¹ Hurvitz, Haggai, “The Meaning of Industrial Conflict in Some Ideologies of the Early 1920's: The AFL, Organized Employers and Herbert Hoover” (doctoral dissertation, Columbia University, 1971), 20Google Scholar; Zieger, Robert H., Republicans and Labor, 1919–1929 (Lexington, Ky., 1969), 1–9Google Scholar.

² Hoover used this phrase on November 16, 1920 in a presentation before the AFL Executive Council. “Industrial Waste Committee — AF of L Correspondence,” Pre-Commerce Papers, Herbert Hoover Presidential Library (HHPL). This document is unidentified as to authorship, but see Hurvitz, “The Meaning of Industrial Conflict,” 256–258 for convincing evidence of Hoover's authorship.

³ On Hoover and labor in general, see Scheinberg, Stephen J., “The Development of Corporation Labor Policy, 1900–1940” (doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin, 1966), esp. 140–151Google Scholar; Radosh, Ronald, “The Development of the Corporate Ideology of American Labor Leaders, 1914–1933” (doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin, 1967), esp. 81–94, 149–155, and 187–188Google Scholar; Eakins, David Walter, “The Development of Corporate Liberal Policy Research in the United States, 1885–1965” (doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin, 1966), 158–170Google Scholar; and Hurvitz, “The Meaning of Industrial Conflict,” passim. Scheinberg, Radosh, and Eakins were all students of Williams, William A., whose writings (e.g., The Contours of American History [Cleveland, 1961; page references to paperback edition, 1966], 415 and 424–432Google Scholar; Some Presidents: Wilson to Nixon [New York, 1972], 33–49Google Scholar) have stimulated widespread re-examination of Hoover. Wilson, Joan Hoff, Herbert Hoover: Forgotten Progressive (Boston, 1975Google Scholar) touches on Hoover and labor 33–34, and 94–98. See also Zieger, Robert H., “Labor, Progressivism, and Herbert Hoover in the 1920's,” Wisconsin Magazine of History, LVIII, No. 3 (Spring, 1975), 196–208Google Scholar and Republicans and Labor.

⁴ See Hurvitz, “The Meaning of Industrial Conflict,” for the best overall presentation of Hoover's ideas during this period. Providing a suggestive context into which to place Hoover's views are Forcey, Charles, The Crossroads of Liberalism: Croly, Weyl, Lippmann and the Progressive Era, 1900–1925 (New York, 1961Google Scholar; page references to paperback edition, 1967), 35–37, 83, 157–158, 166, 183, 190; and Gilbert, James, Designing the Industrial State: The Intellectual Pursuit of Collectivism in America, 1880–1940 (Chicago, 1972)Google Scholar, esp. ch. 4. See also Runfola, Ross Thomas, “Herbert C. Hoover as Secretary of Commerce, 1921–1923: Domestic Economic Planning in the Harding Years” (doctoral dissertation, State University of New York-Buffalo, 1973)Google Scholar and Metcalf, Evan B., “Secretary Hoover and the Emergence of Macroeconomic Management,” Business History Review, XLIX, No. 1 (Spring, 1975), 60–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The work of Hawley, Ellis W. (e.g., “Herbert Hoover, the Commerce Secretariat, and the Vision of an ‘Associative State,’ 1921–1928,” Journal of American History, LXI, No. 1 [June, 1974], 116–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar) is richly suggestive on the importance of Hoover's political economy.

⁵ Hoover, “Address at … American Institute of Mining and Metallurgical Engineers …,” November 16, 1919, in Addresses, Letters, Magazine Articles, Press Statements, etc. (item no. 25), HHPL.

⁶ Hoover, “Foreword,” to “America and the New Era,” by M. Friedman, February 4, 1920 (item no. 42A), HHPL.

⁷ Hoover address, “Economic, Social, and Industrial Problems Confronting the Nation …,” April, 1920 (item no. 55A), HHPL. New York Times, February 18, 1920.

⁸ Hoover address, April, 1920 (item no. 55A), HHPL. For other expressions along these lines, see also Hoover address before Boston Chamber of Commerce, March 24, 1920 (item no. 53), HHPL; Hoover testimony, May 14, 1920, in U.S., Congress, Senate, Committee on Education and Labor, Hearing … on the Report of the Industrial Conference, 66 Cong., 2 Sess., 1920, 25–42; and Hoover's remarks before AFL Executive Council, November 16, 1920, cited in note 2.

⁹ In addition to sources cited in notes 3, 4, and 18, see Wilson, Herbert Hoover, 33–43 and Best, Gary Dean, The Politics of American Individualism: Herbert Hoover in Transition, 1918–1921 (Westport, Conn., 1975), v–vi, and 91–107Google Scholar. A lucid account of the changing structure of the American factory system and attendant developments in employee relations in the progressive era is found in Nelson, Daniel, Managers and Workers: Origins of the New Factory System in the United States, 1880–1920 (Madison, 1975)Google Scholar. Nelson's, Unemployment Insurance: The American Experience, 1915–1935 (Madison, 1969), 22, 30, 36, 37, 38, 39, 75, 129Google Scholar, and passim examines an important aspect of the “New Emphasis” in employee relations and indicates Hoover's place in its development and articulation.

¹⁰ For Hoover's seminal role in the Conference and his authorship of its most significant items, see Hurvitz, “The Meaning of Industrial Conflict,” 174–187; Best, The Politics of American Individualism, 38–53; and Best, , “President Wilson's Second Industrial Conference, 1919–1920,” Labor History, XVI, No. 4 (Fall, 1975), 505–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹¹ President's Second Industrial Conference, Report of the Industrial Conference Called by the President [dated March 6, 1920], in U.S., Department of Labor, Annual Report for 1920 (Washington, 1921), 236–271Google Scholar. The words quoted appear on pp. 236–238. The phraseology of the Report and of Hoover's testimony before the Senate Committee on Labor and Education in its behalf closely parallels the language employed by the Whitley Committee in its famous 1917 report which made similar recommendations on the future of industrial relations in Great Britain. See Clegg, H. A., The System of Industrial Relations in Great Britain (Oxford, U.K., 1970), 185–186Google Scholar.

¹² The observations in these three paragraphs are drawn from an examination of the entire spectrum of Hoover's public career as it related to labor matters. See Reports of the Industrial Conference, 254–256; Best, The Politics of American Individualism, 45–47; and Hurvitz, “The Meaning of Industrial Conflict,” 174–187. The Second Industrial Conference generated a considerable amount of testimony, as well as many reports and working papers on the subject of employee representation and its relationship to trade unionism and collective bargaining. These materials are housed in the William B. Wilson Papers, Pennsylvania Historical Society, Philadelphia. Wilson was the chairman of the Conference, but Hoover as vice-chairman presided over most of the meetings held while these materials were developed. The scholar quoted is French, Carroll E. in The Shop Committee in the United States, Johns Hopkins Studies in Historical and Political Science, XLI (Baltimore, 1923), 53Google Scholar. Hoover's clearest expressions are in Herbert Hoover, “Colliers' Strike Cure — And its Critics,” October 25, 1920, reprint in Addresses, Letters, Magazine Articles, Press Statements, etc. (item no. 100), HHPL; and Hoover, Testimony, May 14, 1920, 25–42. See also Zieger, Republicans and Labor, passim.

¹³ For opposition among businessmen, see Hoover address before Boston Chamber of Commerce, cited in note 8, and Hurvitz, “The Meaning of Industrial Conflict,” 220–221. For labor's objections, ibid., 221–222; Taft, Philip A., The A.F. of L. in the Time of Gompers (New York, 1957), 400–401Google Scholar; Samuel Gompers' statement of March 19, 1920, quoted in Walling, William English, American Labor and American Democracy (2 vols. in 1; New York, 1926), II, 33Google Scholar. Hurvitz hails the Report as a major and innovative step toward public endorsement of unionism and seems perplexed by labor's rejection of its recommendations (Hurvitz, “The Meaning of Industrial Conflict,” 222–223).

¹⁴ Hoover address before Boston Chamber of Commerce, cited in note 8; Hoover testimony in Hearing … on the Report of the Industrial Conference, 33–39.

¹⁵ Ibid., 35–36, 38–39, 41.

¹⁶ Ibid., 36.

¹⁷ Ibid., 36.

¹⁸ There is an extensive literature on the engineers and their efforts to become established as a social factor. See Layton, Edwin T., The Revolt of the Engineers: Social Responsibility and the American Engineering Movement (Cleveland, 1971), esp. 190–211Google Scholar; Aitken, Hugh G. J., Taylorism at Watertown Arsenal: Scientific Management in Action 1908–1915 (Cambridge, Mass., 1960)Google Scholar; and Akin, William Ernest, “Technocracy and the American Dream: The Technocracy Movement, 1919–1936” (doctoral dissertation, University of Rochester, 1971), 19–20Google Scholar.

¹⁹ Hoover's remarks are in “Forward” to “America and the New Era,” cited in note 6. For the background of the FAES, see Layton, Revolt, 180–189. In 1923 Hoover remarked that engineers were uniquely suited for public service and were by definition men of high intelligence and calibre. “Through the nature of their calling,” he remarked, they stand “midway in the conflicts between labor and capital.” Hoover to Richard Humphrey, February 1, 1923. “FAES, 1922–1924,” Commerce Papers, HHPL. Cf. Hoover, Herbert, Principles of Mining: Valuation Organization and Administration (New York, 1909), 167Google Scholar.

²⁰ See the sources cited in notes 18 and 19 above. For Hoover's comments on his role as an employer of labor while running mines, see Principles of Mining, 162–163, and 167, as well as Hoover address before the Boston Chamber of Commerce, cited in note 8, wherein he declared that “in my own experience in industry, I have always found that a frank and friendly acceptance of the unions' agreements, while still maintaining the open shop, had led to constructive relationship.”

²¹ On Wallace, see his undated, untitled address (ca. early 1921). “FAES — Industrial Waste Committee. Labor,” Pre-Commerce Papers, HHPL. On the Waste in Industry survey, see Haber, Samuel, Efficiency and Uplift: Scientific Management in the Progressive Era, 1890–1920 (Chicago, 1964), 156–160Google Scholar; and Layton Revolt, 201–205. On the cooperation between Hoover's aides and laborites, see the considerable correspondence between Edward Eyre Hunt, Robert Wolf, and Florence C. Thorne throughout late 1920 and early 1921. These communications appear in various folders in the “FAES” group, Pre-Commerce Papers, HHPL. See also McKelvey, Jean Trepp, AFL Attitudes Toward Production, Cornell Studies in Industrial and Labor Relations, Vol. II (Ithaca, 1952), 69 and 117Google Scholar, and Nadworny, Milton J., Scientific Management and the Unions, 1900–1932 (Cambridge, Mass., 1955), 119–121Google Scholar.

²² Committee on the Elimination of Waste in Industry, Federated American Engineering Societies, Waste in Industry (New York, 1921), 8–9, 13, 16–17, 305–306, 308–317Google Scholar, and passim. Hoover's remarks occur on p. ix.

²³ New York Times, June 4, 1921, 7; Layton, Revolt, 195, 203–205; Nadworny, Scientific Management, 120–121.

²⁴ For examples of direct Hoover-Gompers contact during this period, see Gompers to Hoover, August 13, 1920; Christian A. Herter to Gompers, August 17, 1920; and Hoover to Gompers, October 23, 1920. All in “FAES. Industrial Waste Committee — Gompers,” Pre-Commerce Papers, HHPL, and “Conference in Office of President Gompers, Friday, May 27, 1921 on the Question of Wage Theory,” Office of the President Files, Samuel Gompers, Conferences, 1919–1922, Box 57, AFL Papers, State Historical Society of Wisconsin. This lengthy report delineates better than any published account the shrewd awareness of labor's self-interest that Gompers displayed in the AFL's association with the engineers during this period.

²⁵ Hoover remarks before AFL Executive Council, November 16, 1920, cited in note 2; Robert B. Wolf to E. E. Hunt, January 3, 1921. “FAES — AFL, 1920,” Pre-Commerce Papers, HHPL; Hurvitz, “Meaning of Industrial Conflict,” 245–250; Ching, Cyrus, Review and Reflection: A Half-Century of Labor Relations (New York, 1953), 27–28Google Scholar; Scheinberg, “The Development of Corporate Labor Policy,” 145–146.

²⁶ Hoover's remarks before AFL Executive Council, November 16, 1920, cited in note 2 above; Hoover to Gompers, October 23, 1920, HHPL.

²⁷ Gompers to Hoover, November 30, 1920, “FAES: Industrial Waste Committee — Gompers,” Pre-Commerce Papers, HHPL.

²⁸ Edward E. Hunt to Frank Morrison, November 29, 1920; Morrison to Hunt, December 2, 1920; Hunt to Morrison, December 8, 1920. “Industrial Waste Committee — AF of L Correspondence,” ibid.

²⁹ McKelvey, AFL Attitudes, 85, 89; Morris, James O., Conflict Within the AFL: A Study of Craft Versus Industrial Unionism (Ithaca, 1958), 71Google Scholar. McKelvey (69) emphasizes that this association between laborites and engineers reached its peak just as the massive open shop campaign began making headway. See also note 24 above.

³⁰ There was an extensive and rather cryptic correspondence between Hunt, Robert Wolf, and Florence C. Thome, Gompers' administrative assistant, from November 1920 to March 1921. See e.g., Florence C. Thome to Hunt, December 29, 1920. “Industrial Waste Committee: AFL, 1920,” Pre-Commerce Papers, HHPL; Thorne to Wolf, date missing but ca. January 1921. “Industrial Waste Committee: AFL, 1921,” ibid.; Wolf to Hunt, January 3, 1921. “Industrial Waste Committee: AFL-1920,” ibid.; exchange between Wolf and Hunt, January 8, 10, 1921. “Industrial Waste Committee: AFL, 1921,” ibid., and many other communications in these and related folders.

³¹ Hunt to Thome, March 2, 1921. “Industrial Waste Committee: E. E. Hunt,” ibid.

³² For some of the recent literature on Hoover's overall policies in the 1920s see Wilson, Herbert Hoover, 283–300, and the articles by Metcalf and Hawley cited in note 4 above. Akin, “Technocracy and the American Dream,” 111, cites figures on productivity.

³³ Zieger, Republicans and Labor, 9, 57–60, 69, and 109–110; Zieger, Robert H., “The Career of James J. Davis,” Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, XCVIII, No. 1 (January, 1974), 74–84Google Scholar; Dudley, John Bruce, “James J. Davis: Secretary of Labor under Three Presidents, 1921–1930” (doctoral dissertation, Ball State University, 1972Google Scholar).

³⁴ Hoover, Herbert C., The Memoirs of Herbert Hoover: The Cabinet and the Presidency (New York, 1952), 40–258Google Scholar, passim. Hoover addresses: “Reducing the Cost of Distribution,” January 14—15, 1925; “Elimination of Industrial Waste in its Relation to Labor,” April 11, 1925; and “The Public Relations of Advertising,” May 11, 1925. Photoduplicated copies from HHPL.

³⁵ Wolman, Leo in Conference on Unemployment, Recent Economic Changes in the United States: Report of the Committee on Recent Economic Changes of the President's Conference on Unemployment (2 vols.; New York, 1929), IGoogle Scholar, ch. 1, and II, ch. 6; Leo Wolman and Gustav Peck, “Labor Groups in the Social Structure,” in Research Committee on Recent Social Trends, Recent Social Trends in the United States: Report of the President's Research Committee on Recent Social Trends (2 vols.; New York, 1933), I, 801–856Google Scholar; Robert, S. and Lynd, Helen Merrell, Middletown: A Study in Contemporary American Culture (New York, 1929), 64–65, 81–82Google Scholar. The Lynds' brilliant study, however, depicts the life of working class people in Middletown as declining in occupational mobility, job satisfaction, and neighborhood comradeship.

³⁶ Hoover's remarks are reprinted in Memoirs, Cabinet and Presidency, 183–184; Wolman, in Recent Economic Changes, I, 13–78Google Scholar, esp. 59–62.

³⁷ Among many speeches and writings reflecting these themes, see, e.g., “Reduction of Waste in Government …,” May 21, 1925; “State Versus Federal Regulation in the Transformation of the Power Industry …,” June 17, 1925; “Commercial Aviation,” September 23, 1925; “Government Ownership,” September 29, 1925; and “Why the Public Interest Requires State Rather than Federal Regulation …,” October 14, 1925. Photoduplicated copies from HHPL. See also Memoirs, Cabinet and Presidency, passim., and Hoover, Herbert, American Individualism (Garden City, N.Y., 1922)Google Scholar, as well as Zieger, Republicans and Labor, 60–63. For a trenchant contemporary critique of Hoover's brand of localism, see Walling, , American Labor and American Democracy, I, 210Google Scholar.

³⁸ On the effort against unemployment, see Grin, Carolyn, “The Unemployment Conference of 1921: An Experiment in National Cooperative Planning,” Mid-America, LV, No. 2 (April, 1973), 83–107Google Scholar, and Zieger, Republicans and Labor, 88–97. The words quoted appear respectively in President's Conference on Unemployment, Report (Washington, 1921), 28Google Scholar, and Hoover address of September 17, 1928, in Hoover, , The New Day: Campaign Speeches of Herbert Hoover (Stanford, Cal., 1928), 66–67Google Scholar.

³⁹ Zieger, Republicans and Labor, 97–108; Hoover, Memoirs, Cabinet and Presidency, 103–105; Hill, Charles, “Fighting the Twelve-Hour Day in the American Steel Industry,” Labor History, XV, No. 1 (Winter, 1974), 19–35Google Scholar.

⁴⁰ Zieger, Republicans and Labor, 107–108; Brody, David, Steelworkers in America: The Nonunion Era (Cambridge, Mass., 1960), 274Google Scholar; Taylor, Paul S., Mexican Labor in the United States, University of California Publications in Economics, Vol. VII, 1931–1932 (2 vols.; Berkeley, 1932), II, 34–39Google Scholar.

⁴¹ The sources cited in footnotes 2, 5, 6, 7, and 8 above, together with Hurvitz, “The Meaning of Industrial Conflict,” 172 and passim, reveal the central importance of representation in Hoover's postwar utterances.

⁴² The best account of welfare capitalism is Bernstein, Irving, The Lean Years: A History of the American Worker, 1920–1933 (Boston, 1960), 157–189Google Scholar. See also Scheinberg, “The Development of Corporation Labor Policy,” chs. 5–6; Brody, David, “The Rise and Decline of Welfare Capitalism,” in Braeman, John, Bremner, Robert H., and Brody, David, eds., Change and Continuity in Twentieth Century America: The 1920's (Columbus, Ohio, 1968), 146–178Google Scholar; Hicks, Clarence J., My Life in Industrial Relations: Fifty Years in the Growth of a Profession (New York, 1941), 41–84Google Scholar; and Cyrus Ching, Review and Reflection, 25–31.

⁴³ Hurvitz, “The Meaning of Industrial Conflict,” ch. 2; McKelvey, AFL Attitudes, 25–45; Walling, , American Labor and American Democracy, II, 41–47, 82–90Google Scholar.

⁴⁴ In addition to the works by Brody and Bernstein cited above, see Ozanne, Robert, A Century of Labor-Management Relations at McCormick and International Harvester (Madison, Wisc., 1967)Google Scholar, ch. 7. A defense of employee representation is found in Hicks, My Life in Industrial Relations. See also French, The Shop Committee in the United States, for a scholarly contemporary account that treats employee representation as a valid, if flawed, enterprise. For indications of Hoover's interest in bringing labor leaders and progressive corporate executives together, see Ching, Review and Reflection, 27–28; Radosh, “Corporate Ideology,” 145–155, 157, and 204; Morris, Conflict Within the AFL, 68–71; Hoover to William Green, November 11, 1925. “AFL — William Green,” Department of Commerce, Official Files, HHPL.

⁴⁵ McKelvey, AFL Attitudes, 45–61, 87–98; Bernstein, Lean Years, ch. 2.

⁴⁶ Various forms of employee representation are discussed in Derber, Milton, The American Idea of Industrial Democracy, 1865–1965 (Urbana, Ill., 1970), 219–263Google Scholar, and in Gilbert, Designing the Industrial State, ch. 4. The apparent success and popularity of these programs are noted in French, The Shop Committee, 92–94; McKelvey, AFL Attitudes, 52–61; and Brody, “The Rise and Decline of Welfare Capitalism,” 162–165.

⁴⁷ Shop committee advocates denied that their intent was to destroy or curtail unionism; indeed, some saw themselves as providing representation to workers ignored by the bona fide labor movement. See, e.g., Hicks, My Life in Industrial Relations, 78–79. Evidence of the anti-union intent and impact of the great majority of nonunion employee representation plans, however, is overwhelming. See the works by Brody, Bernstein, McKelvey, and Ozanne cited above, especially the last-named, which is based on the records of works councils at various International Harvester plants. For the AFL position, see Gompers' statement of March 19, 1920, quoted in Walling, , American Labor and American Democracy, II, 33Google Scholar, and McKelvey, AFL Attitudes, 41–43, 88–89.

⁴⁸ McKelvey and Brody, cited above, provide the best evidence for the real challenge that representation plan posed for the AFL. For a brilliant extension of this point into the 1930s, see Brody, David, “The Expansion of the Labor Movement: Institutional Sources of Stimulus and Restraint,” in Ambrose, Stephen E., ed., Institutions in Modern America: Innovation in Structure and Process (Baltimore, 1967), 11–36Google Scholar. Hicks' remark is in My Life in Industrial Relations, 82.

⁴⁹ The quotation is from French, The Shop Committee, 93. See also Derber, The American Idea of Industrial Democracy, 227–229; Wolman, Leo, “Industrial Relations,” in Seligman, Edwin R. A. and Johnson, Alvin, eds., Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences (15 vols.; New York, 1932), VII, 715–716Google Scholar; William Leiserson, “Contributions of Personnel Management to Improved Labor Relations,” in Wertheim Fellowship Publications, Wertheim Lectures on Industrial Relations (Cambridge, Mass., 1929)Google Scholar, ch. 5; and Brody, “The Expansion of the Labor Movement,” 11–12.

⁵⁰ Zieger, Republicans and Labor, 110, 120, 129–130, 132–133, 137, 138, 143, 217, 227–234, 236–247, and passim.

⁵¹ On Hoover's continuing influence among unionists, see, e.g., “The Road to Industrial Democracy,” American Federationist, XXXI, No. 6 (June, 1924), 482Google Scholar; Walling, , American Labor and American Democracy, II, 32–33, 41, 91, 93, 113Google Scholar; and Radosh, “Corporate Ideology,” 145–247, passim.

⁵² Hoover, Theodore Jesse, The Economics of Mining (Non-Ferrous Metals) (Stanford, Cal., 1932), 460–461Google Scholar. On Wolman, see Arch W. Shaw to Hoover, July 29, 1930. “Unemployment Advisory Committee — May–July, 1930,” Presidential Papers, Subject File, HHPL, and Wolman's writings mentioned in footnotes 35, 49, and 62. On Barnett, see Brody, “The Expansion of the Labor Movement,” 11, and L. W. Wallace to Hunt, December 24, 1920. “FAES — Industrial Waste Committee. Wallace, L. W.,” Pre-Commerce Papers, HHPL.

⁵³ Organized labor, after all, did not achieve massive organization until it secured direct federal legislative support in the 1930s. Espousal of such legislation as Section 7(a) of the NRA or the Wagner Act was simply beyond the pale of Hoover's voluntaristic system, although it took this legislation to make possible the kind of free and fair choice that Hoover had urged after World War I.

⁵⁴ See Walling, , American Labor and American Democracy, II, 41, 93, 94, and 116Google Scholar.

⁵⁵ Hoover to Rockefeller, January 10, 1920. “Rockefeller,” Pre-Commerce Personal Papers, HHPL; summary of Mackenzie King's remarks enclosed in Stanley King to Mr. Knese, private secretary to Herbert Hoover, March 10, 1920. “Second Industrial Conference — General,” Pre-Commerce Papers, ibid.; New York Times, March 21, 1920. On International Harvester's reputation, see French, The Shop Committee, 41. For the Special Conference Committee, see Ozanne, A Century of Labor-Management Relations, 156–161, and Scheinberg, “The Development of Corporation Labor Policy,” 152–156. On Legge, who served as a sub-cabinet officer in Hoover's presidential administration, see Ozanne, 137, 138–139, and Hoover, Memoirs, Cabinet and Presidency, 103, 220, 255, and 327, as well as Hicks, My Life in Industrial Relations, 44.

⁵⁶ The quotations in this paragraph are drawn from Hoover's address, “Elimination of Waste in its Relation to Labor,” April 11, 1925, photoduplicated copy from HHPL. See Walling's, sharp attack on these views in American Labor and American Democracy, II, 21–23Google Scholar.

⁵⁷ Hoover address, November 19, 1920. “Federated American Engineering Societies. 1921,” Commerce Papers, HHPL.

⁵⁸ Bernstein, Lean Years ch. 1; Zieger, Republicans and Labor, ch. 11; Lynd and Lynd, Middletown, 53–82.

⁵⁹ Zieger, Republicans and Labor, 234–256; Bernstein, Lean Years, 1–43, 115–117.

⁶⁰ For the work and report of the Coal Commission, see Zieger, Republicans and Labor, 218–227. Since 1969, I have discovered a larger role for Hoover in the establishment and deliberations of the Commission, based on material in “Coal: USCC,” 1922 and 1923, Commerce Papers, HHPL. For the publications stemming from the President's Conference on Unemployment, see Heaton, Herbert, Edwin F. Gay: A Scholar in Action (Cambridge, Mass., 1952)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and “Foreword,” in Conference on Unemployment, Recent Economic Changes, I.

⁶¹ Karl, Barry D., “Presidential Planning and Social Science Research: Mr. Hoover's Experts,” Perspectives in American History, III (1969), 347–409Google Scholar; Research Committee on Recent Social Trends, Recent Social Trends in the United States, II, 825–829Google Scholar.

⁶² Wolman and Peck, “Labor Groups in the Social Structure,” in ibid., 843.