Mr. JOHN KONKOWSKI. Republic Steel-6100 Truscun-and in the part up above where it says "Plant" I wrote "Truscun," and "Stock Dept."

Senator LA FOLLETTE. The name "Korecky" on there, is that in your handwriting?

Mr. JOHN KONKOWSKI. No; that is Fred Korecky's.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. At this point, I offer for the record an affidavit of Fred Korecky.

(The document was marked "Exhibit 5220" and appears in the appendix on p. 13918-13919.)

Senator LA FOLLETTE. Did you see Mr. Hanousek after this card incident, Mr. Frank Konkonski?

Mr. FRANK KONKOWSKI. Well, the only time I seen him was at work.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. Did you see him or did you not see him after that, Mr. John Konkowski?

Mr. JOHN KONKOWSKI. Yes; I seen him up at work.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. Mr. John Konkowski, did you or did you not ever observe anything about this man Hanousek while he was at work, which remains in your recollection, or caused you any concern at the time?

Mr. JOHN KONKOWSKI. Well, I don't know what you mean by that. Senator LA FOLLETTE. At any time when you saw Mr. Hanousek after this matter of the card, did you or did you not see anything about him or his actions which now remains in your memory?

Mr. JOHN KONKOWSKI. Well, not during work, during the time that we was working; no.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. Did you when he was not working?
Mr. JOHN KONKOWSKI. Yes.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. What did you see?

Mr. JOHN KONKOWSKI. I was picket captain up there at the time, and we was picketing up and down and Hanousek come on the picket line drunk on several occasions, and I had orders to keep all the men that were under the influence of liquor, to take them out, and I had my car there, a '29 DeSoto, and I took him home on several occasions there, and quite a bit of times I seen him going to the company booth right alongside the company office there and he talked there with some of the company police, and I happened to walk past and didn't hear him say anything more there, so I told him to keep on walking, and not to bother because he was under the influence of liquor and if he wanted to stay on the line to keep walking, and he didn't say anything, he kept standing there. So finally I grabbed him under the arms and said, "Come on, you are going to go home with me," and I took him home that night and took him down to his room, and told his mother to try to keep him in. She was a very fine woman and I knew her very well. She told me that she would try to lock him up in his room there and hold him there. As I come back to the picket line, I returned about 15 or 20 minutes later, he come up on the picket line and I told him, I said, "Why don't you stay home?"

He said, it is none of my business, "Why the hell don't you keep your mind on your own business?" or something like that, he says, and I then come up and told him, "You had better keep on going home; either I drive you home or I drive you out somewhere else so you won't be able to get there in time."

Then I come up and was walking up toward him as he was talking to some of the pickets there and trying to order them into the plant, which the pickets did not agree with him, and one of them happened to come up and tell me. At the same time I was walking up there because I seen the crowd, and I told the pickets to keep on moving because the police don't allow them to get in a bunch, and as I come up there, why he walked up across the street where there is a slag there, there is a light slag up where it is supposed to be a sidewalk, it is more like slag, and as I come up to him there he had a brick in his hand and he said he was going to throw the brick right through the office window. I said, "You are not, you better drop that brick right there," and finally he dropped it or rather I took the brick away from him, it was that way, and I threw it down on the ground, and I took him again and I took him down home again, and after that I don't believe that I seen him any more.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. Did he or did he not continue to picket after the plants reopened?

Mr. JOHN KONKOWSKI. What is that?

Senator LA FOLLETTE. Did he or did he not continue to picket after the plants reopened?

Mr. JOHN KONKOWSKI. After they reopened?

Senator LA FOLLETTE. Yes, sir.

Mr. JOHN KONKOWSKI. Well, he was there once or twice, I believe, but drunk also.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. You said you saw him talking with one of the Republic police? Did you know the man that he was talking to? Mr. JOHN KONKOWSKI. Well, he was talking to some policeman in the booth, I don't remember him, but I remember when he walked into the office, and it was right at the booth there, and he walked right into the office, which is right across from the employment office there, and he walked in there, and the only one I really did know at that time was Small, and I knew another one that was located in one of the pictures that was shown to me, was Captain Sodders, I believe it was.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. You mean you identified Mr. Sodders as the man you saw Hanousek talking to?

Mr. JOHN KONKOWSKI. Yes; right by the office there.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. I offer for the record a picture by Harris & Ewing, and ask you if that is the picture you saw?

Mr. JOHN KONKOWSKI. Yes, sir.

(The photograph was marked "Exhibit 5221" and appears in the appendix facing p. 13919.)

Senator LA FOLLETTE. Which one of the men did you identify? Mr. JOHN KONKOWSKI. On the right-hand side.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. Did anyone suggest at the time you first saw this picture, which one of the men was Sodders?

Mr. JOHN KONKOWSKI. No.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. Mr. Sodders.

TESTIMONY OF KENNETH J. SODDERS-Resumed

Senator LA FOLLETTE. Mr. Sodders, look at the exhibit just entered and tell me if one of those men in the picture is yourself? Mr. SODDERS (examining exhibit 5221). That's right.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. Which one?

Mr. SODDERS. The one on the right.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. The committee will take a recess until 10 minutes of 3.

(Whereupon at 1:50 p. m. a recess was taken until 2:50 p. m., same date.)

AFTERNOON SESSION

(The hearing was resumed at 3:05 p. m. pursuant to recess.)

TESTIMONY OF TOM M. GIRDLER-Resumed

Senator LA FOLLETTE. Mr. Girdler, the testimony taken this morning elicited the fact that several of the persons responsible for the police department were not familiar with the policy of the corporation so far as its expression contained in the May 11, 1937, statement was concerned. Can you account for the fact that men in these positions would not know this policy?

Mr. GIRDLER. I gathered from the testimony that some of them hadn't had it labeled as a policy, but I am quite sure that all of these captains that testified this morning know what the general labor policy of Republic is.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. Would you say that a few incidents, and a few of these numerous incidents, which I questioned them about were in consonance with that announced policy or not?

Mr. GIRDLER. I don't understand that question, Senator.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. For example, I questioned them about certain operations or certain activities which they had either employed men for or which they had assigned their own men to, dealing with labor affiliations and attitude of the employees of Republic. Do those incidents which appear in our testimony and which I cited, seem to you to be in consonance with the last three paragraphs of the May 11 statement which I read for the record?

Mr. GIRDLER. I did not hear anything testified to this morning by any of Republic's people that didn't jibe with the labor policy of the Republic.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. For example, the employment of Mr. Vargo, who took an alias, who got himself, or he was elected financial secretary of a local union, and who reported that information that he obtained in that office to the police department; do you think that is in consonance and in keeping with the spirit of the statements

appearing in the last three paragraphs of the May 11, 1937, statement?

Mr. GIRDLER. I didn't hear anything except a vague reference to a man named Vargo. I don't know anything about Vargo or what he did.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. Did you not read some of the testimony taken by this committee?

Mr. GIRDLER. Yes; I read some of it and a great deal of it I didn't. It is so voluminous I didn't have time with my other duties. Senator LA FOLLETTE. The Chair will have to plead guilty to that charge, but in part it has not been solely the responsibility of the committee.

However, did you read any of the testimony about matters relating to labor espionage, undercover work, and the following of organizers by police?

Mr. GIRDLER. I don't remember that I read anything about the following of organizers by police, I don't remember reading anything about a man by the name of Vargo. I don't say I didn't read it, but if I did it made no impression on me because I don't remember. Senator LA FOLLETTE. I will put the question in this way. Mr. Girdler, do you think labor espionage is compatible with the last three paragraphs of the May 11, 1937, statement?

Mr. GIRDLER. It depends altogether on what you mean by "labor espionage.'

Senator LA FOLLETTE. Well, I have defined it several times, and I will define it again.

Labor espionage, as used in that question, means concerted efforts or efforts of any kind indulged in by anyone to ascertain the labor affiliations, the attitude toward labor organizations, or the activities of labor organizations relating to membership and other things, of employees in the plant of a company.

Mr. GIRDLER. I had a statement this morning that you wouldn't let me read. If you will let me read a paragraph of it I think I can answer your question as to what I think about that subject. Senator LA FOLLETTE. Does it pertain to espionage?

Mr. GIRDLER. Yes, sir.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. Yes; I will let you read that paragraph, if you think it answers the question better than you can answer it yourself.

Mr. GIRDLER. Yes; I think it does.

Your committee has laid great stress upon the alleged activities of our police department along the line of labor espionage. Let me state flatly and emphatically that any activity of our company guards beyond the safeguarding of our property against vandalism and sabotage and protection of our employees from violence, were without my knowledge. There is no justification for espionage which is aimed against unionization of employees or which would in any way interfere with their collective bargaining rights. Explicit orders against the practice in Republic are in effect.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. When were they put into effect?

Mr. GIRDLER. Always have been in effect as far as I am concerned. Senator LA FOLLETTE. Were any orders issued recently with regard to it?

89562-39-pt. 34- 4

Mr. GIRDLER. The matter has been reviewed since this committee started.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. When?

Mr. GIRDLER. I don't know; since this committee started. That is so long back I don't even know that date.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. Who reviewed it?

Mr. GIRDLER. Mr. White and members of his organization, and Mr. White has talked to me about it.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. Were any explicit instructions given?

Mr. GIRDLER. Mr. White tells me they were. I gave instructions to Mr. Wysor.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. At approximately what time were they given?

Mr. GIRDLER. I couldn't tell you. I said they had been reviewed since this committee started its activities.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. You mean at the beginning of the committee's activities?

Mr. GIRDLER. I said, since the committee started; I can't apply it to any closer date than that.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. Can you tell me how recently it was?

Mr. GIRDLER. No; I couldn't; if I could, I could give you the date. Senator LA FOLLETTE. Can you tell me whether it was this year or not?

Mr. GIRDLER. Did this committee start its activities before this year?

Senator LA FOLLETTE. Yes; this committee has been in existence for some time, longer than the Chair hoped it would be.

Mr. GIRDLER. On this subject of Republic?

Senator LA FOLLETTE. Oh, no.

Am I to understand from your last answer that you reviewed this subject when the committee first served its subpenas upon Republic?

Mr. GIRDLER. The last time the subject was reviewed that I know anything about was after my attention was called to certain things that were testified to before this committee in this Republic case. Senator LA FOLLETTE. Do you mean the

Mr. GIRDLER (interposing). Not necessarily proven or admitted to by any of Republic's employees, but testified to by the witnesses that this committee called.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. Of course, the report of the committee would have to weigh the evidence, but I do not think that any person reading it impartially would deny that the witnesses connected with Republic had admitted practices of this general nature carried on with their knowledge and at their direction.

I ask you again how you account for the fact, if you can account for it, that men in positions of being responsible for the police department, which our evidence shows insofar as it shows it, with the departments which carried on this work, could have carried it on if it was in violation of the policy of the company?

Mr. GIRDLER. Mr. Williams is responsible for the police department and Mr. Williams' reports to Mr. White. Other people that you have