Carter said: "We will not arbitrate any issue."

The meeting ended without any progress and without setting a date for a new meeting. We offered to meet at any time that the company thought a meeting would be helpful or that the conciliators felt it might be helpful.

I would like to submit, by the way, an editorial from the Raleigh News and Observer, reprinted by us, urging arbitration upon the parties, as exhibit 6.

Mr. BURKE, Exhibit 6, I think, is short enough to include in the record. Exhibit 6 will be included in the record.

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit 6, November 21, 1949," and is as follows:)

EXHIBIT 6

[The Raleigh News and Observer, Saturday, June 4, 1949]

ARBITRATION IN ORDER

A reasonable effort to settle industrial differences is just as important in North Carolina as it is in Detroit. And fair arbitration should be just as possible in North Carolina as it is anywhere else in the world. That is said in particular reference to the strike in the Hart Cotton Mill, one of a national chain of mills located in Tarboro.

Bob Weirich, editor of the Tarboro Southerner and Tarboro correspondent of the News and Observer, reports with regard to this question as follows:

"Conn (State CIO director) stated at noon today that he had agreed to end the strike tomorrow if Hart Mill would permit the arbitration of all issues. He said he was refused.

"Carter (superintendent of the mill) said that arbitration when no contract existed wasn't done. He pointed to the fact that the old contract had expired. He said he was always willing to arbitrate issues of controversy when a contract existed but there was nothing now to arbitrate.

"Conn once again requested a public hearing on the matter with Mayor H. I. Johnson to call a meeting, Carter said the mill had nothing to hide and that be felt a meeting would only lead to serious trouble."

A strike is "serious trouble." It involves not merely the livelihood of the Workers and the productivity of the plant; it also involves the prosperity and welfare of a community. The public has an interest in the orderly settlement of the differences by orderly arbitration. Maybe each side in this controversy thinks it is right. If so, neither should fear arbitration. The most important parties in interest in this matter are the people of Tarboro and no mill owned y outside capital or union directed by outside leaders has a right to insist upon prolonging "serious trouble" by declining arbitration. A fair settlement in a peaceful community is more important than any technicality or quibble by anybody who declines arbitration and so prolongs industrial differences and promotes the danger of even more serious industrial conflict.

Mr. CONN. Now, on June 1, Governor Kerr Scott, of North Carolina, issued a public statement, which is in full in my prepared statement, in which he says, in part:

I understand that the workers, through their Textile Workers Union of America (CIO), have expressed willingness to follow this course—

meaning arbitration.

I trust that the company will do likewise in order that the strike may be terminated without delay.

On behalf of the union, I wired the Governor of North Carolina our acceptance of his proposal. The following day, Mr. Carter was quoted in the press as stating:

Our conditions still haven't changed, though I haven't yet had time to give Governor Scott's request much thought.

At all times since, the company has refused to follow the Governor's suggestions.

On June 14, 1949, at the suggestion of the Conciliation Service, a meeting was held between the parties at the company's office in Tarboro. The participants were the same as those at the previous meetings, with the exception that Mr. George Baldanzi, executive vice presi dent of TWUA-CIO, attended.

The entire detailed discussion which took place there is recorded in my prepared testimony. Suffice it to state here that we offered compromise after compromise on all the issues and were unable to get the company to budge. When the conference resumed after lunch, the company reiterated its insistence upon elimination of the second week of vacation, the elimination of the check-off clause, and the institution of the pre-Taft-Hartley type of no-strike clause.

Mr. Baldanzi pointed out to Carter that the type of clause the company insisted upon would place the union in the position of guaranteeing that there would be no strike, no slow-down, no work stoppage of any nature, and that the type of contract available to the union under the Taft-Hartley Act and North Carolina legislation, and type of contract which the company was insisting upon, gave the union absolutely no way of discipling those who would violate the contract or of enforcing compliance with its terms, and that the company was insisting upon undermining the financial responsibility of the local

union.

Mr. Baldanzi pointed out to Mr. Carter that under the Taft-Hartley Act a new conception of agency had been written into the law which made the union's position extremely vulnerable under the type of nostrike clause the company was insisting upon, and that the union could not afford to accept responsibility for actions of all employees, whether they be union members or not and whether or not the work stoppage, slow-down, or interruption of production was actually precipitated by the company's conduct.

Carter stated that the company would not sign a contract which did not include the type of no-strike clause which it was demanding of the union. The discussion of these issues became heated.

Mr. Baldanzi said to Mr. Carter: "We know what you are thinking. You are taking advantage of a slump in the print-cloth market in order to try to stamp out the union."

Carter turned red in the face and shouted: "It's none of your damned business what I'm thinking." But he didn't then or at any time deny the truth of that charge.

Now, Mr. Baldanzi and I talked for a few moments together and then we returned to the company. We proposed formally and officially: "Let's drop the differences. We will be willing to give up our proposals for improving the old contract and accept the old contract for another year."

Carter said: "I offered you a contract. That's all I am going to do. You can take it or leave it."

Mr. WIR. Right at that stage, let me ask you: In all of these negotiations, from May until the time this broke off, was Mr. Carter the only representative of management that sat in in these negotiations! Did he do all of the negotiating, or were there others there of manage ment that sat in?

Mr. CONN. Mr. Carter, for the most part, was the only representative of management. Part of the time, Mr. Fowler, who is his plant superintendent, sat in, but took no part in the negotiations. And, in the last couple of meetings we have had, Mr. Carter has had Whiteford Blakeney, an attorney, sitting in with him, also. But Mr. Rodgers has not sat in, Mr. Cave has not sat in, and Mr. Leslie has not sat in.

Mr. WIER. Let me follow that by this. You had a contract there 2 years previous to this one. In negotiating those contracts, were they negotiated entirely by Mr. Carter?

Mr. CONN. In one instance, a delegation went to New York to see Mr. Leslie. Mr. Leslie at that time-and I can check the year from one of the other people that we have here-Mr. Leslie at that time listened to the committee's explanation. He said: "Well, go back and try again." We went back and tried again, and the thing was settled. But, apart from that, the first contract was negotiated by Mr. Youngblood, whose job was later taken by Mr. Carter. In the subsequent contracts Mr. Carter was the principal negotiator.

Mr. WIER. And the third contract. And, then, in this one, you attempted all of it through Mr. Carter?

Mr. CONN. That's correct, sir; yes, sir.

Mr. WIER. What is Mr. Carter's title?

Mr. CONN. He is vice president and general manager of the Hart Cotton Mills.

Mr. WIER. Do you connect Mr. Carter with any other mill except the Hart mill?

Mr. CONN. He is a director of one of the other Ely & Walker mills. Mr. WIER. Your answer would be "Yes."

Mr. CONN. Yes.

Mr. WIER. That's all.

Mr. CONN. This, again, is recorded in detail in my prepared statement, and I won't take all the time of the committee.

I may say that the conciliators met that afternoon with the company from about 3:30 until 7, while we waited out in the yard, and at 7 o'clock the conciliator reported back to us we might as well go; there was nothing we could do; the company just isn't interested in settling the strike.

I have exhibit 7, entitled "Lesson in Failure," editorial by the Raleigh News and Observer, in which it puts the responsibility for a continuation of this strike upon the management of the plant.

Mr. BURKE. Exhibit No. 7 will be accepted for the record, without objection.

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit 7, November 21, 1949," and is as follows:)

EXHIBIT 7

[Raleigh News and Observer, June 16, 1949]

LESSON IN FAILURE

The futile, 8-hour strike conference on Tuesday of the Hart mill manager, conciliators, and union representatives provides new evidence, if more evidence is needed, that the logical answer to the Tarboro dispute is to be found in arbitration. Indeed, arbitration seems to be the only answer.

Since the workers walked off of their jobs on May 12, 500 mill families have been deprived of more than $80,000 in cash. The mill owners undoubtedly have

lost more through halted production, and a blight has fallen over the economic life of Tarboro.

The most recent conference was a duplication of previous talks between mill officials and union representatives, talks which produced nothing concrete. Similarly, Federal and State conciliators met with no success in their efforts to bring the parties into agreement over a new contract. However, both sides are to be commended for an apparent willingness to continue negotiations.

On the basis of the record, the mill management must assume the major share of the blame for this stalemate because the management has steadfastly and obstinately refused to submit the issues to arbitration, although the union has agreed to that procedure.

Another reason why the management must assume responsibility for a continuance of this strike (and thereby lay itself open to a charge of not really being anxious to end the strike) is that this strike differs from nearly all other strikes in one important particular. It is the management rather than the union which is making demands. From the beginning of the controversy, it has been the management rather than the union that has sought the most numerous and important changes in the old contract. Now, the union has offered to accept the old contract without any change whatever, and the mill has rejected that offer. Surely, if the management has sound reasons for changing contracts which it previously signed and under which it operated, it should not hesitate to submit those reasons to an impartial outsider agreed upon by both sides to the dispute.

The mill manager has taken the view that submission of the issues to arbitration would let a "judge" decide them, and he is quite right. That arbiter, however, could not sit in judgment unless his selection for the role was approved by both mill officials and union officials. It is impossible to imagine a more impartial method than that one.

Governor Scott urged that arbitration be employed in the strike, and asked that during the period of arbitration the workers return to their jobs. This the workers also agreed to do, but the mill manager was adamant in his refusal.

The controversial points in the contract-vacation pay, premium pay for the third shift, check-offs-and not insoluble. Compared to some issues around which other contract difficulties have revolved in other industries, those points appear relatively simple.

It is apparent that personalities have taken precedence over the relevant facts in this case. Inevitably, there have been clashes of personalities as the talks dragged on. And that adds to the growing list of reasons a detached and impartial judge should be allowed to study the facts, and facts alone, and render a decision.

Unless the mill owners agree to arbitration, they will have to bear full and complete responsibility for the unhappy and unwholesome situation created by the strike. They should be convinced by this time that a succession of failures will not produce a success, and if their claims are just they should not hesitate to agree to arbitration.

Mr. CONN. Now, on June 27-the editor of that paper is Josephus Daniels of the National Democratic Committee, by the way. You will find a number of exhibits here from the paper. This is the nearest metropolitan daily from Tarboro. It's about 75 or 80 miles.

On June 27, Herbert W. Payne, a vice president of our organization; Mariano Bishop, also a vice president; and I, met with Frank H. Leslie, the president of the Hart Cotton Mills. The meeting was held at the union's national office in New York City.

Mr. Payne asked Mr. Leslie if he could not help work out a settlement of the strike.

Mr. Leslie replied that he was only a figurehead in the organization and he could do nothing toward effecting a settlement. Then, he suggested that we read the November 1947 issue of Fortune magazine about-and I am quoting his remark-"a certain dry-goods house to find out what you are up against." That's the end of the quotation. The November 1947 issue of Fortune has been referred to several times in my testimony, and I have quoted from it at length. We were

referred to that article by Mr. Leslie. I hadn't known of the article's existence until that time.

As five of the seven directors of the Hart Cotton Mills are also directors of Ely & Walker Dry-Goods Co. or of their Ely & Walker subsidiaries, the union contacted Mr. Lorch, executive vice president of Ely & Walker Dry-Goods Co., in St. Louis, in an effort to reach someone with authority to settle the strike.

Mr. Lorch stated that he regarded the strike as purely a local matter and would not interfere.

Mr. Cave issued a statement to the press, in his capacity as president of the Ely & Walker Dry-Goods Co., after our union had established a protest picket line before his office doors in St. Louis, declaring that although Ely & Walker had a financial interest in the Hart Cotton Mills, since the strike was purely a local matter, there, he would not interfere.

On July 18, a committee of the Tarboro Junior Chamber of Commerce met with Mr. Harris and Mr. Thomas of our union staff, members of the local union negotiating committee, and myself. They had set this committee up in an effort to try to settle the strike. We spent 3 hours with that committee. The chairman of the committee, Mr. Filliam Beasely, told us that, if the company proved as cooperative and desirous of working out a settlement as the union, he had high i hopes of the committee being successful in its project.

Midnight on the following day, July 19, Mr. Beasely called me at the Hotel Tarboro and asked me to attend a meeting at an office across the street to receive a report on the result of the committee's conference with Marcus Carter.

We met, Mr. R. H. Harris and I, with the committee until about 2:30 that morning. Each member of the junior chamber of commerce committee-and they are mentioned by name here-expressed the opinion they had formed during the conference with Mr. Carter: That the real issue in the strike appeared to be Mr. Carter's determination to have no union in this plant. They quoted him as saying he was making no plans to open; that he had made considerable progress in selling his supply of raw cotton; that he had no orders and no orders were in sight.

This ended the junior chamber of commerce's effort to mediate the dispute.

On July 6, 1949, Carter announced, in the Daily Southerner, which is a local daily in Tarboro-the only daily, of course, published in Tarboro-that the company would sell its company-owned houses in one of the company's two mill villages. He stated they would be sold in the immediate future and that the reason for the sale was that the employees were on strike and that they were refusing to work. He was quoted as saying, and this is a quotation:

We don't mind providing houses at a low rate for our workers, but when those persons living there are unwilling to go to work we must protect ourselves. The return we are getting from those houses is not enough to maintain them, a detail which we overlook while our employees are working.

Here is the news story from the Daily Southerner, exhibit 8.

Mr. BURKE. Is this the same newspaper?

Mr. CONN. No; that's the local newspaper in Tarboro.