There are four significant things in that paragraph, which I have taken from that letter.

First: That the Director states plainly that the Government has no idea of laying down any rules or regulations regarding policing of mines, fully recognizing that in that matter the State inspectors had sole and paramount authority.

Second: That the Federal inspectors in no way occupied a position coequal with the State inspector, and under the Constitution of the United States they never could occupy such position except with direct consent of the States.

Third: That this paramount right of the State departments extended even to the public lands which were leased from Federal Government by private operating companies.

Fourth: That the Mr. Forbes, referred to in Mr. Bain's letter, is the same Mr. Forbes that is Director of the Bureau of Mines, which is now sponsoring this legislation.

I want to withdraw the word "sponsoring," because I don't think that is a proper use of the word.

We bring this to your attention only to show that this problem has not been easy of solution.

We have based our objections to this legislation on several points: 1. We do not believe that there is any evidence to show that Federal bureaucracy is an efficient method of handling industrial problems.

2. We believe that the continued weakening of the responsibilities and authority of the States to be a detriment to the future of this country.

3. We find no evidence that the transfer of the responsibility of the enforcement of safety laws in the coal mines of the country to a Federal bureaucracy will improve the safety in the mines.

4. We do not believe that there is any magic to be used in mine safety, but that it is hard work in the education of miners and management that will produce progress.

5. We believe that the proposed legislation does not protect the coal miners or operators from arbitrary action by the agents of the Federal Government.

6. We do not believe that the small or medium-sized mines of this country, and they represent a big part of the total, can live under the requirements of this legislation.

7. We believe that the administration of this legislation, if lodged in a Federal bureaucracy, will be subject to political, union, industrial, and governmental pressures, far greater than any possible under State operation.

8. We believe that the records show that safety is primarily a matter of education and the proposed legislation is built on the police power of the Federal Government, rather than educational effort.

9. We believe that the proposed legislation is bad government and that it does not present the means of improving safety in the coal mines of this country.

In closing, I would like to quote from an editorial by a gentleman from West Virginia, Mr. Charles E. Hodges, who was a member of the West Virginia State Senate for 8 years and president of that body

for 4 years and for many years a student of mining conditions who speaks with a full knowledge of the subject. I quote:

Where it can be shown, in terms of human life and safety that a Federal system of inspection would be superior, the American people will accept it.

But,

if so, then we should abolish our State departments. There certainly can be no justification for maintaining duplicate systems of equal sovereignty and divided responsibility. But until the superiority of any Federal system is demonstrated beyond question, we will be reluctant to abandon the progress in mine safety which West Virginia, as a State, has made over these long years.

That, gentlemen, pretty well covers my thinking insofar as this legislation is concerned. Not to be politic or anything, I know probably a lot of you have had real question on it one way or the other. Whether my appearance here has been an aid to you in any way or not-I hope it has-anything I have said I have said thoughtfully and sincerely. When I was a youngster, my dad told me always when I was in a jam like this to think of that West Point prayer, with which some of you are probably familiar:

Dear God, give me the light to see service for my country but the courage to do the harder right rather than the easier wrong.

I should be glad to answer any questions that you gentlemen have. I have Mr. Thurmond, my associate, here, and there have been some questions that came up here that I know he is better fitted to discuss With the consent of the chairman, if I may have it, I would like to ask that he have a few minutes to cover the points that he had in mind.

Mr. LUCAS (presiding). Mr. Moody, you have leave to introduce Mr. Thurmond, and, without objecton from the members of the committee, we shall be glad to hear from him. We have just heard the bells ring for a quorum.

Mr. MOODY. I would like to add one more thing, please. I suppose you are going to recess for a while.

Mr. PERKINS. This is a roll call, not a quorum.

Mr. LUCAS. Then suppose we recess immediately, so that we can get to the first roll call, and return in 30 minutes.

Mr. MOODY. Mr. Chairman, there is a gentleman here who tells me he has to get a train. I wonder if when we come back we could let him go on, and then let Walter go on after that.

Mr. LUCAS. Surely.

The committee will be in recess for 30 minutes.

(Thirty-minute recess.)

Chairman BARDEN. The committee will come to order.

Mr. Moody, you may begin where you left off.

Mr. MOODY. Mr. Chairman, I believe that just as the bell rang I had come to a breaking-off point, and I had asked the then acting chairman if it would be agreeable to the committee if this gentleman here, who has come into town and has asked for time and wants to get out of town on a train—if it would be agreeable to have him take some time now. Then I can come back with Mr. Thurmond, who also wanted to make a short statement; if that is agreeable, and if not, we will do what you want, sir.

Chairman BARDEN. Yes, sir. Insofar as I am permitted, I want to accommodate every one of you as best I can.

Will you give your name and identify yourself for the reporter?

STATEMENT OF CLAY M. BISHOP, MANCHESTER, KY., COAL MINE OWNER

Mr. BISHOP. My name is Clay M. Bishop. I live at Manchester, Ky. I am the owner of two truck mines in Leslie County, Ky., and the president of a coal processing plant near Manchester, Ky., on the L&N Railroad Co. I am appearing here before this committee for the express purpose of opposing the pending legislation, which gives the Federal Government police powers over the coal industry.

Our position in the two counties which I represent is different from the sections represented by the other gentlemen who have been before this committee and who will be before this committee hereafter. Mr. BAILEY. Mr. Chairman, let us clarify the position.

You are appearing here in behalf of your coal operation. Your processing plant would in no way be affected?

Mr. BISHOP. I say I am appearing here for the operators of Clay and Leslie Counties in the State of Kentucky.

Mr. BAILEY. What about this processing plant?

Mr. BISHOP. That is one of the plants where the coal is trucked from the mines.

Mr. BAILEY. Well, this legislation would not in any way affect that processing plant, would it?"

Mr. BISHOP. No.

Chairman BARDEN. He is just identifying himself.

Mr. SMITH. Would it not affect it if the truck mines could not operate?

Mr. BAILEY. I guess it would at that.

Mr. BISHOP. Put it out of business, is all.

The economy of the eastern part of Kentucky is solely dependent on the coal industry, and especially in the two counties which I represent, Clay and Leslie. There is no other major industry from which people could earn a livelihood for themselves and their families.

These two counties are largely mountainous, and the timber is practically all gone, and the only cash crop they have is the mining of coal. Most of the miners live on small farms and work in a nearby vicinity to the coal mines. We produce nearly 3 million tons of coal annually in the 2 counties and employ approximately 4,000 men in the mines and approximately another thousand in the processing plants and the trucking business.

The accident record in these small mines is very, very low, and I might call to your attention the fact that we have never had any mine disasters in this area in the history of the field.

The operators who have property in this area adhere to the strictest of safety rules, and it is a well-established fact that one of the cheapest things the operator can have is an efficient safety program.

These mines are small mines, all of them. The largest mine that we have in the field produces 1,500 tons per day. We have some mines which produce 600, 500, 400, and on down to around 100 tons per day. Mr. BAILEY. About how many men would be employed in an operation that produced 100 tons?

Mr. BISHOP. About 25 men,

Mr. BAILEY. Thank you. Go right ahead. I was just asking for information.

Mr. BISHOP. We in this particular field feel that under this legislation if passed in its present status the result would be to close all these mines and therefore throw all these people out of employment. This area is a nonunion coal-producing area, and in recent months the United Mine Workers of America have put forth considerable effort to organize the area and to incorporate our employees as members of their organization. The citizens, the businessmen, the operators, and the miners of these two counties do not want a union. The reason they do not want a union is the fact that they know they cannot operate a mine at a profit under the present union set-up.

These mines are not located on a railroad. The coal is mined and hauled at a minimum of 5 to a maximum of 35 miles by truck. About I three-fourths of the coal is hauled approximately 30 miles by truck to the railroad, that coal coming from Leslie County, Ky. So, with the added expense of that great haul, it would be impossible for them to operate under the union; so therefore they do not have a union at the present time.

Mr. BAILEY. How far is your scale of pay off the union scale?

Mr. BISHOP. Well, frankly, I don't know exactly what the union I scale is. Our shift men draw $12 a day, and we pay $1.25 a ton to $1.35 a ton for hauling it, and the loaders are paid so much a ton for loading. The average is 75 cents a ton for loading coal.

We fear that if Congress sees fit to place in the hands of the Federal Bureau of Mines regulations such as prescribed in the bill, the bill the committee now has under consideration, it would be detrimental to the coal industry generally and particularly to the small operators in all areas, and would in all probability close many mines in eastern Kentucky.

It is an established fact that the Bureau of Mines is closely alined with the United Mine Workers of America, and if these discretionary powers were handed to the Bureau of Mines, we are afraid that it would be handing a weapon to the United Mine Workers of America to undertake to organize all nonunion mines in the two counties. Mr. WIER. Will you yield for a question right there?

Is that the reason that you are opposing the Federal inspection of mines bill?

Mr. BISHOP. No, sir.

Mr. WIER. Well, that is the premise that you make there. You start out by saying that if this bill is passed it will close many mines in this area that you are speaking for. That was the first question I was going to ask you. Why would it close any mines, with all of your safely record there that you have just been presenting here? And secondly, you come back and swing around and say that if this bill passes it will enable the United Mine Workers to organize your fields. How do you account for those two statements?

Mr. BISHOP. Well, during the last session of the legislature in the State of Kentucky, which ended recently, they passed a new mine safety bill in that State, and a number of representatives from the United States Bureau of Mines appeared at the hearings on this bill in Frankfort, Ky., and testified in behalf of the United Mine Workers of America, and on cross-examination admitted that they were there at the expense of the Federal Government. And the operators and the people in general in this territory feel that the mine inspectors,

who ordinarily would naturally be former members of the union, would make it as hard as possible on the nonunion operators relative to safety operations.

Mr. WERDEL. Will you yield there?

The testimony you referred to before the State legislature is a matter of record at the State legislature?

Mr. BISHOP. Yes, sir.

Chairman BARDEN. You say they were down there at the expense of the Federal Government?

Mr. BISHOP. They testified to that. They appeared before the committee holding the hearing and testified in behalf of the bill and said they were representing the United Mine Workers of America.

Mr. BAILEY. Were you in agreement with the legislation in question, or against it?

Mr. BISHOP. I agreed with the legislation that was passed in Kentucky. I didn't agree wholeheartedly with it.

Mr. BAILEY. Well, is not the objective of the Federal Bureau of Mines to bring about greater safety? Do you see anything wrong with their testifying in favor of it, if it was a good bill?

Mr. BISHOP. The bill that was passed in Kentucky is not the type of bill that we are talking about here.

Mr. WERDEL. Will you yield there? I understood the witness to say that representatives of the Federal Bureau of Mines were there as witnesses for the United Mine Workers.

Mr. BISHOP. They were in favor of the bill.

Mr. WERDEL. Just a minute. You draw that conclusion from the fact the United Mine Workers were supporting the Kentucky legislation? Is that right?

Mr. BISHOP. They were there together and worked together, and they testified that they were there for that purpose at the Government's expense.

Mr. PERKINS. I think I can simplify this matter a little bit, from a reading of the press reports that occurred during the last session of the general assembly.

Mr. WERDEL. Now, does the United Mine Workers write the press releases you were reading?

Mr. PERKINS. I do not think so, my good friend from California. As I recall, the United Mine Workers sponsored legislation in the General Assembly of Kentucky, and that legislation was opposed by the operators throughout Kentucky. And a couple of witnesses, perhaps, from the Bureau of Mines appeared down there and testified in behalf of mine-safety legislation. And I cannot think of any more pertinent witnesses than could be procured from the Bureau of Mines, because they had inspected those mines, and they knew what recommendations to make to the committee considering mine-safety legislation in Kentucky. And I do not think there was a thing in the world improper about it.

Chairman BARDEN. Who procured them?

Mr. PERKINS. I do not remember who procured them, but I remember reading in the paper that inspectors of the Bureau of Mines testified in behalf of mine-safety legislation.

Mr. KEARNS. They were not representing the union, were they?
Mr. PERKINS. No.

Mr. KEARNS. The witness said they were.