National Maritime Union, the rank and file group by that time having converted themselves into a separate organization known as the National Maritime Union. Our original question related to whether or not we wanted to take jurisdiction over a matter that lay within the A. F. of L. itself. We were moved to consider seriously taking such jurisdiction because of the existence of a strike and general disturbance in the maritime industry. Mr. TOLAND. But you did cause this telegram to be sent? Mr. SMITH. My recollection is that I caused that telegram to be sent in order to inform Mr. Bridges of the forthcoming hearing so that if he desired to be present, he could do so. At that time-Mr. TOLAND (interposing). Did you notify the other parties to the cause? Did you send any wires to any of the other labor leaders? Mr. SMITH. I am sure that the Board must have sent notice to all interested parties. My recollection is that the hearing was held some 2 or 3 days after that telegram to Mr. Bridges, and I believe the occasion for my call to him, which I presume I discussed with the Chairman of the Board although I have no precise recollection on that, was to inform him that the hearing was about to take place within a very short period of time in case he wanted to designate somebody, or come himself. Mr. TOLAND. Well, if notices were sent out, Mr. Smith, wasn't he advised that what you are saying was the basis of this telegram? Mr. SMITH. I have no recollection, Mr. Toland, of when the notices were sent out, and the clearest recollection I have of the telephone call of Mr. Bridges-which, incidentally, I don't know was ever held-the suggestion for a telephone from him was in order to give him personal, timely notice that there was to be a hearing within a few days. Mr. TOLAND. Well, is it your custom when you ask union leaders to call you that the call is to be at the expense of the Government where they are an interested party to the proceedings? Mr. SMITH. Well, I certainly would not have called Mr. Bridges if l Mr. TOLAND. Answer yes or no. Is it your custom? Have you done it in other instances? Mr. SMITH. Well, I think that your question begs another question as to whether or not Mr. Bridges was an interested party or assumes that he was. I make no such assumption. Mr. TOLAND. Well, now, let me ask you this: Is it your custom and practice, and has it been while you have been an employee of the Board, that when you wanted to talk with union leaders or union officials that you sent word to them to call you at the Board's expense, or at the Government's expense? Mr. SMITH. The reason that I Mr. TOLAND (interposing). Answer the question. Mr. Chairman, may I have a responsive answer from the witness? It is either yes or no. The CHAIRMAN. Repeat the question. Mr. TOLAND. I will repeat it. I am asking him if it was his custom and practice while a member of this Board to notify union leaders or union officials to call him at the expense of the Govern ment of the United States. If it was his custom, the answer is "yes"; if it wasn't, "no." That is all I want. The CHAIRMAN. I wouldn't confine the witness to a categorical "yes" or "no." Mr. TOLAND. And then he can make any explanation he wants. Mr. SMITH. I will say it was not a custom, and then make an explanation. The reason that I telephoned Mr. Bridges, or rather wired Mr. Edises to have Mr. Bridges telephone me, was that I didn't know how to reach Mr. Bridges by telephone. I didn't have his home or office telephone, therefore the best way I could get in touch with him was to ask Mr. Edises to ask him to come to the regional office. Mr. TOLAND. Or some place else? Mr. SMITH. The reason I made that communication to Mr. Edises was that Mrs. Rosseter was out of town, and Mr. Edises was acting regional director. Mr. TOLAND. Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer in evidence copy of the telegram found in the files of the witness, of the Board, dated the 18th day of January, 1937, addressed to Bertram Edises, National Labor Relations Board, twentieth region, 1095 Market Street, San Francisco, Calif. (reading): Please have Harry Bridges telephone me from your office or somewhere else our expense tomorrow Tuesday between two thirty and five thirty Eastern time. EDWIN S. SMITH. (Copy of telegram from Edwin S. Smith to Bertram Edises dated January 18, 1937, was received in evidence and marked "Exhibit No. 1279" and appears above.) Mr. TOLAND. Now, Mr. Smith, it is a fact, is it not, that Mr. Bridges communicated with you, as I have heretofore asked, with respect to the designation of an attorney on behalf of the Board to go to Hawaii? Mr. SMITH. I have a recollection of such a letter. Mr. TOLAND. I show you a copy of a letter marked "Personal and confidential," a photostatic reproduction of a letter, dated the 8th day of January, 1938, addressed to you, from Harry R. Bridges, and attached thereto a copy of your reply to Mr. Bridges dated the 11th day of January. I ask you if you did not receive the communication. and did not dictate the answer, the copy of which is attached thereto. We found them in your files, Mr. Smith. Mr. SMITH. Yes. I presumed you were going to interrogate me on the letters and I wanted to read them. Mr. TOLAND. I am just asking you now if you received the original and if you dictated the answer? Mr. SMITH. Yes; I did. Mr. TOLAND. I will let you make any explanation you want after I offer them in evidence. Mr. SMITH. I did. Mr. TOLAND. I offer in evidence the communication identified by the witness, being a photostatic reproduction of a letter from Mr. Bridges to the witness, and a copy of his reply to Mr. Bridges. (Photostatic reproductions of communications from Harry R. Bridges to Edwin S. Smith dated January 8, 1938, and from Edwin S. Smith to H. R. Bridges dated January 11, 1938, were received in evidence and marked "Exhibit No. 1280" and follow.) Mr. DAVIES. Exhibit No. 1280 (reading): Personal and confidential. Mr. EDWIN S. SMITH, National Labor Relations Board, Shoreham Building, Washington, D. C. JANUARY 8, 1938. DEAR MR. SMITH: I recently had a discussion with our attorneys here in regard to the local Regional Labor Board and the demand from Honolulu for a representative of the Board to be stationed there. I am told that the National Board contemplates, or has ordered, Bert Edises to go to Honolulu to take charge. I am further advised that Mr. Larson has just returned from there and that frankly his whole stay on the Islands accomplished little or nothing for the workers there. You will possibly be better able to judge from his report which you will receive no doubt. The question now is this: Honolulu and Hawaii is in need of a good man who will be table to resist the employer arguments much better than Mr. Larson, and no doubt Mr. Edises will be the ideal person. However, on the other hand, there appears to be a lot of dissatisfaction with the local Board as it is here in the San Francisco area and to take Mr. Edises away from the local Board would also create a bad situation. There is no doubt about the dissatisfaction of the unions in this area, at least the C. I. O. unions, with the local Regional Board. It appears there is much unnecessary red-tape and apparent differences of opinion on the Board itself. From what I know, and from the opinions of others who are somewhat acquainted with the entire matter, possibly forces are at work on the local Regional Board who would be very glad to see Mr. Edises go to Honolulu and have the Regional Board run smoothly although possibly not to the very great advantage of the unions and the workers. I am, therefore, passing this information on to you to acquaint you with our opinion here and at the same time what we think might best be done in the matter. We definitely would deem it a loss if Mr. Edises did not remain with the local Board-at the same time we wish to urge the National Board, because of the complex problems in Hawaii and the immediate necessity of having the Board permanently established there, to dispatch a man to take charge in Hawaii. It is evident from all accounts that Mr. Larson did not do a very satisfactory job there. At the same time, because of the employers' iron control over the whole situation in the Islands, it needs a strong man and one who is not susceptible or easily swayed by the arguments, intimidation, etc.; and I hope you will do what you can to see that somebody of the type of Mr. Eagen or Mr. Edises can be immediately selected for Hawaii. Our attorneys have been communicating with Lee Pressman along the same lines although I am not aware at this time if Lee has discussed the whole matter with you. Hoping you will be able to help us out on this matter and will be able to understand our point of view, I am Yours sincerely, (Signed) H. R. BRIDGES, Regional Director. JANUARY 11, 1938. Mr. H. R. BRIDGES, Regional Director, Committee for Industrial Organization, San Francisco, California. DEAR MR. BRIDGES: Thank you for your letter of January 8. I agree with you as to the importance of having the right sort of man in Hawaii, and the Board has this very much in mind. We had intended to send Edises to Hawaii to hear the pending case of the Plantation Owners' Association, not to keep him there, and we have not sent him simply because of pressure of matters around San Francisco. The problem is not an easy one to solve. I am sorry to hear what you have to say about the dissatisfaction with the San Francisco Office. I had hoped that the personal difficulties which seemed to have arisen there had been straightened out at the time of our Regional Conference. If you ever get to Washington, I should be glad to talk these matters with you. Sincerely, yours, EDWIN S. SMITH. Mr. TOLAND. Now, Mr. Smith, in connection with your reply, prior to the receipt of this letter, at any time, or in California, did Mr. Bridges advise you of his dissatisfaction with the employees of the San Francisco office? Mr. SMITH. I have no recollection of receiving such advice from him. Mr. TOLAND. Will you tell the committee about the statement in your letter that "I hoped that the personal difficulties which seem to have arisen there had been straightened out at the time of our Regional Conference?" Did you at the regional conference take up with anybody from San Francisco the question of the relationship that existed between the San Francisco office and Mr. Bridges? Mr. SMITH. What Mr. Bridges referred to was a clash of temperament, I think it could perhaps be accurately called, resulting in some divisions of opinion between the director of the Board in the regional office in San Francisco, Mrs. Rosseter, and Mr. Bert Edises, the regional attorney. Those differences of opinion and differences of temperament, and the resulting friction were discussed by the Board both with Mrs. Rosseter and Mr. Edises to the best of my recollection at the time of the regional conference. The communication from Mr. Bridges seems to me to relate to that situation within the regional office, but that is not the first intimation that the Board had by any means that there was such friction between Mrs. Rosseter and Mr. Edises. Mr. TOLAND. Now, Mr. Smith, will you tell the committee, after you received the communication from Mr. Bridges and before you answered his letter, or afterward, did you take up with the other members of the Board the question of the assignment of Mr. Edises or some other attorney of the Board to go to Hawaii? Mr. SMITH. I am sure I must have done so. Mr. TOLAND. Do you have any recollection as to who it was that was sent there, and what part, if any, you played with respect to the assignment? Mr. SMITH. No; I would have to look into the records to discover that, Mr. Toland. Mr. TOLAND. Supposing I try to refresh your recollection. Isn't it a fact that at the instance of the Board Mr. Eagen was sent to Hawaii? Mr. SMITH. Yes; Mr. Eagen was sent to Hawaii, but some time preceding this communication. Mr. TOLAND. Was he sent there after? Mr. SMITH. No; he was sent there before, because Mr. Larson, whom Mr. Bridges mentioned in his letter, was Mr. Eagen's successor. Mr. TOLAND. I show you communication dated the 26th day of May, 1937, from you to Mr. Eagan, and ask you if you had anything to do with the assignment of Mr. Eagen to Hawaii. Mr. SMITH. Yes; I would identify the letter as my own. Mr. TOLAND. Does that refresh your recollection as to the incident of sending Mr. Eagen to Hawaii, if it was at the suggestion or the request of Mr. Bridges? Mr. SMITH. Well, at the time this letter of May 26, 1937, was written, Mr. Eagen had already been in Hawaii. Mr. TOLAND. Yes. This is after his return from Hawaii. Mr. TOLAND. You asked him to give you a report on the conditions that he found there? Mr. SMITH. I don't know as I personally asked him. I think the Board asked him. Mr. TOLAND. In your letter you say— I want to tell you how interested I have been in your reports from Hawaii * * * I hope when you get time with your stenographer that you will send the Board a comprehensive report of what you observed on the islands. I should like to offer this letter in evidence, Mr. Chairman, identified by the witness. (Photostatic reproduction of communication from Edwin S. Smith to E. J. Eagen, Esq., dated May 26, 1937, was received in evidence, marked "Exhibit No. 1281," and appears below.) Mr. TOLAND. You have an engagement? The CHAIRMAN. We will adjourn until tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock. (Whereupon, at 12:15 p. m., a recess was taken until 10 a. m. of the following day, May 3, 1940.) |