, and to "freeze the status quo" by substituting "war boards" for the operation of existent labor law, perhaps even an attempt to begin this at the coming Special Session. This sort of thing is a natural, though unreasonable, national habit. Militarily speaking, to choke collective bargaining in war time is a damn-fool business, as nations invariably find out, though invariably they start out by trying it. To explain even that much, merely to war departments or war colleges, takes more "spokesmen" than we have now.

Is it not experience that the stresses of a "state of emergency" damage the ordinary ways of doing Government business "conferences," etc.? Even the White House today sits reading newspapers to learn if and when to call that

Special Session. It cannot be said that the Board at present is equipped to pull its weight in the newspapers-"public opinion."

Admittedly, none of the spokesmen I suggest would have the authority or prestige of a Board Member or General Counsel, but these four cannot cover the country. They need extensions of themselves.

You do not overturn adverse "public opinions" by any miracle, of testimony here, or a court decision there. You do it bit by bit, the same as the adverse opinion was built up. The new responsibility is nothing to sneeze at,—the preservation of democratic processes in industry under "preparedness" conditions. Has not this Board a vital part in the job of convincing the Government and the people that the maintenance of collective bargaining is essential in this sort of an emergency, and that the abrogation of it has in the past resulted in internal explosions?

If I had not some recollection of how the weather changed in 1914, then in 1917, I would not make bold to ask the Board to read this. The suggestions come to this: (a) A designated spokesman within the Board, perhaps General Counsel, who signs statements, gives interviews, etc., freely: (b) a staff of spokesmen, peripatetic, to do the preaching outside. (To name Dr. John Lapp or other known economist or lawyer is an indication of caliber, rather than of availability.) In none of this is there any implication of inadequacy of past speeches or testimony by Board spokesmen. They stand up as classics. But they have been too few. The suggestion is to put the Board on a war footing in re battles for "public opinion.'

(Signed) H. B.

Are there any questions? I am through with the witness, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. ROUTZOHN. I would suggest, Mr. Toland, that you ask the witness, inasmuch as you have gone into detail with him in connection with these various matters that he has taken up with the Board, whether or not the Board has ever repudiated what he has done, or reprimanded him in any way for his activities.

Mr. TOLAND. Have you ever received any criticism from the Board in writing with respect to the exhibits that I have offered in evidence, the exhibits being restricted to those that came to the attention of the Board, bearing the initials of the Chairman?

Mr. BLANKENHORN. I have not.

Mr. ROUTZOHN. I wonder if the witness has told of all of the labor conventions that he has attended since he has been a member of the Board. Have you told of all the labor conventions that you have attended?

Mr. BLANKENHORN. I gave the list in the record the other day to the best of my recollection, and the record is incorrect in one respect. I was asked, "Did you attend the C. I. O. convention in California?" and the record says "Yes," but I said "No." That is on page 503,1 Mr. Toland, if you could have that corrected.

Mr. TCLAND. That is all right.

There is one question I would like to ask you. I am sorry Mr. Healey isn't here. I want to ask you, if I have not asked you about anything that you think the committee is interested in that it should know under the resolution with respect to conduct, misconduct, irregularities, or maladministration, would you be good enough to tell the committee anything I didn't ask you?

Mr. BLANKENHORN. That seems to me to be a rhetorical question, not particularly applicable.

Mr. TOLAND. Either you know something or you don't. I didn't talk with you before you went on the stand, did I?

1 Indicates page reference to verbatim transcript of committee proceedings, April 29, 1940.

Mr. BLANKENHORN. NO.

Mr. TOLAND. I didn't talk with Mr. Davidson, either, the first day he went on.

I meant no offense by that question.

Mr. ROUTZOHN. Do you recall the International Workers' Convention down in Mexico City?

Mr. BLANKENHORN. I know nothing of that.

Mr. ROUTZOHN. Do you know of it at the time?

Mr. BLANKENHORN. An International Workers' Convention? Mr. ROUTZOHN. Yes; the one that Mr. Smith, of the Board, attended and made a speech at, I believe, and also Mr. Lewis, at the same time.

Mr. BLANKENHORN. I knew nothing of that except what I read in the papers.

Mr. ROUTZOHN. Oh, you 'didn't attend that?

Mr. BLANKENHORN. No.

Mr. ROUTZOHN. You did mention some conventions that you attended over in Europe. I am not going back as far as the Civil War or even the late war on that. I am going back to the time after you left your position in New York City and took up this labor work. Just what conventions did you attend over in Europe, or what gatherings?

Mr. BLANKENHORN. You mean in my work as a reporter for Labor? Mr. ROUTZOHN. Yes.

Mr. BLANKENHORN. I attended

Mr. ROUTZOHN (interposing). In any capacity. I want to know just what you did over there in Europe, and what years it was.

Mr. BLANKENHORN. From 1924 to 1929-28, rather-I was reporting on labor events in Europe. That meant the meetings of labor organizations, conventions, and also such meetings as labor participated in, such as the annual Assembly of the International Labor Office of the League.

Mr. ROUTZOHN. Well, what all did you attend in those 5 or 6 years? Can you give us the names of them?

Mr. BLANKENHORN. Yes. The Trade Union Congress of Great Britain holds an annual conference. I attended each one of those. The British Labor Party holds an annual conference, and I usually reported those. There would be numerous conventions of constituent unions of the Trade Union Congress, such as the engineers, the mine workers, and so forth. I covered a good many of those. Mr. ROUTZOHN. Those were in England?

Mr. BLANKENHORN. Those were in England.

Mr. ROUTZOHN. Any in France?

Mr. BLANKEN HORN. I attended one conference of the General Confederation of Trade Unions there.

Mr. ROUTZOHN. Any over in

Mr. BLANKENHORN (interposing). And then of individual unions, I covered several conferences of the mine workers and one of the metal workers, that I recall.

Mr. ROUTZOHN. Any other countries?

Mr. BLANKENHORN. In Holland, I covered a conference, covered at Amsterdam, I think, three or four conferences of the General Federation of Trade Unions, the International Federation of Trade Unions, the I. F. T. U. In Brussels, I attended a conference, I

think two, of the General Federation of Trade Unions of Belgium. In Italy, I attended-no, that is back in 1921-one conference, Confederation of Labor, it is called in Italy. In Spain, I attended one conference of the Spanish trade unions. In Switzerland, I attended every year the assembly of the International Labor Office, which is participated in one-fourth by labor organizations, one-fourth by employers, and one-half by governmental delegates. In Prague, I attended one convention of the International Mine Workers organization. In Germany, I never attended but one conference, covered one meeting. I can't remember what it was about, in Frankfort. Not speaking German, I was not able to make much of that. That is the total.

Mr. ROUTZOHN. Ever get over into Russia?

Mr. BLANKENHORN. No.

Mr. ROUTZOHN. Did you run into any radical meetings of any kind over there while you were touring Europe?

Mr. BLANKENHORN. What do you mean, "radical meetings"? Mr. ROUTZOHN. Either socialistic meetings or meetings that emanated from the Russian Third Internationale?

Mr. BLANKENHORN. No.

Mr. ROUTZOHN. You are not familiar with them?

Mr. BLANKENHORN. You must understand, of course, that the Russian trade unions did have representatives at the assembly, the Labor Assembly of the League of Nations. Of course, I reported what they said.

Mr. ROUTZOHN. Now, what paper were you reporting for at that time?

Mr. BLANKENHORN. Labor. It is the weekly owned by the railway unions, published here in Washington.

Mr. ROUTZOHN. During all of that time, you were representing that paper?

Mr. BLANKENHORN. That is correct.

Mr. ROUTZOHN. Yes. They paid your expenses and your salary and so forth?

Mr. BLANKENHORN. Certainly.

Mr. ROUTZOHN. For you to report these various conferences in Europe?

Mr. BLANKEN HORN. That is correct.

Mr. ROUTZOHN. And to gather what information you could on the outside as to things pertaining to labor-

Mr. BLANKENHORN (interposing). That is correct. Such conferences that bore on economic questions such as the International Disarmament conferences at the League, the naval limitations conferences. I reported those, too.

Mr. ROUTZOHN. I believe you said yesterday that you had no connections of any kind with the Brookwood Labor Colonies.

Mr. BLANKEN HORN. None at all, except this. I had a collection of books that were more or less technical books, labor research library, and when I went to Europe as a correspondent, I sent those books up to Brookwood.

Mr. ROUTZOHN. I meant to ask you, did you write for any other publications?

Mr. BLANKENHORN. Occasionally.

Mr. ROUTZOHN. When you were in Europe?