1 R o b e r t . nifTievicd. QW<\l6e_ ~ I A D J I America Awake by Rev. Aubert, O.F.M. Sacred Heart Franciscan Province Strikes and the National Labor Relations Board by Rev. Chas. E. Coughlin Sunday, November 26, 1939 Published at Royal Oak, Michigan SUBSCRIBE FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE TODAY! My Name Is . - My Address Is . -— City or Town State — One Year—$3.00 Six Months—$1.50 LEARN THE TRUTH ABOUT AMERICA BE- FORE IT IS TOO LATE FOR THE TRUTH TO SAVE AMERICA! Copyright 1939 By R E V . CHAS. E . COUGHLIN (All Rights for Reproduction Reserved) Dea&i&isd America Awake! Address by R E V . AUBERT, O . F . M . Sacred Heart Franciscan Province INTRODUCTION The theme of this discourse is embodied in the words of Our Divine Savior: "Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's." (Mt. 22, 21) In this materialistic age, when the dignity of man is flaunted and divine values are minimized or even utterly deprecated, it is of paramount importance that every religious and God-fearing patriot bear in mind that every citizen has a duty towards the state "to be subject to the princes and powers" (Tit. 3, 1) for, "there is no power but from God," (Rom. 13, 1) as says St. Paul in his epistles to Titus and to the Romans. In serving the state, however, we must bear in mind to "seek first the kingdom of God and His justice;" (Mt. 6, 33) we must "obey in all things . . . not serving to the eye, as pleasing to men, but in simplicity of heart, fearing God-" (Col. 3, 22) We are passing through perilous times. Hatred, suspicion and confusion abound. Moral depravity runs rife over the world; irre- ligion is sapping the moral and religious strength of nations. We find a general drifting away from the safe moorings of religious belief and practice. In the social-political field we find a disregard for our traditional republic, our constitutional form of govern- ment. Due to the departure of the American people from the practice of time-honored Americanism, that is, active participation in gov- ernmental affairs—leaving it to the elected politicians for the most part; due to a tendency to substitute for social charity and eco- nomic justice born of God, cold-hearted legislation, we have en- meshed ourselves into bureaucratic political entanglements. While the American people slumbered in comfortable repose, the enemy sowed the seed of radical Bolshevism, gory Communism and satanical anarchy. As a result, we, the people, have but a shadowy influence in public affairs. Such, at least, is the wish of the enemy. The nefarious schemes for definitely eliminating the voice of the people from our legislative halls was well-nigh carried out to com- pletion. At the eleventh hour, however, so it seems, a voice "cry- ing in the wilderness" of an indifferent citizenry, has roused a goodly portion to action, warning them of the danger, showing them by example and encouraging words how to regain the price- less pearl of sovereignty. I refer to Father Coughlin. It is important to remember "that the means of saving the world today from the lamentable ruin into which moral liberalism has plunged us, are neither the class-struggle nor terror, nor yet the autocratic abuse of state power, but rather the infusion of social justice and the sentiment of Christian love into the social-economic order." (Ency. Div. Re. par. 32) "Unless the Lord build the house, they labor in vain who build it. Unless the Lord keep the city, he watcheth in vain who keepeth it." (Ps. 126, 1-2.) God brought our nation into existence through the will of the people. Whenever the people exercised their inalienable rights, our nation prospered, and there was a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people." The liberties of peoples have always suffered when wealth was concentrated in the hands of a few. Our founding fathers fought the American Revolution to obtain economic freedom, and upon this freedom they built our republic. "Benjamin Franklin, in his autobiography, stated that the refusal of George III to allow the colonies to continue to operate an honest money system, which permitted freedom of the ordinary man from the clutches of ma- nipulators, probably was the prime cause of the American Revolu- tion." (Money Creators, p. 1.) Thomas Jefferson wrote the following: "If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all their property." (America Awake, p. 196.) On the same subject President Lincoln had this to say: "As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned, and an era of corruption in high places will follow until all of liberty shall be lost and the republic destroyed-" (ib. p. 82) Note that Lincoln speaks of our nation as a republic, not a democracy. In 1787 John Adams wrote the following to Thomas Jefferson: Vll the perplexities, confusion and distress in America arise, not T H E FOUNDING FATHERS from the defects of their Constitution or Confederation, not from want of honor or virtue, so much as from the downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit and circulation. (Money Creators, p. 6.) As of yore, so today, economic strangulation manipulated by a few is the curse of democracy, which precedes the destruction of any legitimate government. The illustrious Pope Leo XIII warned of the present conditions when, with keen foresight, based on current events of his time he wrote: "The elements of a conflict are unmistakable . . . the enormous fortunes of individuals and the poverty of the masses. The momentous seriousness of the present state of things just now fills every mind with painful apprehen- sion." (Rerum Nov.) The late Pope Pius XI, in his encyclical, "Reconstruction of the Social Order," wrote: "When we speak of the reform of the social order it is principally the state we have in mind." Further on in the same encyclical the august Pontiff, with a few adroit strokes of the pen, depicts for us in bold relief, in vivid outline, the condi- tion existing in the nations of the world, excepting the United States, we quote: " . . . it is patent that in our days not alone is wealth accumulated, but immense power and despotic economic domination is concentrated in the hands of a few. . . . This concen- tration of power has led to a threefold struggle for domination. First, there is the struggle for dictatorship in the economic sphere itself; secondly, the fierce battle to acquire control of the state, so that its resources and authority may be abused in the economic struggle; finally, the clash between the states themselves. • . . Free competition is dead; economic dictatorship has taken its place. . . . Furthermore, the intermingling and scandalous confusion of the duties and offices of civil authority and of economics has produced crying evils, and have gone so far as to degrade the majesty of the state. The state which should be the supreme arbiter, ruling in kingly fashion, far above all party contention, intent only upon justice and the common good, has become instead a slave." The same Supreme Pontiff, in the encyclical, "Urged by the Charity of Christ," written in 1932, said the following: "In public life sacred principles, the guide of all social intercourse, are tram- pled upon; the solid foundations of right and honesty, on which the state should rest, are undermined; polluted and closed are the sources of these ancient traditions which, based on faith in God and fidelity to His law, secured the true progress of nations." With respect to the relations among nations the same Pontiff, Pius XI, says in his encyclical, "Reconstruction of the Social Or- der," the following: "As regards the relations of peoples among themselves a double stream has issued forth . . . on the other, a not less noxious and detestable internationalism or international im- perialism in financial affairs, which holds, that where a man's for- tune is, there is his country." No one has spoken more fearlessly and in clearer terms than the two Pontiffs, Leo XIII and Pius XI. We also note by comparison, that their utterances and those of our own patriot Presidents, quoted earlier, have a marked similarity. The reason for this is, that they all were guided by faith in God and influenced by Chris- tian principles. From the same principles we must draw the same conclusions. Whenever gigantic social upheavals disturb the peace of nations we find the twin prime movers, namely, economic domination and a polluted state policy working hand in hand. It is erroneously asserted by traitorous historians and unchristian liberalistic writ- ers, that our founding fathers built our constitutional govern- ment on the liberalism rampant in Europe at the time. That is a canard of history that should be definitely relegated to the dump- heap of propaganda. Authentic history teaches us that they fol- lowed Christian principles. In fact, recent historical research has brought to light that among Thomas Jefferson's private library books was one, much thumbed, worn and penciled, a book dealing with the relation of Church and State, written by St. Robert Car- dinal Bellarmine. He taught that all authority originates with God but is vested in the people, who invest it in a government accord- ing to their choice. He opposed the divine right of kings, main- taining that they had only as much power as delegated to them by the people through the constitutional law of the land. He con- demned absolutism of the State, whether in the person of an auto- cratic king, a self-appointed dictator, or a group of usurpers, as we find in the case of a democracy. Our founding fathers were not radical revolutionists, "with the set purpose of parting with the time-honored institutions of the past. When the form of government to be chosen for the colonists was under consideration, they deliberated between a monarchy and a republic. Benjamin Franklin was asked by a European friend: "Is your government a monarchy or a republic ?" to which Frank- lin replied: "It is a republic." When forming our system of government any thought of bol- shevik democracy was definitely excluded. Let President James Madison, who took a lively interest in the discussions of the Con- stitutional Assembly that framed our Constitution, tell us what transpired: " . . . Democracies have ever been spectacles of tur- bulence and contentions; ever have been found incompatible with personal security, or the right of property, and have, in gen- eral, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. "A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking." Consonant with this utterance of President Madison is that of President Andrew Johnson: "From the moment of the establish- ment of our free Constitution the civilized world has been con- vulsed by revolution in the interest of democracy or of monarchy, but through all these revolutions the United States have wisely and firmly refused to become propagandists for republican- ism. It is the only government suited to our condition; but we have never sought to impose it on others, as y e have consistently followed the advice of Washington." (Inaugural address) T H E TRANSITION A definite transition from a constitutional republicanism took place, generally speaking, some thirty years ago. Definite trends to establish bolshevik democracies in all countries of the world are noticeable in the last decade of the past century. The godless liber- alism of the times was filling the minds of rulers and statesmen "with painful apprehension," to again quote Leo XIII. When we entered the last world war, we were induced to do so in order to "make the world safe for democracy." We were tricked into the belief that "democracy" meant our traditional constitutional re- public. And we were made to believe that the time had arrived that we should disregard the words of Washington, to stay out of foreign entanglements, and bring the blessings of our system of government to other nations. We helped to upset the monarchies of Austria, Russia and Germany. We did not bring to their people our American republican form of government but all were saddled with the Marxian "democ- racy" system, the obnoxious system imposed upon ourselves. Un- wanted radicals of other countries and revolutionaries designedly sent here, flooded our country since the World War. First they worked secretly selling us the idea of so-called "democracy." Soon after our recognition of the Soviet Russia Democracy, the arch- revolutionists came forth from the dark dens clean shaven, with pressed pants and surrounded with an air of respectability. Democracy became the incessant cry, "Democracy! Democracy! Make the world safe for democracy! Fight for peace and dem- ocracy! Religion and democracy! Democracy! Mass Movements! The Democratic Front!" We literally ate, talked, played and slept "democracy," until now, by continuous usage, we have well-nigh made the term "democracy" synonymous with "constitutional re- public." One thing is certain, though we may associate the two terms in our minds, in reality they do not work out the same. Ever since "democracy" became operative in our land as a more or less permanent institution, we have, as President Madison described it, "Turbulence and contentions." Behold the condition of labor; we have lack of "personal security or right of property." Behold the insecurity of jobs and the thousands of farms and homes confis- cated during the past twenty years; we have "violent deaths." Be- hold the hundreds of working men slugged and murdered by the alien revolutionary, democracy-minded labor agitators! And last, but not least, behold the brazen contempt, on the part of many of our public officials, for the opinion of Mr. Plain American Citi- zen ! We quote again Pope Pius X I : "In public life sacred prin- ciples . . . are trampled upon: the solid foundations of right and honesty on which the state should rest are undermined; polluted and closed are the sources of these ancient traditions." You may ask: How did we come to veer off the road of a con- stitutional republic onto the rugged road of bolsheviki democracy? Here again we can go to the tombs of our patriots and learn our lesson. We will first stop at the tomb of the immortal Lincoln: Listen: "Our government rests on public opinion. Whoever can change public opinion can change the government practically just so much. Public opinion, on any subject, always has a central idea, from which all its minor thoughts radiate. The central idea in our public opinion at the beginning was (i.e. when the nation was founded) . . . the equality of men." (Dec. 10, 1856) Very similar to the words of the immortal Lincoln are those of the present gloriously reigning Pontiff, Pius XII. In his first encyclical just issued he says: "The first of . . . pernicious errors widespread today is the forgetfulness of that law of human solidarity and charity, which is dictated and imposed by our com- mon origin and by the quality of rational nature in all men. . . . To consider the state as something ultimate to which everything else should be subordinated and directed, cannot fail to harm the true and lasting prosperity of nations. This can happen either when unrestricted domination comes to be conferred on the state as hav- ing a mandate from the nation, people of even a social order, or when the state arrogates such dominion to itself as absolute mas- ter despotically without any mandate whatsoever." Now let us in solemn reverence betake ourselves to the vault wherein rest the remains of President William Henry Harrison. Listen: "The danger to all well established free governments arises from the unwillingness of the people to believe in its exist- ence, or from the influence of designing men, diverting their attention, from a quarter whence it approaches, to a source from whence it can never come. This is the old trick of those who would usurp the government of their country. In the name of democracy they speak, warning the people against the influence of wealth, and the danger of aristocracy. History, ancient and modern, is full of such attempts." (Inaug. Address, Mar. 4, 1841) Bolshevik democracy is the handmaid of revolution. Christian democracy is our friend. Revolutions today, as of yore, operate in the same fashion. Let us go down the vaulted vista of time, back twenty-two centuries. We stand at a tomb in ancient Greece, where rest the remains of the historian, Thucydides. As I read his message slowly, compare conditions he describes with those in our own country, with which you are acquainted. .You will note that revo- lutionary schemes have not changed. Listen: "And revolution brought upon the cities of Greece many terrible calamities . . . those who followed carried the revolutionary spirit further and further, and determined to outdo others . . . by their ingenuity and enterprises and the atrocities of their revenges. The meaning of words had no longer the relation to things, but was changed by them as they thought proper. Reckless daring was thought to be loyal courage; prudent delay was the excuse of the cowards; mod- eration was the disguise of an unmanly weakness; to know every- thing was to do nothing; the lover of violence was always trusted, and his opponent suspected. He who succeeded in a plot was deemed knowing, but a still greater master in craft was he who detected one. On the other hand, he who plotted from the first to have nothing to do with the plots was a breaker-up of parties and a poltroon who was afraid of the enemy." (Thucy. I l l , 32, "A Decade of Revolution," p. 302.) T H E SOLUTION Fellow citizens, reviewing the events that have transpired for the past thirty or more years affecting our government and our national life, we find that we have been surreptitiously robbed of our heritage, namely, a constitutional republic. The causes are briefly: 1. "Despotic economic domination concentrated in the hands of a few"; 2. "The fierce battle" by the powers in control "to acquire control of the state, so that its resources and author- ity may be abused in the economic struggle"; 3. "Scandalous con- fusion of the duties of offices of civil authority and of economics degrading the majesty of the state"; 4. "Influence of designing men diverting the attention" of the people from the true nature and origin of our government; 5. "Detestable internationalism which holds that where a man's fortune is, there is his country." To my mind, godless, "detestable internationalism" is the quin- tessence of our national evil; in fact, it is the curse of the world today. From it flow all the other evils like the tentacles of the octopus from the central body. Whoever will try to solve national or international affairs, leaving out of account the existence and the maneuverings of an international secret world government, more powerful than any national government, or combination of governments, is beating the air and wasting his time. To my mind, the soul of internationalism, its prime moving ele- ment, is to be found in the secret chambers of Communism. As far back as 1846 the saintly Pope Pius IX warned of it when he wrote of "that infamous doctrine of so-called Communism which is absolutely contrary to the natural law itself, and if once adopted would utterly destroy the rights, property and possessions of all men, and even society itself." (Qui Pluribus, Nov. 9, 1846.) Therein are gathered a group of men who decide the rise and the fall of nations. "Three hundred men," said the arch-revolution- ist Walter Ratheneau, speaking out of turn, "three hundred men rule the world and no one knows who they are, except the three hundred and they select their successors from their entourage." Among the causes contributing to the world-wide spread of atheistic Communism, Pope Pius XI enumerates the following: " . . . deception skillfully concealed by the most extravagant prom- ises . . . exploiting racial antagonism and political divisions . . . propaganda so truly diabolical that the world has perhaps never witnessed its like before . . . great financial resources; gigantic or- ganizations; international congresses; countless trained workers . . . the conspiracy of silence on the part of a large section of the press." (Div. Redem.) "Merciless class warfare" and "the secret societies always ready to support war against God and the Church, no matter who wages it, do not fail to inflame ever more this in- sane hatred which can give neither peace nor happiness to any class of society, but will certainly bring all nations to disaster." (Charit. Chri. Impulsi.) The evil forces of internationalism make rapid progress due to the supine indifference of some and the ignorance of others. The late Pope Pius XI expressed this same thought in the following words: "We cannot contemplate without sorrow the heedlessness of those who seem to make light of these imminent dangers and with stolid indifference allow the propagation far and wide of those doctrines which seek by violence and bloodshed the destruc- tion of society." (Quad. Anno.) Fellow citizens, the time for action has arrived. Though late, the situation is not beyond redemption. We must set our own house in order. Internationalism, acting from behind the screen of secrecy, is pitting one nation against the other. It is childish to. harbor the idea that Herr Hitler, independently of powerful for- eign pressure, is leading the German nation to war in defiance of the rest of the world. Stalin, Hitler, Eden, Churchill, Belisha, Blum, and liberal leaders of other governments of the world, our own included, are all marionettes on the world's stage pulled by the strings operated by the same hidden hand. In consequence of this abominable international situation, I can- not subscribe to the pronouncement that we have a moral obliga- tion to come to the assistance of France and England, any more than I would feel that we have a moral obligation to attack Ger- many and Russia alone. The thing for us to do is to put our own house in order. In the first place let us round up all the alien radicals, and send them back to the countries whence they came. Next let us purge our governmental departments of all democracy- minded radicals, and replace them with real Americans. And while we are at it, let us make a good job of it. Impeach, if necessary, those officials who have any connection whatsoever with the inter- national, radical organizations. The next step, after we have the government purged of undesirables, let us repeal all legislation im- posed upon us by the international gang, beginning with the re- vamping of our banking laws, the Federal Reserve Bank, which is "able to govern credit and determine its allotment . . . supplying . . . the life-blood of the entire economic body . . . grasping . . . the very soul of production . . . so that none dare breathe against their will," that is, the will of the internationalists, and let us end "the fierce battle to acquire control of the state, so that its author- ity and resources may be abused" for our own destruction. Let us examine closely all legislation passed within the past twenty-seven years, repeal all laws enacted against the will and the welfare of the people. To accomplish all this will be a tremendous task ; it will require sturdy patriotism backed by prayer: "Put ye on the armour of God, that you may be able to stand against the deceits of the devil. For your wrestling is not against flesh and blood ; but against prin- cipalities and powers . . . the rulers of this world of this dark- ness . . . the spirits of wickedness in the high places." (Eph. VI, 11-12.) Verily there is a plan of a diabolical nature to destroy ali nations and all religion. As far back as 1886, the Hebrew scholar, Joseph Lemann, wrote: "There is a 'plan of hell' to disorganize at one blow Christian society and the beliefs of the Jews . . . to bring about a state of things where, religiously speaking, there will be neither Christian nor Jew, but only men stripped of divinity. . . . At the hour in which we hold the pen, we see this plan unroll- ing itself in sombre horizons and great funereal lines." (Hidden Hand, p. 34.) The time now is all-important; we have the double duty to "ren- der therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, arid to God the things that are God's." Active patriotism and practical religion are the order of the day. "Unless the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. Unless the Lord keep the city, he watcheth in vain that keepeth it." Strikes and The National Labor Relations Board By R E V . CHAS. E . COUGHLIN During the time at my disposal I plan to offer you more infor- .mation relative to the needlessness of strikes and to the National Labor Relations Board. Let me begin by quoting for you an excerpt from Pope Leo XIII 's "Rerum Novarum," which appertains to strikes, to labor organizations, to seizure of property and to firebrand leaders. As far back as 1891 this eminent leader said: "It is expedient to bring under special notice certain mat- ters of moment. It should ever be borne in mind that the chief thing to be realized is the safeguarding of private property by legal enactment and public policy. Most of all, it is essential, amid such a fever of excitement, to keep the multitude within the line of duty; for if all may justly strive to better their condition, neither justice nor the common good allows any in- - dividual to seize upon that which belongs to another, or, under the futile and shallow pretext of equality, to lay violent hands on other people's possessions. Most true it is that by far the larger part of the workers prefer to better themselves by hon- est labor rather than by doing any wrong to others. But there are not a few who are imbued with evil principles and eager for revolutionary change, whose main purpose is to stir up tumult and bring about measures of violence. The authority of the state should intervene to put restraint upon such fire- brands, to save the working classes from their seditious arts, and protect lawful owners from spoilation. "When working men have recourse to a strike, it is fre- quently because the hours of labor are too long, or the work too hard, or because they consider their wages insufficient. The grave inconvenience of this not uncommon occurrence should be obviated by public remedial measures; for such paralyzing of labor not only affects the masters and their work-people alike, but is extremely injurious to trade and to the general interests of the public; moreover, on such occa- sions, violence and disorder are generally not far distant, and thus it frequently happens that the public peace is imperiled. The laws should forestall and prevent such troubles from arising; they should lend their influence and authority to the removal in good time of the causes which lead to conflicts be- tween employers and employed. "But if owners of property should be made secure, the working man, in like manner, has property and belongings in respect to which he should be protected; and foremost of all, his soul and mind. . . ." The words of the eminent Pontiff are so clear that it is not necessary for me to discuss them. Strikes, so we may conclude from experience and from his teachings, are harmful to the com- munity at large in many ways. In the past few years the following is the disastrous record of strikes in the United States of America ("Congressional Record," Oct. 11, 1939, p. 569): "In 1928 we had 604 strikes. In 1929, 921 strikes. In 1930, 637 strikes. In 1931, 810 strikes. In 1932, 841 strikes. There is an average of about 760 strikes per year during: the years 1929 to 1932. "But let us see what happened beginning in 1933. Since the New Deal has operated our Government, in 1933 we had 1,695 strikes —more than double what we had on the average in the five preceding years. In 1934 we had 1,856 strikes in this country. In 1935 we had 2,014. Just note how they are increasing yearly from 1933. In 1936 we had 2,172 strikes in this country. In 1937 it jumped to 4,740 strikes. Think of it—six times as many as we had in the previous five years before this administration came into power. Are strikes a symbol of success ? If so, then this administration is success- ful in that respect. "In 1938 we had 2,772 strikes. From 1928 to 1932 there was a total of 3,812 strikes in this country. From 1933 to 1939 we had 15,247 strikes in this country—over 450 per cent increase in the number of strikes over the last five years pre- ceding this administration's coming into power. "Does it not seem as if there was something wrong? Is it possible that labor is being benefitted by this great number of strikes, when there are the number of workers involved in these various lay-offs ? Labor loses, manufacturers lose, capi- tal loses, and the country loses. "I want to insert in the 'Record' the number of man-days that were lost during those strikes and the workers involved. It certainly will convince the Members of Congress, and cer- tainly ought to convince labor, that the method the labor unions are pursuing at the present time must be wrong. STRIKES IN UNITED STATES, 1928-38 No. of No. of Work- No. of Man- Year Strikes ers Involved Days Idle 1928 604 314,210 12,631,863 192 9 921 288,572 5,351,540 1930 637 182,975 3,316,808 1931 810 341,817 6,893,244 1932 841 324,210 10,502,033 1933 1,695 1,168,272 16,872,128 1934 . 1,856 1,466,695 19,872,128 1935 2,014 1,117,213 15,456,337 1936 2,172 788,648 13,901,956 1937 4,740 1,860,621 28,424,857 1938 2,772 688,376 9,148,273 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, Apr. 10, 1939)" As we know, strikes are not illegal in the United States. In fact, they are protected by law. But it has been my contention and still is, that the gains made by labor as a result of strikes are not com- mensurate with the losses sustained by labor. In voicing this opin- ion I wish to be understood as doing so in the defense of labor in particular and incidentally in defense of good government and the common welfare. I do not wish to be understood as being opposed to any law which sustains the right of labor to organize and to bargain collec- tively. That right is expressed basically in the so-called Wagner Act, and is generally supposed to be safeguarded by the National Labor Relations Act. At this point, therefore, permit me to con- vey to you some thoughts relative to this Act, and obviously to the Labor Board itself. I will quote from a book entitled "The Labor Act," written by the eminent attorney, Thomas H. Slusser, of the Chicago Bar. Mr. Slusser says: "Numerous supporters of the Act, and obviously the Labor Board itself, disagree with these views. The Labor Board, they say, is not like any other board; it was not created to provide a tribunal to enforce justice and equity between par- ties to labor controversies, but solely for the purpose of en- forcing the rights of employees to bargain collectively, and therefore the Act has nothing to do with the rights of employ- ers or the rights of other employees. "This view is expressed in the 1939 Report of the Ameri- can Bar Association's Committee on Labor, Employment and Social Security, where it is said that, 'A fair understanding of the matter will not be approximated unless there is first a realization of the original objectives of the Act and the rea- soning of those who have so far opposed amendments.' Con- tinuing, the Report says: " 'By a large part of the public it has been supposed that the National Labor Relations Board was created for the purpose of providing an independent and impartial tribunal for the redress of grievances and the prevention of improper practices in the field of labor relations—a tribunal to which employers and employees could go with complaints, as shippers and carriers go to the Interstate Commerce Commission or as consumer organizations and merchandisers go to the Federal Trade Commission. . . . " 'The National Labor Relations Board was intention- ally created as an agency to defend and protect the work- . ers' rights of choosing freely their representatives for collective bargaining, to outlaw 'company unions' and company-dominated unions, to prevent and redress the discharge of workers for membership or non-member- ship in a particular union, and generally to prevent em- ployer interference with each worker's right to belong to any union or to no union. The Act was not passed to pre- vent some employees from interfering with or coercing other employees in choosing whether they will belong to a union or no union. Still less was the Act designed to afford to the employer any right to petition for an elec- tion of employees or to receive any protection whatever from the Board as to improper labor practices by labor organizations or their members—the employer was left wholly to his remedies in the Courts.' "This would seem to be clear enough, but to remove all doubt whatsoever, separate statements were submitted by two of the members of the Committee, still further emphasizing the supposed purpose of the Act. It is contended in these sep- arate statements that any amendments to the Act, protecting the rights of employers or of other employees, would 'raise irrelevant issues in a hearing designed only for the purpose of securing the workers the right to bargain collectively and without coercion or intimidation by their employers'; that the Act is designed solely to enforce the right of collective bar- gaining and 'amendments which do not serve this purpose have no place in this Act.' "What does the Supreme Court say on the purpose of the Labor Act? And more important still, what has the Court done in recognizing and enforcing the 'rights of others' in proceedings under the Labor Act, those rights which, we are told, are 'irrelevant' to the true purpose of the Act? Ironical- ly enough, we find the first definite answer in a struggle be- tween two labor unions. "In the case of Consolidated Edison Co. v. National Labor Relations Board1, complaint was made by the United Elec- trical and Radio Workers of America (affiliated with the Committee for Industrial Organization) that the Consolidated Edison Company and its affiliated companies were interfering with the right of their employees to form, join or assist labor organizations of their own choosing. The Labor Board found that certain collective bargaining contracts, made by the com- panies with the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (an affiliate of the American Federation o'f Labor) were invalid, and ordered the companies to 'desist from giv- ing effect to these contracts.' These contracts recognized the right of employees to bargain collectively, recognized the Brotherhood as the collective bargaining agency, and con- tained comprehensive provisions having to do with hours, working conditions, wages, etc. "The Court pointed out that it was not contended that the provisions of these contracts were oppressive, but, on the con- trary, that it was 'virtually conceded' that they were 'fair to both employers and employees.' The Brotherhood and its locals had a total membership of over 30,000, being 80 per cent of the Company's employees eligible for membership, but were not made parties to the proceeding, and on the hearing before the Circuit Court of Appeals, intervened as parties aggrieved by the invalidation of their contracts. "In holding that the Brotherhood and its locals were indis- pensable parties to the proceeding, the Court said: (1) 83 Law Ed. 131. " 'The Brotherhood and its locals contend that they were indispensable parties and that in the absence of legal motive to them or their appearance, the Board had no au- thority to invalidate the contracts. The Board contests this position.' . . . 'We think that the Brotherhood and its locals having valuable and beneficial interests in the contracts were entitled to notice and hearing before they could be set side.' . . . 'The rule, which was applied' . . . 'to suit in equity, is not of a technical character but rests upon the plainest principle of justice, equally applicable here. 4c f ^ % t $ " 'The Board urges that the National Labor Relations Act does not contain any provision requiring these unions to be made parties; that Sec. 10 (b) authorizes the' Board to serve a complaint only upon persons charged with unfair labor practices and that only employers can be so charged. In that view, the question would at once arise whether the Act could be construed as authorizing the Board to invalidate the contracts of independent labor unions not before it and also as to the validity of the Act if so construed-' "Here it is clear as print can make it the curious view advanced by the Labor Board itself, that the Act is one-sided and concerned only with the rights of one party to the con- troversy. And the answer of the Court is equally clear. The 'rights of others' (in this instance the rights of the rival union) must be recognized and protected, else, says the Chief Justice, 'the question would at once arise . . . as to the validity of the Act.' Meaning, of course, that to destroy the rights of the Brotherhood and their locals in their contracts, without giving them a chance to be heard, would not be 'due process of law,' and would therefore be unconstitutional. "Before accepting this decision with too much assurance, it should be remembered that it was not unanimous. Justices Reed and Black dissented, and, while paying 'lip service' to the majority view that 'the fundamental purpose of the Act is to protect interstate and foreign commerce from interrup- tions and obstructions caused by industrial strife,' expressed the view that, giving the Brotherhood and its locals notice and opportunity to be heard, by making them parties to the pro- ceeding, was not necessary, contending that 'the evidence was clearly sufficient to support-the conclusion of the Board that the Edison companies entered into the contracts as an integral part of a plan for coercion of and interference with the self- organization of their employees,'-and that 'this justified the Board's prohibition against giving effect to the contracts.' "Further insight into the views of the Court is furnished by the recent case of National Labor Relations Board v. Fansteel Metallurgical Corporation-1 In this case 'the rights of others,' which the Court recognized and protected, were the rights of the employer. The Fansteel Company discharged certain em- ployees for participating in a 'sit-down strike,' in the course of which the company's buildings were unlawfully seized and occupied by force and violence. The Labor Board undertook to compel the reinstatement of these employees, insisting that their status as employees under the Act continued 'despite dis- charge for unlawful conduct.' In rejecting this contention, Chief Justice Hughes, who wrote the majority opinion, de- clared : (1) 83 Law Ed. 469. I " 'We are unable to conclude that Congress intended to compel employers to retain persons in their employ re- gardless of their unlawful conduct—to invest those who go on strike with an immunity from discharge for acts of trespass or violence against the employer's property, which they would not have enjoyed had they remained at work. Apart from the question of the constitutional validity of an enactment of that sort, it is enough to say that such a legislative intention should be found in some definite and unmistakable expression. We find no such expression in the cited provision. "Referring to the purpose of the Act, the Chief Justice said: " 'We repeat that the fundamental policy of the Act is to safeguard the rights of self-organization and collective bargaining, and thus by the promotion of industrial peace to remove obstructions to the free flow of commerce as defined in the Act.'