Apostle of the Dock:Archbishop Edward J. Hannah’s Role as Chairman of the

National Longshoremen’s BoardDuring the 1934 San Francisco Waterfront Strike

Jaime Garcia De Alba

The Reverend Edward Joseph Hanna (1860-1944) served as Archbishop of San Franciscofrom 1915 through his retirement in 1935. On June 26 1934, at the height of the SanFrancisco Waterfront/Pacific Coast Longshoremen’s Strike, President Franklin Delano

Roosevelt named Archbishop Hanna chairman of the National Longshoremen’s Board (NLB).The significance of Rev. Manna’s role as chairman served as a model of the American Catholichierarchy’s cooperation with the President and the New Deal. Presidential appointments ofCatholic leaders represented a new era for the Church, which viewed the federal government’sdepression program as a response to Papal doctrine for social reform. Archbishop Hanna enteredas arbiter in the 1934 Strike with a solid record for civil service and moderate support oforganized labor. Although Rev. Hanna and the Presidential board contributed minimally after itsinitial introduction into the conflict between longshoremen and shipping employers, tangled in aseemingly unbreakable stand off by late June 1934, the NLB proved beneficial after both sidesagreed to let the board arbitrate their grievances. Archbishop Manna then found an opportunity todemonstrate Catholic doctrine as a guide out of the city’s turmoil, and the board’s potential as anexample of Church’s support with the governmental recovery program.1

In 1912, then Archbishop of San Francisco William Patrick Riordan made a considerableeffort to appoint Rev. Edward I. Manna as auxiliary Bishop. Rev. Manna brought with him atremendous reputation from his hometown of Rochester, New York, as not only a prominenttheological scholar, but also an active participant in social causes. His early career in Rochester,from the 1$90s to his appointment in San Francisco, involved a committed effort to alleviate theplight of the immigrant community, which provided him his first experiences with labor. Afterthe passing of Archbishop Riordan in 1915, Pope Benedict named Rev. Manna Archbishop ofSan Francisco.2

Archbishop Edward I. Hanna began as prelate amidst a power struggle to settle laborpolicy between San Francisco’s business community and workers’ unions. In 1916, theInternational Longshoremen’s Association (ILA), culinary workers, and structural ironworkersunions led three major strikes; yet, the future of the closed shop in the city surpassed the issues.The business community tested its ability to regain control in a city where organized laborreigned, and supported organized labor strongly. San Francisco Chamber of CommercePresident, Fredrick Koster began the Law and Order Committee to weaken labor’s power in thecity, and advocate the open shop.3

Proponents of the open shop took advantage of The Preparedness Day bombing in July1916 to discredit unions. Labor activists stood accused of the incident, and capital used sentimentto gather citizens against a pretense of labor radicalism. Koster then formed the Committee of100, a group of prominent San Franciscans to justify the efforts of the Chamber of Commerce.Koster invited Archbishop Hanna to join. His prestige as archbishop and previous participation

on civil service boards defiantly qualified him as a leading figure in San Francisco, but Rev.Hanna declined, and turned his efforts toward support of organized labor.4

As the three strikes progressed, Archbishop Hanna announced his praise for theachievements of labor from the last fifty years in a speech given at the Labor Day celebration inGolden Gate Park on September 4,19 16. Reverend Hanna affirmed that working men must notstand alone, but use, he said, the “inborn right of men to organize for mutual assistance andmutual protection,”5 the utmost goal of labor’s purpose. The archbishop continued to stressworkers’ right to bargain collectively for an adequate living standard while they uphold peace,the law, prevent radicalism to achieve public acceptance, and reduce class struggle through therealization that labor and capital must collaborate equally as both are essential to each other’swell being6

Mayor James Roiph, also partial to labor’s cause, named Rev. Hanna chairmen of theGeneral Arbitration Board, proposed for the 1916 strikes, on the basis of his stand with labor.Catholic labor scholar Richard Gribble quotes Mayor Rolph’s words about the archbishop,“There is no other member of the community who posses, in such a unique degree, theconfidence of all classes.”7 However, the 1916 General Arbitration Board never formed. TheLaw and Order Committee refused to send members to the hearings because organized laboradvocates represented the majority. Labor prevailed for the moment, and gained favorableawards for all three strikes in 1917. Nevertheless, the move toward the open shop proved moresignificant as capital initiated anti-labor sentiment. For Rev. Hanna, those years showed not onlyhis position on labor, but also his appeal that attracted the attention of both capital and labor.8

Toward the end of the Progressive Era in San Francisco, closed shop prominencedeclined. The Red Scare of 1919 and 1920 advanced suspicion of communist leadership withinorganized labor. The city also tired of what Richard Gribble called union’s “unrealisticexpectations and proposals in the post-war economy,” backed away from its grip. In this context,the archbishop also redefined his view on issues between labor and capital. Rev. Hanna and theCatholic Church stood against communism, and believed that private property provided workerswith incentive, filling society with productive and patriotic members. Rev Hanna also oftenchastised both sides for their uncooperative nature. The Monitor quoted the archbishop as saying,“in seeking adjustment neither the employers or their workmen have been sufficiently mindful ofthe rights of the people as a whole.”9 Gribble also noted, “like many Americans, Hanna shiftedfrom ardent support of labor to a more neutral position.”0

An instance of that change in Hanna emerged when acting Mayor Philip McLarenappointed the archbishop chairman of the impartial Wage Arbitration Boards, which he servedon from 1921 to 1924. Tn 1921, the capital backed Builders’ Exchange proposed an industrywide wage cut, which affected all construction trades represented by the labor-backed BuildingTrades Council (BTC). Both sides then agreed to resolve differences in arbitration. The BTCrepresentatives argued that the proposed wage reduction insufficiently met the rising standard ofliving costs, and asked that it remain at $7.85. The Exchange believed that construction workersreceived an adequate wage at $7 per day for a comfortable living, and the cut seemed justified asthe outlook for the city’s economy appeared prosperous.”

Rev. Hanna and the board decided to favor the Builder’s Exchange, and against BTCprotest, authorized the wage cut. The matter reappeared before the board in 1922, and again itdenied labor claiming, “a general raise for all trades was not practicable nor necessary based oncurrent economic conditions in San Francisco.”12 Both decisions surprised the BTC, particularlyin light of Rev. Hanna’s previous record with the workers. Evidently, the council expected a

39

reversal in 1922 especially when prior to the award announcement the archbishop said, “thatkindliness of thought will prevail, and that our aim will be to maintain a standard that will awarda decent living.”3

Certainly, the archbishop had not reversed his support of labor, but evidently maintainedimpartiality, which established his new reputation for considering the position of both labor andcapital under existing circumstances. Gribble argued, “By example, Edward Hanna showedcolleagues and the general populace how to change with the needs and times of society.”4Nevertheless, the Builders’ Exchange victory in 1922 opened the way for employers to reassertthe open shop in San Francisco as labor’s former power staggered during the 1920s economicboom. Rev. Hanna dropped out of the following board session in 1924 due to union critjcjsm.’5

Even though Archbishop Hanna set a precedent for impartiality for wage arbitrationduring the prosperous 1920s, Catholics’ opinion viewed that decade as a time of exuberance, anoutlook the Church chastised at the start of the Great Depression. Monsignor John A. Ryan,nationally recognized Catholic labor activist, denounced the consumption economics of the era,which he argued fit hand in glove with laissez-faire individualism. The excesses of the capitalisteconomy pushed the American public to consume abundantly, which in turn pushed industry toover produce, and weighed pressures on the worker. Monsignor Ryan feared that an economydriven by materialism deteriorated ethics, morality and the humanistic preservation of society.’6Benjamin Hunnicutt quoted Monsignor Ryan who wrote that overproduction “was a squirrelcage concept of progress unenlightened by. considerations of the other ethical and human claimsof the individual or the church. It has produced a culture sunk in materialism without atranscendent vision.”17

Even prior to the depression, congregations had turned to their local Archdiocese forassistance. Lizabeth Cohen wrote, “Catholics.. .in the 1920s increasingly recognized thatreligious affiliation offered material, not just spiritual, salvation.”8 The depression added to theCatholic Church’s responsibilities to its congregation, as stricken parishes clamored for support.San Francisco’s Catholic Community Chest fund for relief efforts expended all availableresources by 1932.’ Other urban parishes such, as the one led by Cardinal George Mundelein ofChicago, concentrated efforts in raising funds and maintaining benevolent work and relief for thelargely working-class immigrant congregations.2°

Tn 1931, Pope Pius XI published his latest encyclical on the social question, theQuadragesimo Anno, which detailed a Christian basis for social reform through the promotion ofa moral economy. Because the Papal proposal to reform the devastations of unrestrictedcapitalism arrived during the depression, it attracted more attention than previous encyclicals.Pope Pius XI called for a stronger government role in the curtailment of industrial exploitation.The Papal plan designed global resolutions of class conflict through the formation of vocationalassociations, a centralized organization, legislating with industry and government to humanizecapitalism: eliminate stringent competition, curb laissez faire individualism, and above all,promote cooperation between industry and labor for improved wages, hours, working and livingconditions. Archbishop Hanna referred to the idea as a revival of the medieval guilds, whichguaranteed the worker, he said, “just demands and gave unto labor a dignity which it has notsince obtained.”2’

The 1 930s American Catholic hierarchy of bishops faithfully embraced theQuadragesimo Anna, as an ideological basis, but by 1933 also sent support to FDR and the NewDeal. They interpreted the plan as a response to Pius Xl’s vision because distressing depressionconditions forced an endorsement for the governmental plan, as it promised a practical means

40

toward a resolution to the crisis. Catholics, optimistic of the forthcoming plan, seemed evenmore enthusiastic that a United States President had finally envisioned a plan that closelyresembled the papal encyclical. George Q. Flynn, writer on Catholics and the Rooseveltadministration, compared, “Both schemes defended the ideal that government should act torelieve the country of economic disaster, that is, both rejected the laissez faire theory of the stateand would substitute industrial order in place of unlimited competition.”22

Association of the encyclical to the President’s program assured a greater role forCatholics under the new administration. “Perhaps the most attractive thing Roosevelt did duringthe 1932 campaign was to quote from the papal encyclical Quadragesimo Anno,” Flynn noted.23However, FDR’s real basis for the New Deal lied “in the context of general American reformideas.”24 Nevertheless, Flynn wrote, “Roosevelt demonstrated an acute awareness of his Catholicbackers and managed to solidify this support through his cordial relationship with the AmericanHierarchy.”25 Catholics occupied high government posts for the first time in American historyand finally enjoyed a voice in national politics. As of 1933, Catholics participated fully with theNational Recovery Administration (NRA). FDR, having catered to the Catholic vote during the1932 election, appointed members of the hierarchy to prominent positions within regional federaladministrative boards. Archbishop Hanna’s chairmanship of the NLB appeared among thoseappointed. And, as head of the National Catholic Welfare Conference, a committee thatinterpreted federal legislation and its compatibility with American Catholic society, thearchbishop “spoke for the entire hierarchy of the United States when he proclaimed Catholicsupport for the presidents’ recovery program,” Flynn wrote.26

Certainly, the new outlook toward the federal government in the 1930s transformed theChurch. Catholic thought and consciousness, still considered unprogressive because of its stanceagainst birth control and criticism of America’s moral character, changed with Catholic leaders’enthusiasm for the New Deal, which Catholic labor scholar David J. O’Brien wrote, “helpedsoften some of the traditional American suspicion of the Church.”27 Support for the Presidentialprogram also signified an acceptance of American institutions. For instance, the ChicagoArchdiocese re-established its image through an Americanization program initiated to repelcriticism that it harbored a foreign institution within the nation. In San Francisco, ArchbishopHanna praised the President and a larger federal government role in American society. Rev.Hanna wrote in the San Francisco Monitor upon FDR’s inauguration,

Pray upon our new Executive clear vision and abundant strength that he maybe equal to the task which now he assumes as he becomes an instrument in thehands of the Almighty to direct our people into that measure of spiritual andtemporal welfare which is the high purpose of all governments.”28

The majority considered the federal plan to institute collective bargaining a derivation ofthe Papal vocational association design. O’Brien summarized that plan to have been “controlledby boards representing management, labor, and the public.” Papal plans resembled essentiallythe cornerstone of NRA plans for collective bargaining, and government regulation of bigbusiness.29 Yet, a split appeared among leaders over interpretations between the encyclical andrecovery plans. O’Brien theorized, “The Quadragesimo Anno left open many questionsregarding the character of the Christian social order, the role of the state within it, and the meansby which it might be brought into existence.”30 Even though the majority of Catholic leaders

41

I.

asserted the National Industrial Recovery Act (NWA) mirrored Papal doctrine, criticsdisapproved. One critic wrote in the Monitor,

There are features in [NiraJ such as the minimum wage standards, the approval to thejuridical order of industry, that may seem as approaches to the ideal set forth by the Pope.They would be, if the administration of the Act were in the hands of men friendly to theprinciples of human freedom espoused by the Father of Christendom.3’

Catholic critics believed the NRA lacked the scope of the Quadragesimo Anno. Theyargued that the vocational association system would have asserted greater control overproduction and distribution of wealth. Other criticisms of FDR’s policies entailed federalimpositions on personal liberty, excessive Executive power, and even sympathy towardcommunism. Another criticism in the Monitor noted, “The {NiraJ program can very deftly beturned into an American brand of Communistic state.”32 The Catholic Worker Movement of1934 believed the collective bargaining scheme merely compromised agreements with capital,ultimately furthering worker exploitation. However, critics remained a minority, and nevermaintained an agenda to the extent of New Deal supporters, who set the tone for Catholicopinion throughout the depression.33

Catholics returned to support organized labor, but upheld a moderate position. O’Brienstated, “Catholic support for organized labor was qualified by defense of private property,condemnation of violence, and hostility toward radicalism and strikes.”34 Yet, as strikes becamemore prevalent throughout the 1930s, the Church adjusted. Catholic leaders encouragedcongregations to unionize, and approved of assistance to resolve strike disputes, even thoughO’Brien noted, “there was almost no consistent support for compulsory arbitration during thedecade.”35

The lack of support for compulsory arbitration would be part of a greater challengeArchbishop Hanna faced as a selected arbiter for the 1934 Pacific Coast Longshoremen’s Strike.Throughout the twenties, Rev. Hanna added experience and credibility to a long list of civilservice positions as director and chairman of numerous boards. The archbishop served underGovernor James Rolph on the California State Unemployment Commission, State PlanningBoard, a fact-finding committee in the 1933 California Cotton Strike, Commission ofImmigration and Housing, Emergency Relief Administration, and locally, administered theArchdiocese Community Chest and the San Francisco Chapter of the American Red Cross. Thesituation of the 1934 Waterfront strike, however, represented his greatest challenge toward theend of his active career in Church and State.36

The 1934 Waterfront Strike returned longshoremen to an extended dispute with shippingindustry employers that stretched back to 1865. Since the formation of the ILA in 1892 throughto 1934, the union organized primarily for control of hours and hiring, because that outlookensured equalized distribution of work, improved wages, and conditions. At the same time,writes David F. Selvin, “employers joined forces, not to deal with unions, but to evade or destroythem.”37 For example, during the 1919 strike, employers contracted the Blue Book union to endprospects of another dock strike. Dockworkers, amply exhausted from ThA union radicalismprevalent during the early twentieth century, accepted the employers’ proposal reluctantly.However, through control of the Blue Book union, employers maintained an open shop on thewaterfront for the next fourteen years. Shiv companies only prolonged issues with longshoremen,which turbulently surfaced again in l934.

42

The ILA re-emerged in 1933 with incentive from the then recently enacted, yet looselyenforced Section 7(a) of NIRA. Dockworkers claimed their right to organize, strike, and bargaincollectively in early 1934. They demanded union recognition, $1 an hour ($1.50 overtime), a 6-hour day, 30-hour week, and a longshoremen controlled hiring hail. Section 7(a) equippedlongshoremen with, Selvin explained, “an effective tool and freed them from apathy,hopelessness, and inaction. It gave rise to a new militance, directed not at revolutionary upheavalbut a down-to-earth matters of wages and hours, of status and dignity.”39

Section 7(a), amidst the Great Depression, prompted dockworkers to present demands. Aready labor supply, due to the high unemployment turnout from other industries safeguardedwaterfront employers. To suit the labor demands of the day and the depression stricken shippingmarket, employers hired and dismissed dockworkers frequently. Longshoremen experiencedundetermined periods between work and unemployment, and widespread abuses that continuedunchallenged until ILA members voted to strike on May 9 1934. The strike evolved through thefollowing June and July into what Selvin quoted as “an open fight between organized labor andthe open shop.”4°

The strike also convinced the shipping industry that a communist radical conspiracypossessed the ILA, and planned to justify the conflict as a means toward a revolutionary end.Yet, Selvin wrote, “For dock workers, the strike represented, aggressive and affirmative steps tocorrect the evils they had endured.”41 Nevertheless, ship companies and city government, lead byMajor Angelo Rossi, readily labeled ILA leaders, under Harry Bridges, as radical anduncompromising, “The key to his leadership rested more in his advocacy of militant tactics andjob-oriented goals than in the left wing,” Selvin reaffirmed.42 Bridges led the union to refusethree proposals on April 3, May 2$, and June 16. Employers offered a joint control of the hiringhail in the latter proposal, but in each instance, denied complete union control. At that point, shipcompanies, banded into a coalition titled the Waterfront Employers Union (WEU), also stoodfirm, and dismissed demands for a union controlled hall, which constituted a closed shop.43

ILA refusal of joint control prolonged the strike into July 1934. Dockworkers eruptedbecause of the WEU decision to operate the dock with the use of strikebreakers, protection fromthe San Francisco Police Department, and State National Guard. Tensions climaxed on July 6thereafter remembered as Bloody Thursday. Selvin had theorized, “Strike violence is almostinvariably the product of a clash between two, sharply conflicting, powerfully asserted rights.”The conflict of ideologies between the ThA and WEU generated more animosity than the debatesover the issues. Employers implemented what Selvin called their “unlimited claim on theauthority of the city, state, and nation” to exercise their free use of private property, open accessto labor, and the ability to conduct business with minimal interference. Similarly, Longshoremenaffirmed that holding back their labor provided, Selvin explained, a “basic source of economicinfluence with employers, their ultimate source of equality at the bargaining table.”45

Strike violence dominated San Francisco Chronicle and Examiner coverage to such anextent that, Selvin argued, the stories “underscored the negative aspects of every phase of thestrike, emphasizing reports intended to discredit, divide, and discourage the strikers.”46 Printmedia moguls throughout California had already aligned to oppose the President’s recoverypolicy, so Bay Area papers generated publicity that projected the belligerence of organized labor.Local papers bellowed striker belligerence without mention of the shipping industry’saccountability. Publishers knowingly shifted attention away from issues relevant to theexploitation of longshore labor; instead, commentary suggested that Americanism along with thecity of San Francisco lay as victims of a threatening radical menace.47 Yet, the rank and file

43

disregarded news coverage of the strike, and deemed statements as false that also exaggeratedtriviality. Longshoremen read strike articles more as a source of amusement rather than reliableinformation. fully aware of the biased news, dockworkers believed actual events proved, MikeQuinn noted, “nothing more or less than a showdown between capital and labor on the issue ofthe open shop.”48

On June 26 1934, FDR sent a Western Union telegram that notified Archbishop EdwardHanna of his appointment as chairman of the NLB. Rev. Hanna responded to the President andwrote, “Honored by your confidence I will do all in my power to carry out your mandate.”49 TheCatholic Church’s influence among the largely working class population in San Francisco, andits willingness to administer the then recent federal recovery policy, determined the President’sselection of the archbishop. Today magazine journalist Eustace L. Williams also pointed to Rev.Hanna’s, “famed sense of fair play; his well known passion to help faltering humankind, thatbrought him as an arbitrator into this strife.”50 Because of Hanna’s Catholic perspective on laborthe Archbishop also denounced leftist or communist party promotion of class rivalry. As WilliamIssel pointed out, “championed private property as well as the right of workers to dignity and afair share of business profits.” Hannah maintained a moderate profile that appealed to both sidesof the dispute.5’ Selvin too wrote, “The presence of Archbishop Hanna (who could hardly beaccused of sympathy for communists) was intended.. . to divert the employers’ focus from the‘red’ issue to a fair settlement.”52

The Examiner and San Francisco News portrayed Archbishop Hanna as the leadingadvocate for peace, unity, and resolution. Elected to act as the board’s spokesmen, thearchbishop made a radio broadcast asking both sides to end their differences and submitgrievances to arbitration. The Examiner printed Rev. Hanna’s action and wrote, “Hisunderstanding of the human problems entering into such disputes is of incalculable value.”53 Thearchbishop’s involvement in matters, the News anticipated,

Will be the crowning achievement for Archbishop Edward I. Hanna of a lifetime devotedto the service of human relationships. Probably no Catholic prelate has a more brilliantrecord than he in untangling snarls between groups of citizens, bringing warring factionstogether for the advancement of the communities interests, creating understanding andgood feeling, and establishing public relief upon a firm foundation.54

Based on the archbishop’s previous reputation for impartiality and views against laborradicalism, the Examiner portrayed him favorably. In an article titled “Archbishop Hanna’sEfforts on Behalf of Labor Cited,55 “the paper noted his competency, experience, and standing asa well respected participant in civic affairs. The News concurred with Rev. Hanna’s attributes,and stated, “His official acts, both as a Church man and a citizen, have repeatedly demonstratedthe warm sympathy he feels for those who toil.”56 Thus, according to local newspapers, Rev.Hanna’s role pertained to what the Examiner described as a religious icon, “battling to bringdock peace,”5’ and confidently labeled him a “champion of working men.”58

Both the Examiner and News used the archbishops’ photographs on the front pages toproject the image of a neutral Catholic labor figure who advised Christian doctrine as thesolution. William Issel wrote, “The archbishops cited the encyclicals as authority for their callsto resolve differences between labor and capital through compromise and arbitration.”59 Thenewspapers printed Rev. Hanna’s moderate religious lesson on industrial relations, as he seemed

44

to cover a broader notion rather than specific details of the waterfront strike. On June 29, theExaminer quoted Rev. Hanna, as saying

When both labor and capital attain a deeper understanding of the obligations they owe tothe moral law, to Christ and his teachings of brotherly love, and the people as a wholeand to each other, then, and not until then, will come solution of the grave industrialproblems of the day.6°

Thus, the News readily titled Rev. Hanna, “The Apostle of Peace.”61The archbishop showed eagerness to commence arbitration. On June 29 1934, the

headline in the News read, “Stand by President Hanna urges,” and quoted Rev. Hanna, as saying,“We want to convince the men that they can depend on the President and upon the men heappointed to give them justice.” The Labor Clarion wrote, “The venerable Archbishop Manna, inearnest and impressive manner, added his appeal to that of his fellow members on the board andasked them to sink their differences by referring the whole subject matter of the controversy tothe decision of the board.”62

On July 9 1934, a funeral march along Market Street for two slain longshoremen, causedby the July 6 Bloody Thursday violence, minimized the newspaper’s inflammatory remarksagainst the strikers. The march generated deep sympathy within the community for the strikecause, and solidarity among dockworkers intensified. Consequently, the Bloody Thursdaycatastrophe pushed the rank and file to support plans for a general strIke for the purpose of “anultimate expression of support, a demonstration of common class,” Selvin stressed, rather than anexercise to force ultimatums.63 Nevertheless, the shippers and local government interpretedmoves toward a general strike as another instance of unwarranted insurrection. 64

Meanwhile, the three NLB members, who also included Assistant Secretary of Labor,Edward P. McGrady, and legal advisor Oscar K. Cushing, seemed unable to break the deadlockbetween the WEU and longshoremen over who would control the hiring hail. The President, byexecutive order, granted the board wide powers under NIRA authority in order to investigate theissues that had obstructed interstate commerce, yet they proved ineffective until both sidesagreed to submit their grievances to arbitration. The major difficulty for the President’s boardinvolved the dockworkers that wanted the seamenlmarine trade unions, also out on strike, fromports in Seattle, Portland, and San Pedro, included in an all inclusive coast-wide settlement.Then, the San Francisco Labor Council, which had consolidated with all striking unions to formthe General Strike Committee, voted on a general strike set for July 16 1934. Throughout thatperiod, the board functioned merely as an advocate for arbitration; they and the capital backedSan Francisco Industrial Association could only make pleas to the Labor Council not to carry outthe proposed general strike.65

The NLB lacked full comprehension of the situation, and knew less about the nature ofthe maritime industry. In fact, the Labor Council kept the NLB informed of developments. ThePresident’s board contributed minimally, and when it held opening hearings from July 9 to the 111934, Mike Quinn, very much on labor’s side, nevertheless wrote, “Their minds had no morepractical application to the subject than would a group of bricklayers called to judge the merits ofa medical controversy.”66 At best, the President sent “three men fighting to ward off the threat ofa general strike, with all its implications of suffering and bloodshed,” remarked Quinn.67

After the proposal for the general strike, the Examiner returned to themes that expressedthe archbishop’s demands for Christian unity. On July 14, 1934, the headline read, “Archbishop

45

Declares Rights of Public Shall come First.” Rev. Hanna stood firmly on the middle groundthrough his general Catholic ideology. The Examiner quoted the archbishop as saying; “Abargain cannot be just if a worker is forced out of necessity to accept wages and conditions thatmake it impossible for him to support his family in a reasonable and frugal comfort”68 At thesame time, Rev. Hanna would not support any action on behalf of labor that would encouragefurther conflict. On July 14, Rev. Hanna advised, “There should be, in the dispensation of Christ,no conflict between class and class,” which had sustained, the Examiner highlighted, “underlyingprinciples which have been the teaching of Christianity during 2,000 years.”69

The piety in the archbishop’s announcements facilitated the media’s notion that throughthe general strike the ThA delayed resolution toward arbitration. .The 1934 San Francisco GeneralStrike followed on Monday July 16 On July 17, 1934, the News clarified the NLB position,which stated, “The law recognized the right of employers to strike or engage in other concertedactivities,” but the News continued to explain that the board would not support unlawful behavioror acts of violence. The newspapers, thus, manipulated the archbishop’s moderate position tofurther their overall depiction of the general strike as a menace to the city of San Francisco.

On July 21 1934, the Monitor placed the archbishop in command, acting underPresidential and NRA authority. The Catholic periodical underscored Rev. Hanna’s collaborationwith federal unionization and collective bargaining initiatives, which the Examiner buried. TheMonitor quoted the archbishop as saying, “We believe in the principles of collective bargaining,we believe that the workingmen have the right to be represented by men of their ownchoice... and have the right to deal directly with their employers.”70 The Archdiocese pressportrayed Rev. Hanna and the NLB as the force toward an agreement, and seemed to invokefederally allowed power to achieve it. The archbishop intended to inspire all those involved toparticipate with the nation’s recovery program in order to demonstrate its effectiveness. TheMonitor depicted Rev. Hanna authoritatively in the effort to uphold federal policy, and inHanna’s words, “to induce and maintain united action of labor and management.”7

While Archbishop Hanna and the board continued their effort, John Francis Neyland,legal advisor and publisher to William Randolph Hearst, held other confidential negotiations toend the standoff. Neyland convinced the WEU and the Industrial Association to appeal to theconservative faction of the Labor Council for a resolution. The longshoremen, who representedthe minority within the Labor Council, firmly refused to submit their position on the hiring hailissue to arbitration. However, after the employers agreed to put all matters before the NLB, theconservative faction of the Labor Council outvoted the longshoremen, and consented to arbitrateall disputes before the Presidential board on July 25. Neyland solved the stalemate, and thelongshore strike ended on July 311934.72

Bridges and the ILA, forced by the vote, remained disappointed that the Councilcollaborated with the manipulative capitalists in the Industrial Association, and most of all withNeyland, whom strikers viewed as the purveyor of anti-labor propaganda. Longshoremen fearedan unfavorable outcome under these circumstances, and continued to show signs of reluctanceand skepticism. The Labor Clarion also wondered, “will the International Longshoreman’sAssociation agree to submit to arbitration by the National Longshoremen’s Board the issues indispute in the longshore strike and to be bound by the decision of the board?”73 However, at thatpoint, guarantees that either side would be bound to the NLB decision appeared uncertain. Yet,the ILA failed to appreciate its momentary gain. Even though the Labor Council agreed to putthe longshoremen’s demands to chance in arbitration, Quinn points out,

46

Once the principal employers made up their minds to do it, the assent of all companies upand down the coast to negotiate a uniform collective agreement with the men wasobtained within a few hours. And this was the position which for three long months theemployers had argued was utterly impossible and beyond achievement.74

The NLB convened proceedings for the presentation of testimony on Wednesday, August8, 1934 at the U.S. Post Office and Court-Home Building on Seventh and Mission Streets, SanFrancisco. The three appointees assembled representatives from the San Francisco ILA andWEU. Union and employer representatives also gathered with the board in Portland, Seattle, andLos Angeles. Testimony dealt with issues on working conditions, hiring, wages, and employermanipulation of total earnings.

On August 10, acting as counsel for the ILA, Henry P. Melnikow of the Pacific CoastLabor Bureau asked the board for an official statement to relieve the longshoremen witnesses’concerns of later employer discrimination due to their testimony. However, the archbishop’sresponse deemed a request for written assurances for those that gave testimony unnecessary. Fordecades, longshoremen feared the waterfront employers’ blacklist, which included the names ofthose engaged in strike activity. Somehow, with the slightest reassurance from Rev. Hanna, whopresided on behalf of the federal government, and on public record, those concerns diminished.The longshoremen revealed complaints openly, and presented testimony they believed wouldpersuade the board to classify as waterfront employers’ abuses of longshore labor.75

Longshoremen testimony opened with instances of employer’s negligent methods andpractices regarding work hazards. ILA leader Harry Bridges testified that companies such as theSeaboard Stevedore, Isthmian Line, and California Stevedoring & Ballast, along with companyforemen promoted a system of inner-employee competition for the purposes of a speed-up. Thecompetition system caused serious injury and in some cases death. Bridges emphasized theseverity of hazards when companies forced dockworkers to comete; he said, “This wasabsolutely due to the fact that we were competing against each other.”7

The archbishop inquired interestingly. For instance, Bridges described dockworkersinvolved in competition placing oorly packed copper onto slings, and Rev. Hanna asked, “Inwhat condition was the copper?” When Bridges testified that employers increased loads, thearchbishop would ask, “How many gallons to a drum?”78 Longshoremen handled steel up to 70feet in length at 60 loads an hour, and Rev. Hanna seemed shocked. He asked, “It is not pipe?”Bridges answered, “It is not pipe. It is steel.”79 Bridges added more testimony of immenseoverloads. Rev. Hanna asked the manner in which workers handled iron sheets, “Was it rolled?”and continued, “They pulled them by hand into the box car?”8° “When Bridges complained of100 to 120 pound sacks, less heavy than usual loads, but paced to load continuously, thearchbishop asked, “What would be in the sacks?”81

The Bridges testimony also included remarks about the Blue Book Union. The WEUrefused to recognize the ThA until they agreed to the arbitration. Up to that time, Waterfrontemployers maintained that their Blue Book union stood as the only legitimate longshoremenunion. However, dockworkers argued that the Blue Book union existed as a front that collectedunjustified dues while it covered up an open shop policy. Bridges testified, “The only dues thatwere paid into it were those dues that were forced to be paid by men who wanted to earn a livingon the waterfront. That is the only reason I ever paid into the thing. It meant that or losing myjob.”82 The Blue Book collected 75 cents a month, or a yearly amount payable in advance forworking privileges, yet the union never addressed any of the workers’ grievances. Refusal to pay

47

resulted in immediate dismissal. The system of collection perplexed the archbishop and theboard. Rev. Hanna commented. “Of course, I deal in mysteries all the time, and this blue book isvery mysterious to me. I don’t know what it means.”83

In addition, the waterfront companies’ brass check policy also raised the interests of theboard. The investigation uncovered an intricate money loaning operation, which boiled down toemployers’ use of longshoremen’s paychecks as collateral for loans paid out at five to tenpercent interest. Dockworkers used it as a supplement between paydays. Selvin described, “Thelender would then use brass checks to collect the men’s paychecks, deduct their loans withinterest, and return the balance, if any, to the men.”84 Longshoremen witnesses recalled use ofbrass check loans against hours worked but yet paid, and in some cases owed payment to theloan with future paychecks, trusting that there would be hours to work given the inconsistency ofemployment. Nevertheless, whatever the circumstances, ILA members testified that employersdeduced brass check percentages from their paychecks, which the board found manipulative.85

The Archbishop and the board meticulously investigated weights of loads, loads movedper hour, types of material loaded or unloaded, and sizes, in order to assess if in fact those loads,weights, and rate placed longshoremen in hazardous conditions. Dock worker Henry Schmidt,called to testify for the longshoremen, described that while working on the Thompson, Admiral,and Pacific Lighterage Lines, he moved sling loads to excesses of up to three thousand poundsalong with the speed-up. Longshoremen W.L. Gehm also testified that International Stevedoring,and Admiral company docks also sped up work regardless of bigger loads.86 Longshoremen f.J.Reiley described the limited space men had to work in because of the density of loads,particularly the long length of lumber. He added that employers increased loads under thoseconditions, and concluded, “men are driven harder.”87 After examination of load volume andtestimony of its difficulties, Hanna simply posed the hypothetical question, “then it is a questionof space?”68

Consecutive hours that longshoremen worked, and consecutive hours without a mealbreak also raised Archbishop Hanna’s interests. W.L Gehm testified that after having workedeighteen hours straight, his employers asked that he show up again six hours later. Gehm did notreturn, and had not worked since he reftsed. Hanna asked, “Any definite or any particular reasongiven why they were kept at that work so long?”89 However, the longshore witnesses had nodefinite answers. Archbishop Hanna continued this line of inquiry. He asked Henry Schmidt howlong he worked without a meal, Schmidt said fourteen hours. And, when the Archbishop askedlongshoremen Gehm, he replied that thirty-two hours spanned his longest shift, nine straightwithout a meal break.9°

ILA member John I. Finnegan presented an excerpt from Exhibit no.1, Bulletin 507 ofthe U.S. Department of Labor as statistical evidence during his testimony, which rankedlongshoreman work among the leading occupations with the highest degree of hazard. Finneganpointed out that the rate of accidental death between longshoremen and other occupations rose 37percent higher. The report read that 7.7 percent of deaths derived from all causes compared to the50 percent that resulted from accidents. Rev. Hanna asked if those statistics also includedsuicide, and Finnegan confirmed that it did.9’

As Archbishop Hanna continued his investigation, he also demonstrated an interest in thearbitrary hiring and firing conditions on the dock. Hiring methods on the dock proved upsettingfor Rev. Hanna. Seattle dockworker Philip M. Taylor testified that longshoremen spent hours inthe day waiting the mere notice of possible work. Rev. Hanna remarked. “You mean they wouldhave to stand in the rain all that time? No shelter?” Taylor replied, “no shelter.”92 And, according

48

to longshoremen, the ship companies preferred employees that had the ability to keep up with therapid loading and discharge of ship cargo. Dockworker R. Carter said, “So many tons an hour areto be moved.., and that it is to be moved or else.” Hanna replied, “or else you can’t work?”Carter replied, “Absolutely.”93

The issue of wages, coinciding with hiring and firing, also appeared particularlyinteresting for the Archbishop. Rev. Hanna investigated the surprisingly low wage rate frommost San Francisco employers at fifty cents an hour, and at the weekly rate of $15 a week. Theboard gathered that in order for a longshoremen to earn a least $15 a week, he would have towork a minimum of twenty hours; however, twenty hours straight time occurred rarely for mostthat waited in the hiring hail or for the arrival of a ship, which went unpaid.94

Admittance to a task gang precluded the hope of permanence for those few longshoremenwho managed to work long stretches. Gang work required preferential or random hiring byforemen, and for whichever trivial reason the foremen dismissed, or denied re-admittance intothe work gang at whim. Moreover, employers noted a particular worker’s failure to performunder the grueling conditions previously testified. Because of the ready supply of labor causedby the depression, foremen selected greenmen over those dockworkers, such as Gehm, who hadreturned to the dock to reclaim their jobs after recovering from injury. The archbishop clarified,“you mean greenmen that were not longshoremen?” Gehm replied, “They were notlongshoremen; they were just hanging around the dock.”95 Thus, further testimony showed theboard the difficulties employees faced not only retaining consistent hours and wages, but alsotheir positions on the dock.96

The ILA testimony appeared plausible and compelling. The argument that the WEU usedin their defense, on the other hand, came across as vague and seemingly complacent. Thearchbishop, concerned over the issue of safety, asked WEU member Byron 0. Pickard if any ofthe stevedore contractors ever instituted or prepared a manual that provided information onsafety habits for longshoremen. Pickard answered that a Gray Book or Pafic Coast MarineSafety Code for Stevedoring Operations existed, but it had little success in enforcement.Furthermore, Pickard testified the safety committee failed to publish a rulebook and illustratedsafety manual that remained in progress. Nevertheless, the work of the safety committee, at worksince 1929, Pickard admitted seemed, “not anywhere near completed.”97 Rev. Hanna also askedPickard about the status of the first aid stations. Pickard answered that a competent staffremained available to provide first aid, but not a medically trained staff.98

Harvard lecturer and shipping industry researcher F.P. Foisie, for the WEU, testified thatconventional overtime did not pertain to longshoremen because of the irregularity of work.Employers preferred to pay higher wages for short-term periods of work between the arrival ofcargo rather than for a full eight-hour day in which case companies paid stagnant dockworkersduring stretches of down time. Foise termed this the decausualization method. He stated bluntlyto the board, “There is much leisure time, which often times is loafing time. The constant changeof activity is, itself, one of the interesting things in the job which attracts many who do not likeroutine work.”99

Thomas G. Plant, operating manager for the American-Hawaiian Steam Ship Companyand President of the WEU, stated his opinion before the board. Plant said, “The WaterfrontEmployers Union have dealt very liberally with longshore labor, according it wages andconditions equal to or possibly more advantageous to longshoremen than in any other port in thiscountry.”°° Thus, Plant’s argument rested merely on a comparison to possibly worse conditions

49

in other ports across the country, yet failed to justify the then present conditions on the SanFrancisco docks.’°’

On October 12 1934, after nearly three months of arbitration, the NLB granted the ILA afavorable award. Archbishop Hanna signed the award on October 18. Thus, his inquiriesthroughout the hearings proved significant because the board’s award to the ILA addressed everyissue that he earnestly investigated. For instance, section 2 of the award read, “When men arerequired to work more than five consecutive hours without an opportunity to eat, they shall bepaid time and one-half of the straight or over-time rate, as the case may be, for all time worked inexcess of five hours without a meal hour.”°2 The NLB awarded San Francisco longshoremen 95cents hourly and $1.40 for overtime, and gave ten cents above the basic rate for handlingmaterials such as fertilizer or lumber in excess of thirty tons.

The award also included other resolutions that pertained to longshormen’s disputes andconcerns. In section 4, the board addressed the most critical issue that determined hiring wouldbe done through one central hiring hail. In section 9, the award established a labor relationsboard in each port coast wide. Section ten described that board’s duties: maintain and operate thehiring hail, monitor the supply of men needed, and most importantly it read, “adjudicate allgrievances and disputes relating to working conditions.”03 Section 11 resolved that that boardalso regulates the organization of gangs and methods of dispatching. And, in regard to methodsof cargo discharge, the employer may introduce labor saving devices so long as those methodsare not, section 11 specified, “inimical to the safety or health of the employees.”04

After the award announcement, Mayor Angelo Rossi sent a brief letter to Rev. Hannasaying, “Your Excellency. . . the assurances of harmonious cooperation given by all concernedmust be a matter of satisfaction to your Board, as it is to us. This is a most happy harbinger ofindustrial peace for the Pacific Coast.”°5 The longshoremen’s efforts throughout the strike hadembittered Mayor Rossi, a supporter of shipping interests. His efforts, in speeches and with

mayoral authority, contributed greatly to the right-wing repression of the strike.’06 Accordingly,the Recorder wrote, “In the crucial matter of control of the hiring halls, the award was regardedas a victory for the waterfront employers.”07 However, the ILA gained joint control of the hailand establishment of the labor relations committee from the award, which increased the union’sprevious influence on matters concerning dockworkers.’08

The board continued to hear testimony with Archbishop Hanna as chairman until hisresignation on November 22, 1934. On March 9, 1935 the front page of the Monitor read,“Responsibilities Become Too Heavy.”09 The Reverend Edward Hanna, then 74 years of age,retired because of, according to auxiliary bishop of San Francisco John I. Mitty, “the infirmitiesof advancing years.”° Secretary of Labor Frances Perkins, among many, sent a letter of regretupon the archbishop’s resignation from the NLB and retirement. Perkins expressed to Rev.Hanna, “The public service you have rendered helped thousands of people and was mosteffective. I want you to know of my sincere appreciation for your patriotic service.” Bishop JohnI. Mitty replaced Rev. Hanna in 1935 and wrote, ‘His great activity was not confined to Churchaffairs. He was vitally interested in civic matters and his own community as well as State andNation made frequent calls upon his services.”111

The archbishop’s retirement, the lead article of the March 9 1935 Monitor, contained nolisting of his contribution in the 1934 Strike in the section titled “important events in career ofdistinguished churchman,” yet it did appear in the chronology of his life upon his passing on July15 1944.112 Archbishop Hanna never wrote any memoirs of his experience on the NLB. Only hisrecord of benevolence toward the working class stood that might have influenced the board to

50

favor the ILA. The establishment of the labor relations committee capped the previous WEUproposal for joint control as a precaution for longshoremen, in addition to the granted increase inhourly and overtime wage. The additional improvements granted in the award, in wages, and inworking conditions resembled gains Rev. Hanna had hoped for from his propositions forindustrial justice influenced by Catholic doctrine. Nevertheless, the entire board functioned tofurther the ideals behind Presidential policy to strengthen the position of organized labor. YetRev. Hanna showed once again his method of adjusting awards to the demands of the times.However, unlike his previous decision during the prospering economy of San Francisco in the1920s, the Great Depression threatened the longshoremen’s right to an adequate subsistence, apoint that the archbishop supported vigorously. Therefore, as his final act of justice for theworkingman, the 1934 Waterfront Strike created the opportunity for Rev. Hanna to live up to hisreputation for fairness during a time when, depression stricken dockworkers needed assistancethe most.In conclusion, Rev. Edward Hanna’s benevolent work early in his career developed into amoderate support for organized labor that focused on an adequate living standard and denounced

radicalism. In the context of San Francisco in the 1920s, the transformed political and economicclimate influenced the archbishop’s fairness in his decision between labor and capital, whichcharacterized his method in labor arbitration to come. The 1922 wage arbitration boardestablished his reputation for impartiality and adapting to the needs of the circumstances of thetimes.

However, at the onset of the Great Depression, the Catholic Church viewed the 1920’s asa period of overindulgence and greed. Catholics focused on Papal doctrine as the depression hitworking class congregations. The Quadragesimo Anno, the plan to curtail the damaging effectsof lassiezfaire driven economics, called for the organization of labor to create an active role withgovernment and industry. The historiography of the American Catholic church in the 1930sargued that the resemblances between the Papal encyclical and Roosevelt’s New Deal appearedstrikingly similar. More importantly, the similarities between Pope Pius Xl’s pragmatic approachand FDR’s recovery plans brought the Catholic hierarchy into the fold of national depressionpolicy, and participation restructured the church as a wholly American institution.

Church supporters of Presidential action set the agenda for Catholic leaders. FDR’ sappointment of Archbishop Hanna to chair the NLB during the 1934 San Francisco WaterfrontStrike gave Hanna the opportunity to demonstrate not only the church leaders’ newest role inNRA participation, but also re-affirm his reputation as impartial arbiter and moderate laboradvocate. Because of Rev. Hanna’s previous experience, Bay Area newspapers underscored hisviews on labor based on Catholic doctrine, which overrode his capacity in matters as an agent ofthe federal government authorized to reach an agreement, and bring both sides to arbitration.

The President’s board did not perform effectively until both sides agreed to submit toarbitration. John Neyland and the conservative faction of the labor council proved the real forcesbehind the solution to end the stalemate. Moreover, the Labor Council made its own decisionregarding moves to end the general strike and push the ThA into arbitration. Nevertheless, Rev.Hanna and the board reassured justice for the dockworkers that testified in the NLB proceedings.ILA witnesses convinced the board that hiring and work conditions on the dock required direneeded reforms. As employer arguments to the contrary fell short, the later award revealed thatthe board favored the longshoremen. Even though Rev. Hanna and the board did not grant theunion full control of the hiring hall, their decision improved the workers situation on the dockdramatically.

51

Therefore, the board’s role became vital at the end of the conflict in mediating the

grievances. Archbishop Hanna proved once again his ability to address workers needs due to the

graveness of the times. His role contributed much more than just a materialization of the

Church’s cooperation with the federal recovery program. He also empirically advanced the goals

for the vocational association designed in the Quadragesimo Anno. The archbishop showed that

industry and labor proved capable of resolving differences, and in the case of the 1934 strike,

Rev. Hanna made sure that government also held up its end toward a mutual agreement for

improved industrial relations. Certainly, Archbishop Hanna’s role marked a notable event in

New Deal Catholic activism.

San Francisco Monitor, 13 March, 9 September 1933; Hanna file, Archdiocese of San Francisco Chancery

Archive; Richard Gribble, CSC, “A Rough Road to San Francisco: The Case of Edward Hanna, 1907-1915.”

Southern Ca1fomia Quarterly 78 (3) 1996; George Q. Flynn, American Catholics & the Roosevelt Presidency 1932-1936 (Lexington: The University of Kentucky Press, 196$); Lawrence DeSauliners, The Response in American

Catholic Periodicals to the Crisis of the Great Depression, 1 930-1935 (Lanham, New York, London: University

Press of America, 1984); David J. O’Brien, Catholics and Social Reform: The New Deal Years (New York: Oxford

University Press, 1968).2 Richard McNamara. “Archbishop Manna Rochesterian.” Rochester History 25(2) (April 1963): 9,13,14,18,20;

Richard Gribble. “A Rough Road to San Francisco: The Case of Edward Hanna 1917-1921: 238Richard Gribble, Catholicism and the San Francisco Labor Movement, 1896-1921. (San Francisco: Mellon

Research University Press, 1993), 125,136; Richard Gribble, “Edward Hanna and Labor Arbitration in San

Francisco 1916-1923.” Californians 9(3) (1991): 38.‘I Gribble, Catholicism and the San Francisco Labor Movement, 1896-1936, 125, 136; Gribble, “Edward Manna andLabor Arbitration in San Francisco 1916-1923.” 38; David F. Selvin, A Terrible Anger: The 1934 Waterfront andGeneral Strikes in San Francisco (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1996),Hanna file, quote found in “Archbishop Manna Upholds Cause of Union Labor,” San Francisco Bulletin, 5

September 1916.6 Gribble, Catholicism and the San Francisco Labor Movement 1896-1936,135. Gribble also uses Bulletin, 5

September 1916 source.Ibid. 132Ibid. 132, 138; Gribble, “Edward Manna and Labor Arbitration in San Francisco 1916-1923.” 39.9lionitor 30 June 1934.10 Gribble, Catholicism and the San Francisco Labor Movement 1896-1936, 1 19,148;Gribble, “Edward Manna and

Labor Arbitration in San Francisco 1916-1923.” 35,36; Lawrence DeSauliners, The Response in American Catholic

Periodicals to the Crisis of the Great Depression, 1930-1 935, 8,9.‘ Gribble, Catholicism and the San Francisco Labor Movement 1896-1936, 139, 140-41,145; Gribble, “Edward

Hanna and Labor Arbitration in San Francisco 19 16-1923.” 40.12 Gribble, Catholicism and the San Francisco Labor Movement 1896-1936, 145.13 Gribble, Catholicism and the San Francisco Labor Movement 1896-1936, 145.14 Gribble, “Edward Manna and Labor Arbitration in San Francisco 19 16-1923.” 40.15 Selvin, A Terrible Anger, 138.16 Benjamin Hunnicutt, “Monsignor John A Ryan and the Shorter Hours of Labor: A Forgotten Vision of ‘Genuin

e’

Progress.” Catholic Historical Review 69(3) (1983): 385,389.17 Ibid. 392‘ Lizabeth Cohn, Making a New Deal: Industrial Workers in Chicago, 1919-1 939, (Cambridge University Press,

1990), 61.‘9Monitor, 12 November 193220 Cohn, Making a New Deal: Industrial Workers in Chicago, 1919-1 939, 84.21 Lawrence DeSauliners, The Response in American Catholic Periodicals to the Crisis of the Great Depressi

on,

1930-1935, 8,9; Monitor, 30 June 1934; David I. O’Brien, Catholics and Social Reform: The New Deal Years,

47,52,53.Q. Flynn, American Catholics & the Roosevelt Presidency 1 932-1936, 90; Thid. 36,54

23 Ibid. 17

52

Ibid. 4925 Ibid. 3626 Ibid. 27,39,54,8727 David J. O’Brien, Catholics and Social Reform, 67, 69; see also National Catholic Wefare CouncilCorrespondence 1931-1936, for letters sent to administrative President Archbishop Edward I. Hanna on Catholicopinion pertaining to birth control legislation.28Monitor, 11 March 1933.29 David I. O’Bnen, Catholics and Social Reform, 49.° David J. O’Brien, Catholics and Social Reform, 100.‘ Monitor, 29 July 1933; George Q. Flynn, American Catholics & the Roosevelt Presidency 1932-1936, 9532Monitor 29 July 1933David J. O’Brien, Catholics and Social Reform, 63.David J. O’Brien, Catholics and Social Reform, 98.Ibid. 101,105-107

36 Correspondence file, Correspondence, General 1934-1944. Archdiocese of San Francisco Chancery Archive;Kevin Starr, Endangered Dreams: The Great Depression in Catfornia (Oxford New York: Oxford UniversityPress), 78.Selvin, A Terrible Anger, 22.Ibid. 45‘ Ibid. 6040 Selvin, A Terrible Anger, 53,54,88,129‘ Ibid. 6542 Ibid. 63Ibid. 83,111,124,125; see also, Arbitration Collection Institute of Industrial Relations University of California-

Berkeley, SIC 766: Water Transportation Longshoring, Waterfront Employers’ Union. Report of the NationalLongshoremen’s Board to the President of the U.S. February 8, 1935, 8. In this summery report to FDR, OscarCushing paraphrased Harry Bridges comments on the WEU joint control proposal, “The proposal of joint control isactually a means of establishing an employer-controlled hiring hail, which would be subject to all the evils of the oldmethod of hiring-discrimination, favoritism, blacklisting.”Selvin, A Terrible Anger, 92.Ibid. 93

46Thid 188Selvin, 74, 80, 28.Mike Quinn, The Big Strike (Olema: Olema Publishing Company, 1944), 144

49Monitor, 30 June 1934° Eustace L. Williams, “Introducing Archbishop Edward J. Manna, who helped bring peace to the Coast.” Today(August 4, 1934): 5. Found in NLB, Award & Recommendation File 1934 Archdiocese of San Francisco ChanceryArchive.51 William Issel, “Catholic Action on the Political and Cultural fronts: The Case of San Francisco Labor, 1932-195$” (Prepared for the Year 2000 Conference of the British Association for American Studies, University ofWales, Swansea, April 6-9, 2000).52 Gribble, Edward Hanna and Labor Arbitration in San Francisco 1916-1923: 37;Selvin, 139San Francisco Examiner, 27 June 1934San Francisco News, 28 June 1934Examiner, 29 June 1934

56 News, 28 June 1934Examiner, 29 June 1934Ibid.William Issel, “Catholic Action on the Political and Cultural fronts: The Case of San Francisco Labor, 1932-

1958.” Preparedfor the Year 2000 Conference of the British Association for American Studies, University of Wales,Swansea, April 6-9, 2000: 2.60Examiner, 29 June 193461 News, 28 June 193462Labor Clarion63 Selvin, 133.

53

Ibid. 118, 132,17265 Labor Clarion, 29 June 1934;Selvin, 101,139, 154,16866 Quinn, The Big Strike, 132.67Ibid 13168 Examiner 14 July 1934.69 Ibid.70Monitor, 21 July 1934.Ibid.

72 Selvin, A Terrible Anger, 207,208,209, 230-31;Quin, The Big Strike, 141,149,158.Labor Clarion, 27 July 1934.Quin, The Big Strike, 182.Arbitration Collection Institute of Industrial Relations University of California-Berkeley, SIC 766: Water

Transportation-Longshoreing, Waterfront Employers Union, Proceedings Before the National Longshoreman ‘sBoard (Box 18: Volume 1, August 8, 1934; Volume 2, August 10, 1934). San Francisco State University LaborArchives Research Center.76 Proceedings Before the National Longshoremen’s Board (Box 18: Volume 3, August 13, 1934), 175.Ibid. 175

78Ibid. 18079Ibid. 198, 199° Ibid. 20481 Ibid. 202, 206, 20782th1d 267Proceedings Before the National Longshoremen’s Board (Box 18: Volume 2, August 10, 1934), 78; Ibid. 82;

Labor Clarion, 2 february, 2 March, 25 May 1934; Selvin, 49, 60.Selvin, A Terrible Anger, 36, 37;

85 Proceedings Before the National Longshoremen’s Board (Box 18: Volume 2, August 10, 1934), 123.86i Before the National Longshoremen’s Board (Box 18: Volume 3, August 13, 1934; Volume 4, August14, 1934, 334; Volume 15, August30, 1934), 1131, 1132.87Proceedings Before the National Longshoremen’s Board (Box 18: Volume 4, August 14, 1934), 1073.88 Ibid.89 Proceedings Before the National Longshoremen’s Board (Box 18: Volume 15, August 31, 1934), 1132.

Before the National Longshoremen’s Board (Box 18: Volume 15, August 31, 1934)91 Proceedings Before the National Longshoremen’s Board (Box 18: Volume 5, August 15, 1934), 373,374,375,376.92 Proceedings Before the National Longshoremen’s Board (Box 18: Volume 22, September 12, 1934), 1810.Proceedings Before the National Longshoremen’s Board (Box 18: Volume 14, August 30, 1934), 321.

Before the National Longshoremen’s Board (Box 18: Volume 2, August 10, 1934), 26,27.95 Before the National Longshoremen’s Board (Box 18: Volume 15, August 31, 1934), 1135.

96 Selvin, A Terrible Anger, 53,54.Proceedings Before the National Longshoremen’s Board (Box 18: Volume 9, August 21, 1934), 654.Ibid. 662,663,664Proceedings Before the National Longshoremen’s Board (Box 18: Volume 12, August 24 1934), 882; Ibid. 889.

‘°‘ Before the National Longshoremen’s Board (Box 18: Volume 10, August 22, 1934), 708.101 Ibid. 709102 Arbitration Collection Citing SIC 766, Waterfront Employers’ Union/Int’l Longshoremen’s Ass’n, Dist 38,Before Nat’l Longshoremen’s Board, Arbitrators’ Award (Box 20: (766-1), October 12, 1934); San Francisco StateUniversity Labor Archives Research Center.103 Award (Box 20: (766-1), October 12, 1934)‘°“ Ibid.105 Correspondence file, Correspondence, General 1934-1 944.106 Selvin, A Terrible Anger, 217.107 Correspondence file, Correspondence, General 1934-1944. The article from the Recorder was clipped to a memosent to Rev. Hanna on October 15th, 1934.‘° Ibid.109 Monitor, 9 March 1935

54

110 Correspondence file, General Correspondence 1934-] 944.General Correspondence 1934-1944

112 Monitor 9 March 1935; Monitor, 15 July 1944.

55