propaganda encouraging employees to voice their candid opinion to such sleuths only to find that they have been deceived by a Judas. These traitors twist and distort the truth and in turn maliciously and deceptively encourage hatred on the part of employer toward those employees who in good faith trusted one whom they assumed to be a brother worker having the same interests at heart. If equal opportunity were afforded for an employee to secretly sneak like a thief over the field at night among the employers, and if discovered, an immediate call for an enforcing officer of the law would be issued to make a forceful ejection of such a person. The rule should work both ways.

Based on such parts of the hearings as I have read, I find that a great number of railroads were also clients of these spy agencies. My 47 years of constant and continued contact with the railroad industry as an employee and later as a chosen labor representative of a class of employees has long ago convinced me that the general effect of all spying, espionage, and strikebreaking agencies is detrimental not only to such railroads as resort to this system but in the final analysis proves that it is not in the public interest, since dishonest, uneconomic, and inefficient operation is the natural final result. It instills and enlarges, as such a system continues, in destroying the confidence and the good will of the employees, diminishing cooperation, and disturbing the good faith as between fel

lowmen.

If confidence, therefore, as advocated by employer interests is to be restored in order that we may have an economic recovery, I know of no better way than to have an enforcement measure by law with penalties imposed upon every employer, large or small, who still continues to practice this unwholesome and destructive system of oppressive abuse upon labor.

I know that I speak with complete authority in behalf of every member of the Railway Labor Executives' Association by condemning this pernicious and wicked policy resorted to by numerous industries both large and small. The evils are so nauseating and disgusting that public demand requires the immediate passage of a law to put an end to this obnoxious practice, thus paving the way for a restored confidence and economic recovery.

Make those who profess that confidence is a restoring measure to economic recovery establish that policy as between employer and employee, abandon the spy and strikebreaking formulas, and adopt in good faith the rule of collective bargaining and right of representation without interference, intimidation, or coercion. However, since we know that many fail to practice what they preach, obviously, based upon the knowledge and experience of the past and the present, only a law with severe penalties will force such recalcitrants into

line.

We therefore endorse and lend our hearty approval to Senate bill 1970 and hope for its early passage in order that the oppressive labor practices which have maintained in the past and now maintain may be definitely and permanently corrected."

Senator THOMAS. I like everything, Mr. Chairman, but the reference to Judas, and I can't help but comment: Judas didn't destroy anyone but himself and his victim. That which the "hooker" does is very, very much more far-reaching than that which Judas did.

Judas was at least man enough to do the job himself and not hire anyone else. He didn't even divide up the 30 pieces of silver with somebody else.

Mr. LUHRSEN. I agree with you. Perhaps I could illustrate my point more vividly when I say to you that I have represented the train dispatchers of the United States as president for the last 22 years. I think that Judas, as I would term him, is the man who among other men in the same office will violate definite safety rules by giving trains clearance cards approaching each other closer than they should according to definite rules, and he gets trains over the roads just a little bit better than I and the rest of the fellows. He gets by, and it is winked at by officials because of his greater capacity as having greater efficiency in moving trains expeditiously, and the others are not as good. Now, that fellow is doing the very thing which to me is detrimental to the public interest. He is safe as long as an accident doesn't happen, and nobody condemns him, but he belittles every man that is working with him, and 99 times out of a hundred that fellow is not a member of the organization. He is the man that runs to the superintendent and tells; he is the man if he once does join the organization who usually has more complaints than you could find in a dozen offices, and he will write them all up and then wind up with one terse and concise statement, and he says, "Please keep this confidential." Now, that fellow is no good to help what I say is freedom and the right of labor to organize, to develop means and ways which lend to improvements, to cooperate with their employer, make suggestions, and in a general way improve the conditions for the whole American people.

Now, that is what we might term-is what I might say is more or less of a Judas, and we have them not only in my organization, they are everywhere.

I can give you concrete illustrations, for instance, and I shall not hesitate to mention the road, the Illinois Central, because it happens to be one of the few roads where my organization as yet does not have a contract. It is a company union. Shortly after we went back to private ownership and we had the right to bargain collectively and it was under the law provided that railroads must make and maintain agreements, I had occasion to meet with the management, and discovered after the second day that everything that we discussed at night among my committee was well known to the management the next day when we went back in session. Well, I just thought we would find out who it was. I knew it was one of the men that was on my side; I had my suspicion. So I stayed at the office that night and cut a stencil myself on the typewriter. I ran it on the mimeograph, addressed the letter to "All general and division chairmen of all railroads in the United States." I kept the original in my pocket. I sent the only copy that was sent out to the man whom I suspected. A few days later I was told by the management, "Your men are not with you. Why, look here at the letter I got, saying how they feel. They are opposed to your organization," and all this and that. It was the letter that I had written.

"Well," I said, "there's always black sheep in any organization." "Oh," he says, "that is not the only one. I have got dozens of them."

The secretary spoke up, "I threw five or six in the waste basket this morning."

I said, "Let's go get them. basket I will give you $10 in He didn't volunteer to go. letter sent out.

For every one you have in that waste cash.”

The fact was that that was the only

There was another Judas in our own ranks. We abandoned that hearing, we didn't get a contract, and that Judas, plus others, was put on the Panama Limited train, advising all the men that if they insisted upon a contract they would take away vacations, there would be a reduction in wages, and they would be fired for the slightest thing they could throw against them.

That is the things that are going on; and I will say that was true with many other roads. I could mention one large eastern road a few years ago, the Pennsylvania, you had no chance to go in their and negotiate-we didn't, at least; and I thank God we have a management today that I can go to and talk to and deal with, and we have a contract, and we are getting along most harmoniously, and it is because we don't have among our ranks these spies that they had set up in every office. Now we are getting along splendidly there.

Now, a man that will cooperate and doesn't need the law, he would be exempt. It is the violators of it that won't change their mind and persist in just dominating over every man that works for him. So I say again we certainly approve of this bill, and we hope that the Congress will take action on it in this session of Congress.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. The committee will take a recess until 10:30 tomorrow morning, at which time we hope to have the Attorney General and Mr. Byrl Whitney representing the railroad trainmen.

(Whereupon, at 11:18 a. m., Thursday, June 1, 1939, the hearing was adjourned until 10:30 a. m., Friday, June 2, 1939.)

OPPRESSIVE LABOR PRACTICES ACT

FRIDAY, JUNE 2, 1939

UNITED STATES SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR, Washington, D. C. The committee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10:30 a. m., in room 104, Senate Office Building, Senator Robert M. La Follette, Jr., presiding.

Present: Senators La Follette (presiding) and Thomas.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. The committee will be in order. The Attorney General is here this morning. The subcommittee will be very happy to have your statement and comment on the general subject matter of this legislation.

STATEMENT OF FRANK MURPHY, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, WASHINGTON, D. C.

Mr. MURPHY. Senator La Follette and members of the committee: As requested by the chairman of the Senate Committee on Education and Labor, I have examined S. 1970 with care and interest. I am heartily in accord with the aims sought to be achieved by this enlightened measure, and hope that favorable action will be taken on the legislation.

In a democracy the maintenance and preservation of civil liberties is of fundamental importance. Especially is this true at this time when democracy is fighting for its life in other countries.

My personal experience and observation has led me to the belief that the Federal Government has a definite role to play in the preservation of civil liberties. It was in an effort to translate this conviction into action that, promptly after taking office as Attorney General, I established a special civil liberties unit in the Department of Justice.

The bill that you have under consideration this morning bears vitally on the question of civil liberties. One of its chief objectives is to prevent the invasion of civil rights by private interests.

For many years past there has grown up in many industrial areas a practice on the part of some large industrial corporations of usurping the function of policing, which belongs to the public authorities, by organizing groups of privately paid guards equipped with arms and munitions, likewise privately owned.

One of the purposes of the present bill is to restore the police power exclusively to the public authorities where it belongs.

Thus it may well be said that the bill takes its place in the line of legislation defensive of the civil rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

Among other things, the bill is aimed at labor espionage, commercialized strikebreaking, the use of company police off company property, and the possession and use of arms and munitions by industrial

concerns.

I am particularly interested in those provisions of the bill which deal with the use of armed men away from the property of the company which hires them, and the provision that deals with the use of firearms and munitions owned by industrial corporations.

The bill seeks to ban the use of privately paid armed guards away from the premises or place of business of the employer. It also seeks to ban the possession and use of munitions on the part of any employer in or about the place of employment, as well as the furnishing of munitions by employers to any person whatsoever.

Without going into details, I might perhaps mention in passing the Little Steel strike in the city of Monroe, Mich., and the outbreak of violence that accompanied it, as an illuminating illustration of the need for such legislation as is being discussed this morning. This is only one instance of many that can be cited and which were recounted in detail at the hearings held before the La Follette committee.

The use of private police and the private use of firearms in industrial disputes should be prohibited. The function of policing rightly belongs to the public authorities.

It must be borne in mind that this bill does not prevent the use of guards on the employers' premises. It merely prohibits the employers from permitting those guards to operate away from the premises.

I shall not discuss other features of the bill except to commend the measure to your favorable consideration.

There are two provisions, which are not of major importance, but which affect the work of the Department of Justice, and which, in my opinion, require some further consideration.

A provision in section 3 would require the Federal Bureau of Investigation of the Department of Justice to make available records of conviction of any person employed or proposed to be employed as a private guard or police officer. From the standpoint of the Department of Justice, there is a point that I would like to bring to your attention.

It is our policy that the identification records of the Federal Bureau of Investigation should be confidential, and that the information contained therein should not be open to private individuals. To change this policy would be detrimental to the best interests of law enforcement. I therefore request that this policy be kept in mind. as you give consideration to section 3.

I also should like to direct attention to the provisions of section 8 (a) and section 8 (b), which would repose in the Secretary of Labor the authority to bring civil suits for the enforcement of the act.

It has been the general policy to centralize all Government litigation in the Department of Justice. This course is in the interests of efficiency and economy, and accordingly this likewise is brought to your attention.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. Otherwise, does the bill in its general set-up of administrative procedure meet your approval?

Mr. MURPHY. It does.