being assaulted, and somebody said, "Let's send for Mrs. Reed and see what the company can do to protect us."

Just prior to that there had been circulated in the plant by two of the working girls in the plant a paper in which they said—and I wish I had that paper

We, the undersigned, as members of the Donnelly Garment Company, wish to make it known that we are positively happy and contented with the position which we hold with this organization, and refuse to acknowledge any union labor organization. We are thankful for the real humanitarian interest extended to us by our employer, Mrs. Reed.

That paper was circulated without Mrs. Reed's knowledge, without the knowledge of the officers of the company, by two of the girls that worked on the machines and was signed by every employee in the company that was in town, and subsequently was signed by the few who were out of town. They presented that to Mrs. Reed.

Well, when they called her to make a speech and say what she had to say, this was what she said, and while they had a witness or two to say that she said other things, this examiner in his report puts his finding upon what is in this transcript, and I think it is a pretty good answer to Mr. Fahy's circumlocution in trying to say what they would consider and what they would not.

My colleague here tells me that the Board in its opinion bases it upon this transcript, this stenographic report.

Mrs. REED: I want to say that I am awfully happy to have this opportunity to tell you how proud I was when those girls wrote the petition out, and-Well, I have had lots of nice things happen to me in my lifetime, but I have never had anything that made me so proud and so happy as that list of names that came to my home. Many of those girls I had worked with--and who had really helped to build this business into what it is now.

Over a period of twenty-one years we have built up an institution which anybody can be proud of, anybody connected with it. I had a letter from one of the girls last night telling me that she had worked for the Donnelly Garment Company but she wasn't ashamed to tell anyone that she had worked for a garment company. When Mr. Dubinsky put Mr. Reed into the garment busi

ness

which has reference to a remark of Mr. Walsh that I was now in the garment business, I was now a dressmaker

he didn't know he was in it before-he said he would not be ashamed to belong to the Donnelly Garment Company.

We have an institution

Incidentally, I have never had a dollar of interest, or any other interest, except that I have been their attorney for many years.

We have an institution we can be proud of. You folks are just beginning to be initiated into the knowledge of just what kind of a business we are in, and some of the people that are in it.

A great many years ago when I first started, a man in St. Louis said, “You know you have to have two fires and a failure to stay in that business." We have not had any fires or any failures yet. We are twenty-one years old and we are pretty well grown up, and I think we know how to run our own business.

Just from a practical standpoint, let me say that this business has grown up around the policy of year-around work. Up until the time of the depression we practically kept that up. I increased my business in the fall of the year and I increased my machines, and then we always had plenty of business the next spring.

In the spring when the depression came on I put new machines in with the idea that I had the business and that I could give a certain amount of work to a certain number of women for a few months. You will remember that the old

girls agreed that they would share their work with the new ones that fall if they had to. They did not have to very much, but they did a little. By the time the next spring came along the new ones were the old ones, and they wanted to work, too, so we have made every effort in the world to keep the plant going.

We have built up a Nelly Don garment, and we have built up a Nelly Don trade, and each time we get up a line we try to make something that enough women will buy to keep our plant running. There has been so much talk, "Mrs. Reed isn't interested any more; Mrs. Reed doesn't care anything about it any more, etc.," Mrs. Reed may not work as many hours as she used to, but the burdens on her are bigger now than ever. No matter what anybody else may say, I'll be right here running this business.

I know you are thinking about the threats of violence that the Union is making against you and the company. I want to say that the Company and I intend to do everything possible to protect you in case of any violence. We are now trying to make arrangements with the street car company for its buses to go to certain points and pick you people up and bring you to the plant. We will let you know about this as soon as arrangements can be made.

Many of you have been here for a number of years, and you know that you have never been asked whether or not you belong to a union. The company has not discriminated against anyone on that account and Mr. Dubinsky is not going to make me discriminate against employees because they would not belong to his Union. If you want to belong that is your own business and it is up to you to decide. I will say that neither Dubinsky or any other buttinsky is going to intimidate me or the company into forcing you to join the International Union against your will.

I can't say at this time what will be done to protect you against violence, but the company's attorneys will consider what legal steps might be advisable. In any event, you can understand that the company will not submit to any unlawful attacks lying down.

Mr. TOLAND. Senator, in that connection, I hand you a copy of the decision of the Board in this case, and I ask you to point out and read to the committee the reference in the decision of the Board with respect to the statement of Mrs. Reed that you have just read.

Mr. REED. I want to give one word of explanation and then I will answer the question. That is, this reference to "make me," and "make you." join his "union,"-that is exactly what had been done in these small factories. They had made the employer who was practically on the point of bankruptcy make their employees join. That is what this refers to.

Now, answering your question, I read from this record; this is the conclusion arrived at by this learned board of disinterested gentle

men:

Mrs. Reed painted the I. L. G. W. U. as the common enemy of both the respondent and its employees, and promised the employees the respondent's protection and assistance against that organization. Mrs. Reed disparagingly labeled David Dubinsky, President of the I. L. G. W U., a buttinsky who was seeking to force the respondent's employees to join that Union. She promised that no employee would be compelled to join any union against his will.

Now, I have been dwelling on the

Mr. TOLAND (interposing). I am going to interrupt you at this point, Senator Reed. I am interrupting, Mr. Chairman, because of the documents which I have and which I would like to offer. I have a communication from David Dubinsky, dated the 8th day of April 1939 with an attached copy of a letter from Meyer Pearlstein, dated April 7, 1939, addressed to Mr. Frederic F. Umhey, executive secretary of the I. L. G. W. U. I also have a communication from Mr. Witt to Mr. Dubinsky, acknowledging receipt of his letter, Mr. Dubinsky's letter of April 8, and the enclosed copy, and

I have a copy of a letter from Mr. Witt to Mr. Dubinsky, dated June 16, 1939, thanking Mr. Dubinsky for sending him a copy of the Union's statement of receipts and disbursements for June 1 to December 31, 1938.

(Letter of June 16, 1939, to David Dubinsky from Nathan Witt; letter of April 8, 1939 to Nathan Witt from David Dubinsky, and letter of April 7, to Mr. Umhey from Mr. Pearlstein, were received in evidence, marked "Exhibit No. 1360," and follows.)

(Letter of April 12, 1939, to David Dubinsky was received in evidence, marked "Exhibit No. 1361," and follows.)

Mr. TOLAND. I will read the exhibit of Mr. Dubinsky dated April 12, 1939, from Mr. Nathan Witt:

DEAR MR. DUBINSKY: This will acknowledge your letter of April 8, enclosing a copy of a letter from Mr. Meyer Perlstein to Mr. Frederic F. Umhey, dated April 7, concerning the above case.

I want to thank you for bringing this matter to my attention. I recall discussing the question of publicity on authorization of complaint with you the other day and I then pointed out to you the Board's policy of not giving publicity until the complaint was actually issued. I think this will clarify one of the points which Mr. Perlstein makes in his letter.

DEAR BROTHER UMHEY: This morning the newspapers carried the announcement that the Labor Board authorized the issuance of the complaint, the hearing is set for Thursday, April 13.

There is an interesting story in connection with this announcement. You know the pressure we brought on Washington to issue the complaint as quickly as possible. Last week when I called up Mr. Witt about our case we filed in San Antonio against the Halff Manufacturing Company, asking him to set the date for hearing in that case which he did very promptly--it will do us a world of good there because of the injunction Halff applied for.

At any rate, while talking to him about San Antonio, I reminded him of the Donnelly complaint and he promised me that he would act at once. Several days passed by and I did not hear anything about it. When I came back to Kansas City Tuesday, I was wondering why nothing was heard from the Board. The truth of the matter was that the Board in Washington had already authorized the regional board in Kansas City to issue the complaint, but the racketeers here brought the necessary pressure on the regional board to hold it back. I was really dumbfounded.

While in the office of Jane Palmer (the girl lawyer working for us) she told me in an off-hand way that the Board in Washington authorized the issuance of the complaint but that the Board here kept it quiet and that I should keep it under cover. Then, I could not help myself--I had to tell her what I thought of this entire God damn gang here.

I immediately made her get in touch with Mr. Broderick, the regional director, and I personally got in touch with him as well telling him that be had no right keeping the complaint quiet and that the complaint must be issued immediately. I just raised all the Hell I possibly could.

They got to work and began working day and night drafting the complaint. In the meantime, Clif Langsdale, our former attorney, sent a message to ine by Ruckert telling me that the complaint was authorized by Washington, and if I called him and asked him, he could arrange that it be issued at once. I told Ruckert, in a polite way, what I thought of all of them. Naturally, I did not call Langsdale, but got in touch again with the Labor Board and they really worked finally this morning, the complaint was issued and the announcement appeared in the newspaper.

The Walshs did not know anything about it, all they knew was that Washington was authorizing the issuance of the complaint, and they were surprised that it was not issued.

The announcement in the newspaper this morning just worked out beautifully. I am going to court to see the expressions on the faces of Jim Reed and company. Yes, our racketeering friends tried another one of the Kansas City tricks on us but it did not work.

Fraternally yours,

MP IC.

The CHAIRMAN. Who is Meyer Perlstein?

(Signed) MEYER PERLSTEIN,

Mr. TOLAND. Meyer Perlstein, who has been mentioned by Mr. Ingraham. I will ask the witness this:

I will ask Mr. Reed if he is not a representative of Mr. Dubinsky in Kansas City at this time?

Mr. REED. He was the regional director in charge of the Southwest. The CHAIRMAN. Regional director of what organization?

Mr. TOLAND. Mr. Dubinsky's union.

The CHAIRMAN. To whom was the letter addressed?

Mr. TOLAND. To the secretary of the union in New York City. Mr. Dubinsky, the head of the union, wrote to Mr. Witt and enclosed a copy of the letter that I have just read and sent it to Mr. Witt.

Now will you proceed?

Mr. REED. Now, if the committee please, I would like the privilege of expressing my views as a citizen of this country——

Mr. TOLAND (interposing). May I also interrupt you again, Senator, and ask, based upon your long years in public life, based upon your service in the House of Congress, in the Senate of the United States, based upon your long years as a member of the bar of the State of Missouri, and Supreme Court of the United States, will you be good enough to give the committee your opinion as to what you think, if any, are the defects in the present act, in the operation of the act by the Board, and what amendments if any, you think the Congress of the United States should enact?

Mr. REED. That is a pretty large order. In my opinion, with reference to the way this present law has been administered, is pretty well illustrated by the report of the majority of this committee. I would like to deal with that question first, before coming to the other 'question.

I have practiced law for over 50 years, pretty actively, and in many I claim no superior intelligence or learning beyond that of any reliable, competent lawyer. And I shall try and make my statements as moderate as I can, because in this present hearing I have an interest, but the observations I am going to make now, I make as a citizen and I would make them if I had never heard of this case.

I have never read in my life anywhere such a catalog of improper, unjudicial, unfair rulings, and acts as are set forth in this report. If one-tenth part of the report is true, this Labor Board ought to be abolished overnight, and some kind of tribunal, if one is to exist, set up with proper safeguards for the right of litigants. I read in this report that this Board, supposedly a semijudicial body, and clothed with powers in many respects, or in some respects, greater than the courts of justice possess, institutes boycotts against manufacturers, and that even before that manufacturing company has had a hearing before the Board, a process of condemnation without a hearing,

and then, a resort to a punishment which is not within pure view of the Board, for nowhere is it stated in this Wagner Act or in the NorrisLaGuardia Act, that it is any part of the business or authority of the Board to attack a business by trying to take away its customers. The punishments it can impose are not to boycott and destroy a business, but to prevent some particular wrong or injury.

Now, a man that will do that, a Board that will do that thing, furnishes the indubitable evidence that it is prejudiced, that it is controlled by ulterior and vindicative motives, and that it is utterly unfit to sit as a tribunal anywhere under the American flag.

It is the kind of thing that is resorted to by racketeers who come to a man and demand certain compensations or money, and tell him, if he does not give it, they will destroy his business, they will not permit him to sell his goods, wares, or industry. It is on a parallel, and a Board that will do things of this kind ought to be inducted into the racketeers' union, if one exists.

They write a letter to Filene Store, of Boston, a very large store, in which they attack the Berkshire Mills Co., and ask the Filene Co. to bring pressure upon the Berkshire Co. Pressure for what? Manifestly, pressure to make them yield to the demands of some union. Now, here is a concern, let us take this for a moment, I have learned a little bit about merchandising, not much, but here is a concern that has to plan its business, buy its goods, its raw materials, employ its labor, encourage overhead, and it must have customers, and when you can take away from it important customers, you destroy that business, you put it into bankruptcy, you turn its labor out of employment. Here is a Board supposed to represent the United States and the justice and majesty of our laws, resorting to methods of that kind.

Well, here is the firm of Weiss & Klans Co. They were engaged in business which made it desirable for them to get Government contracts, and efforts are being made to blacklist that company so that it can't get Government contracts, although it is not only entitled to get them if it bids properly, but it is to the advantage of the Federal Government and the people of the United States that they should get them, if they are the lowest and best bidder. Now, this action is in no manner justified by any letter, line, or syllable of the law; it was purely an arbitrary act, and it goes to show how dangerous a thing it is to confer authority upon people who are willing to abuse it.

Here is another instance and I am calling the attention to just a few. This is not news to this Board, but you have asked for my opinion and I am trying to give it to you in the mildest language Ï know how to employ.

We set up in this country, an institution to loan money to companies that were in financial trouble. Why? Wholly a new thing in our governmental functions but it is being done and largely, I think, approved because it was desirable that companies that were in financial difficulty might be tided over and not closed down and not, therefore, destroy the opportunities of labor.

Well, they'd gone down there, and they'd tried to have loans withheld from companies that have not been tried, so that they could go bankrupt because somebody had made an accusation against them. Now this book is full of these things. This report ought to be read by every Member of Congress. It ought to be printed in every newspaper of the United States, in substance and effect. But we