The CHAIRMAN. He worked under the alias of Paul Miller?

Mr. PLUMLEY. His name with us was Paul Miller. I never knew his name was Tharin until that report of the Civil Liberties Committee was published.

The CHAIRMAN. I wonder if the Max Lischick had another name too?

Mr. PLUMLEY. I don't know, si.

The CHAIRMAN. Tharin, or Miller, was employed from May 1935 to July 1936 or thereafter, at the same rate of pay; is that correct? Mr. PLUMLEY. I am not sure of the dates and the rates, but it is substantially so, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, now, in our records we have this line, Mr. Plumley, and your name appears:

Yale & Towne Manufacturing Co., Stamford, Conn., No. 607, Max Lischick, April 1935 to November 1935, R. G. Plumley, $125 and $150.

Mr. PLUMLEY. What does that intend to claim; that I paid him that money personally?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; that he reported to you and received that money for it.

Mr. PLUMLEY. Well, I say I do not remember the amounts because they were not paid through my office. I don't know exactly what amounts they were.

The CHAIRMAN. You don't remember the man?

Mr. PLUMLEY. I remember the man; yes.

The CHAIRMAN. You do remember the man?

Mr. PLUMLEY. Yes, I remember such a name.

Senator BURKE. He said before that he remembered Miller.

Mr. PLUMLEY. I don't deny that I remember that man, but I don't remember the exact amounts or the periods that he worked there.

The CHAIRMAN. I understood you remembered Max Lischick, but you don't remember August Tharin?

Mr. PLUMLEY. I remember both of them.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you know whether Paul Miller, or August Tharin, as his name really was, belonged to a labor union or not? Mr. PLUMLEY. I think he did belong to a so-called labor union. May I say a word there and the reason why he was there?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. PLUMLEY. The reason why he was there was because we heard― both of them came for the same reason-that the Communist Party was organizing units of labor organizations, and the organizer who came to Stamford to do the organizing in our plant wrote an article in the Communist paper stat ng that these activities would be the nucleus for a Bolshevik revolution, and we wanted to find out what they were doing, and we asked the National Metal Trades Council to send these two men in and keep us informed.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you know whether Paul Miller was a member of that union?

Mr. PLUMLEY. I think he was, but I don't know whether Lischick was or not.

The CHAIRMAN. As a result of his activity, the union was wrecked, and its membership reduced from 243 when he entered the union to 21 when he quit the union; is that not a fact?

Mr. PLUMLEY. I have not any idea. I never heard that the union had a very large membership at any time, but I don't know whether it went up or down during his membership. I don't believe it ever had a very large membership, but I do not know.

The CHAIRMAN. You do not think that it was quite as large as the 243?

Mr. PLUMLEY. I would not know.

Senator BURKE. What kind of a union was that?

Mr. PLUMLEY. The Metal Workers Industrial Union was the name of it at that time.

The CHAIRMAN. It was a local union, was it not?

Mr. PLUMLEY. No, sir; it was a national union belonging to the Trade Union Unity League.

Senator BURKE. Was it affiliated with either the A. F. of L. or the C. I. O.?

Mr. PLUMLEY. That was before the days of the C. I. O. It was a group of unions that were being sponsored by the Communist Party. as far as we could find out.

Senator BURKE. But not connected with the American Federation of Labor?

Mr. PLUMLEY. Not with the American Federation of Labor, and there was no C. I. O. at that time.

The CHAIRMAN. The reason for bringing this up here is that this appears in the record.

August P. Tharin, operative 505, joined Lodge 1557 of the International Association of Machinists at Stamford, Conn., under the alias of Paul Miller, as a spy for the National Metal Trades Association at the request of the Yale & Towne Manufacturing Co. He was elected vice president of the union in 1936. There were 243 members in the union when he took office. By January 1937, he had succeeded in reducing the union to 21 members.

The Yale & Towne Co. was the beneficiary of Government contracts amounting to over a million dollars at the times these spies were working in its plants, according to the report of the committee; that is true, is it not?

Mr. PLUMLEY. I would guess approximately that; yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. That is true as shown by the statement that was filed with us. It shows that the amount was $1,004,452. Now, on March 22, 1935, W. Gibson Carey, Jr., president of the Yale & Towne Manufacturing Co., appeared before this committee in opposition to the National Labor Relations Act and said:

I make the pleas that decent employers who are, in my opinion, greatly in the majority both in numbers and in the numbers of their employees, should not be penalized because of the action of such unscrupulous employers as there may be. I say without qualification that employers who are not giving their men a thoroughly square deal considering the condition of their businesses should be curbed. It is evident that unfair treatment of employees is almost as disastrous to a fair competitor as it is to the employees who are being injured. In my experience, however, and I believe I know personally something of the conditions in a great many of the plants, both large and small in the United States, I have found very few executives who do not realize the basic necessity of giving their men a thoroughly square deal. Sound labor relations are based on confidence and mutual respect built up through years of constructive cooperation. Human nature is such that in most instances undue force on either side is not productive of the best results. Let us remember, that as between men, the application of the golden rule is what counts. Within individual plants proper labor arrangements are not in the largest sense built on legislation.

144458-39-pt. 9- -10

If you believe in the sincerity of what I have said, and if you concur in the force of the arguments herewith presented, I ask you, gentlemen, not to pass this legislation, which may well bring great strife and at the same time retard our business

recovery.

Mr. Plumley, do you agree with Mr. Carey that "as between men the application of the golden rule is what counts”?

Mr. PLUMLEY. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you believe that the employment of labor spies to wreck a labor union is an application of the golden rule?

Mr. PLUMLEY. No, I do not; but we have never employed them for that reason, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you think that the use of labor spies results in sound labor relations based on confidence and mutual respect built up through years of constructive cooperation?

Mr. PLUMLEY. Sometimes it may contribute to that; yes sir.
The CHAIRMAN. You think the spy does contribute?

Mr. PLUMLEY. Yes, sir; sometimes.

The CHAIRMAN. When?

Mr. PLUMLEY. When things are going on underneath that can't be brought out on the surface we have used the so-called spies; probably 75 percent of our use of them has been to catch thieves and the other 25 percent was spread over a lot of different items, including this communistic activity I spoke of.

The CHAIRMAN. These two men were not used to catch thieves? Mr. PLUMLEY. Yes; they were.

The CHAIRMAN. Did they catch any thieves?

Mr. PLUMLEY. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you know of any?

Mr. PLUMLEY. Yes, sir; the police court records in Stamford will show some men arrested during that period as the result of evidence that they gave them. We are doing that right now. We are doing that right now. I am chasing

a couple of fellows who are stealing padlocks right now.

The CHAIRMAN. That is a legitimate excuse, I suppose, for spies if they are policemen, and things of that kind, but do you think that is what Miller was?

Mr. PLUMLEY. He was one of the cleverest investigators of that sort I ever saw. He could get to the bottom of that sort of a problem quicker than any man I ever had before or since.

The CHAIRMAN. Where is he now?

Mr. PLUMLEY. I don't know. I met him on the street in New York one day about a year ago and a year after he left us-and he was working for a florist, but I haven't seen or heard of him since. The CHAIRMAN. What becomes of such men?

Mr. PLUMLEY. They have got to start another kind of work, I presume. He had spent some years in the florist business before he came to this country, so that he could go into a florist shop and get a job.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, aren't there any more thieves?

Mr. PLUMLEY. Certainly there are, but I can't use him any more because his name has been published to the world by the Civil Liberties Committee. He is useless as an investigator any more. I have got to find a new one now, train a new one.

Senator BURKE. How long has the Yale & Towne Co. been in business?

Mr. PLUMLEY. 70 years last fall.

Senator BURKE. What is your record in reference to payment of wages and general working conditions?

Mr. PLUMLEY. Well, our wages, we try to keep as high as the best in our community, and always at the top of our industry. We compete with, mostly people who live in lower living cost communities, so we can always do that easily, and we try to keep at the top of our community as well.

Senator BURKE. What has been the general condition through the years as to the spirit of the employees and the relationship between the employees of your company, and the management?

Mr. PLUMLEY. Well, in my opinion it has been fine, we have a very friendly family spirit, and we have outings and picnics and smokers and bowling matches together. There has been a fine spirit.

Senator BURKE. And with a record of that kind behind you, and that condition existing, if you felt that some radical communistic-if you want to call them-some subversive individuals were coming into the community to attempt to undermine that relationship and you employed someone to get at the facts, is he properly called a spy or an investigator?

Mr. PLUMLEY. I call him an investigator, and I think he is necessary to good, peaceful relationships.

Senator BURKE. Just this one question about war chests and so on. Do you have any information as to anything in the nature of a war chest maintained by the American Federation of Labor or the C. I. O. to carry on the activities of their organizations?

Mr. PLUMLEY. I heard about pretty large figures, but I don't know as a matter of personal contact about them.

The CHAIRMAN. That is all, Mr. Plumley.

Mr. Wiltse, please? Mr. Wiltse, I am told that you have just a short statement, and we have about 11 minutes left.

Mr. WILTSE. Does that mean that you want me to finish my statement in 10 minutes?

Senator BURKE. I submitted your name to the chairman because I had understood that it was necessary for you to leave.

Mr. WILTSE. It is not necessary. I came here purposely for this hearing, at my own expense, and I wanted to conclude it.

Senator BURKE. The chairman understood, on my suggestion, that your statement was short, and that we would probably finish before 4. Mr. WILTSE. Well, really, to review the case I would require probably 2 hours, rather than 10 minutes.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, you can take what time you want, but it can't be taken this afternoon.

Senator BURKE. That is, you wouldn't be able to conclude this afternoon?

Mr. WILTSE. I wouldn't be able to more than make an introductory statement now.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you want to start and then continue tomorrow? Mr. WILTSE. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Will you state your name and whatever information you wish for the record?

STATEMENT OF ARTHUR J. WILTSE, MANAGER, ANN ARBOR PRESS, ANN ARBOR, MICH.

Mr. WILTSE. My name is Arthur J. Wiltse, I am the manager of the Ann Arbor Press, at Ann Arbor, Mich. The Ann Arbor Press is a small copartnership, owned by Horace G. Prettyman and Arthur J. Wiltse, sole owners. We belong to no association, or manufacturers association of any kind. We came here at our own expense and of our own instigation.

We were operating peacefully a small printing plant employing about 125 people during the spring of 1937, and we are still operating it, but during the late spring of 1937, the State Legislature of the State of Michigan passed a law which required that all companies doing printing which was paid for in whole or in part by funds of the State of Michigan, should either be operating a union shop and be able to secure the union label on such printing, or should have a collective bargaining agreement and be able to submit an affidavit to the secretary of state that it did have such collective bargaining agreement.

The CHAIRMAN. Is that the way the law reads or is that the consequence?

Mr. WILTSE. That is very nearly the way the law reads, I think I have quoted it almost exactly. That is the purpose of the law and I tried to quote it almost in the language in which it appears.

The CHAIRMAN. It doesn't say anything about an open or closed shop, or anything like that?

Mr. WILTSE. No.

The CHAIRMAN. It just mentions that the printing must show a union label?

Mr. WILTSE. Or be done in a shop which has a collective bargaining agreement and that such shop must file with the State legislature an affidavit that it does have a collective bargaining agreement.

The CHAIRMAN. What is the condition of that law today?
Mr. WILTSE. That law is still in effect.

The CHAIRMAN. It is operating?

Mr. WILTSE. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Now your grievance, I imagine, then, is against your own Michigan law and not against the national law?

Mr. WILTSE. No; I am merely giving you the facts that led up to our difficulty with the National Labor Relations Board. Understand we were a printing plant, depending for our existence on doing printing in the State of Michigan, and that the typographical union secured the passage of this law with the help of Governor Murphy and the Democratic Party of the State of Michigan, which was in power, and did so for the purpose of unionizing printing plants in the State of Michigan.

The CHAIRMAN. You have had a Republican legislature since then, haven't you?

Mr. WILTSE. I think we have now; yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Has it repealed the law?

Mr. WILTSE. No; it has not.

The CHAIRMAN. Is it going to, do you think?

Mr. WILTSE. I don't think so unless someone makes an issue of it

and perhaps we could get it repealed. I think it should be.