The committee has arranged, for the convenience of the witnesses and the convenience of the committee, a printing in a single pamphlet of the National Labor Relations Act and also the amendments which have been introduced in the Senate to this act. Members of the press are entitled to copies of this compilation if they want to get them from the committee clerk.

Since this committee print was made, Senator Ellender has introduced a series of amendments. They were presented too late to be brought into this compilation. Those amendments are now printed, though, and they may be had by those who are interested in them. Senator Wagner, please. Would you prefer to make your statement and leave the questioning until the end?

Senator WAGNER. I would prefer that, Mr. Chairman. I think it would be time-saving, because some of the questions might anticipate what I am going to say-if that is satisfactory to the committee. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will then observe that rule.

STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT F. WAGNER, SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Senator WAGNER. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, as I am not the sponsor of any of the bills now before you for consideration, I want to emphasize my thanks to you for allowing me to appear as the first witness in these momentous hearings, and to explain very clearly why I have asked for this opportunity to be heard.

I am not here in response to the pressure and propaganda that have been bearing down upon the National Labor Relations Act. If I had been inclined to yield to pressure, I would never have fought for 2 years for the enactment of this law, in the face of organized opposition and personal vituperation which make the present situation seem mild by comparison. If I had been affected by pressure, I would have made some commitment to propose to amend the National Labor Relations Act during my recent campaign in New York, when most of the powerful interests in the State and most of the press were urging me to take such action. I refrained from doing so, because I believed it important to restate to the American people the fundamental soundness and justice of the National Labor Relations Act, and not important to make the going easier for myself by endangering the act by hurried decisions. I did not respond to pressure under those circumstances, and I certainly do not propose to do

so now.

Nor have I asked to appear as the spokesman of any particular group. I do not represent the views, nor have I consulted the wishes, of the National Labor Relations Board, the American Federation of Labor, the Congress of Industrial Organizations, or, of course, the National Association of Manufacturers.

I have scrupulously avoided any interference or appearance of interference with the Board administering the act, or the parties involved, either directly or indirectly, in any of the cases that has ever come before the Board.

Nor am I here as the spokesman for what may be called the administration's labor policy. I have no authority to speak for the

administration. I have no desire to speak for any particular administration, or any particular political group, in discussing a matter which I have always regarded as nonpartisan and as fundamental to the welfare of the country as a whole.

I come before you today only as the originator of the National Labor Relations Act, more profoundly convinced than ever of its essential wisdom, its essential justice, and its significant accomplishments. I speak as one who not only in heart and mind but in continuous practice has tried to be the friend of every man who works honestly for a living, regardless of what union he belongs to or whether he belongs to a union at all. I come before you as one who earnestly shares the desire of businessmen for industrial peace, who has had considerable experience in conducting agencies established for the maintenance of industrial peace, and who has gained in those agencies the one supreme lesson that the price of industrial peace must be industrial liberty. And I come before you, finally, as one who believes that the greatest issue confronting the country today is the preservation of political democracy, and that the price of political democracy in the modern world must be industrial freedom.

The tragic prostration of the democratic ideal in some countries. in recent years cannot be studied without adding compelling weight to a statement which I made for the New York Times on May 9, 1937, from which I take the liberty of quoting. There I said:

The struggle for a voice in industry through the processes of collective bargaining is at the heart of the struggle for the preservation of political as well as economic democracy in America. Let men become the servile pawns of their masters in the factories of the land and there will be destroyed the bone and sinew of resistance to political dictatorship.

Fascism begins in industry, not in government. The seeds of communism are sown in industry, not in government. But let men know the dignity of freedom and self-expression in their daily lives and they will never bow to tyranny in any quarter of their national life.

These words, Mr. Chairman, are even truer today than when they were written.

My appearance before this committee does not indicate the slightest departure from the position that I have maintained consistently since the statute was enacted in 1935. I have never subscribed to the belief that the volume of criticism or propaganda directed against any statute proves of itself that where there is a lot of smoke there must be fire. My 30 years of experience with progressive social legislation have taught me that the more clearly and effectively a statute strikes against existing evils and inequalities in our social structure the more likely it is to produce violent opposition preceding its enactment and in the years immediately succeeding its enactment.

To this unvarying rule the labor act is no exception. The barrage of highly organized opposition upon its introduction in Congress probably broke all records for selfish misrepresentation. Some of the charges circulated at that time by antilabor forces seem almost ludicrous today. For example, the Automobile Manufacturers Association said, in a circular to the public, that the act would

make the American Federation of Labor practically undisputed czar over industrial and clerical workers throughout the United States.

Is that true today? The National Association of Manufacturers began a circular to the public by saying that the bill, and I quote, was "in total disregard of every fundamental concept of legal rights and remedies." Can this be true, when the United States Supreme Court in 17 cases has never nullified a single line of the statute? The American Iron and Steel Institute said, and I quote from their publication, that

the bill is designed to control all labor matters by political rather than economic forces and to destroy the friendly relationship now existing between employers and employees.

How does this square with the fact that in 1937 the United States Steel Corporation accepted the act, and that the 1938 report of the corporation said that "the year * reflected the continuance of satisfactory employer-employee relations"?

* *

The simple truth, gentlemen, is that it takes not days or weeks or months but years for fundamental reforms like the labor act to become generally accepted. Frequently the realization that they are becoming generally accepted increases the clamor and agitation of the unyielding opposition. Sometimes the opposition succeeds temporarily in biasing the public mind, and then it is the function of the statesman to separate the expediencies of the moment from the needs of the country. The volume of discussion about the National Labor Relations Act, therefore, does not in itself make a case for or against changing the act. It merely proves that the act is a living, throbbing issue, affecting so largely the country as a whole that whatever action Congress takes upon it should be based upon the most careful deliberation and the most sensitive perception of our public responsibility. For the same reasons, I have never subscribed to the belief that the wide variety and multiplicity of amendments proposed to the National Labor Relations Act prove in themselves that the act should be changed. The very variety and conflicting character of these proposals at least make it seem likely that some of them must emanate from those who want to destroy the basic purposes of the act, and that none of them should be accepted without a very careful consideration of its consequences in terms of the broadest perspective. In connection with proposals to change the act it is only proper to weigh heavily the desirability of stability in industrial relations. Every step that the Supreme Court has taken toward clarifying the meaning and defining the scope of the act has made it easier for workers and employers to deal successfully under its provisions. Every change in the act will involve new uncertainty, new litigation, new areas of disagreement and conflict. Of course, the desire for stability is no excuse for perpetuating a revealed wrong. If such wrongs are disclosed, they should be remedied. But it is equally true that light-hearted or experimental tampering with the act will only increase the perplexities of industry, labor, and the public. In short, it seems a wise rule to follow that, in the interest of stability, those desirous of change should carry the burden of proof. And this is doubly true because the facts reveal that the basic principles of the act are sound and that it is promoting industrial peace.

At the same time I have never maintained that the National Labor Relations Act was perfect, nor sought to prevent its perfection. I have always maintained that the act could be and should be perfected

in the light of sufficient experience, upon the proof of clearly revealed need for specific changes that would advance and not impair its sound objectives. I have always insisted that an appropriate place to weigh this experience and test these proposals was in the same legislative committee where the original act was judged. That is why I am here and that is why I heartily commend this inquiry.

In line with my consistent position, I do not propose, prior to hearing the testimony now commencing, to introduce any amendments to the National Labor Relations Act. When I have heard and studied the testimony to be submitted to this committee I may desire to introduce some amendments if the need is revealed, and to ask your indulgence that you may consider them along with the other proposals now before the committee. I can assure you now that no amendments which may be introduced by me will be designed to secure the support of any group, labor or employer, whose interests are narrower than the preservation of industrial peace and the advancement of the legitimate aspirations of industry and labor. I hope that any such amendments as I may introduce if the need is revealed, will appeal to all those to whom the original National Labor Relations Act appealed, to all those who believe in the simple basic principles of industrial democracy, to all those who want to establish an economic democracy more compatible with our political democracy.

But while I believe that a determination as to the desirability of specific additions to the law should await the outcome of these hearings, I think it would be a serious mistake to commence these hearings as though we were starting out upon an uncharted sea. Our Government has mapped the course of the labor problem for many, many years, and gathered up a rich and unanswerable experience. The general direction of sound policy has already been set, and there are innumerable rocks and shoals that we know about and must at all costs avoid.

I shall attempt today to delineate the facts emerging from this experience. Are the fundamental premises of the National Labor Relations Act sound? Has the act contributed to industrial peace? Are its administrative provisions consistent with traditional principles of administrative law under our constitutional system? Is the act helping the worker to be a free man? Has the act been beneficial to the people as a whole? Is any additional governmental machinery, or any change in the present law, necessary to round out public action in labor relations and to promote still further the dual objective of industrial peace and economic justice?

A generation ago, Mr. Chairman, the traditional method of the Government in labor disputes was to appoint distinguished factfinding commissions after the trouble was over. For example, there was a commission to investigate the Pullman strike in 1894, there was the United States Anthracite Coal Commission of 1902, and the commission to investigate the Colorado coal strike of 1912. While these commissions dealt with different industries, their conclusions were virtually identical. Again and again they found that the denial of labor's right to be heard in the councils of industry was the root cause of the industrial struggle. Again and again they found that the recognition of this right was the only sure basis for industrial peace and the rational conduct of business affairs.

It soon became plain that, instead of post mortems, it was desirable to avert or modulate these bitter controversies by eliminating the practices which brought them about. This in substance was a recommendation of the United States Commission on Industrial Relations a quarter of a century ago. And when the United States entered the World War, President Wilson made sure not to destroy industrial peace by denying in American industry the fundamentals of democracy for which we fought on the battlefield. The war President appointed a National War Labor Board under the chairmanship of the late ex-President Taft. The cardinal principle of this Board was that the

right of workers to organize in trade unions and to bargain collectively through chosen representatives is recognized and affirmed. This right shall not be denied, abridged, or interfered with by employers in any manner whatsoever. Thus spoke the late President Taft, for the National War Labor Board.

By the application of this simple rule of industrial liberty, the United States was able to reconcile the vigorous pursuit of the war with the vigorous maintenance of our peacetime_liberties.

Exactly the same principle, written into the Railway Labor Act of 1926, successfully ended a 50-year search for economic accord on our great systems of interstate transportation. I know of no other major industrial country in the world where the main arteries of communication have been so free from interruption because of difficulties between those who run the trains and those who own the trains.

In 1933 Congress again resorted to the same principle when it passed the National Industrial Recovery Act. In August of the same year the President appointed the first National Labor Board, as an informal agency, and designated me as chairman. Over a span of 10 months, this Board handled more than 4,000 cases involving over 2,000,000 workers. I carried on this work, of course, in addition to my regular duties in the Senate.

Our experience with this Board afforded the fullest opportunity to study at first hand the causes of industrial strife and to develop the appropriate remedies. The major issue in over 70 percent of the cases which came before the old board was that of employee representation and collective bargaining. Operating under a vague mandate, and with uncertain powers, the Board developed step by step every one of the substantive features now embodied in the National Labor Relations Act. The Board ruled that the employer was under a duty to bargain collectively with his workers; that majority rule should govern the choice of employee representatives; that workers discharged because of union activities should be reinstated; and that the company-dominated union was incompatible with the freedom of the worker to organize. In its very first case, involving a contro versy over representation, the Board ruled that an election should be conducted by secret ballot. The Board thereafter utilized the election procedure in more than 130 instances, including the famous Captive Mines election, where 14,000 workers voted in perfect order and quiet. In all, the Board was able to adjust over 80 percent of the cases coming before it, settling over 1,000 strikes, and averting at least 500

more.