I do not see that that would serve the coal operators, the Government, or safety, either.

Mr. KELLEY. Mr. McConnell?

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. Haley, overlooking the constitutional aspects of this for a moment, since we have been over that a little bit, would this bill enable the operations of the mines with greater safety, or would it have little effect? What would be your opinion?

Mr. HALEY. I think that there would immediately be a conflict between the jurisdictions that would have to be resolved. I do not think it would add anything to the education and knowledge in the field of safety. That is certainly true. And the conflicting police powers make for a serious constitutional question, and we would get into it inevitably, and it would be very detrimental to the cause of safety. That is the only reason that we oppose it.

Mr. McCONNELL. Now, in my mind, this bill assumes I may be correct, but I am sure I do not know-this bill assumes that the present system is not adequate to assure safety of operation in the mines. And that would be the natural assumption I would have, that we are considering an additional bill here in order to plug up some weakness in the present set-up.

Would you care to speak to that question?

Mr. HALEY. Yes. I assume, of course, that that is the reason for the bill, and very sincere reason, no doubt. We do not agree with that. We think the Bureau of Mines as it presently functions is an educational, advisory inspection body, manned by capable personnel, and who go in to see how much wrong they can find, but without assuming any authority to enclose or enforce their findings.

That is a very beneficial thing. And that coupled with the strong State laws and they are being strengthened every day, and they are now adequate or approaching the adequate in every State—that is a very fortunate situation, and there is no loophole, there is no hole in the bottom of the Federal approach to the problem today.

The coal operators, I believe the record will show, have been most cooperative in permitting the Federal mine inspectors to come in to make these thoroughgoing, comprehensive inspections, and I think in most, if not all instances, they are actually welcome, because the coal mine owners and operators want to know what they are doing that might in any way constitute a hazard.

Mr. BAILEY. Do they always comply with the findings of the Federal inspectors?

Mr. HALEY. No, sir; they do not. There is a difference of opinion in many instances, but I do say that they do comply in the great majority of instances where they possibly can do so.

Mr. BAILEY. How many of these State departments of mines-you seem to be familiar with their efficiency-have satisfactory installations for testing laboratories and things of that kind where they can get quick action on tests that might involve hazards?

Mr. HALEY. I do not know, but I believe witnesses who will follow me will be from the States, or there will be some from the States, who can advise you specifically on that point with respect to each State. Mr. BAILEY. I had in mind a thought that I am trying at the present time to get a Federal Bureau of Mines installation in my district, which is one of the largest coal-producing districts in the Union. Right now

it is necessary for them to send articles for inspection to the Pittsburgh office of the Bureau of Mines, and there is a considerable delay there in making those tests. Accidents might happen before the tests have been determined in the Pittsburgh office.

Mr. HALEY. Of course, I agree with the Congressman that that is a very fine and appropriate field in which the Bureau should operate, and it does now and it may well be that it needs additional testing equipment. But that does not run

Mr. BAILEY. I am speaking now of the lack of it on these highly organized State bureaus of mines that you are talking about. If they were thoroughly equipped, they would be able to do that themselves.

Mr. HALEY. I do not think there is any question, probably, that they need additional funds, and they certainly are trying to get them. They are getting them in most States. I believe the record will show that.

I was much impressed down in Kentucky last week at an award made by our own safety division to a unit of the Kentucky operators in which they made a very remarkable record. Certainly nothing like it has been accomplished in Kentucky, ever.

Mr. BAILEY. Do you have any instances where the National Coal Association has appeared before the finance committees of the State legislatures to ask them for increased appropriations?

Mr. HALEY. No, sir. The National Coal Association functions only in the Federal field. We do not appear before any State bodies for or against anything.

Mr. BAILEY. Do your subsidiary organizations in the States—for instance, the State coal associations-do those things?

Mr. HALEY. We have no subsidiary organizations in any of the States.

Mr. BAILEY. You mean the West Virginia and Southern Coal Operators Associations are not affiliated with you?

Mr. HALEY. Not in any way; no sir. They are separate, entirely. Mr. BAILEY. What are you? A sales agency, and not a producing agency?

Mr. HALEY. No. We are neither a sales agency nor a producing

agency.

Mr. BAILEY. Just what is the function of the National Coal Association?

Mr. HALEY. The function of the National Coal Association is to inform its members on matters of interest to it, to promote the best interests of the bituminous coal mining industry in the field of its relationships with the Federal Government, to engage in research, to engage in safety, and to engage in public relations.

Mr. BAILEY. How is it financed?

Mr. HALEY. The National Coal Association is financed by a voluntary fee on the part of the coal operators. It is a standard fee. By "voluntary," I mean we do not operate by contract.

Mr. BAILEY. You do not have any set-up back in the States?

Mr. HALEY. No.

Mr. BAILEY. You are not affiliated with them?

Mr. HALEY. No.

Mr. BAILEY. They finance you, but you are not affiliated with them; is that it?

Mr. HALEY. If that is what the gentleman meant by affiliation, I would have to change my answer. I would readily agree all of our finances and all of our members come from without the District. Mr. KELLEY. Are you through?

Mr. BAILEY. Yes.

Mr. KELLEY. Let us proceed in order. Have you finished your ståtement, Mr. Haley?

Mr. HALEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. KELLEY. Mr. Perkins?

Mr. PERKINS. Mr. Haley, you were not in here when I enumerated some of the worst mine explosions over the country?

Mr. HALEY. Yes; I was present and heard you read the list.

Mr. PERKINS. Over a period of 20 or 25 years, we have had explosions that have killed as high as 361 men. Am I correct in that state

ment?

Mr. HALEY. You are no doubt correct. I heard you read it and I am sure the Congressman had the correct figure.

Mr. PERKINS. Now, it seems to me that the question involved here is to follow the best procedure to save lives; you will agree with me that is the question involved here?

Mr. HALEY. It is, indeed.

Mr. PERKINS. But you do say that it is your opinion that this bill is unconstitutional?

Mr. HALEY. That is correct.

Mr. PERKINS. The bill only provides that if a Federal inspector visits a mine and he discovers that in some particular section of that mine there exists imminent danger and unless correction is made some of the employees in all probability will lose their lives-the bill only provides in those instances that the inspector can tell the employer to remove those men from that particular unsafe section of that mine until it is made safe, and that if the employer fails to move those men he is subjected to a penalty. That is all the bill provides; is it not? Mr. HALEY. That is all; yes, sir.

Mr. PERKINS. Now, I cannot see where you can argue that this bill is unconstitutional considering the police powers that are delegated to Congress to enact laws for the health, safety, or welfare of the people and for the preservation of human life; I just cannot see where you can argue that the bill is unconstitutional; I cannot see how you can argue that to this committee.

Mr. HALEY. You cannot see where I can argue that?

Mr. PERKINS. You will agree the Federal Government or Congress has police powers.

Mr. HALEY. Yes.

Mr. PERKINS. You will agree Congress has derived under its police powers delegated to it, the power to enact laws for the welfare, safety, and happiness of the people?

Mr. HALEY. That is correct, yes, sir; but it has only the power given to it in the Constitution.

Mr. PERKINS. I will agree it has only the power given by the Constitution.

Mr. HALEY. The Constitution did not give the Federal Government arbitrary police powers.

Mr. PERKINS. Not an arbitrary police power, but what greater police power could Congress possess than the right to enact a minesafety law to prevent mine explosions in this country?

Mr. HALEY. It could not have any greater police power, but the point I am making is that the States have a greater police power than you have, and when I say "you," of course I mean Congress. You have only the power conferred upon you in this field by the Consti

tution.

Mr. PERKINS. I will agree we have only the power conferred by the Constitution, but you will agree we have police powers here to enact laws for the benefit of this Nation; you will agree to that?

Mr. HALEY. Yes; I will agree to that.

Mr. PERKINS. And in any hazardous occupation, you will agree that Congress has the right to enact, under its police power, laws for the welfare of the people?

Mr. HALEY. No, sir; I do not agree to that; of course not; no, indeed. Mr. PERKINS. You will agree Congress has the police power to enact laws to eliminate imminent danger that in all probability will take human life?

Mr. HALEY. No, sir; I do not agree to that; of course not. It would be ridiculous to agree to that.

Mr. PERKINS. You have cited several cases here in this lengthy statement of yours and I believe that I could spend a couple of hours with you in the Federal laws section of the Library of Congress, and I think I can find cases directly in point. From my hurried glance at your cases, I do not think they are in point, wherein you try to establish that this law would be unconstitutional.

Mr. SMITH. Will you yield, Mr. Perkins?

Mr. PERKINS. Yes.

Mr. SMITH. Do you think the Federal Government has the right to help stop fatalities on the highways over the United States and promulgate laws to tell you how to drive your automobile down the highways of the States?

Mr. PERKINS. If the State fails in that duty and interstate commerce was involved, I certainly believe the Federal Government would have that power. But this is a different matter altogether. We are dealing here with a different method of protecting human life.

Mr. SMITH. There were 22,000 people killed on the highways last

year.

Mr. PERKINS. In instances where several of our States do not have compulsory workmen's compensation laws, and in instances where many of our States have very poor mine-safety laws, and in instances where statistics show that if we did have a Federal mine-inspection law with some teeth in it, about 75 percent of these deaths could be prevented

Mr. HALEY. May I make an observation on that point, which bears directly on the constitutional issue?

Mr. PERKINS. Yes.

Mr. HALEY. I believe that the statistics there will show a number of farm accidents resulting from boys and girls and men and women riding horses bareback. I don't believe the Federal Government, no matter how laudable a police prohibition of such a thing on the farms of America-I do not believe there is any constitutional way you could prohibit that and enfroce it with criminal sanctions.

Mr. PERKINS. May I say to the gentleman from Kansas this is quite a different problem. The mining of coal is an interstate problem, and

there is no comparison with the accidents and fatalities we have on the highways, or riding horseback, that the gentleman has just mentioned. We all agree those are clearly State functions. But in this instance the mining of coal becomes a commodity of interstate commerce.

Mr. HALEY. You are correct; after it is mined.

Mr. PERKINS. The cases will back me up, I think, that the mining of coal is considered interstate commerce, because you mine that coal and put it in cars and it goes into interstate shipments and it is interstate commerce from the outset ; that is, from the day you open those mines. Mr. HALEY. I am afraid, if we can spend a little more time when we go to the library, I will need some briefing on that point, too, because I have read every case decided by the Supreme Court in connection with coal, and it all stems from commerce. Certainly the Congressman must know that in his own State there are hundreds and possibly thousands of small mines, the product of which is consumed locally for domestic purposes. Certainly this committee is not supposing it can put under Federal jurisdiction-we have to distinguish between interstate commerce where Federal jurisdiction attaches, which is one problem, and the other is the definiteness of standards in the Federal police field.

Mr. PERKINS. It may be you could pick out some isolated instance of some very small truck mine that does not sell much coal and only in a local community; but the point is we are talking about coal that is intended to be mined for interstate commerce, and I will venture to say, although I do not have any statistics on it, that 98 percent of the coal that is mined is mined for interstate commerce.

Mr. HALEY. I would say when we get the statistics, I think it will be found that the Congressman has been a little liberal in his percentage, and on that very point I should like to call attention

Mr. PERKINS. Under those circumstances I believe any court, under its police powers, would uphold any legislation in their field that we enact here, because I think it is very appropriate; I think we are trying to do something to preserve human life.

Mr. KELLEY. I don't think we are getting anywhere on the constitutionality here. Are you through, Mr. Perkins?

Mr. PERKINS. Let me go ahead.

Mr. Haley, you also stated that if this bill is adopted, many State laws would become inoperative; did you not?

Mr. HALEY. I certainly did.

Mr. PERKINS. How did you arrive at that conclusion, Mr. Haley? Mr. HALEY. Under the very well accepted legal principle that once the Federal Government assumes an appropriate field, it is preempted against the States.

Mr. PERKINS. Do you not think it will be better insurance against fatalities and mine explosions by having better State mine safety laws and also a better Federal mine inspection law?

Mr. HALEY. When you say a better mine inspection law

Mr. PERKINS. Better than the one we already have in both fields, from the standpoint of the State governments and the Federal Government, too?

Mr. HALEY. I have not analyzed the present law as to how it may be improved, but I would answer your question emphatically that this is not an improvement.