area asking their vote for a general strike, if one should become necessary. He went on, describing the Communists and their adherents politely as "the militants":

Of course, the general strike movement was in no sense a spontaneous movement. It took long and careful preparations. At first the militants sent small committees, chiefly from the longshoremen's local, to other A.F. of L. locals, appealing for support by a vote for a general strike. First we tackled only those locals that we knew were most militant. As we began to tackle the larger locals and those in the key industries which would be critical for the outcome of the general strike, we sent, not small delegations, but delegations ranging from 50 to as much as 400 *** the general strike movement was actually advancing very rapidly ***

On July 5 the National Guard took control of the waterfront *** On that day finally, the Joint Maritime Strike Committee issued a leaflet openly calling for the general strike **

*

Getting the Teamsters to join the strike was at this time the main force needed to make certain the eventuality of the general strike. *** The Teamsters demanded to hear Bridges, who was given a tremendous ovation, and they finally voted to go out the next morning.

By the next morning, July 12, 60 local unions had voted for the general strike and about 10 locals were already out ** (pp. 28-30).

*

Saturday and Sunday were used by the militants for two
activities, first, to pull the remaining locals out, and, secondly,
to mobilize for organizational contact. * *

On Monday morning the general strike was effective be-
yond all expectations*** Nothing moved without permis-
sion of the strike committee. Within the city, transportation
was tied up; production stood at a standstill *
*It was
obvious that the military forces were helpless against such a
strike movement * **

*** In a widely popularized radio address by Governor
Merriam that very day, he said: "By its very nature the
general strike challenges the authority and ability of the
Government to maintain itself" (pp. 29, 30).

BRIDGES CUTS IN ON EAST COAST

In dealing with other unions, Bridges apparently is willing to give as well as get, and in one instance his generosity seems to have offended a dominant figure in the proposed transportation combine.

In 1957, when one Edward T. Fitzpatrick, a brother-in-law of the waterfront hoodlum, Albert Ackalitis, was organizing an independent union of pier hiring bosses in the port of New York, Bridges sent a gift of $3,000 to help finance the operation (p. 13).

In February of that year Velson was quoted by the New York Times as stating that Bridges had authorized him to say that the west coast counterparts of hiring bosses in New York would not work the ships of any lines engaged in a contract dispute with the hiring boss union (p. 15).

Apparently Bridges' generosity didn't set well with the ILA president. When news of the gift became public in hearings before the New York-New Jersey Waterfront Commission, Bradley commented: "We resent very much a union sending money to anyone in the port of New York for organizing" (p. 13).

It was not the first time that Bridges has taken an interest in east coast waterfront affairs, on one occasion, at least, to the benefit of ILA. An editorial in The International Teamster of December 1956 observed, with some appearance of uneasiness, that—

***When the ILA was exerting its economic weapon in its geographic areas, along comes Harry Bridges on the west coast and what should have been to the surprise of no oneoffers "sympathetically" to hold a 1-day work cessation in his area in order to help the ILA (p. 10). The editorial continued:

TEAMSTERS ON COMMUNISM

To those of us who know the score of labor relations in the docking industry, and particularly in the ways and means of the west-coast industry, the Bridges action should have been a red flag to employers and labor alike in every labor union in the United States. Bridges is not a man who looks at only the immediate effects of his political, tactical, or economic actions. He has the long view and let no one underestimate him.

*

*** * We are witnessing a new step by Bridges—a step that could conceivably lead to his becoming the dominant force in the longshore industry in America with a real stranglehold on both coasts. Those who know Bridges and are familiar with his conduct in the past, which has too often appeared to parallel the party line, know what this could mean. And if any interested observers do any hard thinking, what this means should keep them awake at night (p. 11).

Hoffa also has commented personally on the threat of communism in' labor unions. In a signed statement in the International Teamster of August 1958, he observed:

The position of your officers on the Communist question is well known. We stand militantly opposed to communism as the most reactionary force ever to mislead the worker * * *. If Communist unions ever gain the position to exercise influence in the transport lanes of the world, the free world will have suffered a staggering blow. The International Brotherhood of Teamsters stands prepared to fight this eventuality to the fullest.

But regarding Bridges' Communist record, Hoffa is quoted by the Worker, of October 6, 1958, as telling reporters "Look, so far as I know, Bridges has been cleared by the Supreme Court."

Bridges was convicted by a Federal district court jury of making a false statement under oath. The charge was based on his answer in a hearing on his application for naturalization, that he was not and

had not been a Communist. On appeal, the circuit court affirmed the lower court but the Supreme Court ordered the action dismissed on the ground that it was barred by the statute of limitations.

THREAT TO THE MILITARY

Twice in 15 years, the military has been called upon to cope with ILWU activities in connection with strikes. One instance was the 1949 strike of longshoremen in Honolulu, when the Navy found it necessary to unload its own supplies and those of other armed services on the islands and of U.S. Government agencies.

For nearly 6 months the ILWU held the civilian economy of this group of strategic islands in its grasp.

Just what that power means to national security can be estimated readily on the basis of one paragraph of a letter written by Adm. Charles M. Cooke, U.S. Navy, retired, to Chairman Eastland. The naval officer, who was chief strategical officer of his service during World War II, wrote:

It goes without saying that if Communist power continues to advance in southeast Asia and in the Pacific, if it succeeds in bringing Formosa into Communist control and Japan into the Communist orbit, then Communist domination of the Hawaiian Islands could spell irretrievable disaster to the United States.

He said also:

If the free world is to prevent communism from carrying out these objectives (conquest and control of east Asia) it must be in a strategic position to bring to bear naval power, including of course air power, against Communist aggressive use of the sea communications in this area.

The boast of Communist Sam Darcy, reporting to the Communist International on the 4-day general strike of 1934 in the San Francisco Bay area, that "the military forces were helpless" should also serve as a warning.

The Bridges union claims that its connections with oversea unions nullified President Truman's threat to smash a projected maritime strike in 1948 with Navy-manned vessels and army longshoremen, has been related.

In a 10-point program submitted to his union after a series of visits. between ILA and ILWU personnel, National ILA Organizer Teddy Gleason included a proposal that the two unions should "work together on the problem of the Army and Navy attempting to perform longshore work with civil service employees.'

LEGISLATORS POINT OUT DANGERS

Senator Eastland, chairman of the Judiciary Committee and of this subcommittee, commented in a statement:

If the longshoremen can immobilize shipping at all U.S. ports, little imagination is required to picture what simultaneous strikes of longshoremen and teamsters could do to inland industry and business and to the welfare of the Nation.

With the United States already involved in an arms race and stiff economic competition with the Communist part of the world, it would seem wise to take a hard look at the ideas of Mr. Bridges and Mr. Hoffa.

After hearing months of testimony concerning the Teamsters Union and its official personnel, Senator John L. McClellan, chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Improper Activities in the Labor or Management Field, and a member of the Internal Security Subcommittee, was quoted on September 21, 1958, as saying:

"The extraordinary powers of the Teamsters Union are
such that it can exercise dominate control over the Nation's
entire economy.
As Mr. Hoffa stated recently in Seattle,
the Teamsters' Union could, at its will, shut down the com-
merce of the Nation.

*

"Already he has implemented this plan by a pact with the National Maritime Union, the development of a closer understanding with the racket-controlled International Longshoremen's Association on the east coast, and preparations for meetings with the leftwing-controlled International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union of Harry Bridges on the west coast. The welding of Hoffa's powers with those inherent in these other organizations has grave implications for the destiny of our national economy.

"No family in this country, no matter where they may live,
can escape the repercussions.

Similar statements have been made by Senator Irving M.
Ives of New York, ranking Republican member of the
McClellan committee; and by Michigan Congressman Clare
R. Hoffman, Republican member of the House Labor and
Education Committee.

"***Such an alliance would be a 'menace to society
that could paralyze the whole country,'" proclaimed Senator
Ives.

* Representative Hoffman said, "If such a federation calls a strike, they could starve us into submission in 6 days" (pp. 31, 32).

Felix S. Hales, president of the New York, Chicago & St. Louis Railroad Co., also was quoted regarding the proposed alliance:

The Teamsters could tie up the country right now if they wanted. They don't need any more power.

In its interim report, the committee announced the following conclusions on which it based its recommendations for studies by the Defense Department and a Federal grand jury:

1. The terms of the alliance between the Teamsters Union, the ILWU, the ILA, and the NMU have not been made public, and are shrouded in secrecy. The alliance involving about 2 million workers in the transport industry from coast to coast has manifested itself rather through operational channels, which we have described. It is a definite menace to our national security both economically and militarily.

2. The alliance includes among its directive forces two categories which are notorious for their defiance of the law, namely, Communists and racketeers.

3. Economically and militarily the United States is unprepared for a general transport strike by these unions since such strikes, especially where Communist leaders are involved, have been known to occur with lightning suddenness. 4. The transportation alliance, in its full potentialities, could constitute a dangerous challenge to the power of the U.S. Government itself.

5. The alliance constitutes a monopoly in the transportation industry which threatens the economic life of the Nation and which could be employed to strangle the military forces of the Nation in the event of a war.

6. Because of the disastrous possibilities involved, neither the American labor movement nor the American Government can afford to deal with this situation, which involves gangsters and Communists, as if it were a normal union matter involving only law-abiding elements.

7. Well-trained Communist conspirators have infiltrated longshoremen's unions on both east and west coasts, and have acted as the spearhead of the alliance. Large sums of money have been used for this purpose.

8. The racketeering leaders of the Teamsters Union have displayed an utter lack of concern about the Communist records and activities of the dominant officials of the ILWU. Similarly, these Communist officials have displayed their disinterest in the record of racketeering and gangsterism in the Teamsters Union and the International Longshoremen's Association. The alliance is therefore brazenly and dangerously unprincipled.

9. The ILWU has in the past had ties to international Communist organizations such as the World Federation of Trade Unions and the World Peace Congress. The Communist International has expressed intense interest in the San Francisco general strike led by Harry Bridges. These ties and the union's activities over the years in cooperation with foreign Communist-controlled unions indicate that the ILWU is susceptible to appeals and pressures from international Communist sources.

10. The Communist Party, U.S.A., has for many years evinced a deep interest in operations on the waterfront and in the transport industry in general, with particular reference to operations in wartime.

11. The alliance, mustering close to 2 million workers in a vital industry, will provide a semblance of labor acceptance and greatly increased economic power for the ILWU, hitherto isolated and independent since its expulsion from the CIO.

12. There is evidence that the Communist forces within the alliance have the benefit of expert legal guidance.

13. The Teamsters Union, the ILWU, the ILA, and the National Maritime Union have been known to use methods of force and violence to attain their objectives.