the last year I think about 60 shops have fled-I am not sure they have all gone from New York, but about 60 have appeared in the anthracite district of Pennsylvania, around Wilkes-Barre, Scranton, Hazleton, and Sunbury.

There they get the daughters and wives of men employed in the mines who otherwise would not have any occupation or earnings, and they get them for very much less than workers in New York demand. Now, it is a terrific job to organize 60 small shops scattered around that area. We do it as rapidly as we can, but they have got one foot on the farm and one in these little factories. They frequently regard themselves as only temporarily in the industry. They are doing unskilled work, and we cannot, even when we organize a shop. raise the wages very much because our manufacturer with whom we have an agreement is beset by others whom we have not organized. Senator TUNNELL. In the last analysis, what is the threat by which you can force an agreement by collective bargaining?

Mr. MITCHELL. In the last analysis, it is a strike, but we cannot strike effectively in a case of the sort I described, where the immediate result would be that either the shop goes out of existence, by which we would have lost everything we contended for, or he shifts his work to a nonunion shop in the immediate locality, a shop which we are not in a position to strike. We do not want to strike.

Ours is a very old union, and one in which we have excellent machinery for adjusting disputes. What we want to do is to organize and come to an agreement with our employers, and that we do in the But we have, of course, a serious problem in the case of shops which have located in hitherto nonindustrial districts.

Senator ELLENDER. As you know, the South has been for quite a while engaged principally in agriculture; what effect would the hiking of wages from 65 to 75 cents have on the ability of farmers to obtain labor so as to be able to run their farms?

Mr. MITCHELL. As you know, Senator Ellender, labor has been leaving the farms for the city for many years.

During the depression we had not only the normally unemployed on the farms, but there were many backed up because they would have gone to the cities if they could, but could not do so during that period. It is my impression that the introduction of the caterpillar tractor in the cotton districts of the South, the tractor and other improved farm machinery has expelled from the South hundreds of thousands of workers, many of whom I saw on the road to southern California in 1939 and 1940. So that if anybody has done without labor in the South, it is the plantation owner, and in that part of the South which you come from, particularly.

Senator ELLENDER. And the result is many of the small farms that used to dot the countryside in my State, as well as many of the other Southern States, have disappeared. These home owners have been taken over by larger operators so that the small farm in the South that was called home by many is being absorbed as time goes

on.

Is not that true?

Mr. MITCHELL. I think it is, but I do not think that depletion comes from legislation of this sort. I think it comes from forces that have acted within the farm economy.

Senator ELLENDER. Doctor, do not say that if you have not had the experience. I have had it for 25 years and I think I know. I

have a farm down South and I know what has occurred to me as well as to many of my neighbors. We simply cannot live with it. Higher wages in industry raise farm wages to such an extent that labor-saving devices must be resorted to in order to meet competition. We cannot pay a higher wage unless we can sell our crops for a sufficient sum to cover wages. Unless we are able to take care of that phase of the problem, my guess is that within a short period of time the small farmer who cannot afford to own labor-saving devices, will either go out of business or be gobbled up by larger concerns that will be able to.

Mr. MITCHELL. I think that is quite possible.

Senator ELLENDER. And the same thing will occur in respect to small business. Large businesses will gobble up the smaller ones, because the smaller ones cannot survive unless they are in a position to own and operate labor-saving devices. Do you not agree with that? Mr. MITCHELL. No, sir; I do not. Do I understand you want to hold down industrial wages to the level of what the small farmer can pay?

Senator ELLENDER. No; I don't mean that at all. I believe that the process must be gradual. That is, time for adjustment must be accorded.

Mr. MITCHELL. It is awfully gradual for those in the South, Senator.

Senator ELLENDER. It comes in time. We have raised it from 10 cents to 40 cents, and my hope is we can raise it to a dollar if conditions will permit it; but my contention is if we try to do it by legislation of this character, overnight, we will hurt everybody not covered by the legislation you are fostering.

Mr. MITCHELL. How did we get if from 10 cents to 40 cents? Was that not by legislation?

Senator ELLENDER. Yes; but if it had not been for the war, we would not have gotten it up to 40 cents without seriously affecting quite a few industries. My prediction is that many segments of industry will not be able to bear the burden, unless prices are increased. During the war as I have indicated on many occasions, with the Government being the purchaser of almost 50 percent of our industrial and agricultural production and with full employment, the War Labor Board did not see fit to raise the minimum to more than 55 cents; but what you are trying to do here is to have Congress raise the minimum wage, not to 55 but to 65, and then to 75 cents, in a space of only 2 years.

Mr. MITCHELL. I am overstaying my time, but may I say one thing?

Senator TUNNELL. I have a question yet.

Mr. MITCHELL. One purpose of the 65-cent minimum

Senator ELLENDER. Seventy-five cents.

Mr. MITCHELL. Call it 75, then. Seventy-five cents, incidentally, will buy three-fifths of what the Government itself says is a minimum adequate budget. Remember that.

The purpose, it seems to me, is not to provide enough for the average family to live in decency, though that is certainly a very great object, but the purpose is not only to support the family, but the economy of the country.

Unless we can have sufficient purchasing power, the enterprises which Senator Ellender speaks of will be in a more desperate plight

than he foresees. I do not say it is possible for the committee or for Congress to contend with all of the differences in efficiency, and in the size of productive units which Senator Ellender raises. Those are historical, but we cannot tolerate substandard conditions anywhere. Senator ELLENDER. But they are bound to exist, and if, through your process of raising wages you, at the same time raise the cost of the goods that are consumed by those you seek to help, they are in no better condition. Aside from that, every time the Congress passes a law to help a special group, we trample on the feet of others, such as school teachers, clerks in stores, white collar workers, and pensioners. What are you going to do about them?

If it were possible to raise wages without disturbing the present price structure, your argument would stand on firm ground, but that will not result. The cost of living is bound to increase, and in so doing we affect the lives of millions of our people who are not so fortunate as to be within the purview of the bill under consideration.

Mr. MITCHELL. I would like to say in reply to Senator Ellender, that William H. Davis, who quite recently was economic stabilizer and before that was Chairman of the War Labor Board, and who, during the war, accepted the mandate of holding down our wages, said recently in an interview that he believes we can increase the real wages of American workers, that we can increase their money wages, without increasing the cost of living.

Senator ELLENDER. Oh, no.

Mr. MITCHELL. He was sharply rebuked for it, and was dropped from the administration, or at least I suppose it was for that reason, but I believe he is right, and we believe that with anything like full ! utilization of America's capital, material, and labor resources, we can so increase our efficiency of production that we can have more at the same price.

Senator ELLENDER. That sounds silly, to me.

Mr. MITCHELL. You said if that were true, my argument would hold, and I quote William H. Davis, who was recently Economic Stabilizer

Senator ELLENDER. He denied it before this committee that he said it in that manner.

Mr. MITCHELL. I do not get that. I had a letter from him recently. Senator ELLENDER. His testimony is available to you if you want to read it.

Mr. MITCHELL. I would be very happy to; and I think the country has received the same impression that I got from him.

Senator TUNNELL. If you pursue the theory that is advanced by those who think that substandard wages must be enforced in order to keep in business a particular class of people, is that not favoritism?

Mr. MITCHELL. Exactly. If Senator Ellender will permit me to point out here, I am a southerner, and we in the South have too long entered the special plea for ourselves to be allowed to exploit our people and our section because we said we were new in industry, and we had to be encouraged.

Now, that made the South a national liability. Anyone in the union, under this legislation, has got the right to come to the parts of the country which are paying substandard wages and say, "In the interests of America you have to improve your practices."

Senator TUNNELL. Under that theory, there would be forced on the whole Nation andard of subsistence.

Mr. MITCHELL. Exactly. It is a question of whether the authority of Congress is going to be exerted positively to give the whole Nation a chance, or whether in default of that the Nation will have to continue to struggle against conditions which unionism, by itself, for a great many years, would not be able to remove.

Senator ELLENDER. You are trying to do by law what the unions have been unable to do since they have been organized, and that is to establish the same rate of hourly pay all over the Nation for those doing the same class of work.

Mr. MITCHELL. There is nothing in this bill that would establish the same hourly pay all over the Nation.

Senator ELLENDER. But you establish a minimum applicable all over the Nation, and advisory committees can be created with the power to classify jobs and fix hourly wages in proportion to the minimum fixed by Congress. If that is not fixing rates, then I do not understand the English language.

Mr. MITCHELL. Hourly wages vary tremendously from 40 cents at the bottom to something very much more at the top. This is the minimum. This does not limit what we will seek to achieve for the more skilled operation and more favorably placed workers above.

If a man is sunk in a quagmire, and you offer him a board on which he can pull himself up and stand, he does not cease to walk because he has got the board. That is the first time he is permitted to take

steps.

Now, if we have our legs dragging in this slough of substandard conditions, it prevents what I conceive to be useful action we have taken in other parts of the country.

Senator TUNNELL. Thank you.

Is Dr. Foreman here now?

Dr. FOREMAN. I am sorry I was late, Senator.

Senator TUNNELL. It was your loss and not ours, because we will get to hear you anyhow.

Senator ELLENDER. I might say this is the first coa mittee I have ever attended wherein the chairman is always on time. We lose from 15 to 30 minutes in getting started on many committees. I want to compliment the chairman for his promptness.

Senator TUNNELL. When I came to the Senate they told me the way to lose the most time was to be prompt. So I thought in this case, where I could control it, we would not lose the time. All right, now, Dr. Foreman.

TESTIMONY OF CLARK FOREMAN, PRESIDENT, SOUTHERN CONFERENCE FOR HUMAN WELFARE

Dr. FOREMAN. I am Clark Foreman, president of the Southern Conference for Human Welfare, which is an educational association of several thousand Southerners of all races, colors, and creeds, that believe in the improvement of the South, both in terms of economic prosperity and democracy.

Senator ELLENDER. Where are your headquarters?

Dr. FOREMAN. In Nashville, Tenn., sir.

I might also say you will hear from our first president, Dr. Frank Graham, who is also president of the University of North Carolina, a little later.

The Southern Conference for Human Welfare wholeheartedly endorses the principle of the 65-cent minimum wage.

The Southern Conference-with members in the 13 Southern States-feels that a 65-cent minimum wage will do much to solve the economic and social problems of the South.

Let me tell you what Governor Ellis Arnall, of Georgia, said in the July 28th issue of Collier's magazine:

The average American annual income at the time of Pearl Harbor was $604. Note that. The average American income. Not the average northern income.

Governor Arnall goes on:

In the South, it was $314.

The average Negro income was considerably lower.

No plan to cure the South of its will succeed which does not make that differential its first order of business.

As long as a large segment of our population is so far down the economic scale, the South will not thrive."

Senator ELLENDER. Do you include in that the farmers?

Dr. FOREMAN. Yes. These are the Governor of Georgia's published figures.

Senator ELLENDER. I see. In that connection, would you want to give to the farmer the same advantages and the same returns per year as you propose to give to industrial labor?

Dr. FOREMAN. Senator, the Southern Conference for Human Welfare is composed of farmers, small businessmen, as well as workers of all sorts, and we are intensely interested in the agricultural problem. and I would like to submit for the record a recent paper which the Secretary of Agriculture

Senator ELLENDER. You did not answer my question. Do you want to have the small farmer under this bill which you speak of as a 65-cent rate, which is really 75 cents, and that means $30 a week: do you want to allow that to the farmer also, the $30 a week?

Dr. FOREMAN. We want to see that all of the people of this country have the opportunity for a decent living, Senator. We want to see they have a chance to raise their children in health and with education, and that applies to farmers as well as workers and businessmen.

Senator ELLENDER. I have been fighting for that ever since I have been in politics and I have so far failed to do the job as I would like it to be done. Special legislation always affects adversely groups not included.

You still do not answer my question.

Dr. FOREMAN. I do not understand the discussion applies to a minimum wage for farmers.

Senator ELLENDER. But you want to take care of your entire membership, do you not?

Dr. FOREMAN. Yes; and we do that by providing a market in the South for farm goods which will enable the farmer to sell goods at a price which will give him a chance to raise his children in decency. Senator ELLENDER. But you are not protecting the farmer as you are protecting the industrial laborer.

Dr. FOREMAN. I think this is a long pull toward protecting him, and I think the way to do it is by raising the general standard of living so that we give the farmer a better chance.

I think it has been shown that the farmer goes along with the industrial advance in other parts of the country.