or at the suggestion of Mr. Wolf, the secretary, I have forgotten which, I thought it would be useful to make a similar report on my visit to the west coast. I am very specific in my memory that Mr. Wolf suggested that in addition to the lawyers it would be of interest, he thought, to all of the members of the staff to listen to my talk, which was held, as I recall it, at the end of the afternoon, after the regular working hours. Mr. Ryan's version of my talk is completely fallacious. What I did was to describe, as best I could, the problems confronting the various regional offices, to emphasize that the situation in the maritime industry was such that our office was very much. occupied with maritime affairs, and in connection with that portion of my talk I did describe the then split in the labor movement, on one side of which were lined up Mr. Bridges and Mr. Lundborg and others, and on the other side of which were lined up other representatives of the A. F. of L. That was before the period when Mr. Bridges' union had left the A. F. of L. That was the extent of my speech, and the inference or, rather, the statement in Mr. Ryan's letter that I made a speech praising Harry Bridges is completely misleading. Mr. TOLAND. Did you make any written reply to the letter of Mr. Ryan? Mr. SMITH. I made no personal reply that I can recall. Whether the chairman replied to the letter, I do not know. My impression is that there was no reply to the letter or no follow-up from the President's secretary. Mr. TOLAND. But you did make an investigation, did you not, to find out who it was that talked out of school, or told the story to Mr. Ryan? Mr. SMITH. I made some inquiries in an effort to find out who might have done this, and I was unsuccessful in doing so. I was disturbed because Mr. Ryan apparently had knowledge of the fact which I assumed he gathered from some member of the staff, that such a speech was made; and it was apparent that whoever had reported to him or reported to the person who had reported to him had given him a very misleading and damaging account of the speech, and I thought it was an act of disloyalty on the part of any Board person to have done that thing, and I wanted to find out, if possible, who had done it and what they had said, because it was quite possible that Mr. Ryan had misrepresented them. Mr. TOLAND. Did you suspect any member of telling Mr. Ryan? Mr. SMITH. I don't recall, Mr. Toland. I interviewed two or three persons who I thought might have done so. But I was finally satisfied that they hadn't done so. Mr. TOLAND. Do you recall who it was? Mr. SMITH. I spoke Mr. HEALEY (interposing). Mr. Toland, do you expect the witness to name some members of the Board staff? Mr. TOLAND. I have the document. I am not asking him a question; I am simply laying the basis for the question. Mr. HEALEY. I presume that is so. I wondered whether you wanted to involve somebody Mr. TOLAND (interposing). I also have questions about the subsequent acts during that time that may or may not be of interest to the committee because of this situation. Mr. HEALEY. The witness has stated that his investigation showed that whatever suspicion he may have had proved to be groundless. It is just a question of whether you want to involve somebody who was a member of the staff. Mr. TOLAND. I am not. Mr. HEALEY. Well, as a matter of fact, the witness claims his investigation proved that whatever suspicions he had proved to be groundless. Mr. TOLAND. Well, the question there is that the committee was to reach the determination after this line of inquiry, and the next line of inquiry involving an action of the Board as to whether the individual that was suspected had anything to do with the action that the Board took in the case I am going to take up next. Mr. SMITH. If I may suggest, Mr. Healey, I feel perfectly willing to answer that question. Mr. TOLAND. Suppose I show you this report dated the 25th day of June, 1936, and ask you as a result of the investigation that you made, if you did not dictate that. Mr. SMITH (examining document). I Mr. HEALEY (interposing). When did this occur? What was the date of this? Mr. SMITH. The date of this report which Mr. Toland has handed me is June 25, 1936. What the date of this talk to the staff was, I don't know, but I think there is no record. Mr. HEALEY. The event took place about 4 years ago? Mr. SMITH. Yes. Mr. TOLAND. I show you this mimeographed notice of the meeting that you have testified about, regarding your trip to the west coast, sent out by Mr. Witt, assistant general counsel, and ask you if that was sent out to members of the staff in connection with the meeting that you have just testified about. Mr. SMITH (examining document). That appears to be the same meeting. Mr. TOLAND. Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer in evidence a mimeographed notice of a memorandum, dated March 31, 1936, to the staff, from Nathan Witt, reading: Mr. Edwin S. Smith has just returned from a trip to the Pacific coast, where he inquired into the labor situation, especially in the shipping industry, and talked to Harry Bridges, Lundberg of the Maritime Federation, other labor leaders, business men, and public officials. He has a very interesting story to tell about the situation, and you are invited to hear him tell it on Thursday, April 2, at 4:30 p. m. in the Hearing Room. I offer that in evidence. (Mimeographed memorandum to the Staff from Nathan Witt, dated March 31, 1936, was received in evidence, marked "Exhibit No. 1287," and appears above.) Mr. SMITH. May I say in respect to that, that that refreshes my recollection that Mr. Witt as well as Mr. Wolf was a participant in this suggestion, although I am quite sure, as I said before, that it was Mr. Wolf who suggested that we include all of the staff. Mr. TOLAND. Do you recall preparing that? Mr. SMITH. Yes. Mr. TOLAND. I offer in evidence a photostatic reproduction of a memorandum prepared by the witness on June 25, 1936. (Photostatic reproduction of memorandum written by Edwin Smith, dated June 25, 1936, identified by the witness, was received in evidence, marked "Exhibit No. 1288," and is printed in the appendix of this volume.) Mr. TOLAND. Now, Mr. Smith, I show you a communication from Mr. Madden to Mr. Wolf, dated June 15, 1937-appearing above, "21"-and ask you if you recall discussing the report with Mr. Madden, and recall seeing that communication before. Mr. SMITH (examining document). Well, I presume there was a discussion of the report with Mr. Madden. I don't recall seeing this document. Mr. TOLAND. Mr. Chairman, in connection with the Eagen report, I would like to offer in evidence a photostatic copy of a memorandum from the chairman, Mr. Madden, to Mr. Wolf; subject, “Mr. Eagen's Report on Hawaii," reading as follows: I read Eagen's report: There are many things in it about Hawaii which make me think that Hawaii may be a good deal like Pennsylvania and Georgia and some parts of Massachusetts, as well as California and most of our other States. J. W. M. I offer it in evidence. (Photostatic reproduction of memorandum from Mr. Madden to Mr. Wolf, "Mr. Eagen's Report on Hawaii," was received in evidence, marked "Exhibit No. 1289," and appears above.) Mr. HEALEY. Who is "J. W. M."? Mr. TOLAND. Mr. Madden. Mr. SMITH. May I refer further to Mr. Ryan's letter? Mr. TOLAND. Go right ahead. Anything you want to say, you go ahead and say it. Mr. SMITH. Mr. Ryan's letter, in addition to the allegations about my supposed speech concerning Mr. Bridges, referred to a discussion which he had had with the Board regarding the activities of Mr. Charles Logan, the director of the New Orleans regional office. The background of that discussion was this, that it had been reported to the Board that at a district convention of the International Longshoremen's Association in Galveston, in May of 1936, Mr. Logan had made a speech in connection with the union resolution involving the problems of employment of white and colored workers. The Board has never taken any exception to members of its staff addressing labor conventions provided that they talked about the operation of the Board which would be a subject of natural interest to such conventions. We felt that this action of Mr. Logan went beyond the proper function of a Board's agent in connection with a union convention. Subsequently, in June, I think it was, of that year, we received a telegram from Holt Ross, connected with the American Federation of Labor in the New Orleans region, asking that Mr. Logan attend a convention of the A. F. of L., a national convention, to be held at Tampa. Among other things in this telegram, he indicated that Mr. Logan might be useful in connection with the proposal to form a Maritime Council of Labor Unions operating on the Gulf and east coast in the shipping industry. The Board, taking this invitation in conjunction with Mr. Logan's activities at the Galveston convention, thought it desirable to call in Mr. Ryan and tell him why we felt it would be improper for Mr. Logan to participate in the manner that he had done, and in the manner suggested in this telegram from Mr. Ross. Mr. Ross was organizing in the longshoremen's industry or longshoremen's union, of which Mr. Ryan was president. At that meeting with the Board at which Mr. Madden and Mr. Carmody and myself were present, I broached the matter first, I think, of Mr. Logan's activities and why the Board felt they could not approve him. I tried to point out to Mr. Ryan that the usefulness of the director of one of our regional offices to him should be confined to discharging his duties under the act on the complaint or petition of the unions. Mr. Ryan, after that suggestion was made, took violent exception to it on the ground that I had made this alleged speech about Mr. Bridges, and that is how those two matters tied in together in the letter. Mr. TOLAND. As a matter of fact, you made a speech, did you not, before a union, the American Communications Association, while the charge in the complaint and the hearing was pending, involving the same union before the Board? Mr. SMITH. I may have done so, Mr. Toland. I remember such a speech before the American Communications Association, who have had a number of proceedings before the Board. My talk there was on the question of the right of free speech and whether the decisions of the Board infringed upon that right. Mr. TOLAND. I have a copy of it. Mr. HEALEY. A copy of the speech he is alleged to have made? Mr. HEALEY. Why don't we let the speech speak for itself, rather than having this man rely upon his memory of events that happened 2 or 3 or 4 years ago? Mr. TOLAND. This happened the 22d day of July, 1938. Mr. HEALEY. That is still 2 years ago. It is difficult for me to remember all the speeches I made 2 years ago, Mr. Counsel. Mr. TOLAND. Did you talk with Mr. Pressman about any matters concerning Mr. Bridges' union at any time during the period we are now discussing? Mr. SMITH. I don't recall any such conference. Mr. TOLAND. Do you recall the Mobile Steamship Association case? Mr. SMITH. I do. Mr. TOLAND. Did you have anything to do with the filing of the petition with the Board, instead of it being filed in the regional office as is the custom and the practice in cases with the Board?" Mr. SMITH. I frankly don't know, Mr. Toland. If the petition was filed with the Board, it was filed as a result of Board action. Whether I made the suggestion that it be filed with the Board, I do not know. Mr. TOLAND. You have no recollection of talking with Mr. Bridges or Mr. Pressman prior to the time the petition was filed? Mr. SMITH. I may have talked with Mr. Pressman about it. I don't know. I am quite sure that I never talked with Mr. Bridges on the Mobile case, because I remember at one time that Mr. Madden told me that Mr. Bridges had been in to talk to him about the case, and the matter sticks in my memory because I was a little surprised at the time that Mr. Bridges hadn't also asked to see me, because I had become acquainted with him, and I didn't think he knew Mr. Madden. It was not a matter of any particular interest to me beyond that. Mr. TOLAND. Were you in town? Mr. SMITH. Yes, I was in town. Mr. TOLAND. Mr. Chairman, in this connection, I would like to read the chronology of this case, before I start to interrogate the witness, and place the document in the record. Mr. HEALEY. What is the case? Mr. TOLAND (reading): MOBILE STEAMSHIP ASSOC., R-391, MOBILE, ALA. November 15, 1937---- November 16, 1937. June 29, 1938_ June 29, 1938_ July 6, 1938___. July 6, 1938__ July 14, 1938_. July 18 to July 26, 1938. October 7, 1938. October 20, 1938 November 9, 1938. February 16, 1939. March 6, 1939. March 27, 1939. Petition filed on behalf of International Longshoreman and Warehousemen's Union by Lee Pressman. Order Permitting filing of Petition with Board. Order permitting filing of amended petition with Order Directing investigation and hearing on Order amending direction of investigation and Order designating G. B. Erickson Trial Exam. Oral Argument. Original Decision, Direction of Election and Amendment to Decision. Intermediate Report on Secret Ballots. Original Supplemental Decision, Certification of Second supplemental Decision & Direction of Intermediate Report on Secret Ballot. Certification of Representatives. Now, Mr. Smith, will you tell the committee what is your best recollection as to how many conferences if any you had with Mr. Lee Pressman, and/or Mr. Bridges, or any official of the union concerning this case during the period from November 15, 1937, down to and including the 27th day of March, 1939? Mr. SMITH. I have already stated that I have no recollection of any conversation with Mr. Bridges concerning the matter. I am not sure about conversations with Mr. Pressman. I have no recollection of any conversation with Mr. Pressman except conferences that may have been held with the Board as a whole. I do remember an occasion when Mr. Pressman and several representatives of the C. I. O. Longshoremen's Union in Mobile did appear before the full Board to discuss their petition. They were anxious, if I may just say a |