some very important conditions which did not come out in the statement, but which came out in questions and answers that in fact, you support the major provisions of my bill, instead of H.R. 77.*

I want that to be spread on the record, even if it is not going to be apparent to the public when they read their papers.

(Documents referred to follow :)

Hon. ROBERT GRIFFIN,

Member, Thompson Subcommittee,
House Building, Washington, D.C.:

JUBILEE TRAIL, DALLAS, TEX., June 3, 1965.

Understand the National Council of Churches will testify before your committee in behalf of repeal of section 14 (b) of Taft-Hartley Act.

As a lay leader of the largest church in Methodism I know that this council does not speak for all church members and all church members are not in favor of repeal of section 14(b). I am opposed to any repeal and I urge you to do all you can to stop compulsory unionism.

E. J. BOWLES.

CHARLOTTE, N.C., 3, 1965.

Hon. ROBERT P. GRIFFIN,

Member House Labor Subcommittee,
Rayburn Building, Washington, D.C.:

The National Council of Churches of Jesus Christ in the United States can speak only to its membership and has no authority to speak for its membership on any matters. Therefore, any statement or intimation that the national council's 39 million clergy and lay members favor repeal of section 14 (b) is unsupportable. JAMES A. BARRUS, Immediate Past President Assembly Men's Council of the Presbyterian Church in the United States, Charlotte, N.C.

Hon. ROBERT P. GRIFFIN,

DALLAS, TEX., June 3, 1965.

Thompson Subcommittee, House Labor Committee, Washington, D.C.:

As a member of East Dallas Christian Church, one of the largest churches of the Disciples of Christ Brotherhood, having been both chairman of its general board and its board of elders, I am positive that it does not support the National Council of Churches in its annual budget; further, by official action it has refrained as a church from becoming involved in National Council of Churches affairs; therefore, any person appearing before your committee from the National Council of Churches taking a position on section 14 (b) of the Taft-Hartley Act has no authority to speak for East Dallas Christian Church, a church of over 3,000 members.

J. W. PORTER.

CHARLOTTE, N.C., June 3, 1965.

Hon. ROBERT P. GRIFFIN, Member, House Labor Subcommittee, Rayburn Building, Washington, D.C.: Neither the 149,000 members nor their representatives of Presbyterian Churches within the synod of North Carolina have discussed or voted as an official body on the matter of the repeal or retention of section 14 (b) of the 1947 National Labor Relations Act. Therefore, the National Council of Churches of Jesus Christ in the United States cannot speak on this issue on behalf of these members of the Presbyterian Church.

The Reverend ROBERT TURNER,

Moderator, 1964-65, of the Synod of North Carolina of the Presbyterian Church in the United States.

* This statement relates only to the personal position of Dr. Carothers.

Congressman ROBERT GRIFFIN,

OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLA., June 3, 1965.

U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.:

I want you to know that I strongly object to the National Council of Churches appearing before the Labor Subcommittee on which you serve. They cannot speak for their membership when they don't know how the membership feels. Mrs. MAE HUDNALL.

ROBERT P. GRIFFIN,

Congressman and Committee Member,

House Special Labor Subcommittee,
Washington, D.C.:

CORPUS CHRISTI, TEX., June 3, 1965.

We the undersigned members of the Methodist Church, which is affiliated with the National Council of Churches of Jesus Christ in the United States, hereby protest the scheduled appearance Friday of a council official before the congressional subcommittee which is considering legislation designed to repeal section 14 (b) of the 1947 National Labor Relations Act thereby legalizing compulsory unionism in all States.

Any statement or intimation that the national council representing 39 million clergy and lay members favor repeal of section 14 (b) is unsupportable. No person may presume to speak on this issue on behalf of the council membership, inasmuch as members of the congregations have not been polled on the repeal or retention of section 14 (b).

Chester Wheless, St. Luke's Methodist Church; Joe L. Brown, St.
Luke's Methodist Church; Erie, H. Thompson, St. Luke's Metho-
dist Church; George Haney, St. Luke's Methodist Church; T.
Leroy Lain, St. Luke's Methodist Church; Lewis Boggus,
Jr., St. Luke's Methodist Church C.C., Phil Ridgway, St. Luke's
Methodist Church; W. R. Reid, First Methodist Church. C.C.;
Antonio Abarca, Kelsey Memorial Methodist Church, C.C.;
Cobert J. Sechrist, First Methodist Church, C.C.; Robert W.
Woolsey, First Methodist Church, C.C.; W. F. McCroskey, First
Methodist Church, C.C.; M. B. Reasoner, First Methodist
Church, C.C.; M. Truman Arnold, First Methodist Church, C.C.;
Jack Ryan, First Methodist Church, C.C.; R. N. Douglas, St.
Luke's Methodist Church, C.C.; I. B. Ault, Oak Park Methodist
Church C.C.; Ted N. M. Anderson, St. Luke's Methodist Church
C.S.; Tom Lee, St. Luke's Methodist Church C.C.; Lewis Bog-
gus, Sr., First Methodist Church, Harlingen; Rev. A. C. Bell,
First Methodist Church, Corpus Christi.

OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLA., June 4, 1965.

Congressman ROBERT GRIFFIN,

U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, D.C.

GENTLEMEN: I am deeply concerned that the National Council of Churches would pretend to speak on behalf of the membership regarding section 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley Act, inasmuch as the member congregations have not been polled on the repeal or retention of 14 (b) I strongly protest a NCC spokesman appearing before Congressman Thompson's subcommittee.

EDWIN LATHAM,

Managing Director, Oklahomans for the Right to Work.

MIAMI, FLA., June 3, 1965.

Hon. ROBERT GRIFFIN,

Washington, D.C.:

House of Representatives,

Poll not made National Council of Churches. Members must not accept NCC.

LEE STRICKLAND,

First Methodist Church of Coral Gables.

Congressman ROBERT GRIFFIN,

Washington, D.C.:

RICHMOND, VA., June 4, 1965.

I strongly urge retaining right-to-work section Taft-Hartley bill.

Opposed to repeal of right-to-work law or section 14B Taft-Hartley Act. I am speaking in my behalf and not in behalf of the committee.

I am opposed to the repeal of the right-to-work law, section 14(b) of the TaftHartley Act.

Rev. ARCHIE DAVIS,

Associate Minister, Shenandoah Presbyterian Church.

Hon. RALPH J. SCOTT,
Rayburn Building,

WASHINGTON, D.C., June 4, 1965.

Washington, D.C.:

We, the undersigned members of denominations affiliated with the National Council of Churches, hereby protest the scheduled appearance of a council official before the congressional subcommittee which is considering legislation designed to repeal section 14(b) of the 1947 National Labor Relations Act, thereby legalizing compulsory unionism in all States.

Any statement or intimation that the national council's 39 million clergy and lay members favor repeal of section 14 (b) is unsupportable. No person may presume to speak on this issue on behalf of the council's membership, inasmuch as member congregations have not been polled on the repeal or retention of section 14 (b).

Rev. Richard Watson, Seminole Presbyterian Church, Tampa, Fla.;

Dean Harry Vere, Gethsemane Episcopal Cathedral, Fargo, N.
Dak.; Rev. Carl Davidson, First Methodist Church, Lincoln,
Nebr.; Rev. Stanton McClenny, Edgerton Presbyterian Church,
Edgerton, Minn.; Rev. Lloyd Grinager, First Methodist Church,
Pierre, S. Dak.; Rev. Ivan G. Mattern, St. Pauls Lutheran Church,
Wichita, Kans.; Rev. Mark Corbin, Smith First Presbyterian
Church, Duluth, Minn.; Rev. Frank J. Palmer, St. Michael's
Episcopal Church, Yakima, Wash.; Rev. Howard E. Tucker,
Calvary Presbyterian Church, Wilkinsburg, Pa.; Rev. Walter
Grist, Mount Vernon Methodist Church, Wichita, Kans.; Rev. John
H. Olson, Mountain View Presbyterian Church, Omaha, Nebr.;
Rev. William J. Tammen, Bethel Presbyterian Church, Reading,
Minn.; Rev. John Largent, Delmar Presbyterian Church, Tampa,
Fla.; Rev. William Cross, Holy Trinity Episcopal Church, Lincoln,
Nebr.; Rev. John M. Norris, Bible Presbyterian Church, York
County, Pa.; Dr. Ralph G. Turnbull, First Presbyterian Church,
Seattle, Wash.; Rev. Charles Cowell, Christian Church, Fargo,
N. Dak.; Dr. Robert E. Palmer, Westminster Presbyterian Church,
Lincoln, Nebr.; Dr. William T. Strong, Florence Avenue Presby-
terian Church, Los Angeles, Calif.

Dr. Walter G. Couch, Jr., Plymouth Congregational Church, Wichita,
Kans.; Rev. Nathanael B. Groton, St. Thomas Episcopal Church,
Whitemarsh, Pa.; Dr. Frederick C. Fowler, First Presbyterian
Church, Duluth, Minn.; Dr. John F. G. Green, Congregational
Church, McKeesport, Pa.; Rev. Eric Asboe, St. David Episcopal
Church, Lincoln, Nebr.; Rev. James Lyons, Inskip Presbyterian
Church, Knoxville, Tenn.; Rev. W. H. Powell, All Saints Episco-
pal Church, Spokane, Wash.; Rev. Richard Kroeger, Jr., United
Presbyterian Church, St. Paul, Minn.; Rev. Harold Weatherly,
Capitol Heights Baptist Church, Pierre, S. Dak.; Dr. William F.
Keeseckre, Grace Presbyterian Church, Wichita, Kans.; Rev.
Laurel Lindberg, Elim Lutheran Church, Fargo, N. Dak.; Rev.
Gilbert M. Beenken, Oliver Presbyterian Church, Minneapolis,
Minn.; Rev. Eric Wright, Trinity Episcopal Church, Pierre,
S. Dak.; Rev. Ralph Boggs, First Baptist Church, Fargo, N.
Dak.; Rev. Norman B. Harrison, Jr., Westminster Presbyterian
Church, Duluth, Minn.; Dean Harry W. Henning, Calvary
Episcopal Cathedral, Sioux Falls, S. Dak.; Rev. Vern A. Spindell,
Vine Congregational Church, Lincoln, Nebr.; Rev. Robert W.
Bevis, First Presbyterian Church, Mora, Minn.; Rev. Nye O.
Bond, Christ Methodist Church, Lincoln, Nebr.; Rev. Earl M.
Brooks, United Presbyterian minister, Muncy, Pa.
Dr. Thomas O. Parish, Central Christian Church, Wichita, Kans.;
Rev. John Cedar, First Presbyterian Church, Howard Lake,
Minn.; Rev. Paul D. Urbano, All Saints Episcopal Church,
Phoenix, Ariz.; Rev. William Shannon Wise, Trinity Methodist
Church, Pittsburgh, Pa.; Rev. Keith Seelig, Eastminster Presby-
terian Church, Wichita, Kans.; Bishop Russell T. Rauscher,
Episcopal Diocese of Nebraska, Omaha, Nebr.; Dr. Louis H.
Valbracht, St. Johns Lutheran Church, Des Moines, Iowa; Rev.
Irving E. Howard, Congregational Church, New York, N.Y.;
Rev. R. W. Van Nostrand, Beargrass Christian Church, Louis-
ville, Ky.; T. G. Scholl, moderator, First Baptist Church, Rapid
City, S. Dak.; Rev. W. Lloyd Hanley, Church of Christ, Pierre,
S. Dak.; Rev. Reuben Job, Calvary EUB Church, Fargo, N. Dak.;
Dr. John R. Richardson, Westminster Presbyterian Church,
Atlanta, Ga.; Rev. J. Hunter, Smith Methodist Church, Pasadena,
Calif.; Rev. Paul Waite, Shiloh Bethany Presbyterian Church,
Minneapolis, Minn.; Rev. M. A. Sensenbrenner, Grace Methodist
Church, Tampa, Fla.; Rev. Riley Johnson, St. Michael's Episcopal
Church, Yakima, Wash.; Rev. C. Ralston Smith, First Presby-
terian Church, Oklahoma City, Okla.; Rev. T. Robert Ingram, St.
Thomas Episcopal Church, Houston, Tex.; Rev. Robert Wood,
Park City Presbyterian Church, Knoxville, Tenn.

Rev. Irwin S. Yeaworth, First Covenant Presbyterian Church, Cincin-
nati, Ohio; Dr. William J. Larkin, Buena Memorial Presbyterian
Church, Chicago, Ill.; Rev. Angus McDonald, First Congregational
Church, Hutchinson, Kans.; Rev. John S. Leatherman, Grace
Episcopal Church, Louisville, Ky.; Rev. Harry E. Olson, Jr.,
Messiah Lutheran Church, Fargo, N. Dak.; Rev. G. Aikin Taylor,
Presbyterian Church, Asheville, N.C.; Rev. Robert G. Nelson, Our
Savior Lutheran Church, Lincoln, Nebr.; Rev. A. C. Janney, New
Testament Baptist Church, Miami, Fla.; Luther Peers, president,
Miami Council of Churches, Miami, Fla.; Rev. John Grual, St.
Matthews Lutheran, Miami, Fla.; Rev. Richard Haag, Our Savior
Lutheran Church, Miami, Fla.; Rev. H. H. Wiechmann, Faith
Lutheran Church, Miami, Fla.; Rev. Jonatha Aho, Bayshore
Lutheran Church, Miami, Fla.; Rev. Harold Storm, Reedemer
Lutheran Church, Miami, Fla.; Rev. David Bradley, Mount Carmel
Baptist Church, Miami, Fla.; Rev. Harold Dann, Northeast Bap-
tist Church, Miami, Fla.; Rev. George Ziemes, Bible Baptist
Church, Miami, Fla.; Dr. David Davis, Plymouth Congregational
Church, Miami, Fla.; Rev. Orson Evans, First Methodist Church,
Augusta, Kans.; Rev. James Baird, First Presbyterian Church,
Gadsden, Ala.

M. Loren L. Wolff, Lutheran Church of America, Lincoln, Nebr.; Rev. Edward W. Stimson, Dundee Presbyterian Church, Omaha, Nebr.; Rev. Edwin Berreth, Plymouth Congregational Church, Fargo, N. Dak.; Rev. Frederick C. Fowler III, West Hills Presbyterian Church, Knoxville, Tenn.; Dr. T. Christie Innes, United Presbyterian Church, Pittsburgh, Pa.; Rev. Francis V. Tannehill, First Methodist Church, Fargo, N. Dak.; Dr. Albert J. Lindsey, First Presbyterian Church, Tacoma, Wash.; Dr. Willard Strahl, First Presbyterian Church, Fargo, N. Dak.; Dr. Bruce W. Dunn, Presbyterian Church, Peoria, Ill.; Rev. Leigh A. Wallace, St. Lukes Episcopal Church, Billings, Mont.; Rev. S. R. Danover, Berry Boulevard Presbyterian Church, Louisville, Ky.; Rev. James Wickstrom, First Presbyterian Church, Fulda, Minn.; Dr. Glover A. Leitch, First Presbyterian Church, Lincoln, Nebr.; Rev. Thurlow C. Nelson, St. Lukes Episcopal Church, Billings, Mont.; Rev. Thomas R. Teply, Aldrich Avenue Presbyterian Church, Minneapolis, Minn.; Rev. Paul Wiener, First Presbyterian Church, Leroy, Minn.; Rev. Samuel Cappel, Cedar Springs Presbyterian Church, Knoxville, Tenn.; Rev. Harry Dale Collier, First Presbyterian Church, Wichita, Kans.; Rev. Tom Moore, Westminster Presbyterian Church, Miami, Fla.; Dr. Luther P. Powell, First Presbyterian Church, Billings, Mont.; Rev. Owen B. Wilmot, Church of Christ, Huron, S. Dak.; Rev. Tom Keefe, Pilgrim Congregational Church, Lincoln, Nebr.; Rev. Max Strang, Congregational Church, Demorest, Ga.; Rev. James Stillwell, St. Mathews Episcopal Church, Lincoln, Nebr.; Rev. Robert Baxter, First Presbyterian Church, Redwood Falls, Minn.

ETHICAL ISSUES IN INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS OF CONCERN TO CHRISTIANS Statement Adopted by the General Board of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A., December 2, 1959

God in Christ comes to man in restoring love. This engenders and demands a response: that we love one another. This act of God is the ultimate ground of man's freedom and worth. On this ground he lives out his responsibility toward God and toward the brother in whose company he is set. The effort to establish the largest possible measure of just, cooperative, and orderly relationships in his daily work is witness to and reflection of Christian concern for his neighbor. Today dramatic developments gravely threaten such relationships in many aspects of our industrial life. It would appear that in the pursuit of private interest too often collective irresponsibility replaces collective responsibility toward the public good. In a larger sense current crises in industrial relationships in this country emerge in part from the fact that the whole world is involved in a vital struggle to find some way of controlling and using an advancing technology which holds not only serious threat but also exciting promise of universal gain for mankind. Through improvement in the methods of production technology leads to an outpouring of goods. The production, distribution, and use of this wealth are of profound concern to Christians because of their effect upon persons.

Bigness is a factor in the development and use of technology. It is evident that we cannot gain and maintain the standard of living, of communication, of security which we desire, without bigness in some areas of the economy, and that, if we retreat from the concept of bigness, we retreat from some of the greatest economic opportunities that now present themselves to us. We must, therefore, learn how to control and direct "bigness," whether in business, labor, or government, in order to secure and distribute widely its benefits, and to insure the individual an opportunity to make for himself a rewarding and satisfying life. Some of the most important issues in industrial relations will always be ethical in content and, therefore, will always be of concern to the churches. The major issues in today's industrial relations are related both to the increasing productivity of our economy and to the size and power of its chief organizations. These ethical issues focus in the complex relationships between labor and management, and in turn between them and government as the representative of the general public. Among today's issues we include the following.

48-225-65-pt. 2-6