Mr. MATLES. Your committee did not start an investigation of Alcoholics Anonymous to find out whether they are a threat to the national security of the United States.

Senator HUMPHREY. That is true.

Mr. MATLES. You started out on the basis, you started out on a certain premise, and your premise was--and again I am trying to say to you, Senator, that your premise is wrong. If we have not been successful up to this point, we will be glad to do everything in our power to show you that your premise is wrong.

I would not argue this way before McCarran, you know, but I will argue before you this way because I am convinced in my own mind that if you start going down that road, in my judgment-and I am just a little bit concerned about you-you and I will land in the same McCarran concentration camp. I most likely will land there first, but you sure are going to follow. That is my feeling about it, and Í don't mind telling you anything you want to know. That is the reason I am arguing before you as I am.

Senator HUMPHREY. May I say, Mr. Matles, that the reason you have been given an opportunity to testify here is to make your record clear, and you have been given all of the chance in the world. I would venture to say that some committees of Congress might have been a little more short with you.

Mr. MATLES. That is right.

Senator HUMPHREY. I want to make it crystal clear to you that our objective is solution of a particular problem. If you don't fall within that problem, you have nothing to worry about.

If you do fall within the problem, then you are a matter of concern to the committee.

Mr. MATLES. I say that you do not have that problem. There is not a union in America that threatens the security of the United States. The corporations in America are threatening the security of the United States.

I don't care what union you pick. It may be a good union, in your opinion, or it may be a bad union, in your opinion. It may do a good job; it may do a bad job. But it does not constitute a threat to the United States of America.

Senator HUMPHREY. Your testimony will be very carefully weighed. This committee is composed of some very fine men, without talking about the present company. We have men on this committee such as Senator Douglas, of Illinois. We have Senator Neely, of West Virginia. We have Senator Pastore, of Rhode Island. We have Senator Ives, of New York. We have Senator Morse, of Oregon, and also Senator Taft, of Ohio. Now, there is a wide variety of political views there. They are men of experience. I am confident that they will weigh this testimony carefully.

May I say that our whole objective has not been to put the finger on some organization or some individual. Our objective is to examine this problem, which we are doing, and we may continue to do that for a considerable period of time. We are not going to rush out and prepare a quick report. We are not going to give this the quick treatment. We are going to try to get at the problem. We are going to see whether or not this problem necessitates any consideration by the Congress. We are going to try to publish a report that will be helpful. Now, that is what we are going to do.

Do you

have anything more, Mr. Matles?

Mr. MATLES. The only thing I want to say, in conclusion, is this one sentence, Senator: I think that the problem that confronts this country is the repeal of the Taft-Hartley law.

And the repeal of the McCarran Immigration Act.

And the repeal of every single piece of repressive legislation as the Smith Act and the McCarran Act which are directed against the people. I say that you can sleep at ease and have your vacation as far as any section of the labor movement is concerned, whether you agree with it or not, from the standpoint of any union or any group of working people being a threat to the security of the United States of America. That does not exist.

Senator HUMPHREY. I am not worried about the working people being a threat to our national security.

Mr. MATLES. All that Boulware wants to do is to get you started on the road, just as he has done with Carey and others. He has used them. He has split the union. He made millions of dollars out of that. Just as certainly as he turned on him after he finished using him, he will turn on anybody else after he is done with him and as he will keep on doing until he destroys the labor movement.

Senator HUMPHREY. Mr. Barbash, do you have any more questions? Mr. BARBASH. No, Mr. Chairman.

Senator HUMPHREY. How about you, Mr. Bernstein?

Mr. BERNSTEIN. I have no questions.

Senator HUMPHREY. I trust that you feel you have had a fair hearing?

Mr. MATLES. Thank you very much for the time.

I only wish you had given us this hearing before you drew some conclusions about us.

Senator HUMPHREY. We had you appear before we drew any conclusions.

The committee will be in recess now subject to the call of the chairman.

(Whereupon, at 5: 40 p. m., Tuesday, July 8, 1952, the hearing was adjourned, subject to the call of the Chair.)

APPENDIXES

APPENDIX A

MEMORANDUM

To: Senator Hubert H. Humphrey

From: Max M. Kampelman

Re: The Taft-Hartley non-Communist affidavit1

Section 9 (h) of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 provided as follows: 1

"No investigation shall be made by the Board of any question affecting commerce concerning the representation of employees, raised by a labor organization under subsection (c) of this section, no petition under section 9 (3) (1) shall be entertained, and no complaint shall be issued pursuant to a charge made by a labor organization under subsection (b) of section 10, unless there is on file with the Board an affidavit executed contemporaneously or within the preceding twelve-month period by each officer of such labor organization and the officers of any national or international labor organization of which it is an affiliate or constituent unit that he is not a member of the Communist Party or affiliated with such party, and that he does not believe in, and is not a member of or supports any organization that believes in or teaches, the overthrow of the United States Government by force or by any illegal or unconstitutional methods. The provisions of section 35A of the Criminal Code shall be applicable in respect to such affidavits."

In his veto message, President Truman singled out this section for specific attention:

"The only result of this provision would be confusion and disorder, which is exactly the result the Communists desire. * *

"I consider that this provision would increase, rather than decrease, the disruptive effect of Communists in our labor movement

* *

The constitutionality of this section was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States on May 8, 1950, in American Communications Association v. Douds and United Steelworkers v. N. L. R. B. Congress, the Court held, exercised its power under the commerce clause in order to protect commerce from the continuing danger of disruptive political strikes. It did not seek to regulate speech by censorship or by prohibiting the dissemination of information. Furthermore, the remedy provided by statute bears a reasonable relation to the evil sought to be reached, said the court. Thus, Congress could and did find the policy of the Communist Party unlike that of other political parties, to be to utilize union leaders to strike and obstruct commerce for political purposes. Congress would reasonably conclude that persons who believe in the forcible overthrow of government could likewise abuse union office for that objective.

The Court also held that section 9 (h) "is designed to protect the public not against what Communists and other identified therein advocate or believe, but against what Congress has concluded they have done and are likely to do again." It, therefore, isn't the suppression of speech which is at issue but rather "evils of conduct that are not the product of speech at all." The "clear and present danger" test was thus not to be applied.

In addition, the Court continued, the section did not directly prevent or punish speech, affiliation, or beliefs; nor did it indirectly seek to suppress dangerous

For much of the material used in this analysis I am indebted to David I. Shair, How Effective Is the Non-Communist Affidavit? Labor Law Journal, vol. 1, No. 12, September 1950, pp. 935-944; and Walter L. Daykin, The Operation of the Taft-Hartley Act's NonCommunist Provisions, Iowa Law Review, vol. 36, No. 4, summer 1951, pp. 607-628. 261 Stat. 136, 146.

The New York Times, June 21, 1947, p. 4.

339 U. S. 382, rehearing denied, 339 U. S. 990.

ideas, impose invalid censorship, or prohibit the dissemination of information. Its purpose was only to discourage affiliation and belief where they are com bined "with occupancy of a position of great power over the economy of the country."

As of June 30, 1951, non-Communist affidavits had been filed by 204,420 officers of international, national, and local unions. Each of them has sworn to three statements as follows:

6

“(1) I am a responsible officer of the union named below.

"(2) I am not amember of the Communist Party or affiliated with such party. "(3) I do not believe in, and I am not a member of, nor do I support, any organization that believes in or teaches the overthrow of the United States Government by force or by an illegal or unconstitutional method."

But a story cannot be told by numbers alone.

Communist leaders in the labor movement were not content to allow the affidavit requirement to diminish their influence or thwart their objectives. They were aided at first in their desire not to be exposed by the fact that the organized labor movement as a matter of principle opposed the affidavit and threatened noncompliance. For many months, the unions were deciding whether to "boycott" and "bypass" 9 (h) or comply and fight for repeal of the entire act. Finally, after all but a few of the unions, notably the United Steelworkers and the United Mine Workers, decided to comply with the section, the Communist trade-union leaders developed other techniques for meeting the affidavit's threat. In all, three major techniques were adopted.

First was the resignation from the Communist Party of some of the leaders. Max Perlow, secretary-treasurer of the United Furniture Workers, started this trend. In a statement to the press on June 5, 1949, Perlow stated that his union had decided to file the affidavits and thus prevent raiding from other unions. He said he was faced with a choice of continuing either as a union officer or as a member of the Communist Party. He still believed in Communist doctrine and in his right to advocate it through "peaceful, constitutional processes.” He likewise asserted that he had never kept his long-standing Communist membership a secret from union members. He then used this occasion to further advance the party's interest: '

*

*

"It is because of the teachings of this party that I came to the conclusion that there can be no higher privilege, no greater principle, than to serve the working people in their struggle for a higher standard of living, for higher wages, for job security, for greater and greater guarantees for the workers to live decently and bring up their children as free people without fear to face the future * Marxism is the best expression of the hopes and aspirations of mankind to free itself of the mounting evils which threaten the world today." Certainly, Perlow's action violated the spirit and intent of section 9 (h), but the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, Mr. Denham, felt that "the maximum limit" to which he could go was to refer the affidavit to the Department of Justice.

"The act does not direct or authorize either the General Counsel or the Board to police these affidavits or to pass judgment upon their truth or falsity. While Mr. Perlow's published statements, if they accurately quote him, would tend to throw considerable doubt on the good faith of his affidavit, nevertheless, we are required by the law to take the affidavits as they are submitted

The NLRB itself later followed suit when, by a 4-1 majority, it placed the furniture workers on a ballot for the first time since passage of the Taft-Hartley Act. The Board claimed that "persons desiring to establish falsification or fraud" had "recourse to the Department of Justice for a prosecution under sec tion 35 (a) of the Criminal Code" and that for the Board itself to intervene would be "clearly contrary to the intent of Congress" and "productive of delay."" Perlow's successful effort was emulated about a month later by Maurice Travis, secretary-treasurer of the Mine, Mill, and Smelter Workers, who "reluctantly" resigned from the Communist Party, signed the affidavit, and pledged he would "continue to fight" for Communist goals "with all the energy and sincerity at my command." Travis said a "great sense of indignation" accompanied his de

National Labor Relations Board, Fifteenth Annual Report (U. S. Government Printing Office, 1950), n. 18.

6 Form NLRB 1081.

7 The New York Times, June 6. 1949. p. 1.

NLRB Release R-202. June 14, 1949.

NLRB Release R-217, July 21, 1949. General Banking Company, 90 NLRB 90.

10 The New York Times, August 16, 1949, p. 7.

cision since "an American has as much right to be a Communist as he has to be a Republican, a Democrat, a Jew, a Catholic, or an Elk or a Mason."

Donald Henderson of the Food and Tobacco Workers of America followed the same technique. In August 1950 Ben Gold, head of the fur and leather workers union, also officially resigned from the Communist Party to sign the Taft-Hartley affidavit, thus allowing his union to qualify and protect itself from raiding."

A second stratagem followed to avoid the intent of the Taft-Hartley Act was to amend the union constitution and juggle union offices. The first NLRB test of this ruse was furnished by the United Shoe Workers, which changed its constitution so that there were only two national officers of the union; other leaders remained at their old posts but without officer titles. The NLRB ruled as follows:

13

"The contentions ** * * illustrate the possibility under existing law that unions, by abolishing offices under their constitutions but assigning identical duties to officials who shall not longer be denominated as 'officers,' may frustrate the congressional intent to drive Communists from positions of leadership in the labor movement. As the Board reads the statute, however, these considerations cannot properly deter it from processing a case when statutory requirements have been met."

The NLRB, however, soon changed its ruling in a similar case. Before it did, the United Retail, Wholesale, and Department Store Union effected compliance by a similar device, and the United Office and Professional Workers eliminated three elective vice presidents, making them "division heads."

14

The NLRB changed its rules and regulations and its statement of procedure after it began considering the case of Donald Henderson and his food and tobacco workers union.13 Henderson had been named "national administrative director" after resigning as president. The NLRB challenged this procedure 1 after pointing to an announcement of the executive board that the new arrangement "well assures our members of his (Henderson's) continued service as a leader of the union." 15

Finally, in a new order, effective January 1, 1950, the Board amended its rules and regulations to provide for investigation of "those situations in which it believes a union failed to list any officers in its constitution for the purposes of evasion." New affidavits from persons other than those listed by the union might be required if the facts so warrant, said the Board.

16

The third method of evading 9 (h) was simply to ignore charges of Communist domination and sign the affidavit on the assumption that fraud and perjury would have to be proved by the Department of Justice. Thus in November 1949 Albert Fitzgerald, president of the United Electrical, Radio, and Machine Workers Union signed his affidavit, saying there never was a "question about Communist tendencies in this union" and along with his affidavit were those of secretary-treasurer, Julius Emspak, and director of organization, James J. Matles. It is difficult to evaluate the effect of the 9 (h) provision on the decline of Communist influence in the trade-union movement and in the CIO in particular. There can be no question but that a final break with the Stalinists was inevitable. Differences as to the Marshall plan and the Wallace Progressive Party were the developments that stimulated action. It does appear, however, that the affidavit requirement helped in a number of local situations to identify the Communists and to facilitate their ouster. This was particularly true during the first days following the passage of the Taft-Hartley Act.

The affidavit shifted the anti-Communist struggle from the political to the economic level. Communists within unions had been attacked by congressional committees, employers, the press, and from within the unions proper. The issues, however, had been political, i. e., "Red fascism," Marshall plan, third party; but these issues did not seem to cause many union members too great a concern. With the Taft-Hartley affidavit, however, the union's welfare itself was at stake. If the officers did not sign, it could mean economic hardship, union raiding, loss of contract, perhaps strike.

11 The New York Times, August 29, 1950.

12 Craddock-Terry Shoe Corporation, 76 NLRB 842.

13 Additions to sec. 102.3 of the Rules and Regulations, Series 5, and to sec. 101.3 of the Statement of Procedure, as amended August 18, 1948, published in Federal Register of December 2, 1949.

14Alaska's Salmon Industry, Inc., Case No. 19-RC-327.

15 The New York Times, August 4, 1949. p. 15.

30 NLRB Release R-268, December 2, 1949.