THE GIFT OF U>..::^....ui.:ijW .SZZ.%.L)^ l-S..ls.4.o.^... 070 665 009 B Cornell University S Library The original of this bool< is in the Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924070665009 NATIOIN^AL AKBITRATIOX BII.L. HEARINGS SiCOMMITTEE Of THE COMMim ON LIBOR HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, MLAJRCII le, 30, ^^VJPJiEL e, 13, 1904. SUBCOMMITTEE NO. 1, FIFTY-EIGHTH CONGRESS. Edward B. Vreeland, N. Y., Chairman. David J. Foster, Vt. John" \V. Maddox, H-a. James P. Conner, Iowa. William Hughes, K. J. WASHINGTON: GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE. 1904. MEMBERS OF COMMITTEE ON LABOR, FIFTY-EIGHTH CONGRESS. JOHN J. GARDNER, N. J., Chairman. Richard Bartholdt, Mo. Herman P. Goebel, Ohio. Samuel W. McCall, Mass. Ben F. Caldwell, 111. Edwaed B. Vbeeland, N. Y. George G. Gilbert, Ivy. David J. Poster, Vt. John W. Maddox, Ga. James P. Conner, Iowa. William Randolph Hearst, N. Y. B. F. Spalding, N. Dak. William Hughes, N. J. John G. Shreve, Clerk. Washington, D. C, March 16, 1901^. The subcommitte met at 10.30 o'clock a. m. Present: Representativ^es Vreeland (chairman), Foster, Connor, and Hughes. The Chairman. Mr. Whitney, we will be glad to hear you now. STATEMENT OF FRED. B.WHITNEY, CLERK OF HOUSE COMMITTEE ON NAVAL AFFAIRS. Mr. Whitney. Mr. Chairman, I wish to appear before you in favor of the bill H. R. 9491, a bill to create a national arbitration tribunal and to define the duties and powers thereof. bird's-eye view of bill. I will give you a bird's-eye view of the bill. The bill creates a national arbitration tribunal of six members, appointed bj' the Presi- dent, to be free from direct or indirect pecuniary interest in matters arbitrated, to sit at Washington or elsewnere, as expedient, and arbi- trate controversies concerning wages, hours of labor, or conditions of employment involving any commerce with foreign nations among States or Territories of United States when either party to the contro- versy files a petition of claims and demands, requesting investigation and agreeing to abide by decisions on merits. The tribunal transmits petition to other party requesting an answer thereto, and if refused, petition of claims is made public. If answered, the tribunal determines controversy on merits by definite affirmative or negative decision. If parties accept decision, the record is not made public unless both par- ties consent. If either party neglects or refuses to abide by agree- ments, all proceeding are made public. TRIBUNAL MAY REQUEST BUT NOT COMPEL ARBITRATION. The tribunal may request but not compel parties to controversy to arbitrate. During arbitration both parties assume former relations. Public opinion is the only source of jurisdiction and enforcement of an arbitration of controversy on merits under this bill. I would like to ask here that the entire bill maj^ be incorporated in the report of this hearing, so that my remarks may be clearly under- stood. The Chairman. That will be done. 3 4 NATIONAL AEBITRATION BILL. [H. E. 9491, Fifty-eighth Congress, second session.] A BILL to create a national arbitration tribunal and to define the duties and powers thereof. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That there shall be created a national arbitration tribunal, to consist of six members, one of whom as member ex officio shall be the Secretary of Commerce and Labor, and the other members thereof shall be appointed by the Presi- dent, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. The members of the tribu- nal first appointed under this act shall continue in office for the terms of two, three, four, five, and six years, respectively, from the first day of July, anno Domini nine- teen hundred and four, the term of each to be designated by the President; but their successors shall be appointed for terms of six years, except that any person chosen to fill a vacancy shall be appointed by the President only for the unexpired term of the member whom he shall succeed. Any member of the tribunal may be removed by the President for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office. No vacancy in the tribunal shall impair the right of the remaining members thereof to exercise all the powers of the tribunal as conferred by this act: Provided, That at least three of the appointive members of said tribunal shall constitute a quorum necessary for the transaction of business. The Secretary of Commerce and Labor, who shall be a member ex officio of the tribunal, shall have the same powers and perform the same duties as the other members of the tribunal, but shall not have the power to cast a vote. Each member of the tribunal, other than the Secretary of Commerce and Labor, appointed in accordance with the provisions of this act, shall receive an annual salary of eight thousand dollars. Sec. 2. That the tribunal shall without delay, after the appointment of its mem- bers, organize by electing a president and a vice-president from among its members. Said tribunal shall employ a secretary, at a. salary of four thousand dollars per annum, and such clerks and other employees for both temporary and permanent service as may be necessary, and such secretary, clerks, and employees shall perform such duties as said tribunal shall direct; and said tribunal shall have the power to discharge such persons so employed as it may deem expedient. Each of the mem- bers of the tribunal and its secretary shall take an oath, before a justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, to support the Constitution of the United States, and to honestly, fairly, and faithfully perform his duties as such officer. No member of the tribunal and no employee or agent of said tribunal shall accept, in addition to his salary, any perquisite or gratuity of any kind whatsoever from any corporation, association, partnership, or individual in any way interested in any matter or thing pending or about to be brought before the tribunal in accordance with the provisions of this act. The accepting of such perquisite or gratuity by any of the persons mentioned from any corporation, association, partnersliip, or individ- ual shall be deemed a misdemeanor, and the person guilty of such accepting shall be punished by a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, or by imprisonment for not more than two years, or both, in the discretion of the court having jurisdiction of the offense; Provided, however. That no member of said tribunal shall take part in the consideration or determination of any controversy or petition in which he has any direct or indirect pecuniary interest, or when he has any such interest in either of the parties thereto. And in case that any member of the tribunal shall be so disqualified in any particular case, the president of the United States shall appoint some disinterested person to take the place of such member for the particular case in question, and such temporary appointee shall be paid at the same rate during his term of service as are the members of the tribunal, and his expenses shall be simi- larly paid. The tribunal shall prepare and adopt an official seal, which, when approved by the President of the United States, shall be the seal of the tribunal. The regular and permanent place of meeting of the tribunal shall be the city of Washington, in the District of Columbia; but the tribunal may hold its meetings elsewhere in the United States, temporarily, when it may deem it expedient so to do. There shall be assigned to the tribunal by the Secretary of Commerce and Labor suitable rooms, vaults, furniture, and fixtures, with the necessary fuel, lights, and other proper conveniences for the transaction of the business of the tribunal. Sec. 3. That whenever there shall arise a controversy within the United States concerning wages, hours of labor, or conditions of employment between employer or employers, being an individual, partnership, association, corporation, or other com- bination, and his, their, or its employees, or any association or combination of such employees, in which controversy a strike or lockout is threatened or exists, and in which controversy there is involved any commerce with foreign nations, or among NATIONAL ABBITKATION BILL. 5 the several States, or with the Indian tribes, or when such controversy arises witliin any of the Territories of the United States or the District of Columbia, it shall be coni])etent and lawful for either party to such controversy to present to the tribunal a petition setting forth plainly and fully the claims and demands of said party in the particular case in question, which petition shall be made on a blank form in accordance with rules which shall be made in pursuance of this act by said tribunal, which forms shall, on application being made therefor by either party, be furnished to the same, without expense, by the tribunal; and such petition shall be duly sworn to by the party complaining, in accordance with the rules made in pursuance of this act. The peti- tion, in addition to setting forth plainly and fully its said claims and demands, shall in substance be a request to the tribunal to investigate all matters involved therein, and to render a decision on the merits of the said claims and demands, in accordance with the provisions of this act; and said petition shall express also a full agreement, in suchform as shall be prescribed by said rules, on the part of the parties to said agreement to accept and abide by the decision of said tribunal as to the matters involved in said petition, and (o accept said decisionasafinal and bindinga ward upon the parties thereto, and to accept and submit to all the powers and authority of said tribunal as expressed in this act, and to all the rules and regulations made in pursuance thereof. And the tri- bunal may require that the terms of submission to such arbitration shall include an agreementas to the length of time for which the award of the tribunal shall remain in force: And provided, That the tribunal, in its discretion, deems the petition and subject-matter involved therein to be such as to warrant the exercise of its functions in relation thereto, it shall then be the duty of the tribunal, within a reasonable time after it shall have received the petition, to transmit, in such manner as may be prescribed by the rules of the tribunal, a true copy of the same to the other party to the controversy, requesting said other party to make a sworn answer thereto within a number of days, to be determined by the rules of the tribunal, and if said other party shall neglect or refuse to make said answer within such number of days and to submit the matters in controversy to the arbitration of the said tribunal in the form and manner above described, and to agree in such form and manner to accept and abide by the decision of the tribunal as to the matters involved in the said petition, the petition shall be made known to the public by the tribunal as provided hereinafter: Provided, however, That said tribunal shall have the power to correct said petition in such manner as to secure a clear and definite presentation of the case involved without, however, changing the substance of said petition. Sec. 4. That if said other party, as named and described in the foregoing section, shall make a complete and full sworn answer to the petition therein provided for and shall so submit in such manner and form said controversy to the arbitration of the Tribunal and shall so agree to accept and abide by the decision of the tribunal as to the matters involved in the said petition and answer, then the tribunal shall with- out delay proceed in accordance with the provisions of this act and the rules there- under which it shall hereafter adopt to investigate privately (unless both parties con- sent to a public investigation) the matters and things involved in the said contro- versy, determine the merits of the same on the basis of right and equity, and render its decision thereon, which decision shall be definitely and distinctively an affirma- tive or negative decision on each of the claims of both parties to the controversy, respectively : Provided, however. That said tribunal, of its own motion, may also make additional findings and recommendations for the purpose of adjusting such controversy. And if the parties to the controversy shall accept the decision of the tribunal thereon rendered, and act in accordance therewith, then the petition, the answer, the testimony, and the entire record of the tribunal in relation to the controversy shall be held and kept private forever and shall not be made public by the tribunal without the consent of both parties to the arbitration; and such consent shall be expressed to the tribunal in accordance with the rules which it shall hereafter adopt. If such consent is so expressed, then the petition, the answer, and so much of the testimony and the record of the proceedings of the tribunal in relation to the controversy as the tribunal shall deem best shall be made public as hereinafter provided. If one of the parties to the controversy having agreed to accept the decision of the tribunal and to act in accordance therewith neglects or re- fuses so to act, the petition, the answer, and so much of the testimony and of the record of the proceedings of the tribunal in relation to the controversy as the tribunal shall deem best shall be made public as provided hereinafter: Provided, lioirerer, That the approval of the consenting party to such publication shall be expressed to the tribunal in accordance with the rules which it shall hereafter adopt: And provided also, That such consenting party acts in accordance with the decision, or in good faith fendeavors or offers so to do. If both of the parties to the contro- 6 KATIONAL AEBITBATION BILL. versy, having agreed to accept the decision of the tribunal and act in accordance therewith, neglect or refnse so to act, the petition, the answer, and so much of the testimony of and of the record of the proceedings of the tribunal in relation to the controversy as the tribunal shall deem best shall be made public as provided here- inafter. Each of the parties to the controversy shall have the right, at any time while the tribunal is investigating the matters and things involved in the same and before its decision is finally announced, to modify or otherwise amend (subject to the rules of said tribunal) any of its claims theretofore presented to the tribunal; and thereupon such proceedings shall be had as may be provided for by the rules of the tribunal. Sec. 5. That whenever it shall appear to the tribunal that there exists in the United States a controversy concerning wages, hours of labor, or conditions of employment between an employer or employers, being an individual, partnership, association, corporation, or other combination, and his or their employees, or any association or combination of his or their employees, in which controversy a strike or lockout is threatened or exists, and in which controversy there is involved any commerce with foreign nations, or among the several States, or with the Indian tribes, or when such controversy arises within any of the Territories of the United States or the District of Columbia, it shall be competent and lawful for the tribunal to request both of the said parties to such controversy to submit in writing their respective claims and demands to arbitration and accept and abide by the decision of the tribunal as to the matters involved in the said controversy in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this act and with the rules made thereunder, which decision shall be definitely and distinctly an affirmative or negative decision on each of the claims of both parties to the contro- versy, respectively: Provided, however, That said tribunal, of its own action, may also make additional findings and recommendations for the purpose of adjusting such con- troversy. The said tribunal shall keep a record of all requests so made, and in the event of neither of the said parties replying and acceding to a request so made, a record of such fact shall be made and kept and published in the manner provided in section seven of this act. In the event of but one of the said parties replying and acceding to a request so made, the same action shall be taken by said tribunal as is provided for similar cases in section three and four of this act: Provided, however, That in all cases under this act if any party against whom a petition is brought or to whom such request of the tribunal as provided in this section is made believes that the contro- versy is one which is not within the jurisdiction of the tribunal, or one which for any reason the tribunal should not take cognizance of, such party may first present a preliminary answer setting forth such belief and the facts upon which it is based, ■which preliminary answer shall be considered by the tribunal, and said tribunal shall then take such further action in view thereof and under the provisions of this act as to the dismissal of further consideration of the case as the tribunal shall deem just and equitable. Sec. 6. That during the pendency before the tribunal of any petition and answer thereto or claims and demands submitted in accordance with the provisions of section five of this act the parties having made such petition and answer, respectively, or having so submitted such claims and demands, shall refrain from ordering or partici- pating in any strike or lockout, and shall resume and continue their former relations with each other as though no controversy existed between the said parties. If at any timeduring the pendency before the tribunal of any petition and answer thereto, or claims and demands submitted in accordance with the provisions of section five of this act, one of the said parties shall refuse or neglect to refrain from ordering or participating in any strike or lockout, and shall refuse or neglect to resume such former relations with the other party as though no controversy existed between the said parties, then the proceedings of the tribunal in relation to the controversy shall be terminated, and thereupon the petition, the answer, and as much of the testimony and of the record of the proceedings of the tribunal in relation to the controversy as the tribunal shall deem best shall be made public as provided herein- after: Provided, however. That the approval of the consenting party to their being so made public shall be expressed to the tribunal in accordance with the rules which it shall hereafter adopt: And provided further. That if, in the opinion of the tribunal, either party shall use any of the provisions of this section for the purpose of unjustly maintaining a given condition of affairs through delay, the said tribunal may, in its discretion, exempt the other party to said controversy from the operations of this section. If at any time during the pendency before the tribunal of any peti- tion and answer thereto, or of claims and demands submitted in accordance with the provisions of section five of this act, both of said parties shall so refuse or neglect to refrain from ordering, commencing, or participating in any such strike or lockout, all the proceedings of the tribunal in relation to the controversy shall be terminated; NATIONAL ARBITRATION BILL. I and thereupon the petition, the answer, and so much of the testimony and of the record of the proceedings of the tribunal in relation to the controversy as the tri- bunal sliall deem best, shall be made public as provided hereinafter. Sec. 7. That the tribunal sliall prepare and publish periodically, as it may deter- mine, a bulletin for public circulation, in which shall appear the record of all its decisions as made from time to time and all sworn petitions hereinbefore provided for and duly presented to the tribunal to which no answers shall have been made in accordance with the provisions of this act, and such communications, written corre- spondence, papers, and documents relating to the subject-matter of said last-named petitions, as the tribunal in its discretion shall determine, and all requests made by the tribunal in accordance with the provisions of section five of this act, and also the petitions, answers, and so much of the testimony and of the records of proceedings as the tribunal shall deem best, and the publication of which is authorized under the provisions of sections four and five of this act. Sec. 8. That the parties to a controversy shall be entitled to be represented before the tribunal in such manner as shall liereatter be determined by the tribunal in such rules of procedure as it may adopt. The decision of the tribunal on any con- troversy shall relate to the controversy as it existed on the date of the filing of the petitions, and shall be operative as of that date: Provided, That if said tribunal shall find that the conditions involved in the controversy have materially changed subse- quent to the filing of the jietition, said tribunal may modify its decision so that said decision, when rendered, shall, in equity and justice, be in accordance with such change in conditions. Sec. 9. That the tribunal or any one member thereof shall have power to adminis- ter oaths or affirmations and to sign subpoenas, and for the purposes of this act said tribunal shall have power to require by subpoena the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production of all books, papers, tariffs, contracts, agreements, and documents relating to any matter under investigation; such attendance of witnesses and the production of such documentary evidence as may be required from any place in the United States at any designated place of hearing. And in case of disobedience to the subprena the tribunal may invoke the aid of any court of the United States in requiring such attendance and testimony of witnesses and such production of books, papers, tariffs, contracts, and ag;reements. Any circuit court of the United States within the jurisdiction of which such inquiry is carried on may, in case of contu- macy or refusal to obey a subpcena issued subject to the provisions of this act to any person, issue an order requiring such person to appear before said tribunal and pro- duce books and papers if so ordered, and give evidence touching the matter in que^- tion, and any failure to obey such order of the court may be punished by sucli court as a contempt thereof. No person shall be excused from attending and testifying, or from producing books, papers, tariffs, contracts, agreements, and documents before the tribunal or in obedience to the subpoena of the same, whether such subpoena be signed or issued by one or more members of the tribunal, on the ground or for the reason that the testimony or evidence, documentary or otherwise, required of him may tend to criminate him or subject him to a penalty or forfeiture. But no person shall be prosecuted or subjected to any penalty or forfeiture for or on account of any transaction, matter, or thing concerning which he may testify, or produce evidence, documentary or otherwise, before said tribunal or in obedience to its subpoena or thesubpoenaof any one of the members thereof, or in any case or proceeding: Provided further, That no person so testifying shall be exempt from prosecution and punish- ment for the perjury committed in so testifying. The witnesses summoned before the tribunal shall be paid the same fees and mileage as are paid to witnesses in the courts of the United States. Upon the request of the tribunal it shall be the duty of any district attorney of the United States to whom said tribunal may apply to institute in the proper court and to prosecute, under the direction of the Attorney-General of the United States, all necessary proceedings for the enforcement of the provisions of this section, and for the punishment of all violations thereof, and the costs and expenses of such prosecutions shall be paid out of the appropriations for the expenses of the courts of the United States. The testimony of any witness may be taken, at the instance of a party in any pro- ceeding or investigation pending before the tribunal, by deposition at any time after a cause or proceeding is at issue on petition and answer. The tribunal may also order testimony to be taken by deposition in any proceeding or investigation pending before it at any stage of such proceeding or investigation. Such depositions may be taken befo.e any judge of any court of the United States, or any commissioner of a circuit or any clerk of a district or circuit court, or any chancellor, justice, or judge of a supreme or superior court, mayor or chief magistrate of a city, judge of a county O NATIONAL ARBITRATION BILL. court or court of common pleas of any of the United States, or any notary public, not being of counsel or attorney to either of the parties nor interested in the event of the proceeding or investigation. Reasonable notice must first be given in writing by the party of his attorney of record, which notice shall state the name of the witness and the time and place of the taking of his deposition. Any person may be com- pelled to appear and depose and to produce documentary evidence in the same man- ner as witnesses may be compelled to appear and testify and produce documentary evidence before the tribunal as hereinbefore provided. Every person deposing as herein provided shall be cautioned and sworn (or affirm, if he so request) to testify the whole truth, and shall be carefully examined. His testimony shal 1 be reduced to writing by the officer taking the deposition, or under his direction, and shall, after it has been reduced to writing, be subscribed by the deponent. If a witness whose testimony may be desired to be taken by deposition be in a for- eign country, the deposition may be taken before an officer or person designated by the tribunal or agreed upon by the parties by stipulation in writing to be filed with the tribunal. All depositions must be promptly filed with the president. Witnesses whose depositions are taken pursuant to this act, and the magistrate or other officer taking the same, shall severally be entitled to the same fees as are paid for like services in the courts of the United States. Sec. 10. That the tribunal, or its duly appointed agents, may, whenever it deems it expedient, after an agreement for arbitration between the parties to the controversy has been made, enter and inspect any institution, establishment, factory, workshop, or mine belonging to either party, and may employ competent experts to examine the accounts, books, and official reports of either party, and to examine and report on any matter material to the investigation, but shall not disclose such reports or the results of said inspection or examination under this section without the consent of both the parties to the controversy, except as provided in section four of this act. Sec. 11. That the tribunal may, from time to time, make such rules and orders not inconsistent with this act as may be deemed proper for the regulating and con- ducting of its investigations and proceedings, and for the providing of blank forms for petitions and all other necessary blank forms, and for making petitions and answers, and for the prescribing of the method of serving copies of petitions, notices, and all other papers upon the parties, or a party, to any controversy of which ft shall take cognizance under the provisions of this act, and from time to time may make such other rules as may be necessary for the proper enforcement of this act. Sec. 12. That the tribunal shall make an annual report to Congress at the com- mencement of its regular session. Sec. 13. That all expenses of the tribunal, including all necessary expenses for transportation incurred by the members thereof, or by its employees under its orders, in making investigations under this act, or upon official business in any other places than the city of Washington, salaries of employees and agents, and fees and mileage of witnesses shall be allowed and paid upon the presentation of itemized vouchers therefor, approved by the president of the tribunal. Sec. 14. That a decision by a majority of the voting members of the tribunal engaged in the consideration of a case shall constitute a decision of the tribunal. In cases where either of the parties has in a previous controversy failed or refused to abide by the award of the tribunal, and in such other cases as the tribunal shall deem to be exceptional in their nature, the tribunal may, in its discretion, require that both parties to the controversy file with the tribunal a proper bond conditioned for the performance of the award of the tribunal, made payable each party to the other party in the sum fixed by the tribunal, and in case the conditions of said bond be broken by either party, the penalty shall be forfeited to the other party and shall be recov- erable in an action at law in anj' court of the United States in the district where the plaintiff resides, and an order of the tribunal declaratory of such forfeiture shall be taken and held as prima facie evidence thereof. No new petition between the same parties and upon the same subject of contro- versy shall be received or acted upon within less than one year after the rendering of a decision by said tribunal as between such parties and on such subject-matter except with the concurrence of both of such parties. Sec. 15. That whenever a controversy of such special character or difficulty arises as to call for such action as hereinafter set forth, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, in his discretion, and it shall be his duty when so requested by the tribunal, in its discretion, to appoint, without confirmation by the Senate, two additional persons as members of said tribunal for the purposes of such particular controversy. The tribunal so enlarged shall have, for all the purposes of said con- troversy, all the powers and duties hereinbefore set forth, except the power of fur- NATIONAL ARBITRATION BILL. 9 ther enlargement and except that four appointive members shall then constitute the necepsary quorum for the transaction of business. The two additional members shall be paid at the same rate as the other meml )L'r.s for the time of their service until final award and decision, and their expenses as such members shall be similarly paid. In any controversy of minor importance the tribunal, in its discretion, may dele- gate to any member thereof the power and duty of hearing and considering the same and of making an award thereon, subject, however, to a right of appeal, under such rules as the tribunal may prescribe, in favor of either party, to the full tribunal, and such appeal may relate to and include the award or the facts upon which it is based, or both. Sec. 16. That this act shall take effect upon its passage. Mr. Connor. Is that the bill introduced by Mr. Foss ? Mr. Whitney. Yes. Now, Mr. Chairman, 1 wish to make a few remarks in relation to this subject. The coal arbitration commission recommended some form of arbitration for these troubles, and Mr. Volney W. Foster, of Evanston, in Mr. Foss's district, took up the subject and consulted with a great number of people. This bill is the result of conferences and communications with several hundred leading labor men, unionists, bankers, industrial leaders. Congressmen, and Senators. The Chairman. Whom do you represent, Mr. Whitney, I will ask, in order that it may be put down ? Mr. Whitney. 1 represent myself. The Chairman. Have you not had a good deal of correspondence with many Mr. Whitney. I am a graduate of the Williams College and also the Northwestern University. I have always taken a great deal of inter- est in economics and sociological studies. Mr. Foss had the bill to introduce, and I did considerable work on it and got interested. The bill came down here and went to sleep, as 1 know things often do in committees, being a committee clerk myself, and I went to work and wrote to some people to see what interest there was in the subject. 1 found such a lively interest in the matter that I came here, and when 1 heard you were to have a hearing 1 asked to be present. Mr. FuKUSETH. May 1 ask the gentleman a question ? The Chairman. Yes, sir. Mr. Furuseth. Mr. Whitney, do you mind mentioning some of the labor men Mr. Whitney. I will, presently; quite a number of them. FOUR classes interested IN ARBITRATION. Mr. Chairman, I divide the people who are interested in this matter into four classes. First come those, both the laboring and capital classes, that desire no interference, and prefer to settle their troubles by strikes and lockouts and boycotts and blacklisting, etc. I do not wish to talk on that subject at all. Second, those who desire compul- sory arbitration on both sides. Third, those who desire voluntary arbitration on both sides; and, fourth, those who wish to go along under the existing conditions. COMPULSORY ARBITRATION IMPOSSIBLE UNDER CONSTITUTION. On the subject of compulsory arbitration I do not think it is useful to speak very long, because it is an impossible thing under the Federal Constitution. I have here the views of Patrick Lally, secretary of the 10 NATIONAL ARBITKATION BILL. Bricklayers and Masons' International Union of Massachusetts; that is, the State board. Mr. CoNNOE. That is the name of my partner. Mr. Whitney. He believes in compulsory arbitration, and this is a resolution that I believe he introduced at Trenton. I think the posi- tion of those of the labor unionists that believe in compulsory arbitra- tion is clearly set forth in this document, which I will present to you. He says: LABOR UNIONIST VIEWS AND SIXTEEN KEASONS FOE COMPULSOET AEBI- TEATION. First. The very important fact has been demonstrated that wherever compulsory arbitration is in force the great mass of people are satisfied, particularly the trade unionists. SecoM. The brutal strike and more brutal lockout is abolished. Third. Wages, hours, and general conditions are so fixed that manufacturers can make contracts ahead without fear, thereby insuring more uniform conditions than at present. Fourth. When workingmen are sure that they can not be cut down in their wages it gives them more courage and independence, under which circumstance they will be more likely to marry, settle down, build houses, etc., thereby civilizing instead of brutalizing. Fifth. AVhen a dispute arises new terms are fixed, the industry going on just the same. Sixth. The awards of arbitration courts are generally accepted and followed by other courts, thus making our members partners in the most advanced court in the country, thereby raising us correspondingly in the eyes of the great mass of people. Seventh. Compulsion in the background makes conciliation a great deal easier. This very important fact should not be overlooked. Eighth. Compulsory arbitration gives the public, who are the real arbitrators, the true facts of every dispute. Ninth. Peaceful settlements of disputes could not be blocked or thwarted for the purpose of breaking up the union, thereby abolishing the strike breaker and pro- fessional scab. Tenth. D. M. Parry, for instance, would be compelled to appear before a board constituted equally of union men and employers, and there show all the records of his transactions, and, further, he would be compelled to recognize the findings of the board. Eleventh. Labor and capital would find their true relationship instead of being mobs and monopolists. Twelfth. Humane business men can save themselves from destruction by forcing sweatshops to recognize fair living rules or go out of business. Thirteenth. The distribution of wealth will be determined along the lines of rea- son, justice, and the greatest need instead of brute force, injustice, and the greatest greed. Fourteenth. It is the only cheap, speedy, effective, and practical way of receiving justice. Fifteenth. It will compel all the workingmen and women who do not want to remain at the mercy of the employers to form unions, as it is only through such that they can have any standing before the adjudication board. This fact should be par- ticularly borne in mind when discussing this question. Sixteenth. By having a certain number of our own members sitting on a board a better understanding of our rights and a more tolerant disposition toward us will immediately follow, and instead of being looked upon as strike advocates and dis- turbers in general we will be looked upon as the representatives of a powerful organi- zation, thereby breaking down the framework of centuries of oppression, prejudice, bigotry, and falsehood that has been persistently raised up against us through vari- ous channels. The word compulsion is taken advantage of to frighten people away from the merits of this question. AVe should never allow ourselves to be thrown into spasms of delight on the one hand or fear on the other at the mention of a name. What we should and must do is to clear our minds and look carefully, straight and true at this question and its possible consequences. The history of trade unionism proves NATIONAL ARBITKATION BILL. 11 conclusively that we are gradually evolving from the individual to the group. As the individual could accomplish nothing the union has taken his place, securing just and reciprocal agreements as such. Therefore it would be manifestly unfair for us to refuse to submit our disputes to a fair court. The Chairman. Whose s3'nopsis of opinion is that ? Mr. Whitney. It is the opinion of Patrick Lally, State secretary of the Bricklayers and Masons' International Union, of the State of Massachusetts. He believes and he practically says that his organization is in advance of this movement, and that he believes in compulsory arbitration. But as that is impossible under the Federal Constitution, I will not dwell on that longer, but will take up the voluntary arbitration feature which is set forth in the bill H. R. 94-91. Mr. FuEUSETH. May I be permitted to disturb 3'ou for one second? Mr. Whitney. Yes, sir. Mr. FuEUSETH. You say that under the Federal Constitution com- pulsory arbitration would be impossible? Mr. Whitney. Impossible; yes, sir. Mr. Furuseth. I suggest to you the reading with care of the Supreme Court decision in the case of Kobert Robertson et al. v. Bald- win, rendered in 1896, I think. That is the only decision in which there has been any construction given to the thirteenth amendment to the Constitution. Mr. Whitney. Mr. Chairman, I have here the views of a great many labor people, who are, of course, vitally interested in this matter. some views of LABOE union LEADERS FOE AEBITEATION. E. E. Clark, grand chief conductor. Order Railway Conductors, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, says: A great deal is to be expected from provisions for publicity in these matters. Shall watch with great interest. W. S. Stone, Grand International Brotherhood of Locomotive Engi- neers, Cleveland, Ohio, sa3's: The plan for a national arbitration tribunal is very good. It should provide for a practical railroad man being a member of the board. Here is one from Alexander H. Revell, of Chicago, one of the largest merchants in the West: I approve. Believe the matter will appeal to the laboring, financial, business, and manulacturing industries of the nation. Because there is plenty there should be peace. There should be a better and higher brotherhood, and if such parties, each needing the other, should each disagree, then let a third party of highest possible dignity and honor come in and say which is the best and right way. Here is a communication from Frank Duffy, general secretary of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America: To begin with, I have always been in favor of arbitration for the settlement of industrial disputes, but not of compulsory arbitration. There can not be arbitration where there is compulsion. Whatever means may be adopted in the future to bring about peace, harmony, and tranquillity in the industrial field should be voluntary in order to be effective and lasting The United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, an organization consisting of 175,000 skilled men in the art of carpentry, believe in voluntary arbi- tration. Many other national and international organizations of labor do likewise, and even go so far as to have provisions to that effect in their general laws. The success of any form of arbitration depends to a large extent on the willingness 12 NATIONAL ABBITEATION BILL of the parties involved to submit their case to an impartial tribunal for adjudication and to accept the award when rendered in a spirit of fairness, without prejudice or ill feeling, and abide by its jirovisions. Now, that the employers of labor are combining, organizing, and federating there should be very little difiiculty experienced in bringing about a feasible plan of arbi- tration", so that the strikes, lockouts, boycotts, and the consequent hardships and privations they entail may be a thing of the past, never to come to the surface again. If this can be done by the proposed bill, known as H. R. 9491, you will be accom- plishing greater good for the well-being and protection of the American working people than that which was accomplished by our forefathers in days gone by in throwing off the yoke of England and proclaiming freedom and liberty to all who owed allegiance to the Stars and Stripes. I hope your bill will be so framed, altered, or amended that it may fully meet the ends for which it was intended — a fair, square deal to all. Mr. W. H. Clock, secretary-treasurer of the International Shingle Weavers' Union of America, sa3's: I am in favor of such a measure, as anything that tends toward industrial peace is greatly needed. Anyone that would refuse to arbitrate before a tribunal that had been appointed by an unbiased President should have their affairs given the fullest publicity. I am under the impression, though, that the salaries fixed for the mem- bers of the board are out of reason. Brains may come high, but I can cite you several of the most profound thinkers in the world that are not drawing half that salary. Walter A. Clarke, secretary-treasurer of the Rhode Island Federa- tion of Labor, says: I am heartily in favor of same and shall bring it before the executive board of the R. I. F. of L., etc. Here is a letter from Mr. William Launer, secretary of the Glass Bottle Blowers' Association of the United States and Canada: I am thoroughly convinced this is a good bill and, if passed and it becomes a law, I am sure that if the provisions of the bill were carried out, as no doubt it is intended they should be, a good deal of the trouble between labor and capital could be adjusted. He thinks, as does Mr. Clock, that the salaries are too large. Here is a letter from Mr. James H. Morris, president of the Peoria Local Union of Retail Clerks: I find that it is a bill that if passed without any alterations or amendments would create worlds of good to either capital or labor, or for any purposes the tribunal is appointed. Mr. G. A. Hunter, secretarjr of the Trades and Labor Council, of Lasalle, 111., says: Would say that after a careful consideration of the bill to create a national arbitra- tion tribunal, our body indorses the same and would earnestly recommend its passage. Here is one from J. H. Strief, secretary-treasurer of the Iowa State Federation of Labor: I have read the provisions in the bill pretty thoroughly and assure you I do not hesitate in approving such a. policy to be adojited as part of the functions of our National Government. I am for peace in all matters wherever possible, and I always advocate strongly the avoidance of a strike wherever possible in the settlement "of labor troubles. All well-regulated trades union organizations always stand ready to arbitrate any difficulties that may arise; but sometimes the opposition will not arbitrate, contend- ing that there is nothing at issue to be arbitrated. \Mth a national arbitration tribunal, as outlined in this bill, both sides to a controversy would be duty bound to arbitrate in case an adjustment can not be reached in a difierent manner. I suppose it is the intention, should this bill become a law, in selecting the mem- bers of this tribunal to have some members thereon that are reasonably well versed in labor conditions throughout the jurisdiction; composed somewhat, I should say. NATIONAL AKBITKATION BILL. 13 as waa the tribunal selected by President Roosevelt in the anthracite miners' trouble of recent date. I have often thought that a tribunal as outlined in this bill was one of the press- ing needs of this country, and the more I have thought of it the more I am convinced that it would be a good thing. The amount of strife it would do away with and the enormous saving it would make to both employer and emploj'ee in the settlement of questions without strikes is hard to estimate, but judging from past experiences the amount would be very large. I have several more of these letters that I will file, all of them Oeing in the same line. NATIONAL BUSINESS LEAGUE FAVOKS BILL. Here is one from the National Business League, which is a national organization and has a committee of the largest merchants in every State in the Union. There is a list of them on the hack of the letter. This letter is from the secretary, Austin A. Burnham. The Chairman. Are they employers or employees? Mr. Whitney. Those other letters I have been quoting from were from labor unions favoring bill. These, now, are from the employers, Mr. Burnham states: I beg to state that the bill in question has my hearty approval. It is clearly evident that the best interests of employer and employee are so iden- tical in all the various activities of industries and commerce that the one, either individually or through the agency of organized bodies, can not ignore, oppress, or in any way hamper the other except to the detriment of both and to the serious injury of all the people. It is c'learly manifest also that drastic measures for the settlement of labor disputes never win. Adjustment of differences under such procedure are but apparent, not real. The sting of compulsion remains to smolder awhile, tlien breaks out afresh with renewed power. Therefore a cordial welcome to the Foster bill, which would eliminate from all industrial dissensions the imperious commands "You shall" or "You must," and frankly invites the employer and employee — coworkers to a com- mon end — to submit their differences to a tribunal of their unprejudiced fellowmen, appointed and proffered by the National Government to make such fair and peaceful settlement of industrial disputes as will conserve the best interests, preserve the self- respect, and insure the uninterrupted prosperity and happiness of all concerned. I wish I could call the committee's attention to the members of the advisory committee of this National Business League. They are the largest employers and merchants in the United States. National Advwory Committee, Naiioiial Business League. C. G. Abercrombie, president. The Montgomery Brewery, Montgomery, Ala. Alexander Rice, wholesale and retail clothier, Montgomery, Ala. W. F. Vandiver, W. F. Vandiver & Co., wholesale grocers, Montgomery, Ala. Morris M. Cohn, ex-president Board of Trade, Little Rock, Ark. F. B. T. HoUenberg, president Hollenberg Music Company, Little Rock, Ark. George R. Brown, secretary Little Rock Board of Trade, Little Rock, Ark. M. J. Keller, M. J. Keller Company, men's furnishing goods, Oakland, Cal. Gen. Harrison G. Otis, president The Times-Mirror Company, Los Angeles, Cal. Hugh Craig, president The Chamber of Commerce, San Francisco, Cal. P. N. Lilienthal, manager Anglo-Californian Bank, San Francisco, Cal. I. J. Truman, president Columbian Banking Company, San Francisco, Cal. Hon. Daniel N. Morgan, ex-Treasurer, United States,"Bridgeport, Conn. C. S. Mersick, president The Merchants' National Bank, New Haven, Conn. Max Adler, Strouse, Adler&Co., importers and manufacturers. New Haven, Conn. John Trice, president The Citizens' Bank and Trust Company, Tampa, Fla. I. S. tiiddens, I. S. Giddena & Co., wholesale grocers, Tampa, Fla. Robert J. Lowry, president The Lowry National Bank, Atlanta, Ga. Hon. William J. Northen, ex-governor of Georgia, Atlanta, Ga. James P. Verdery, president Enterprise Manufacturing Company, cotton goods, Augusta, Ga. 14 NATIONAL ABBITKATION BILL. J. W. Cabaniss, president The Exchange Bank, Macon, Ga. I. B. Enghsh, English, Johnston & Co., cotton factors, Macon, Ga. W. E. McCaw, president McCaw Manufacturing Company, cotton-seed products, Macon, Ga. D. G. Purse, president Savannah Board of Trade, Savannah, Ga. Horace A. Crane, vice-president Southern Bank, Savannah, Ga. Edgar D. Harber, president Harber Brothers Company, wholesale farm machin- ery, Bloomington, 111. O. S. Bailey, Bourland & Bailey, Peoria, 111. A. S. Oakford, Oakford & Fahnestock, wholesale grocers, Peoria, 111. B. Warren, jr., Warren & Co., grain, Peoria, 111. Edward J. Parker, cashier State Savings, Loan, and Trust Company, Quincy, 111. Chauncey H. Castle, Comstock-Castle Stove Company, Quincy, 111. C. H. Williamson, president Chamber of Commerce, Quincy, III. J. D. Waterman, president Forest City National Bank, Rockford, 111. C. S. Brantingham^ secretary and treasurer Emerson Manufacturing Company, agricultural works, Rockford, 111. E. H. Keeler, secretary Rockford Lumber and Fuel Company, Rockford, 111. R. F. Herndon, R. F. Herndon & Co., dry goods, Springfield, 111. August Breutano, president Southern Stove Works, Evansville, Ind. Philip C. Decker, president German Bank, Evansville, Ind. A. C. Rosencranz, president The Vulcan Plow Company, Evansville, Ind. M. B. Wilson, president The Capital National Bank, Indianapolis, Ind. Horace E. Kinney, president Board of Trade, Indianapolis, Ind. John H. Barker, president Haskell & Barker Car Company, Michigan City, Ind. John T. Remey, president National State Bank, Burlington, Iowa. J, G. Rounds, president Citizens' National Bank, Des Moines, Iowa. M. M. Walker, president M. M. Walker Company, commission and grain, Dubuque, Iowa. W. H. Day, president Standard Lumber Company, Dubuque, Iowa. F. S. Kretsinger, president The Iowa Farming Tool Company^ Fort Madison, Iowa. C. Hood, president Emporia National Bank, Emporia, Kans. E. W. Snyder, president Manufacturers' National Bank, Leavenworth, Kans. W. N. Todd, The Bittmann-Todd Grocer Company, ijcavenworth, Kans. Hon. James. A. Troutman, Troutmau & Stone, Topeka, Kans. W. H. Davis, Parkhurst-Davis Mercantile Company, Topeka, Kans. Henry Watterson, Louisville Courier-Journal, Louisville, Ky. F. E. Boothby, president Merchants' Exchange and Board of Trade, Portland, Me. Hon. Wm. G. Davis, president National Traders Bank, Portland, Me. Wallace F. Roh-nson, president Chamber of Commerce, Boston, Mass. Thos. Strahan, the National Wall Paper Company, Chelsea, Mass. Chas. H. Conant, president Lowell Board of "Trade, Lowell, Mass. Hon. Chas. S. Ashley, mayor. New Bedford, Mass. Francke W. Dickinson, ex-president Board of Trade, Springfield, Mass. Wilder D. Stevens, Foster, Stevens & Co., iron hardware, etc., Grand Rapids, Mich. W. H. Anderson, president Board of Trade, Grand Rapids, Mich. Harvey J. Hollister, cashier Old National Bank, Grand Rapids, Mich. W. H. Withington, president Withington & Cooley Manufacturing Company, Jackson, Mich. C. C. Billinghurst, cashier The National Lumberman's Bank, Muskegon, Mich. Thos. Hume, Hackley & Hume, lumber, Muskegon, Mich. H. M. Peyton, president American Exchange Bank, Duluth, Minn. W. S. Moore, Spencer, Moore & Co., grain commission, Duluth, Minn. A. M. Marshall, president Marshall-Wells Hardware Company, Duluth, Minn. S. A. Harris, president National Bank of Commerce, Minneapolis, Minn. F. G. Winston, Winston, Farmington & Co., wholesale grocers, Minneapolis, Minn. H. M. Kinney, manager Winona Wagon Company, Winona, Minn. Louis Botto, president Natchez Cotton and Merchants' Exchange, Natchez, Miss. Andrew G. Campbell, president The First Natchez Bank, Natchez, Miss. S. H. Lowenburg, I. Lowenburg & Co., grocers, cotton factors, Natchez, Miss. A. D. Brown, Hamilton-Brown Shoe Company, St. Louis, Mo. Walker Hill, president American Exchange Bank, St. Louis, Mo. Hon. E. O. Stanard, president E. O. Stanard Milling Company, St. Louis, Mo. S. H. Burnham, president American Exchange National Bank, Lincoln, Nebr. J. C. Harpham, president Union Commercial Club, Lincoln, Nebr. A. T. Richardson, secretary Argo Manufacturing Company, starch, Nebraska City Nebr. NATIONAL ARBITRATION BILL. 15 Charles T. Page, treasurer Page Belting Company, Concord, N. H. Jos. W. Congdon, vice-president Phoenix Silk Manufacturing Company, Pater- son, N. J. Peter Quackenbush, Quackenbush & Co., dry goods, Paterson, N. J. Edward T. Bell, president First National Bank, Paterson, N. J. John Scudder, president The First National Bank, Trenton, N. J. Hon. Gorton W. Allen, Henry & Allen, Auburn, N. Y. G. H. Nye, president Cayuga County National Bank, Auburn, N. Y. Edwin D. Metcalf, general manager D. M. Osborne & Co., harvesting machinery, Auburn, N. Y. C. P. Mosher, Barker, Griswold & Co., clothiers, Auburn, N. Y. Wm. F. Wendt, president Buffalo Forge Company, Buffalo, N. Y. Seymour Dexter, president Second National Bank, Elmira, N. Y. Alexander E. Orr, president Produce Exchange, New York City, N. Y. Gustav H. Schwab, Oelrichs & Co., New York City. R. A. Downey, li. Downey & Co., shipping and commission, Oswego, N. Y. Hon. John D. Higgins, mayor, Oswego, N. Y. John T. Mott, president First National Bank, Oswego, N. Y. John Marsellus, president John Marsellus Manufacturing Com paiiy, Syracuse, N. Y. Salem Hyde, Neal & Hyde, wholesale dry goods, Syracuse, N. Y. E. K. Martin, president Board of Trade, Yonkers, N. Y. Wm. H. Doty, president The First National Bank of Yonkers, Yonkers, N. Y. John S. Armstrong, president The National Bank of Wilmington, Wilmington, N. C. Jas. H. Chadbourn, jr., president The Wilmington Chamber of Commerce, W^il- mington, N. C. F. W. Kerchner, ex-president Chamber of Commerce, Wilmington, N. C. Geo. W. Crouse, president Aultman, Miller & Co., harvesters, Akron, Ohio. Michael O'Neil, presidentand managerTheM. O'Neil &Co., dry goods, Akron, Ohio. W. W. Clark, president The City National Bank of Canton, Canton, Ohio. J. J. Clark, president the Canton Board of Trade, Canton, Ohio. Wm. Chisholm, manager Chisholm Steel Shovel Works, Cleveland, Ohio. Sylvester T. Everett, vice-president The Cleveland Terminal and Valley Railroad Company, Cleveland, Ohio. Harry A. Garfield, Garfield, Garfield & Howe, Cleveland, Ohio. H. R. Groff, Childs-Groff Shoe Company, Cleveland, Ohio. A. E. Adams, secretary the Dollar Savings and Trust Company, Youngatown, Ohio. Henry Wick, president the Ohio Steel Company, Youngstown, Ohio. Geo. L. Fordyce, Geo. L. Fordyce & Co., dry goods, Youngstown, Ohio. W. A. Graham, president the First National Bank, ZanesviUe, Ohio. John Hoge, Schultz & Co., soaps, ZanesviUe, Ohio. A. H. Devers, Closset & Devers, manufacturers and importers, Portland, Oreg. H. Wittenberg, vice-president Portland Cracker Company, Portland, Oreg. Robert E. Wright, president Allentown National Bank, Allentown, Pa. J. Frank Black, president Chester National Bank, Chester, Pa. S. Greenwood, real estate, insurance, Chester, Pa. Wm. Spencer, president the First National Bank, Erie, Pa. Edward Bailey, president Harrisburg National Bank, Harrisburg, Pa. Chas. A. Disbrow, president and manager Harrisburg Boot and Shoe Manufactur- ing Company, Harrisburg, Pa, Richard M. Reilly, president Board of Trade, Lancaster, Pa. E. C. Felton, president the Pennsylvania Steel Company, Philadelphia, Pa. J. H. Michener, president the Bank of North America, Philadelphia, Pa. William T. Rolph, manager R. G. Dun & Co., Philadelphia, Pa. H. J. Heinz, president H. J. Heinz Company, Pittsburg, Pa. Asher Miner, vice-president Miner-Hillard Milling Company, Wilkesbarre, Pa. John B. Coryell, president Lycoming National Bank, Williamsport, Pa. S. T. Foresman, president Bowman-Foresman Company, lumber, Williamsport, Pa. J. B. Duble, president Williamsport Board of Trade, Williamsport, Pa. Henry B. Metcalf, manufacturer and banker, Pawtucket, R. I. W. A. Clark, president the Carolina National Bank, Columbia, S. C. W. B. Lowrance, Lorick & Lowrance, general merchants, Columbia, S. C. D. B. Loveman, D. B. Loveman Company, dry goods, etc., Chattanooga, Tenn. C. V. Brown, president Chamber of Commerce, Chattanooga, Tenn. H. L. Armstrong, cashier Continental National Bank, Memphis, Tenn. F. W. Erode, president F. W. Brode & Co., Memphis, Tenn. A. G. Ryley, president H. Wetter Manufacturing Company, Memphis, Teuu. C. W. Schulte, president the First National Bank, Memphis, Tenn. A. J. Harris, president Chamber of Commerce, Nashville, Tenn. 16 NATIONAL ARBITRATION BILL. Ira H. Evans, president the New York and Texas Land Company, Anstin, Tex. E. P. Wilmot, president Anstin National Bank, Austin, Tex. Walter Tips, hardware, Austin, Tex. Albert P. Tenison, president Tenison Brothers Saddlery Company, Dallas, Tex. Wm. M. Robinson, manager Parlin & Orendorff Company, Dallas, Tex. James Moore, president Board of Trade, Galveston, Tex. Edwin Chamberlain, Chamberlain & (xillette, San Antonio, Tex. Chas. Hugo, president Alamo National Bank, San Antonio, Tex. W. H. Kowe, president Bear Eiver Irrigation and Ogden Water Works Company, Salt Lake City, Utah. 0. B. Barker, president Board of Trade, Lynchburg, Va. John W. Craddock, Oraddock, Terry & Co., boots and shoes, Lynchburg, Va. R. C. Quinn, Guggenheimer & Co., importers of dry goods, Lynchburg, Va. Herman Chapin, president Boston National Bank, Seattle, Wash. C. H. Clarke, Kelley, Clarke Company, shipping and commission, Seattle, Wash. Robert Moran, Moran Brothers, shipbuilders, Seattle, Wash. Geo. S. Brooke, president the Fidelity National Bank, Spokane, Wash. 0. C. Jensen, Jensen-King-Bird Company, hardware, Spokane, Wash. Jos. H. Spear, secretary and treasurer Washington Brick, Lime and Manufacturing Company, Spokane, Wash. Hullihen Quarrier, president the Delaplain Dry Goods Company, Wheeling, W. Va. E. E. Bentley, president Batavian Bank, La Crosse, Wis. A. Hirshheimer, president La Crosse Plow Company, agricultural implements. La Crosse, Wis. Jas. J. Hogan, La Crosse Coffee and Spice Mills, La Crosse, Wis. N. B. Van Slyke, president first National Bank, Madison, Wis. Samuel Higham, presidentFuller& Johnson ManufacturingCompany,Madison,W)s. E. P. Bacon, E. P. Bacon & Co., grain commission, Milwaukee, Wis. David Vance, president Chamber of Commerce, Milwaukee, Wis. H. M. Wallis, president J. I. Case Plow Works, Racine, AVis. Note. — The remainder of the national advisory committee is printed in the annual report and membership list of the league, every important city in every State of the Union being represented. Now, I will read one from a banker, Homer S. King, president of Wells, Farg'o & Co.'s Bank, San Francisco: I am, on the whole, heartily in favor of a bill on these lines. I trust that it will receive a thorough discussion on the part of employers and labor leaders, as well as theorists, so the details may be perfected as far as possible. Such discussion and consideration are required, I believe, in the case of a measure bringing the Federal Government into new relations with our citizens. With the general spirit of the bill I am in hearty sympathy and hope, after discussion, to see it pass. Mr. FuEUSETH. Who is that'< Mr. Whitney. Homer S. King, president of Wells, Fargo & Co.'s Bank, of San Francisco. Here is a letter from one of the great New York clergjniien, McGee Waters, of the Tompkins Avenue Congi'egational Church, Brooklyn, N. Y.: After a rather careful study of the bill and no little discussion with some of our leading commercial minds, both of New York and the West, I am thoroughly con- vinced that this bill truly embodies wise statesmanship, true Americanism, and the largest justice for both those who employ and those who are employed. I heartily indorse it and am exceedingly anxious that it may become a law. Here is a letter from Mr. F. W. Gunsaulus, president of the Armour Institute of Technology, of Chicago, who was, befoi'e he became president of that institute, one of the greatest clergymen in the city of Chicago. Mr. Connor. Yes; and still is one of the greatest. Mr. Whitney. Yes; and still is one of the greatest. He says: The bill to create a national arbitration tribunal is a very wise and comprehen- sive document. Long experience with these problems, especially here in Chicago, has convinced me that the largest possible appeal must be made to what you call NATIONAL ARBITBATIOW BILL. 17 the only source of jurisdiction and enforcement of an arbitration of controversy on merits. The public conscience and intelligence will be in entire accord with this measure. An effort must be made to create a public opinion, which will use this admirable instrumentality for the purpose for which it was intended. The voices and pens of serious men should be employed toward the propagation of a sentiment which will make the enactment of this law of vital importance to the whole country. I have a letter here from John H. Gray, the head of the department of economics, finance, and administration of the Northwestern Uni- versity, at Evanston, 111. He is one of the standard men in that line in our part of the country'. He says: I have given the bill H. R. 9491 my most careful consideration and it has my most unqualified approval. The more I study the labor question the more I become con- vinced that the day is passed when labor can be treated and considered purely as a commodity to be bought, handled, and disposed of by the employer as ordinary commodities are. That was the theory in large part of the older economists, and was a theory which in the main corresponded to the fact in the days before consti- tutional governments, universal suffrage, and political liberty had become so wide- spread. For the last quarter of a century, however, the growing ethical sentiments of the world have come more and more to realize and proclaim the worth of the indi- vidual and the danger to the State of any considerable body of suppressed and oppressed and submerged individuals. The danger is recognized as an intolerable one if that submerged class is to make as large a body as the wage-earners do in our modern industrial nations. The problem of adjusting hours to the new condition of things, giving the work- men under some name or form or organization a real influence in determining the condition under which they work, and, in fact, a general influence on the industry itself, is one of the most important problems that awaits a solution in the twentieth century. The employer must, in my opinion, take the workmen into some sort of a recognized relation in these matters. I should hesitate to advocate either what is popularly known as profit sharing, or cooperation, or communism, or a bonus system, or anything of the sort; but I have no hesitation in saying that the common sense of mankind and the ethical sentiment of the twentieth century recognizes an interest of the workmen in the industry such as the older theories made no provision what- ever for. The workman and the employer have got to come to a mutual understand- in?, and ultimately must bow to the common sense and consensus of opinion of mankind. That public opinion, when deliberate, well developed, crystallized, and properly directed is the ultimate ruling force of individuals and of groups of individuals can not be denied. The bill which you sent me is, in my opinion, the most hopeful suggestion that has been made for cultivating, educating, concentrating, developing, crystalling, and utilizing public opinion on this, the greatest question that confronts the twentieth century. Should the committee desire my opinion on any particular points of the bill, or even an amplification of any of the things I have said along general lines, I should be more than pleased to answer any specific inquiries, and to do all I can to fur- ther the enactment of what seems to me such a desirable and effective bill as the pending one. Now, as to the opposition among the labor unions. Here is a com- munication from Henry C. Barter, secretary-treasurer of the Inter- national Longshoremen, Marine and Transport Workers' Association. He says: I wish to say that personally I am opposed to the passage of such a measure, for the reason that its tendency is toward compulsory arbitration. Here is a letter from Matt. Wesley, secretary-treasurer of the United Mineral Mine Workers of North America, Ishpeming, Mich. He says: In reply I beg to say that the United Mineral Mine Workers of America are opposed to the passage of such a measure, for the reason that its tendency is toward compulsory arbitration. N A B— 04 2 18 NATIONAL AEBITBATION BILL. 1 have a number of letters along that line, and 1 will file them along with the others. T. O. Owens, secretary of the Stockton Federated Trades, says: Yours of February 12 at hand relative to proposed bill to create a national arbitra- tion tribunal and to define the duties and powers thereof. The same was referred to our legislative committee and they have reported adversely on same. L. W. Quicks, grand secretary and treasurer of the Order of Eail- road Telegraphers, says: I beg to state that I can not say that I am in favor of the proposition, for the reason that I believe that any corporation and body of men who are sincere in their desire to arbitrate any difference existing between them can find a way to do so without form of legislature, and those who are not sincere for arbitration would only become a party to it, after bringing about a condition that would give them an unfair advan- tage over the other parties to such arbitration. W. D. Mahon, international president of Amalgamated Association of Street and Electric Railway Employees of America, says: Your communication of February 6, with copy of the H. R. bill 9491, a bill to. create a national arbitration tribunal, at hand. You ask for my opinion, suggestions, and so on. In reply I would say that I can not see that a national arbitration board of this kind can be of much benefit in the settlement of labor disputes. The great majority of the disputes would come under State regulations. In a number of the States they have State boards. The experience with these boards has not been very satisfactory. I believe in voluntary arbitration, and I think that we are rapidly working to that end. The great majority of the agreements of our organization are made with an arbitration clause in them, and voluntary arbitration of this kind has been very beneficial and I have always advocated it; but to create a national board of arbitration under our laws would be merely to create a number of political offices without any benefits, in my opinion, to either capital or labor. This, briefly, is my opinion. T. E. Zant, of the Central Labor Council, San Francisco, says: In reply to your request of February 12 for an opinion on arbitration bill (H. E. No. 9491) pending in the Fifty-eighth Congress, I will say from my view of the con- tentions between labor and capital it would be impractical to attempt to fix any rule of adjustment that would do justice to all concerned, because of the varied and con- stantly changing conditions. There being no fixed or scientific basis upon which wages or the price of commodities rest — the fact that both are determined by arbi- trary forces possessed by contending interests and each unwilling to release any advantage they might have — we feel it next to impossible to arrange any general plan of adjustment and preserve the vitality of these two forces that tend to strengthen the individuality and self-reliance of the workers and to develop and economize industry. In this particular bill, as to its application, the penalty for violating the decision of the tribunal, being moral influence in creating public opinion is fully appreciated by our labor people; we know its value. Past experience and observation of various commissions for somewhat similar functions suggest that they have too often been overcome by the influence of corporate wealth and developed a bias in favor of those that had most to offer in social life aa well as future prospects makes us skeptical of such a tribunal, especially of long term in oflSce. If our fears be correct and deci- sions be biased in order to prevent strikes the results would be damaging to the trades-union development. Without unions our working people, through individual competition and the desires of some employers to increase dividends, would tend helplessly to a lower and lower wage, decreasing the general purchasing power of the community and the lengthening of the hours of work, taking away the oppor- tunity of men to lind employment, thereby further reducing the purchasing ability; and a depressing influence set in. Aa to strikes, in the main they are only the deferring of production from the day until to-morrow. With our modem facilities we can supply the market demands without constant operation. The desire to prevent strikes that our country might attain commercial supremacy is of no interest to the masses if only those conducting business enter- E rises receive the benefit. If the ability to sell goods cheap in a foreign market is to e at the expense of the working people — that they accept reduction and refuse to NATIONAL ARBITRATION BILL. 19 strike as a means to secure commercial supremacy — what Is gained by it? For these reasons we are not in favor of the bill and can only agree to a voluntarily chosen tribunal. James G. Bacon, of the Hartford Central Labor Union, says: Your letter of the 11th instant with copy of H. R. 9491 has been received. By vote of the executive committee of the Hartford Central Labor Union 1 am instructed to inform you that we believe it is a mea.sure which can prove of no ben- efit to anybody except the high-salaried members of the tribunal. Inasmuch as the tribunal has no power to enforce a decree and may keep secret all the information it gathers, the whole scheme develops into a plan which may be used to strengthen the power of a dominant political party at the expense of the whole people without doing a thing to further the objects for which it was created. I am memorializing the members of Congress from Connecticut to oppose the bill it it ever comes up for action. GENEKAL OPPOSITION IS OOMPULSOKY ARBITRATION, BUT IT CAN NOT BE. Some of the letters in opposition relate to the salaries and to details, but the general criticism is that it is compulsory arbitration. The bill does not mean compulsory arbitration, because there can be no such thing under our Constitution, and I think these people will Mr. Conner. Do these objections on the ground that it is compul- sory arbitration come from the laboring people altogether, or do they come from the employers as well? Mr. Whitney. They come from both sides. They say it is com- pulsory arbitration. They misunderstand the bill. The bill is not compulsory, as you see, and I think that matter will be understood upon serious consideration. RECOMMENDATION OF COAL-STRIKE COMMISSION. The anthracite coal commission made certain recommendations along the lines of arbitration. George Gray, Carroll D. Wright, John M. Wilson, John L. Spalding, Edgar E. Clark, Thomas H. Watkins, and Edward W. Parker sat on that commission. They said: We believe that the awards we have made, and which are herewith submitted, will accomplish, certainly during their life, the high aims contemplated in your letter — That is, the President's letter — Faithful adherence to the terms of the awards can not fail to accomplish this; but in order to secure the public against long-continued controversy, and to make a coal famine or a famine in any other direction practically impossible, we deem it essen- tial that there should be some authority to conduct just such investigations as that you called upon us to make. There are some who have urged the commission to recommend the adoption of compulsory arbitration, so called, as the means of securing this desired result, but we can not see our way to recommend any such drastic measure. We do not believe that in the United States such a system would meet with general approval or with success. Apart from the apparent lack of constitutional power to enact laws pro- viding for compulsory arbitration, our industries are too vast and too complicated for the practical application of such a system. We do believe, however, that the State and Federal Governments should provide the machinery for what may be called the compulsory investigation of controversies when they arise. The States can do this, whatever the nature of the controversy. The Federal Government can resort to some such measure when difficulties arise by reason of which the transportation of the United States mails, the operations, civil or military, of the Government of the United States, or the free and regular move- ment of commerce among the several States and with foreign nations, are interrupted or directly affected, or are threatened with being interrupted or affected. 20 NATIONAL ARBITRATION BILL. The Federal Government has already recognized the propriety of action under the circumstances just cited, as evidenced in the acts creating boards of arbitration or commissions for settling controversies and differences between railroad corporations and other common carriers engaged in interstate or Territorial transportation of property or persons and their employes, approved October 1, 1888. Under that act, when such controversies and differences arose, the President was authorized, on the application of either of the contestants, to appoint a commission of three members to investigate the causes surrounding the difficulty. That act was cumbersome in its provisions and was repealed by an act approved June 1, 1898, entitled "An act con- cerning carriers engaged in interstate commerce and their employees." Mr. FuEUSETH. May I ask a question ? Mr. Whitney. Yes, sir. Mr. FuRUSETH. Judge Gray does not seem to take tlie position there, as you read his opinion, that compulsory arbitration is not pos- sible, does he? Mr. Whitney. Under the Federal Constitution, yes. Mr. FuRUSETH. He speaks of it Mr. Whitney. He says it is obvious, as I recall it. Mr. FuRUSETH. I do not think he says so. I listened very carefully. Mr. Foster. Read it again and let us see vrhat he says. Here is the language: Apart from the apparent lack of constitutional power to enact laws providing for compulsory arbitration, our industries are too vast and too complicated for the prac- tical application of such a system. He says it is apparent that we are unable to do so. The chief benefit to be derived from the suggestion herein made lies in placing the real facts and the responsibility for such condition authoritatively before the people that public opinion may crystallize and make its power felt. Could sucli a commis- sion as that suggested halve been brought into existence in June last we believe that the coal famine might have been averted — certainly the suffering and deprivation might have been greatly mitigated. PRACTICABILITY OF BILL PROVED BY PRECEDENT IN STRIKE. Novf, as to the practicability of this bill. It has been tried in one State in the Union — in the State of Massachusetts. There is, in the State of Massachusetts, and has been for nearly thirty years, a board of railroad commissioners. In the history of that board there was one impor- tant but now quite forgotten incident, from which a highly suggestive lesson may be drawn. It occurred twenty-five years ago. The Massachusetta railroad commis- sion was organized on the theory that, in adjusting matters of difference between the community and its railroad corporations, the vesting of arbitrary power in such a tribunal was a hindrance to it rather than a help; for the reason that in America force is, in the long run, less effective in producing results than investigation and subsequent well-considered recommendations based thereon. The appeal was in every case to be made to reason and public opinion, and not to the sheriff or the soldier. Accordingly, in the event of differences between the corpora- tions and their employees, even though resulting in strikes and tie-ups, the commis- sioners had no executive power. It was their duty, in a general way, to take official cognizance of the fact when the community was sustaining an injury or an incon- venience, and to investigate the causes thereof. Having so investigated, the board was empowered to locate the responsibility for the injury and inconvenience, and to make its recommendations accordingly; but those recommendations had merely a moral force. They could be addressed to the parties concerned , and to public opinion, only. Their effect, greater or less, was measured by the justice and good sense impressed upon them. The commissioners, moreover, disavowed any wish to be clothed with larger powers. They feared the possession of such powers. They were persuaded they could in the end accomplish more satisfactory results without them. This theory was soon put to a test. At 4 o'clock in the afternoon of the 12th of February, 1877, all the locomotive engineers and firemen in the employ of the Boston and Maine Railroad Company stopped work in a body, abandoning their NATIONAL ARBlT^ATlOir BILt. 21 trains. The move was not altogether unexpected, but the operation of the road was seriously interfered with. The commissioners did not at first intervene, neither party calling upon them. Indeed, both parties were unwilling so to do, for each was apprehensive, apparently, of adverse action. During several days, accord- ingly, the commissioners preserved an attitude of silent observation. After the lapse of a reasonable period, however, the board concluded that it was plainly time to rec- ognize the fact that the public was suffering serious inconvenience; for then the Boston and Maine Bailroad was, as it still is, one of the principal arteries of eastern New England. The president and directors of the company, and the employees of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, were accordingly notified that the board proposed to take a hand in the business. This it proceeded to do. An immediate investigation was instituted. Both parties appeared, for, without confessing itself in the wrong, neither party could well help so doing, and professed a perfect willingness to submit their cases. No suggestion of a readiness to abide by any decision that might be given thereon was either asked for or given; but the board proceeded to hear witnesses and to elicit the facts. The inquiry was continued through three days, and on the 21st of February the report of the board was made public, appearing in full in all the newspapers of that date. In it the commissioners, after carefully and judiciously sifting out the essential facts from the evidence submitted, placed the responsibility for the trouble where the weight of evidence showed it belonged, and thereupon proceeded to make such recommendations as in its judgment the exigencies called for. The effect was immediate. An authentic record was before the community, and pub- lic opinion, crystallizing, made itself decisively felt. * * * Beliance was placed in an enlightened sense of right of all concerned, and an informed public opinion. m'dekmott arbitration bill,. Now, as I understand, the committee is to take up the other arbitra- tion bill, of Mr. McDermott, which provides for the temporary appoint- ment by the President of an arbitration board. I think that is a good bill, but I do not think it goes far enough. The Chairman. You mean a commission appointed by the President for each case? Mr. Whitnet. For each case. In the first place, it would make a political body of it, and I know, from my talks with these gentlemen on both sides, that anything they hate is political interference with business conditions. A body appointed by the President who may be of one class or of another class will be prejudiced, but if you have a permanent board sitting for six years, one member going out every two years, making it continuous and infusing new blood, it will be more in the nature of a supreme court where political influence will not have a hold. The great benefit, I think, from a national arbitration tribunal comes from the fact that 3'ou have a body sitting both for the employee and employer, where facts can be presented to it and thus given to the public, which will enforce right and justice in the matter. No strike has ever succeeded in this country without the public one way or the other. The President would never have appointed the coal commission if the public had not been vitally interested and anxious to take it up one way or the other. So I think that the permanent tribunal is more effective for the rea- son that it would prevent strikes, because the people on either side would hesitate to go to that tribunal with a trivial cause. Thus a great 22 NATIONAL AEBlTRATIOH BILt- many strikes and lockouts would be prevented. An arbitration tri- bunal, to be appointed from time to time, would not go into a strike until the strike had actually existed and serious damage had been done. ARBITRATION IN GREAT BRITAIN. I have a little to say briefly here on arbitration in Great Britain, quoting the leaders there on both sides, and showing the conditions there. We can draw a good lesson in this country from it, as we have drawn all our common law, etc. , from that country. I thank you. The growth and present status of voluntary conciliation and arbi- tration in other lands is of importance. In England years ago the employer and employee recognized the futility of industrial wars and attempted to find ways to avoid trade disputes, and if possible, to arbitrate and settle in peaceful ways. At present there is hardly a trade center in England which has not organized to bring quiet and contentment, or at least less discontent, and out of the great coal strike of 1893, engineering dispute in 1897, and contests in shoe trade has come widespread belief in the efficacy of conciliation and arbitration in the settlement of trade troubles. In 1899 Mr. Burt, representative of Northumberland miners in Par- liament, said: "Every possible means should be tried of obtaining the' workmen's rights without going on strike." In England, notwithstanding the statement of the advocates of the New Zealand compulsory arbitration act that investigation shows the worthlessness of voluntary methods, the representatives of English employers and workmen seem to believe that under existing condi- tions voluntary conciliation and arbitration are by far the best, and in fact the only rational means of avoiding disputes and of settling them. Mr. W. Glenning, assistant secretary of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers, thinks the most direct and ideal method of settling disputes is by the aid of a third man not connected with the trade. In the engineer trade the conciliation board has saved immense sums of money foi- the shipbuilding yards, and there is a growing disposition to settle amicably. In the shoe trade Mr. Cort, the secretary of the union, stated that a better and sounder feeling, which grows steadily, exists between employer and men since the rules for boards of arbitration and con- ciliation, and he is a strong upholder of the principle of conciliation and arbitration, which he thinks is much to be preferred to anything heretofore tried. He says the men are loj^al to arbitration. A. W. Chamberland, secretary of the employers' board, regards conciliation and arbitration as the only reasonable and satisfactory way to settle differences and disputes between two classes. The iron and steel industry in England has had since 1869 a board of conciliation and arbitration, which has been mostsuccessful in avoid- ing serious disputes and in settling those that did arise. Mr. Cox, the present secretary of the Iron and Steel Workers of Great Britain, regards the board as one of the blessings of the north of England and one of the greatest they have had in the trade. If it were not for the existence of this and the Midlands board there would be a tremendous loss in wages and increasing strife and turmoil. The masters would be badly off', for they would suffer by stoppings and consequent loss on contracts. The trade has experienced many changes ; NATIONAL ABBITKATION BILL. 23 more, perhaps, than any other in existence, for it has gone through a complete revolution from iron to steel, and all the innumerable ques- tions arising from these changes have been settled by the board. The board has the effect of holding in check arbitrary foremen, who some- times take advantage of the men. At the same time it holds the men in check, for unless they have a good case their appearance before the board is ridiculed by their own colleagues. Edward Trow, the former secretary, said he had never known a case which could not be dealt with fairly by the arbitration board. Where both sides were acting with a desire to be fair and just to each other the result was always satisfactory . Until pure productive cooperation is secured conciliation and arbitration are the safeguards for the men. IRON AND STEEL WOEKEKS. The rules of the Associated Iron and Steel Workers of Great Britain set out that one of the objects of the association is to — regulate the relations between workmen and employers and to obtain by arbitration and conciliation, or by other means that are fair and legal, a fair remuneration to the members for their labor. Len. Fenwick, the men's secretary, regards their method as an excellent way of settling disputes. The Boiler Makers and Iron and Steel Shipbuilders' Society has been organized sixty years and is one of the wealthiest trade unions in England. Has been no general strike for twenty years. This has been accounted for by the conciliatory features in vogue. Mr. K. Knight, secretary, is on record as favoi'ing conciliation as the best means of settling difficulties between employer and employee, because it leaves no bitterness behind. SCOTTISH IKON TRADE. The conciliation and arbitration board in the manufactured-steel trade for the west of Scotland was organized in 1892. During the past five j^ears there has been no strikes to speak of, and where differ- ences have arisen they have been amicably settled. Mr. John Cronin is the general secretary of the men. He said they have never had any case of repudiation of a decision since the estab- lishment of the board. Mr. Bishop, secretary of the masters' association, regards the board as a good education, for many differences are due wholly to misunder- standings on the part of the men. It gives times for pause; when in hot blood, it gives room for reflection. The men frequently think capital is against labor, but the board shows that their interests are identical, and will often avoid if not altogether dispense with a strike. THE COTTON TRADE. The Northern Counties Amalgamated Association of Weavers has 80,000 members. Mr. W. H. Wilkinson, the secretary, said that the board of conciliation, which was established in 1878 after the big strike of that year, works fairly well. Ln 1896 the rules were amended and now give better satisfaction. All around the men have held their own in the arbitration. All wage questions have to be settled by this body. 24 NATIONAL AEBITBATION BILL. The reason for the formation of the board was the desire to prevent strikes. Neither side has been willing to appoint an arbitrator. In Mr. Wilkinson's opinion, the board has done an immense amount of good and has settled hundreds of disputes. A tangle can be straight- ened out much better while the men are working than after they have gone out on a strike. The general results in England ai'e that: (1) In case employer refuses to accept an award he is not supported by fellow-manufacturers. (2) Boards have fostered good feeling. (3) Disturbances have been few where men are treated with proper courtesy and frank interest. (4:) When former-ly it was almost impossible for men to know the facts concerning the state of trade and the prices of raw material and finished product, the desired information is now secured by the aid of audits by trained accountants and the knowledge so acquired has satis- lied the men as nothing else could, and the confidence thus given has not been violated. (5) Boards have reconciled labor and capital and put into practice justice and morality. (6) The conciliation board has become an element of education. The two sides wanted to enlighten each other, to understand each other, believe each other, and to discuss matters and lay open their minds fully. (7) Mr. Trow, secretary of the iron and steel trade, said that with them no striking was allowed, and no support given to men who refused arbitration. He favored the meeting of the two sides on a perfect equality, and the giving of all necessary information to the men's representatives in every dispute. In his trade numerous advances have been secured by arbitration, they having gained more through that method than by strike. The representatives should be selected by secret ballot, and, when once elected, should have power to deal, while the men should be prepared to carry out whatever their representatives agree to. Arbitration should be voluntary and every award should be cari-ied out faithfully, whether the workmen lose or win. Trade unions were the result of tyranny; arbitration is the result of strikes, and the results of conciliation and arbitration together will be the success of productive cooperation. That is all I have to say at present. I thank you. Mr. Davenport. May I ask the gentleman a question i Mr. Whitney. Yes, sir. Mr. Davenport. I understood the gentleman to say that he was concerned in the drafting of this bill ? Mr. Whitney. Yes, I worked on it quite a little bit. Mr. Davenport. Are you a lawyer ? Mr. Whitney. I am a lawyer, but I am not practicing law now. I am clerk to the Naval Committee of the House of Representatives. I would like to ask the gentleman who he is? Mr. Davenport. I am Daniel Davenport, of Bridgeport. Mr. Whitney. Whom do you represent? Mr. Davenport. I represent the National Anti-Boycott Association. Is Mr. Foster a lawyer ? Mr. Whitney. No, sir; he is not. Mr. Davenport. Can you tell us from what source you derived the NATIONAL ARBITRATION BILL. 25 provision in this bill providing for the investigation? Is it taken from some other bill ? Mr. Whitney. The bill was drawn up and sent out to a great num- ber of people and they have sent in suggestions. That is probably one of the suggestions received. I do not know the name of the man who advanced that idea. Mr. Davenport. I am referring to the particular provision in this bill providing for investigation. Was that drawn by you gentlemen, or was it drawn by some one else ? Mr. Whitney. I do not know who it was drawn by. It was probably just in the general mass of suggestions. Mr. Davenport. Was it the same bill as the Senate bill? , Mr. Whitney. Yes; it was identically the same as the Cullom bill. The Chairman. I understand it was actually drafted by Volney W. Foster, of Chicago. Mr. Whitney. He had these ideas that he had gotten from different gentlemen, and he drafted them into a bill. Then he sent that bill around again, and the gentlemen made notes on the margins and they wrote letters about it. Senators and members were consulted about the constitutionality, etc. I will say that Mr. Foster consulted with the American Federation of Labor also. Mr. Conner. Does any eminent lawyer criticise the bill that you know of? Mr. Whitney. No. Mr. Conner. Can you mention the lawyers who have approved this bill? Mr. Whitney. Former member of Congress Mr. Corliss, of Detroit, has gone through it very carefully. 1 could mention Senators' names, but I do not think it proper because they will pass on it when it gets to them. Mr. Davenport. This is drawn under the interstate-commerce laws of the Constitution, I suppose? Mr. Whitney. Yes, sir; but Mr. Foster, in his original bill, did not draw it quite as a lawyer would draw it. Mr. Foster. Do you expect Mr. Foster to appear here ? Mr. Whitney. Yes, sir. He is ill, but he will appear. The Chairman. He is at Hot Springs, and he telegraphs that he will be here as soon as it is possible. Mr. Whitney. When we got interested in this matter we had this mass of material to work 'on. I have a telegram from John L. Spalding, Bishop of Peoria, who was a member of the Coal Arbitration Commission, stating that he approves the Foster bill, and that he hopes it will become a law. I believe Mr. Spalding will also be heard, if you wish, in favor of the bill. Mr. Hughes. Have you read the McDermott bill? Mr. Whitney. Yes, sir. Mr. Hughes. Are you prepared to comment on it now? ' Mr. Whitney. I think it is a very good measure. I do not think it goes far enough — that is all — for the reason that it offers oppor- tunity for politics to interfere, and for the further reason that a per- manent board might keep off strikes and lockouts — unless the conten- tions are very serious. Mr. Hughes. You mean that this bill might prevent a strike, and 26 NATIONAL ABBITEATION BILt. that the McDermott bill can only deal with a strike after it has passed the arbitration stage ? Mr. Whitney. Yes, sir. Mr. FuRUSETH. The real purpose of the bill, as you see it, is to pre- vent strikes? Mr. Whitney. Yes; it has that tendency, to prevent lockouts and strikes. Mr. Hughes. The only objection i see to the bill, and also the only advantage the McDermott bill has over it, is that the McDermott bill is cheaper as an experiment. They are both experiments. Mr. Whitney. I think, as regards cost, that if either bill would stop a strike it would pay for itself for one hundred years in one strike. I do not think the cost would be an element. STATEMENT OF DANIEL LAVENPOKT, REPRESENTING THE ANTIBOYCOTT LEAGUE OF BRIDGEPORT, CONN. The Chairman. We will hear you now, Mr. Davenport. Ml'. Davenport. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, the provisions of this bill are so numerous and they cover such a wide field and are so fraught with mischief that it would take considerable time to discuss them with any proiitable results to the committee. There are, however, certain aspects of the bill to which I would call attention now, as being of the utmost importance in their effect. I do not know whether the meiribers of the committee have familiarized themselves with the provisions of the bill so that it will not be neces- sary to read over the different paragraphs and call attention to them, but its effect is to subject to the espionage of the all-searching eye of the Federal Government every manufacturer and every employer in this country whose business may in an}^ wa}' be interstate. Note the language of the bill as it appears in the several sections. For instance, take up section 3: That whenever there shall ariae a controversy within the United States concerning wages, hours of labor, or conditions of employment between employer or employers, being an individual, partnership, association, corporation, or other combination, and his, their, or its employees, or any association or combination of such employees, in which controversy a strike or lockout is threatened or exists, and in which contro- versy there is involved any commerce with foreign nations, or among the several States, or with the Indian tribes, or when such controversy arises within any of the Territories of the United States, or the District of Columbia, etc. Now, the committee is familiar with the construction which the Supreme Court of the United States has put upon the term "interstate commerce." It is not confined to agencies for the transmission of intelligence from State to State, although that is, of course, embraced in it; nor is it confined to transportation of products between the States and foreign nations; nor is it confined to the passage of individ- uals from one State to another. We know that under the decision of the Supreme Court in the lot- tery cases, following up a long line of other decisions, the power of Congress over interstate commerce is complete. It is not confined merely to what we call regulating, but it extends to the power of pro- hibiting altogether. It is possible for the Congress of the United States to pass a law under that provision which would prohibit me, a private citizen, fi'om going to my home in Bridgeport. That is the NATIONAL ABBITKATION BILL. 27 scope of the power of Congress. It is vast, illimitable, and plenary, and when Congress has once declared anything in regard to it, that becomes law, any law in a State to the contrary notwithstanding. Of course, this slumbering giant, not having been awakened to its full activity, does not interfere as yet with the acts of States in many respects, as, for instance, the passage of pilot laws. Many acts of exercise of the police power in States are permitted simply because Congress has not seen fit to act, but it is impossible for the human imagination to comprehend the scope of that power in the Federal Government. For my part I am not prepared now to say that the Supreme Court of the United States would not sustain a com- pulsory arbitration law so far as it relates to anything pertaining to interstate commerce. Of course, if a suit arose between two citizens of Connecticut over an injury arising, for instance, between an inter- state railroad and a citizen of that State, I suppose it would be in the power of Congress to take away from the State courts the determina- tion of such cases, although, of course, they have never yet under- taken to do so. These remarks are made by me for the purpose of directing the attention of the committee to the vast power that Congress possesses over this matter, and the infinite possibilities that lie in the future for the exercise of that power. But it has come to this, that any man in Connecticut who is engaged in the manufacturing business and is send- ing his goods into other States is engaged, in so far as he sends his goods into other States, in interstate commerce. You remember the sugar case- — the Knight case — where the Supreme Court held that the purchase of the property of that sugar company in Philadelphia was not prohibited by the Sherman antitrust act in 1890, because that busi- ness, so far as it was aflfected by that transaction, related wholly and solely to the manufacture within the State of the company's products; but when any manufacturing corporation or any individual is engaged in a business where he sends goods into other States, where he sends out agents for the purpose of soliciting orders, etc., it is interstate business of the character I speak of. Now, under the language of this bill, probably ninety-nine one- hundredths of the manufacturing concerns of this country are within its provisions, and I suppose as the bill was carefully drawn and is the result of investigation and consideration by these gentlemen, it is their purpose to have it apply to every such concern, not only to the railroad corporations of this country, which, according to the Indus- trial Commission's report, have one-lifth, I believe, of all the capital of the United States invested in them, but the other great manufac- turing and industrial businesses, as well, of course, as the merchants who are engaged in interstate trade. That, I say, is the scope of the bill. Now, what powers are conferred upon the Government by this bill? There are two sections I desiie to refer to. One relates to the appli- cation by any party to a dispute or controversy to this tribunal, and provisions are made for the course of procedure in the event of one party applying and the other partj' declining, or the other party accepting. I sajj^ that is one section. The other relates to the power of the tribunal itself to initiate this proceeding, and they have the power to call upon any partj' who is engaged in this kind of business and who is threatened with a strike, or where the employees, either 28 NAO^lONAL ARBITRATION BILL. one, or a union, threaten a strike. They are empowered to take hold of the matter on their own initiative. Now, what power have they? I call the attention of the committee to section 9: That the tribunal, or any one member thereof, shall have power to administer oaths and affirmations and to sign subpoenas, and for the purposes of this act said tribunal shall have power to require by subpoena the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production of all books, papers, tariffs, contracts, agreements, and documents relating to any matter under investigation; such attendance of wit- nesses and the production of such documentary evidence as may be required from any place in the United States at any designated place of hearing. And in case of disobedience to the subpcenathe tribunal may invoke the aid of any court of the United States in requiring such attendance and testimony of witnesses, and such production of books, papers, tariffs, contracts, and agreements. Any circuit court of the United States within the jurisdiction of which such inquiry is carried on may, in case of contumacy or refusal to obey a subpoena issued subject to the provisions of this act to any person, .issue an order requiring such person to appear before said tribunal and produce books and papers, if so ordered, and give evidence touching the matter in question, and any failure to obey such order of the court may be punished by such court as a contempt thereof. No persons shall be excused from attending and testifying or from producing books, papers, tariffs, con- tracts, agreements, and documents before the tribunal or in obedience to the sub- poena of the same, whether such subpoena be signed or issued by one or more members of the tribunal, on the ground or for the reason that the testimony or evidence, doc- umentary or otherwise, required of him, may tend to criminate him or subject him to a penalty or forfeiture. Mr. Hughes. Mr. Davenport, as you understand it, does that mean after the partj^ had agreed to accept Mr. Davenport. Before. Either before or after. Mr. Hughes. What page is that on ? Mr. Davenport. Do you mean the clause, or the provision? Mr. Hughes. The clause you were reading from. Mr. Davenport. I am reading from section 9. But no person shall be prosecuted or subjected to any penalty or forfeiture for or on account of any transaction, matter, or thing concerning which he may testify, or produce evidence, documentary or otherwise, before said tribunal or in obedience to its subpoena or the subpoena of any one of the members thereof, or in any case or pro- ceeding: Provided further, That no person so testifying shall be exempt from pros- ecution and punishment for the perjury committed in so testifying. The witnesses summoned before the tribunal shall be paid the same fees and mileage as are paid to witnesses in the courts of the United States. Upon the request of the tribunal it shall be the duty of any district attorney of the United States to whom said tribunal may apply to institute in the proper court and to prosecute, under the direction of the Attorney-General of the United States, all necessary proceedings for the enforcement of the provisions of this section, and for the punishment of all violations thereof, and the costs and expenses of such prosecutions shall be paid out of the appropriations for the expenses of the courts of the United States. The testimony of any witness may be taken, at the instance of a party in any pro- ceeding or investigation pending before the tribunal, by deposition at any time after a cause or proceeding is at issue on petition and answer. The tribunal may also order testimony to be taken by deposition in any proceeding or investigation pend- ing before it at any stage of such proceeding or investigation. Such depositions may be taken before any judge of any court of the United States, or any commissioner of a circuit or any clerk of a district or circuit court, or any chancellor, justice, or judge of a supreme or superior court, mayor or chief magistrate of a city, judge of a county court or court of common pleas of any of the United States, or any notary public, not being of counsel or attorney to either of the parties nor interested in the event of the proceeding or investigation. Reasonable notice must first be given in writing by the party of his attorney of record, which notice shall state the name of the wit- ness and the time and place of the taking of his deposition. Any person may be compelled to appear and depose and to produce documentary evidence in the same NATIONAL AEBITEATION BILL. 29 manner as witnesses ma}' be compelled to appear and testify and produce docu- mentary evidence before the tribunal as hereinbefore provided. Every person deposing as herein provided shall be cautioned and sworn (or affirm, if he so request) to testify the whole truth, and shall be carefully examined. His testimonjr shall be reduced to writing by the officer taking the deposition, or under his direction, and shall, after it has been reduced to writing, be subscribed by the deponent. If a witness whose testimony may be desired to be taken by deposition be in a for- eign country, the deposition may be taken before an officer or person designated by the tribunal, etc. That is the provision of the law in regard to proceedings instituted upon the application of either party, whether the thing has been agreed to or not. But in addition to that, when the tribunal itself sees fit to institute such an investigation, it is at liberty to do so, and those provisions all apply. The Chaikman. Do you think that would cover the examination of books and accounts ? Mr. Davenport. Everything. The Chairman. Whether they had agreed to arbitration or not? Mr. Davenport. Absolutely. Its intent, I take it, is to subject to investigation the business of any party, as within the scope of the pro- visions of the bill; that is, interstate business. The Chairman. 1 asked that question because section 10, page 17, provides: That the tribunal, or ite duly appointed agents, may, whenever it deems it expe- dient, after an agreement for arbitration between the parties to the controversy has been made, enter and inspect any institution, establishment, factory, workshop, or mine belonging to either party, and may employ competent experts to examine the accounts, books, and official reports of either party. Mr. Davenport. Yes; I noticed that. But that does not interfere at all with the exercise of the other power. Under this provision they may enter the very premises if the parties have agreed to it. The Chairman. They may examine the books if the parties agree to it. Mr. Davenport. And employ competent experts; but they have the power before such an agreement under section 9 The Chairman. That is a question of construction of the bill. Mr. Davenport. Can there be a question of construction under sec- tion 9? The Chairman. It must all be taken together. Mr. Davenport. But that is the literal wording of the statute, which I have read, and, as has been recently discovered, the Supreme Court of the United States interprets a statute of the United States accord- ing to the plain language of it, and they have done that in all of the cases that have arisen under the Sherman antitrust act. I say if this bill is passed with that provision in it, it will subject every person who is engaged in interstate trade and every person who is not engaged in interstate trade, in the District of Columbia and in the Territories, to the liability of having his business investigated by this tribunal. Of course anyone can see the extent of the power, and the tremendous authority that is conferred upon this tribunal by the bill. 1 submit that this committee ought not to recommend to the whole committee, nor should the whole committee recommend to the House, nor should the House pass any bill which has that effect. Of course, when you take up the general subject of arbitration 30 NATIONAL ABBITEATION BILL. Mr. Conner. Mr. Davenport, do you think a bill would be effective that does not contain some provision giving the board authority to make the investigations thorough? Mr. Davenport. I think myself that a bill establishing an arbitra- tion board which has the semblance of a court could not be made effective without such provisions in it. That is my idea about it. Mr. Hughes. Do you believe in the Government arbitrating the differences between the employers and the men at all, as a general proposition ? Mr. Davenport. No, sir; I do not, upon the general proposition of arbitration. I do not believe it is the business of the Government, either State or Federal. I think it is an unwise thing for them to attempt to do so. I have heretofore expressed to this committee my own views upon the subject of the relation between employer and employee and the unwisdom of any of these devices, whether it be federal arbi- tration or not, whereby the control and authority of the employer is taken away from him. The Chairman. Do you believe in arbitration at all, Mr. Davenport? Mr. Davenport. My own idea is that it is a mistake. The Chairman. Any arbitration ? Mr. Davenport. Any arbitration. My idea is that those things should be left to be settled in other ways. Mr. Hughes. You do not believe in strikes, do you? Mr. Davenport. Certainlj-, I believe in strikes. 1 believe a man has the right to quit the employ of another; and what he does singl}'' he can do in the company of others. Mr. Connor. Do you believe the public is benefited by strikes? Mr. Davenport. No, sir; I think there never was a strike that was won. Mr. Gompers says there never was a strike that was lost, but according to my judgment there never was a strike that was won. The striking employees, the employers, and the public, all together, are the losers by it. Mr. Furuseth. May I ask the gentleman a question ? Mr. Davenport. Yes, sir. Mr. Furuseth. Your objection to this bill, then, is based upon this fact: That you oppose any interference on behalf of anybody in the business of the employer? Mr. Davenport. Yes, sir; that I do. Mr. Furuseth. Your position is, in other words, that the employer is the absolute master of his business? Mr. Davenport. He is the absolute master of his business, and he should be. That is my position. Mr. Hughes. Now, will you come back to where we were a moment ago? Mr. Davenport. Yes, sir. Mr. Hughes. You said you did not believe in arbitration, that you believed in strikes Mr. Daa''enport. 1 believe in the right to strike. Mr. Hughes. Then you went on and said there never was a strike that was won? Mr. Davenport. Yes. Mr. Hughes. And that the public, the employers, and the employees all suffered — 1 believe that is what you said? Mr. Davenport. That is true. NATIONAL ABBITKATION BILL. 31 Mr. Hughes. That being so, how do you reconcile those two posi- tions? Mr. Davenport. I believe in the right of the individual to strike. I believe that the privilege of the individual to enter the employ of another, or to cease from being his employee, is an absolute right. The Chairman. But you think it very foolish on his part to strike ? Mr. Davenport. I do. The Chairman. Which brings it around, in your opinion, to the point that what the employer says should be Mr. Hughes. Final. The Chairman. Final, regardless of anybody else. Mr. Davenport. As to whom he will employ and upon what terms he will employ them, and all that is involved in that. The Chairman. Why should he have such an absolute right as that where other interests are affected, perhaps, in as great a degree as his own — for instance, the public interests? Mr. Davenport. Because it involves his property right. There is just as much right on his part to use his property as there is a right in an individual to decline to work. So far as any interference as that is concerned, it is not only bad political economy, but it is bad politically and socially. The Chairman. You would have the same doctrine apply to a rail- road as to any other employer? Mr. Davenport. I would; although they ai-e in a sense, of course, semipublic institutions. The Chairman. Would you modify it in regard to railroads? Mr. Davenport. I would not, so long as the Government sees fit to allow individuals to invest their capital in transportation compa- nies. But apart from the general proposition as to arbitration and its unwisdom, when you come to the question Mr. Hughes asked, as to interference by the Government and the Government taking a hand in it, that is unquestionably^, in my mind, obnoxious. The Chairman. Do you not refer now to compulsory arbitration — to compel the employer to accept the decision of some outside party ? Mr. Davenport. No; I do not confine it to that. Mr. Connor. Do you think a bill of this character would have a restraining influence or would prevent strikes ? Mr. Davenport. I have my doubts about that. We have in this morning's paper an illustration in New York. Here is an agreement that has been entered into between the building employers of New York and the unions providing for arbitration, and providing further that until the arbitration board has acted the parties shall not strike; that there shall be neither strike nor lockout. We find the situation to-day in New York that, notwithstanding that provision so carefully prepared by the interested parties on both sides, it is broken at the start, and a tie-up is threatened of all the building industries of New York. Mr. FuRUSETH. By whom, Mr. Davenport? Mr. Davenport. This originated in the refusal of the bricklayers' union to observe the "conditions in the agreement which was entered into in their name with the employers' association Mr. FuKUSETH. One moment, please. Is there not a mistake about that? Mr. Davenport. I think not. 32 NATIONAL ARBITKATION BILL. Mr. FuEUSETH. Did it not originate in the fact of the employers reducing the wages of the laborers — the building laborers ? Mr. Davenport. 1 think it did — of the building laborers, and then Mr. FuEUSETH. They were a part of it. Mr. Davenport. Not of the bricklayers' union. Mr. FuRUSETH. No; but they were a part of the agreement, were they not? Mr. Davenport. The agreement was made, I think, between the bricklayers' union and the building employers' union; but at once the bricklayers' union proceeded to violate the conditions of the agree- ment. Mr. FuRUSETH. After the employers had violated theirs on their side, first. Mr. Davenport. I think not. Mr. Connor. That trouble would not arise under this bill, because this contemplates that one of the parties may refuse to arbitrate, and that publicitj'^ is then given to the refusal. Mr. Davenport. That is true. That is the provision in regard to arbitration. On the other hand, we find another large section of the community, the lithographers, where the employers are threatening to lock out their employees unless they will agree as a union to sign an arbitration agreement. In other words, we have one section trying to get out from under the provisions of an arbitration policy and the other to get in. The Chairman. Excuse me a moment, Mr. Davenport. Is not the difference of opinion between you and Mr. Furuseth on this matter liable to arise on a large scale ? Suppose a strike takes place and the employers upon the one side accuse the employees of bad faith, or something of that kind, and the employees on the other side deny it and say that the employers are entirely responsible. In that event the public has no means of knowing which is correct about it. Per- haps both are in a measure correct. Mr. Davenport. Yes. The Chairman. Would not the decision of a board of this kind, which had standing enough to command confidence, enable the public to exactly determine which side was to blame in the matter and which side would be entitled to public sympathy and support? Mr. Davenport. I do not think so, and Mr. Furuseth. You are opposed to any interference on the part of anybody with the employer of labor upon this ground, I understand: That the laborer forms a part of the business which is necessary to him in order to carry on his business, and that the ownersliip of his business gives him a kind of vested right in so much labor as is neces- sary to carry on that business ? Mr. Davenport. By no means. Mr. Connor. Do I understand you to say, Mr. Davenport, that, in your opinion, the strike is injurious to the striker, to the employer, and to the public? Mr. Davenport. Yes. Mr. Connor. Then can you tell me why you are not in favor of legislation to prevent strikes? Mr. Davenport. Because it is absolutely necessary, according to my judgment as to these matters, that the employer should have the NATIONAL ABBITKATION BILL. 33 sole determination as to the conditions under which he will run his business, as to whom he will have work for him, and under what con- ditions they shall work. That unity of management which is abso- lutely essential to all production, without whicQ business can not be carried on, is at stake m the matter. But upon that subject I have no other views to communicate to this committee than those I communi- cated in the remarks I made upon the subject when the eight-hour bill was up for consideration. There is no more possibility of successfully conducting business in the industrial world without unity than there is in successfully con- ducting an army or anything that requires united action under one mind, or in any other form of collective activity. That is certain in my mind, and all these devices that are gotten up to interfere with that, while they are now causing immense trouble in this country, will cause much more trouble. In the end society will come back to the recognition of that principle. The thing to be done is to enforce the laws which secure the right of the individual to run his own business according to the dictates of his own best business judgment and the right of every man to work, whether he belongs to a union or not. That is the path along which this country has got to travel before it reaches the solution of the great problem which is before it. Mr. FuRUSETH. You say that there can not be any distinction between an industrial establishment and an army; or that the principle is the same in a large industrial establishment and in an army. You, by that, mean that there is absolute authority in Mr. Davenport. Either large or small. Mr. FuRtrsETH. You, by that, mean there is absolute authority in the employer such as is to be found in the general of an army, and absolute obedience in the employees such as is to be found in the soldier? Mr. Davenport. According to the nature of the business. Of course in the military line you have to have this authority absolute. We all know how absolute it has to be; but in its essence it has got to be the same in the industrial world. It is the directing mind that takes all of these Mr. FuRUSETH. Right on that point, Mr. Davenport. You realize, I presume, that the Greneral of the Army does not determine the wages of the soldiers. That is determined by somebody else. Would you have somebody else, the Government, say, interfere in any way to determine the wages of the industrial employee as it does the wages of the soldier? Mr. Davenport. Absolutely not. Mr. FuRUSETH. On that subject, then, they are not to be compared. Mr. Davenport. Of course not. Mr. Hughes. Mr. Davenport, you know, too, that the Government prescribes the conditions of the soldier's life— his clothing, his hours of recreation, his food. Mr. Davenport. In certain respects. Mr. Hughes. So there is not a parallel. Mr, Davenport. There is this parallel. We must not direct our attention to the accidental and accessory things. We are talking about the principle and the essential things. The military commander must be able to say where his company is to move; he must be able to give orders, and they must be obeyed, because collective action is N A B — 04 o 34 NATIONAL AEBITEATION BILL. absolutely necessary to the very existence of the army. When you turn to the industrial world you have the same thing. Mr. Hughes. Or to the existence of the commander? Mr. Davenport. In an army it is necessary for the purpose for which it exists. In the industrial world it is just the same, in essence. Of course it is the directing mind which brings together all the forces that operate in production in order to accomplish the desired result. Now, any outside party who steps in and deprives the pei'soii who occupies that position of the power to say when things are to be bought, when they are to be made,'how they are to be made, to give the orders to those who make them, and when they are to be sold — all those parts of the proceeding involve the same thing in principle as in any other form of collective action. Now the trouble with arbitration is that it strikes at that. The man surrenders his own judgment. It is the same in regard to these col- lective associations of employers, where they agree together to submit their matters to the common action. It is the same way in regard to the employees, when they agree, and thereby are able by their combi- nation to control. I trust I have made my own position clear in regard to this matter. I say that any interference by the Government along these lines is bad, and according to my idea about it, it is very much worse than any attempt on the part of individuals among them- selves to do it. In that connection I want to call the attention of the committee to one of the provisions of this bill. After the parties have entered into this agreement and the matter is before the tribunal, one party is to be deprived of the power to strike while it is pending, and the other party is prevented from discharging. Things have got to remain in statu quo between them. In the ever-varying and infinite changes that occur in the conduct of business while that matter may be pending, conditions might arise that would make it necessary for the very exist- ence of the business, for the interest of all who have the whole or a part of their capital invested in it, to do that very thing. The Chairman. To do what thing? Mr. Davenport. To stop work; and under the provisions of this bill it is prevented. Mr. Conner. Suppose in a contest between employers and employees, a question is under consideration before this tribunal. I understand it says that the laborer can not be discharged pending the investiga- tion Mr. Davenport. It does, under the terms of the bill. Mr. Conner. Do you think that would prohibit the employer from discharging a laborer whom he discovers is guilty of embezzlement, or something of that nature? Mr. Davenport. I think that would not be a fair construction of it. But I think under that provision of the bill he can not stop his business. Yet, it might be absolutely necessary to do it. That is the trouble with all measures on the part of the Government to try and interfere and regulate those matters. There are so many condi- tions Mr. Conner. Does it not mean that he can not discharge them for the causes which bring about the investigation ? Mr. Hughes. It simply says there shall be no lock-out, and that the conditions shall be as though the controversy had never existed. NATIONAL AEBITBATION BILL. 35 Mr. Conner. That is the way I understand it. Mr. Davenport. What would constitute a lock-out? The manufac- turer says, "I will shut down my business; conditions have arisen which, in my opinion, make it destructive of the business if I go on." Is not that covered by this bill ? The Chairman. I would not think that a fair construction of it. I think there should be a provision as to lock-outs or strikes for the reasons set up — the reasons of difference. Mr. Davenport. Take this case for example: He says, "I can not afford to pay the wages you demand," and a party has applied for a settlement, and under the moral coercion of the necessity of recogniz- ing this tribunal he enters into the agreement; and he becomes satisfied that not only can he not pay those wages which he has been continuing to pay and had previously paid, but that he can not afford to pay even those that he had offered to pay. Is it not the fact that by this bill he is prevented from doing it? Mr. FuRUSETH. Assuming that to be so, do you hold that to be a kind of confiscation of the property of the employer Mr. Davenport. What? To ruin a man's business? Mr. FuRUSETH. Do you hold that to compel him to continue busi- ness against his will would be a kind of confiscation ? Mr. Davenport. I certainly do. Of course, the point is that by the machinery of this bill he has agreed not to do it. Mr. Hughes. Is there any penalty in the bill as you have read it? Have you discovered any penalty or any punishment for such conduct on the part either of the employer or the employee? Mr. Davenport. He is subjected to whatever provisions there are in this bill which are calculated to place him in an unfavorable light before the community. Mr. Hughes. That is the only thing? Mr. Davenport. Is that not enough ? Mr. Hughes. That is all, is it not! Mr. Davenport. Is not that the purpose of it? The purpose of it is to coerce by these means the employer into a course of action ; but I submit that this provision is such that when it is known that it is in this bill — and I hope the public of this country will know it— the great interests of this country will appear here before this committee and express their opposition to it, because it is such an invasion of their natural privacy, which all men want and which every experienced business man knows it is necessary to have. Why, the French Government, in its extraordinary powers of police, which apparently give to the individual in the community no liberty of person, does not undertake to do any such thing as this. You are creating a tribunal and clothing it with power to bring before it, upon the application of any individual employee, or even without the interposition of that, but upon the mere will of the "tribunal, every person, and to investigate and show all his affairs and all his business; and you know how reluctant they are to comply with that, even in the case of the Interstate Commerce Commission. Mr. Conner. Have you studied the effect of the Massachusetts arbi- tration law, where it goes further than this, even, and permits the commission, before the strike has occurred, to take up of its own motion — or even after the strike has occurred, to take up o£ its own motion — an investigation ? 86 NATIONAL ARBITRATION BILL. Mr, Davenport. I would inquire of the honorable Congressman whether under that law any attempt has ever been made to enforce it. I know very well that in the case of the strike in Lowell, which was about a year ago, I guess, the managers of those mills agreed to per- mit certain experts employed by the arbitration board to investigate their books to see whether or not they had been making money. That was done voluntarily by them. Mr. Arthur T. Lyman, of Boston, told me of the facts connected with their doing that thing. But either that bill in Massachusetts is a dead letter, and is not employed at all by any party, or the parties affected have refused to do it. - Mr. Conner. You heard the statement of Mr. Whitney this morn- ing of the case Mr. Davenport. In 1 877- Mr. Conner. Where a strike occurred and a tribunal, of its own motion, investigated that with good results ? Mr. Davenport. 1 heard it. Mr. Conner. What I wish to inquire is whether you have made any investigation as to the working of that law yourself ? Mr. Davenport. Not further than I have stated. But I put it to you, gentlemen, as men familiar with the American mind, do you believe that the American people are ready for legislation of that character, that would subject to the inquisition of a Federal tribunal, with all its machinery, the investigation of the affairs of every private individual and every corporation engaged in interstate commerce at any place that that commission may see fit to call them to? I think upon reflection you will think they are not. MR. WHITNEY SATS MR, DAVENPORT HAS MISCONSTRUED BILL OR WISHES TO BE UNFAIR. Mr. Whitney. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has misconstrued the intent of this bill and the plain reading of it, or else he wishes to be unfair. He has gone upon record, and it will go out to the country, as saying, " Here is a bill of inquisition into private affairs of busi- ness," etc. This bill does not provide any such thing. It simply provides "That whenever it shall appear to the tribunal that there exists in the United States a controversy," and so forth and so on, "it shall be competent and lawful for the tribunal to request both of the said parties to such controversy to submit in writing," etc. BOARD MAY SIMPLY "REQUEST." It states simply that they may "request." If either side refuses to comply with the request, that is the end of it. If both sides refuse to come in, you can not compel them. It is not compulsory arbitra- tion. It is voluntary arbitration. Mr, Davenport. It is not a question of compulsory arbitration. It is a question of compulsory investigation. Do you mean to say Mr. Whitney. I have not interrupted you. Let me make my state- ment, please. Mr. Conner. The question he says is Mr. Whitney. He made a statement that might give a wrong impression. This is not an investigation of a man's private business until you get to this point. The tribunal can not go out and say, "You have got to let us investigate your books to see if this condi- tion of affairs exists. " They say : ' ' We want to investigate. Are NATIONAL AEBITBATION BILL. 37 you willing?" And if he says "No," that is an end of it. Then public opinion comes in and says, " These gentlemen have got some- thing they do not want to show." That is as far as the bill goes, and public opinion must enforce the rights and claims that are involved in that condition of aflPairs. Mr. Conner. You understand that the "provision about summoning witnesses and bringing the books and documentary evidence Mr. Whitney. That would be voluntary. Mr. Conner. Let me finish my question. Do you undertake to say that under this bill the witnesses could not be compelled to bring that testimony ? Mr. Whitney. Unless both parties enter into the agreement they could not. That is the very point there. This gentleman presented the idea that this tribunal could go and look into the books of an}"^ concern of its own accord. It can not do it unless that concern becomes a party to the arbitration tribunal. That is what I wish to have entered on the record. Mr. FuRUSETH. Your position is that the jurisdiction of this court is obtained by and through the agreement? Mr. Whitney. Voluntarily. The Chairman. By the consent of both parties ? Mr. Whitney. By the consent of both parties. The results of arbi- tration in England on this point are summed up here, Mr. Chairman: When formerly it was almost impossible for men to know the facts concerning the state of trade and the prices of raw material and finished product, the desired infor- mation is now secured by the aid of audits by trained accountants, and the knowl- edge so acquired has satisfied the men as nothing else could, and the confidence thus given has not been violated. That is the result of these investigations in England. Mr. Beek. From what does the gentleman quote? Mr. Whitney. From different bulletins of the Labor Bureau down here — the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Mr. Beek. It is not authoritative, then? Mr. Whitney. Yes; it is. Mr. Beek. They have not any Governmental authority ? Mr. Whitney. They are published by the United States Govern- ment. Mr. Beek. That is what I want to get at. The Chairman. By the Department of Labor. Mr. Downey. Do we infer that there is compulsory arbitration or investigation upon the part of the Government in England? Mr. Whitney. No; it is voluntary. Mr. Davenport. I will ask Mr. Whitney if it is his construction of this bill that if the employees of any concern engaged in interstate business bring a petition to this tribunal and the investigation is not then Mr. Whitney. The employees can bring their petition of claims and demands and present it to the tribunal. If the employer refuses to come in, that is the end of it. The board would publish the claim and set out what they claim is right and just. Mr. Davenport. Have you considered this language, after having described what the petitioner may do — " that the tribunal, or any one member thereof, shall have power," etc., relating to any matter under investigation ? Mr. W hitney. What page do you refer to ? 38 NATIONAL ARBITKATION BILL. Mr. Davenport. The bottom of page 13 and top of page 14. Mr. Whitney. Afteritacquires jurisdiction by voluntary agreement it can. Mr. Davenport. And at the bottom of page 15: The testimony of any witness may be taken at the instance of a party in any pro- ceeding or investigation pending before the tribunal Mr. Whitney. After it has jurisdiction by voluntary agreement it can. Your position puts it in the position of a regular board of inquisition. Mr. Davenport. Absolutely, according to my interpretation of the language, that is what is meant? Mr. Hughes. As I understand you, Mr. Whitney, there is not any desire on the part of the people who are interested in this legislation that this bill should have the powers attributed to it Mr. Whitney. Absolutely not. Mr. Hughes. By Mr. Davenports Mr. Whitney. Absolutely none. Mr. Hughes. And if it had those powers you would suggest that it be amended? Mr. Whitney. Why, the American people would not stand for that a minute. Mr. Hughes. You think the power to issue subpcsnas and take evidence and investigate the affairs of manufacturer, or employees, can come to the tribunal only after both parties have submitted and they ai'e at issue? Mr. Whitney. Yes, sir; that is what the bill says. The Chairman. Section 10 provides it. Mr. Whitney. The gentleman presented an argument which would arouse the country if it went out in that form. That is why I object to his construction. Mr. Davenport. If the construction which I contend for of this bill is correct, you think it would arouse the people of this country if passed ? Mr. Whitney. Why, surely it would. The Chairman. Mr. Davenport, if your view is correct, and it should be amended so that it did not so provide, except in cases where both parties agree, your views would still be the same? Mr. Davenport. Oh, certainly they would. The Chairman. Does the committee desire to sit any longer? It is now 1 o'clock. Mr. Hayden. May I inquire if any further hearings will be given on this bill in the subcommittee? The Chairman. I think they will. There are several gentlemen who can not be here at present who have asked for hearings. Judge Gray and Bishop Spalding, and the real author of the bill, Mr. Foster, who is sick and has not been able to get here. Mr. Hayden. 1 have no doubt that clients of ours will wish to be heard, or will desire to file some matter, at any rate, if there is no objection to it. The Chairman. Whom do you represent? Mr. Hayden. The Carnegie Steel Company, almost certainly, at any rate, if not others. The subcommittee, at 1 o'clock and 5 minutes p. m., adjourned until March 29, 1904, at 10.30 oclock a. m. NATIONAL AEBITRATION BILL. H. R. 9491. Washington, D. C, Wed/nesday, Ma/rchSO, 190^,. The subcommittee met at 10. 30 o'clock a. m., Hon. Edward B. Vree- land in the chair. STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE E. FOSS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS. Mr. Chairman, I desire to introduce Mr. Volney W. Foster, who is a constituent of mine and also a prominent citizen from the city of Chicago. I may say that I introduced a bill, which is known as H. R. 9491, to create an international arbitration tribunal and to define the duties and powers thereof, at the request of Mr. Foster. Mr. Foster is himself the author of the measure, and appears to-day before this committee to speak concerning it. I may say of Mr. Foster that he is a practical man of affairs, has large interests, has been a large employer of labor, and yet I do not believe he ever had a strike. He is not only a practical man of affairs, but is a student of questions which are now interesting the public. He has spent a good deal of time in consideration of this great question which is before you, the reconciliation of labor and capital, the two great forces of our industrial system; and I bespeak for him your attention and consideration to what he has to say. STATEMENT OF MR. VOLNEY W. FOSTER, OF CHICAGO, ILL. As you are all advised of the bill and no doubt have read it and understand the different elements of it, I shall not unnecessarily take your time to repeat in a general way that which you will probably care to deal with in detail. It might be well for me to say just a word about the method of thought that induced me to endeavor to make application of these principles in a practical way to the solution of the difficulties arising between employer and employees. It began with an abstract consideration of what is called public opin- ion, a thing that is thoroughly well recognized and" sometimes greatly feared in its spontaneous and ill-directed movements. That it is a force there can be no doubt, and the question was in my mind whether it could be scientifically directed, through reliable and responsible chan- nels, to becone a compelling force to those who were at least in danger by their behavior of disturbing the peace and prosperity of society. 39 40 NATIONAL ARBITRATION BILL. FIRM CONVICTION BILL WOULD SOLVE GREAT DIFFICtJLTrES. In dealing with this subject, first in an abstract way and later in the attempt to naake an application of the principle, there came to me the firm conviction that a bill of the character that is now before you, or one modified perhaps in some particulars to make the intent more clear, or amended perhaps to be more forceful and if possible more equitable, would prove a solution of our greatest difficulties. There is no doubt that the fvhlic weal is the ^a/rcmiount question, and while the individuals engaged in controversies, the emntoyer and employee, svffeo' greatly, the general pvhlic suffers still more, which gives a sufficient reason why an attempt should he made to induce and invite ■peace between these two great forces. I know of no higher tribunal to deal •s^ith these questions than men selected from among those that have the universal respect of their fellow-men, who are known for their wisdom, their patriotic devotion, and for all those attributes that would distinguish them as arbitrators in the affairs and diflPerences that may arise between these two forces. The law as its exists may compel obedience to its statutory enact- ments, but in dealing with this great question we have sought for a more comprehensive consideration than is given by the technicalities of the law, the moral obligation of man to man is to be considered in the proposed adjustment of such difficulties. So I suhmit to you that this hill is intended to he a hridge, one Tmttress of lohioh would rest upon the law and the other upon the well-recognized practical moral ohligations of man to man that have not yet passed over into law, and on the middle of this hridge that this tribunal of honor- able men may stand to comii7ie all these elements as a moral, compelling force, to TYiahe peace and to multiply prosperity. A PRACTICAL QUESTION. I feel almost like apologizing to you to deal with this subject in this abstract and academic way. To you and to me it is not an academic question; it is a practical question. I have been an employer of labor, but before that I was engaged in every kind of common labor — not skilled, I was not skilled — that any of you or any of your constituents have been engaged in. Therefore I do not speak as one who does not know. It would probably economize your time if we dealt section by section with the bill, that we may discover those parts that compel your adher- ence and consent, and other parts that may not be so clearly stated as they should be, and perhaps, also, there may be some suggestions, •some amendments, to make more effective the original intent and undertaking in the formulation of the bill. HOW BILL WAS PREPARED. I may say to you that the bill was first formulated as a printer's proof, and upon it was left a wide margin, and it was sent to many people. It was sent to employers and representatives of labor. They were asked to make notations upon the margin, to the end that the finished work should be the result of many practical minds. To these communications many answers were received. Some of them were of NATIONAL ARBITRATION BILL. 41 practical value; some of them commended the bill outright in rather glowing terms, with no further comment, which was of no particular use; otners condemned the bill outright, with no explanation, which did not help very much. But there were others, again, that took the trouble to read carefully and discuss the merits of certain phases and clauses — to raise questions, which, being answered, improved the text of the bill. I will be very glad, if it is your wish, to take the bill up, section by section, declaring in advance that there is no pride of opinion about it. The work we have undertaken is so much larger than any man that he would only diminish himself to nothingness if he showed a special pride that his small name should be connected with so great a movement. There is no word in the bill that I will not be glad to change to a better word. There is no sentence in the bill that is not at your dis- posal and with my consent, if we can make it clearer along the humane, the intelligent, and patriotic purpose that lies beneath the undertaking. Mr. Vreeland. I would suggest, Mr. Foster, that you complete the matter in your own wa}"^, whichever way you think would be most effective. It may be that some gentlemen present desire to get your opinion as to the meaning and effect of some of the clauses of the bill. APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS OF TRIBUNAL. Mr. Foster. The iirst section of the bill provides for the appoint- ment of the members of the commission, and provides that the Secre- tary of Commerce and Labor shall be ex officio a member of the tri- bunal, but without any power to vote. I would be glad to know if there is comment upon this particular section or suggestion for a change. Mr. Vreeland. I think the earlier sections of the bill may be passed over unless some gentlemen have questions to ask about them. Mr. Maddox. I think it would be a good idea for Mr. Foster to go on and explain it and give us an idea of it, and then we can ask you such questions as we desire. Mr. Foster. You would like me to speak of the various sections ' Mr. Vreeland. Giving so much attention to each one as you think best, and I would suggest that the main part of your time be given to the latter sections of the bill. The machinery of the bill is a matter of detail. It is the purpose and the text of it, I suppose, that we would like to hear you upon. Mr. Foster. The suggestion or the form of the bill in its initial part, including the Secretary of Commerce and Labor as a member, was made after careful consideration. It was believed that the infor- mation at the conamand of the Secretary of Commerce and Labor, that would be by the time of operation of such a bill well equipped, and have had considerable experience, and would be extremely useful to the tribunal in the obtaining of information, and, therefore, it was sug- gested that the Secretary of Commerce and Labor be ex officio a mem- ber. The provision was made that he should not vote. TENURE OF OFFICE. You will observe that the period of tenure of the proposed members of the tribunal reaches beyond an administration, and therefore these 42 NATIONAL AEBITEATION BILL. would not be called properly administration representatives; but the becretary of Commerce and Labor would and must be a representative of the administration, and therefore it was thought best that he have not the power to vote. Mr. Davenport. May I ask a question for information on that first section ? Mr. Vreeland. Yes, sir. Mr. Davenport. 1 notice there is no limitation of any kind put upon the qualifications of the members. For instance, in regard to railroad conditions, boards of railroad commissioners, there is always a provision looking to familiarity on the part of the member with the particular kind of business. There is no qualification that I can see required, either political or otherwise, and does not that first clause provide for the establishment of a political tribunal? Mr. Foster. Your last question is: "Does not the first clause pro- vide for a political tribunal?" Mr. Davenport. Yes; that it may be created as in the judgment of the President, if he sees fit, and without any reference whatsoever to the technical or other qualifications of the members? Mr. Foster. The point that you make was considered. The num- ber of the tribunal to be appointed is small, and when specifications and limitations were considered it appeared to us that it was vjiser to leave tJiat matter to the President of the United States. OPERATION op BILL INTERSTATE. Mr. Maddox. I would like to ask you one question on this section. Is it your idea that this bill shall operate outside of the District of Columbia and the Territories ? Mr. Foster. Interstate, yes. Mr. Maddox. Do you think you can do that? Has Congress the power to do anything of that sort? Mr. Foster. Interstate business? Mr. Maddox. Interstate business, as I was going to say Mr. Foster. State affairs ? Mr. Maddox. The local business of yours in Illinois, for instance? ' Mr. Foster. The bill was specially drafted to avoid the objection of the constitutional lawyer. Mr. Maddox. There is one other suggestion that I would like to make, or, rather, would like to hear you explain, and that is the idea of having the home of this body at Washington City. Located here, would not that often be very inconvenient in arbitrating, for instance, a trouble in the West, or on the Pacific slope, or in the South, or way up in the East? Mr. Foster. It is necessary that the tribunal have a habitat. It is pi'ovided, however, in the bill that meetings may be had at other places. Mr. Maddox. Well, does it not cease to be a question of arbitration ? In other words, an arbitration when the court is already selected for the parties, does not that take it out of the very idea of arbitration ? For instance, we would establish this court and they were to decide on certain principles. Saj"^, for instance, against the manufacturer, or, to reverse it, against the laborers. The next arbitration would come along. These people in all probability would not consent because they NATIONAL AKBITBATION BILL. 43 would object to the court; they would be going before a court that had already committed itself on a line of policy. Did you consider that at all in making up the bill? Mr. Foster. It was considered. Mr. Maddox. I wanted to call your attention to it; I am not express- ing any opinion about it. Mr. Foster. It was considered that there might be recalcitrants, but also it was considered that the penalty prescribed was sufficient to compel consideration. Mr. Maddox. There is another item. The laborers have an asso- ciation — that is, union labor has an association — but they are not chartered. They come to you and they will arbitrate with you repre- senting manufacturers. They will arbitrate with you as an associa- tion. How can you hold them liable? Haven't they got to have a charter before you can do anything with them ? Is it not mere child's play unless they are chartered? How can you compel them to do a thing? I want to hear you on that line. Mr. Foster. Yes. It is believed by those who gave diligent atten- tion to this bill that when bodies of men known by a particular name — a union or an organization or an association — made a complaint signed by their responsible officers, and evidence was given that they were representative — that they have become morally incorporated, which is the larger part of the proposition — and whether tney had a little money in the treasury or not is of less consequence. Mr. Maddox. I confess that is true morally, but we do not want to go into child's play; we want them to be legally bound, if we do any- thing at all. confidence in MpRAL FORCE OF PUBLIC OPINION. Mr. Foster. You will discover running all through this bill a con- fidence in the moral verdict of the tribunal and the moral and actual force of public opinion. Those who do not believe in that at all will believe that this bill is of no consequence whatever. Mr. Maddox. I would not hardly think that, because I am in hearty sympathy with the movement, if we can ever do it to make it binding, if we can make it successful, 1 would like to see that done. Mr. Foster. You must have confidence in the moral force that there is in such a bill in order to believe in its efficiency. Mr. Maddox. When you go to courts and begin to deal with these things you will find that you fall very short of your idea, and the fixed arbitration would probably do away with the efficiency of your very idea itself. They look upon it as a court. They would fail to agree; they would decline to go into that court, in other words, or have anything to do with it. Mr. Foster. I do not think so. Mr. Maddox. In the question of arbitration, you see, one side would like to select its own arbitrators and the other side its arbitrators. Mr. Foster. If this court has the power and the influence in a neg- ative way of compelling those having differences, rather than to be crowded into this court of public opinion, to arbitrate in their own way, it has accomplished its purpose. Mr. Maddox. I do not want to interfere with you; go ahead. Mr. Foster. You are not interfering, but assisting me greatly, 44 NATIONAL ARBITRATION BILL. because I am not able oflFhand to discuss each one of these features by the light of criticism that may be made; but it will greatly assist me if we may have some discussion such as you have suggested to bring out these ideas that I may answer, if I can, and confess if I can not, Mr. FuRUSETH. I would like to ask a question. Mr. Veeeland. Very well, sir. Mr. FuEUSETH. 1 presume we can call this a court, since it has got the power to hear and determine. Mr. Foster. Why not call it a tribunal? Mr. FuRUSETH. All right. Mr. Foster. It is an elegant word. Mr. FuRUSETH. This being a court or a tribunal appointed with no specific technical knowledge, with no special preparation, so as to deter- mine facts from an industrial point of view, should it not be proper, then, since this court is sitting to determine law and morals, to have an industrial jury going with it, so that they could determine the facts, pass upon the facts like any other jury, for the benefit of the court; would not such a force be necessary in order to prevent the court, either through bias or industrial ignorance, doing an injustice to either side? Mr. Foster. In answer I would say that I do not think it fair to suppose that our President would appoint upon such a tribunal men that were disqualified to carry out its functions. Mr. Fueuseth. Upon that proposition I beg to submit to you that there would be no reason for having a jury under any circumstances, because it is not to be presumed that the President, who appoints a United States judge, would appoint such a person as should need the advice of the jury on the facts before he applied the testimony or digested the testimony and rendered his decision. Mr. Foster. 1 think throval and indorsement of the proposed legislation tending to create a national arbitration tribunal of six members for the adjustment of all controversies that may arise in the United States from time to time. This tribunal, as proposed by the honorable Mr. Foss, should be the wedge in the solution of the labor problem between capital and labor. Either part}' having any grievance to present is assured that they will receive recognition from the party with which they are involved. Failing to reply to the tribunal, they must suffer the pub- lic sentiment upon the matter if avoiding arbitration when given the opportunity to present th«ir side of the question in dispute. I trust that the bill will be the ultimate means of bridging the gap between cap- ital and labor. George W . Stiles, secretarj'-treasurer advisorj' board of the Ottawa Trades and l^abot Assembly: I am instructed by the Ottawa Trades and Labor Assembly to reply to same in name of organized labor of this city, and I assure your committee that I do in the name of my coworkers most heartily indorse this bill, as the creation of such a tri- bunal would have a most salutary effect upon the ever-recurring friction between labor and capital, which is to-day one of the most vital questions before the American people, not only in questions of controversy coming within the scope of such tribunal, laut also its indirect influence upon controversies of a lesser magnitude, as the moral effect of the publicity of a case before such a tribunal would be the creating of the desire with both labor and capital to settle their differences as between themselves through boards of conciliation rather than through strife or even arbitration. NATIONAL AKBITRATION BILL. 69 The wording of section 6 is, to my mind, not quite clear as to what should be the procedure in the case where one party in the controversy shall have submitted tln4r petition or answer and the second party shall not have agreed to submit and there shall have been a strike or lockout in progress, and the one party who shall have submitted their petition or answer shall have offered to resume their former rela- tions with the second party and the second party shall have refused to resume former relations what shall be the procedure of the tribunal. Lines 2, o, 4, 5, ti, 7, and 8 of page 12 of printed copy of bill may have been meant to apply to such a con- dition of affairs, but it does not seem quite clear. Gabriel Joseph, secretary Central Labor Union of Philadelphia and vicinity : 1. In the judgment of the Central Labor Union of Philadelphia, the bill in its present form would not be acceptable to organized labor, and for that reason can not receive our indorsement. 2. We believe a bill somewhat on the lines of H. E. 9491, but which tor an inves- tigation by a commission on its own volition, without the consent of either paity, or on the petition of one of the parties to a controversy, would be of inestimable bene- fit alike to organized labor and to the legitimate business industries of the country. 3. Any measure of this character should provide for the fullest publicity of tlie result of such investigations without regai-d to the wishes of any party to a con- troversy. 4. If the committee in charge of the bill so desire, the Central Labor Union of Philadelphia and vicinity will submit for the consideration of the committee a draft of a bill which in our judgment would be acceptable and wise. W. H. Conner, secretary Central Trades and Labor Assembly, Tay- lorviile, 111.: I will say that after talking with various members of the Central Trades and Labor Assembly, and others not of that body, I find it is the concensus of opinion that the bill is most satisfactory and should become a law, but with a few changes, viz: The opinion is very generally expressed that the Commissioner of Commerce and Labor should not be a member of the commission on account of his being a member of tlie President's political household, and would wield too much influence if he chose to so do, notwithstanding the fact he has no vote. The opinion was also expresseil that the commission be composed of five instead of six, and this to leave out the Com- missioner. Another idea was that the commission should have pow er to enforce its finding. Philip Saunders, secretary' United Trades and Labor Council, Hti'eator, 111. : I have taken some pains to have the same read, and 1 think that it will meet with the approval of most of those interested in this section. It has now been referred to the legislative committee of the Trades Council, and I hope to receive their report in a short time and forward the same to you at once. We usually give mat- ters of this importance prompt attention, but those who are the best qualified to pass upon their merits, and other causes, have caused a delay in this instance. Frank J. Symmes, president Central Trust Compiinj-, San Fran- cisco, Cal. : The bill is excellent. Simple as possible. Can not well improve upon it. Dr. E. Fletcher Ingalls, Chicago: Nothing to criticise. It would be a source of considerable expense to the Govern- ment, but if it would prevent labor disputes, of which we have had so many in the past, the outlay would be cheap. David E. Forgan, vice-president First National Bank, Chicago: It seems to me that it is well conceived, practical, and possible of accomplishment. M. J. Jack, president Streator Bottle and Glass Company, Streator, 111.: Something along the lines of this bill is an absolute necessity, and inasmuch as your bill, should it become a law, does not interefere with the constitutions of the different states, the same, in fact, being optional with the interested parties, I can see 70 NATIONAL ARBITRATION BILL. no good reason why it might not turn out to be a great factor in settling disputes. It certainly could have no bad effect in any way, shape, or manner. Edmund J. James, president Northwestern University, Evanston, 111.: No one can tell, of course, in advance of actual experiment how a social or legal device will work, but I must confess I would like to see this particular scheme tried. E. S. Lacey, president the Bankers' National Bank, Chicago: I am unable to offer any changes which will improve it. Rev. Arthur B. Little, Chicago: The bill has my hearty approval. Benjamin J. Rosenthal, Chicago: I think the bill excellent in every way. I believe there should be some penalty for breaking the contract. William Deering, International Harvester Comp3,ny, Chicago: I see little to criticise. I especially approve section 6, prohibiting the engaging in strikes during the pendency of arbitration. F. E. Coyne, postmaster, Chicago, 111.: The hill has my unqualified indorsement. Congressman George Edmund Foss, Illinois: I find bill favorably reported in 1894 providing for voluntary arbitration. It was strongly reconmiended by President Cleveland, but have not discovered any propo- sition which has as much merit as this, that of establishing a national board of arbi- tration which shall be voluntary and at the same time compulsory in effect by the force of public opinion and whose only penalty shall be publicity. The value of the law will depend upon the character of the tribunal. I believe that a tribunal such as this should be placed upon such a high standard as to be out of the reach of polit- ical influence, away from the temptations of commercialism, as to inspire at the very outset the faith and confidence of all our people, the lowest as well as the highest. I would hedge about it all the dignity and simplicty of the Supreme Court of the United States. To give it such a character and to make its "judgments true and righteous altogether " you must have men, and you can not get men unless you offer inducements that will appeal to them. In the first place, |10,000 per year is none too nmch. In the second place, they ought to have life tenure. The tribunal should not be an adjunct of any Department of the Government. It is wise to leave the method of procedure of the tribunal entirely to itself. George W. Geary, Illinois Free Employment Office, Chicago: Wants an amendment so that the Secretary of the Department of Commerce can not vote. Bill should have provision making tribunal nonpartisan politically. Thereupon, at 1.10 p. m., the committee adjourned until Wednes- day, April 6, 1904, at 10.30 o'clock a. m. - Washington, D. C. , Wednesday, April 6, 1904. The subcommittee met at 10.30 o'clock a. m., Hon. Edward B. Vree- land in the chair. Mr. Veebland. Mr. Foster, do j^ou desire to be heard ? Mr. VoLNET W. Foster, of Chicago. I have a few concluding words, which can be made, however, just as well after Bishop Spalding has Bade his statement. Mr. Spalding. 1 would prefer that you go ahead. Mr. Vreeland. You may arrange it as you desire. NATIONAL ARBITRATION BILL. 7l STATEMENT OF MK. VOLNEY W. FOSTER, OF CHICAGO, ILL. Mr. Foster. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, the matter that I have here is in considerable degree quotations from statements that have been made. Recollecting the statements made at your hearing on March 30, by the president of the Federation of Labor, and by Mr. Davenport, who, 1 understand, represents an employers' association, I must confess my great surprise in discovering such unanimity on the part of those gen- tlemen in opposition to the establishment of an arbitration tribunal for the settlement of industrial disputes. It was my recollection that those who had given public utterances as representatives of labor and employer that had won the most attention and exercised the greatest influence had advocated arbitration in some cases coupled with con- ciliation. Referring to the statement of Mr. Gompers that he opposed arbi- tration, and that he believed the strike was a "good thing," and that the "recent anthracite strike had been a good thing," it may not be inopportune to refer to some of the utterances of this able gentleman - and his distinguished associates made on public occasions in connection with the labors of the voluntary organization called the Civic Federa- tion, and to claim that, having been advised of such utterances, that the author of this bill firmly believed that he was largely capitalizing what those leaders had outlined in their statements. At the meeting of the National Civic Federation held in New York in December, 1901, there was present a notable and influential repre- sentation of both the labor and employer classes. The utterances of that occasion made excellent literature, and 1 believe will furnish the text that shall inspire those earnestly laboring for a solution of this great problem. On that occasion Mr. Gompers made a noteworthy and eloquent address, in which he said: We assert that the employer has no right to say to us that there ia nothing to arbitrate. In that declaration is embodied all the evil and viciousness of the principle of master and slave. Mr. Horace M. Eaton, general secretary of the boot and shoe union, explained to the conference the method adopted by his organi- zation for arbitration, which explanation was received, it is said, with applause. Mr. John Mitchell said: I have said on many occasions that I was opposed to strikes, opposed to lockouts, opposed to industrial turmoil; that I favored peace, but always with the qualification that it must be an honorable peace. This in answer to Mr. Gompers, who said plainly at your last meet- ing that he thought the "strike was a good thing." Mr. James Duncan, first vice-president of the American Federation of Labor, said: We find that voluntary arbitration is productive of the greatest amount of good, and I believe that from such deliberations upon disputed points and from the inter- eat in conferences of this kind, a new era has arrived wherein the cause for which we stand will be given fuller consideration than it has had before and will be fraught with better results. Martin Fox, president of the Iron Molders of North America, said: A more intelligent conception of the labor problem convinced the more broad- 72 NATIONAL ARBITKATUJJN ULijlu. minded element on both sides of the controversy that justice could never be done nor could satisfactory relations ever be established between the employer and the employee of a policy in which either was disposed to push his advantage to the utmost without regard to the interests or welfare of the other. He said, further: It is scarcely necessary to point out that strikes are extremely unprofitable to both interests involved, and that notwithstanding their success or nonsuccess have invari- ably left behind bitter feelings which augured ill for the future harmony of the working force and the management. Mr. E. E. Clark, grand chief conductor of the Order of Railway Conductors of America, said: I believe the principle of arbitration as a means of settlement of industrial disputes is gaining ground just as surely as the western hemisphere civilization is making progress. Mr. W. O. Reed, president of the Massachusetts State board of mediation and arbitration, said: It is perhaps enough to say that the establishment o"f some means of amicably settling differences is in the line of human progress, and for that reason alone deserves the best thought of us all. NOTHING IN BILL THAT PREVENTS CONCILIATION. I respectfully submit to you, Mr. Chairman, that there is nothing in the bill under consideration that in any way hinders or prevents conciliation, but on the other hand would further that desired con- summation and settlement of contests where either of the parties chose that method I'ather than to respond to the invitation of the proposed tribunal to submit the matters in controversy to it. It would be a sufficient answer to an invitation from such tribunal that the j)arties in interest were engaged in a peaceful settlement of their affairs in their own way. RIGHT TO STRIKE AND LOCKOUT. The declaration of Mr. Gompers and Mr. Davenport that they respec- tivel}'^ believed in the right of strikes and lockout, and that nothing in the way of legislation or of arbitration tribunals should interfere with it, could not have been made without consideration, first, for the inter- ests of their organizations, and, second, and quite as important, the interests of the general public. These athletic and sometimes fatal "discussions" sadly mar the peace of society. The scene of the conflict is not confined to a 24:-foot ring, but jars frequently to its very foundation communities of thou- sands and sometimes of hundreds of thousands; the conflict sometimes involves the destruction of life, frequently the destruction of prop- erty. The conflict always involves the arousing of malice^ hatred, and mtirderous intent. It cools the good impulses of good men engaged in it, and it inflames to wicked action those wickedly inclined. THE STRIKE A GOOD THING? The strike a good thing, Mr. Chairman! Is it possible that Mr. Gompers was earnest at the moment, or was it not in a facetious mood that he made this statement? Strikes and lockouts good things! NATIONAL ARBITRATION BILL. 73 COST OF STRIKES ^68,969,000 FROM ISSl TO 1900. The cost of these amusements in this countrj' from 1S81 to 1900, so far as record can be made, was 1468,969,000. The report of 1901 of the Commi.ssionei' of Labor presents valuable statistics. In order that the increase or diminution of strikes during the twenty-year period from January 1, 1881, to December 31, 1900, may be determined, the following table, showing the number of strikes in each year of this period, is presented Strikes, by years, January 1, 1881, to December 31, 1900. Strikes. Establishments. Average establish- ments to a strike. Employees thrown out of employ- ment. Number. Per cent of total. Number. Per cent o£ total. N"-l^er. Percent 1881. 471 454 478 443 M5 1,432 1,436 906 1,075 1,833 1,717 1,298 1,305 1,349 1,215 1,026 1,078 1,056 1,797 1,779 2.07 1.99 2.10 1.94 2.83 6.28 6.30 3.98 4.72 8.04 7.53 5.69 5.73 6.92 5.33 4.60 4.73 4.C3 7.88 7.81 2,928 2,106 2,769 2,367 2,284 10,053 6,689 3, 506 3,786 9,424 8,116 6, .540 4, .565 i,196 6,973 5,462 8,492 3.809 11,317 9,248 2,49 1.79 2.35 2.01 1.94 8.66 5.61 2.98 3.22 8.02 6.91 4.71 3.88 6.98 5.93 4.65 7.23 3.24 9.63 7.87 6.2 4.6 5.8 6.3 3.6 7.0 4.6 3.9 3.5 5.1 4.7 4.3 3.5 6.1 5.7 5.3 7.9 3.6 6.3 5.2 129, 521 154,671 149, 763 147, 054 242,705 ,508, 044 379, 670 147, 704 249, 659 351, 944 298, 939 206,671 265, 914 660, 425 392,403 241, 170 408,391 a 249, 002 417,072 606,066 2.12 1882 2.63 1883 2.46 1884 2.41 1885 3.97 1886 8.32 1887 6.22 1888 2.42 1889 4,09 1890 5.70 1891 4.90 1892 3.38 1893 4,36 1894 10.82 1896 6,43 1896 3,95 1897 6.69 1898 « 4. 08 1M99 6.83 1900 8,27 Total 22, 793 100. 00 117, 509 100.00 5.2 a6,105,694 1 aino.no a Not including the number in 33 establishments for which these data were not obtainable. The number of strikes for 1880 was reported by Mr. Joseph D. Weeks, special agent for the Tenth Census, as 610. From the above table it is seen that the total number of strikes in the United States during the twenty years beginning January 1, 1881, and ending December 31, 1900, was 22,793. Beginning in 1881 with 471, the number of strikes during 1882, 1883, and 1884 remained under 500. In 1885, however, the number increased to 645, while in 1886 it more than doubled, being 1,432 for that year. The number was practically the same in the succeeding year, but in 1888 a considerable decrease is shown, the number for that year being 906. In 1889 the number of strikes increased to 1,075, while in 1890 the number almost doubled, show- ing 1,833 strikes for that year — a number greater than that shown for any other year of the entire period. The year 1891 shows a slight decrease in the number of strikes, 1,717, while 1892 shows a considerable decrease, the number for that year being but 1,298. No considerable change occurred during the next three years, the number for 1893 being 1,305, that for 1894 being 1,349, and that for 1895 being 1,215. In 1896, how- ever, a considerable drop is seen, the number for that year being 1,026. The num- ber of strikes remained practically stationary during 1896, 1897, and 1898, showing the smallest number since 1888 and 1889. In 1899, however, the number of strikes increased enormously, the number for that year being 1,797, while in 1900 practically no change in number occurred, the exact figure being 1,779. It is seen from this table that within the last eleven years the greatest number of strikes occurred in 1890 and 1891 and in 1899 and 1900, the two periods of greatest prosperity and industrial activity. The column of percentages immediately following the column in the table showing the number of strikes simply brings out in another form these variations from year to year in tlie number of strikes. Taking up the columns showing the number of establishments involved in strikes, it is seen that the number in 1881 was 2,928. In 1882 the number dropped to 2,105, 74 NATIONAL ARBITEATION BILL. while in 1883 it rose to 2,759, or nearly that of 1881. In 1884 and 1885 the number fell rapidly, there being but 2,367 establishments involved in 1884 and 2,284 in 1885. In 1886 the number was more than four times as great as that of the preceding year, being 10,053, the greatest number in any of the years considered, except 1899. In 1887 it dropped to 6,589; in 1888 it dropped still further, to 3,506, and remained nearly stationary in 1889 at 3,786, while in 1890 the number again rapidly rose to 9,424, a number almost as great as that for 1886. In the next year, 1891, the number dropped to 8,116, still further decreasing in 1892 and 1893, to 5,540 and 4,555, respectively. .In 1894 the number of establishments involved in strikes was almost double that of the preceding year, being 8,196, but in 1895 the number dropped to 6,973 and in 1896 to 5,462. In 1897, however, it rose to 8,492, while in 1898 it dropped aa low as 3,809. The greatest number shown for any year in the period is that for 1899, it being 11,317, while in 1900 the number decreased to 9,248. The total number of establishments involved during the twenty-year period was 117,509. A percentage column is given showing the per cent of this total number of establishments which were involved in each year of the period. The average number of establishments to each strike for the twenty years is shown to be 5. 2, the highest number being 7.9 estab- lishments to each strike in 1897, and the lowest average being 3.5 establishments to each strike in 1885, 1889, and 1893. The total number of employees involved or thrown out of employment in the whole number of strikes from 1881 to 1900, inclusive, as shown by this table, was 6,105,694, not including 33 establishments for which data were not obtainable. Of this number 660,425 were thrown out of employment in 1894 alone; over 500,000 in each of the years 1886 and 1900; over 400,000 m each of the years 1897 and 1899; 392,403in 1895; 379,676 in 1887; 351,944 in 1890; between 200,000 and 300,000 in the years 1885, 1889, 1891, 1892, 1893, 1896, and 1898, and a smaller number in the remaining years of the period, that for 1881 being the smallest number, 129,521. Table V shows that the number of strikers or persons originating the strikes during the twenty years was 4,694,849, and that the number of new employees engaged after the strikes was 506,557, of whom 214,455 were brought from other places than those in which the strikes occurred. The per cent of new employees after strikes of the total number of employees before strikes (9,779,574) was therefore 5. 18. Of the new employees after strikes 42.34 per cent were brought from places other than those in which the strikes occurred. It should be remembered, in considering the tables relating to the number of establishments, the number of employees, etc., that the figures do not represent the actual number of different individual employees who were involved in strikes or lockouts in a given year or given industry, because in many cases there have been two or more strikes or lockouts in the same establishment in the same year, and in such cases the establishment and the number of employees are duplicated or tripli- cated, as the case may be, in the totals derived by addition. In the column "Employees for whom strike was undertaken" there is even more duplication of the kind mentioned. For instance, a sympathetic strike may occur, in which the employees strike to enforce the demands of certain employees in another establish- ment. The number of employees for whom the strike was undertaken would in that case be the number for whom it was undertaken in that other establishment. The same employees would therefore be used in that column — first, in connection with the establishment in which they were employed, and second, in the establishment in which the sympathetic strike occurred, thus unavoidably being duplicated in the tables derived by addition. The following table relating to lockouts is drawn from Table XVI, and is entirely similar to that for strikes just presented: NATIOKAL ABBITEATION BILL. 75 Lockouts, by years, January 1 , 1881, to December SI, 1900. Year. Lockouts. Establishments. Average establish- ments to a lock- out. Employees thrown out of employ- ment. Number. Per cent of total. Number. Per cent of total. Number. Per cent of total. 1881 6 22 28 42 50 140 67 40 36 64 69 61 70 65 40 40 32 42 41 60 0.60 2.19 2.79 4.18 4.97 13.93 6.67 3.98 8.68 6.37 6.87 6.07 6.96 5.47 3.98 3.98 3.18 4.18 4.08 5.97 9 42 117 364 183 1,609 1,281 180 132 324 546 716 805 875 370 61 171 164 323 2,281 0.09 .42 1.18 3.67 1.84 16.19 12.90 1.81 1.33 3.26 6.60 7.21 3.07 8.81 3.73 .61 1.72 1.66 3.25 22.96 1.5 1.9 4.2 8.4 3.7 10.8 19.1 4.5 3.7 5.1 7.9 11.7 4.4 16.9 9.3 1.3 6.3 3.9 7.9 38.0 656 4,131 20,512 18, 121 15, 424 101, 980 59, 630 15, 176 10,731 21,555 31, 014 32, 014 21,842 29, 619 14,785 7,668 7,763 14, 217 14, 817 62, 6.53 1882 82 1883 4.07 1884 1885 3 06 1886 20.22 1887 11 82 1888 3 01 1889 2.13 1890 4 28 1891 6 15 1892 6.35 1893 4.33 1894 5 87 1896 2.93 1896 1.52 1897 1.64 1898. 2 82 2.94 1900 12.42 Total 1,006 100.00 9, 933 100. 00 9.9 604,307 100.00 It is seen from this table that lockouts constitute but a comparatively small pro- portion of industrial disturbances. The total number of lockouts in the United States during the twenty-year period was but 1,005, involving 9,933 establishments and 504,307 employees. The data given in the table may be analyzed in the same man- ner as those for strikes. Eeference to Table XVI shows that 626,952 persons were employed in the 9,933 establishments in which lockouts occurred. Of this number 504,307, or 80.44 per cent, were thrown out of employment by reason of tne lockouts. In these establishments there were 51,235 new employees engaged after the lock- outs, of whom 25,220 were brought from places other than those in which the lock- outs occurred. The per cent of new employees after the lockouts of the total number of employees before the lockouts was therefore 8.17, and of employees brought from other places of the number of new employees after lockouts, 49.22. The following table, also drawn from Tables V and XVI, classifies by sex the employees thrown out of employment in consequence of strikes and lockouts: Sex of employees thrown out of employment, by 1900. January 1, 1881, to December SI, Strikes. Lockouts. Year. Employees thrown out of employ- ment. Males (per cent). Females (per cent). Employ- ees thrown out of employ- ment. Males (per cent). Females (per cent). 1881 1882 129,621 164, 671 149,763 147,054 242,706 508,044 379, 676 147,704 249,559 361,944 298,939 206, 671 265,914 660,426 392, 403 241, 170 408,391 <• 249, 002 417, 072 505,066 94,08 92.16 87.66 88.78 87.77 86 17 91.77 91.60 90.48 90.63 94.90 93.57 93.06 90.14 84.56 87.08 88.89 a 86. 78 89.42 94.80 6.92 7.86 12.34 11.22 12.23 13.83 8.23 8.60 9.62 9.47 6.10 6.43 6.94 9.86 15.44 12,92 11.11 a 14. 22 10.58 6.20 656 4,131 20,612 18, 121 15,424 101, 980 69, 630 15, 170 10, 731 21,565 31,014 32, 014 21,842 29, 619 14,786 7,668 7,763 14, 217 14, 817 62,653 83.21 93.80 73.58 78.93 83.77 63.02 94.76 79.53 73.91 72.49 59.13 96.02 84.95 84,94 67.07 89.95 91.34 88.86 93.20 93.17 16.79 6.20 1883 26 42 1884 21.07 1885 16.23 1886 36.98 1887 5.24 1888 20.47 1889 26.09 1890 . . . 27.51 1891 40.87 1892 3.98 1893 15.05 1894 15.06 1895 32.93 1896 10.05 1897 8.66 1898 11.16 6.80 1900 6.83 » 6, 105, 694 a 90. 00 a 10. 00 604,307 80.24 19.76 a Not including the number in 33 establishments for which these data were not obtainable. 76 NATIONAL AKBITRATION BILL. This table shows that hi the strikes which occurred during the twenty-year period from 1881 to 1900, out of a total of 6,105,694 employees involved or thrown out of employment, 90 per cent were males and 10 per cent females. The per cent of males varied within narrow bounds in the different years, the highest lieing found in 1891 with 94.90 and in 1900 with 94,80 per cent, and the lowest in 1895 with 84.56 and in 1898 with 85.78 per cent. That portion of the table relating to lockouts shows a considerably lower per cent of males involved or thrown out of employment. Out of a total of 504,307 employees thrown out of employment by lockouts during the twenty-year period 80.24 percent were males, and 19.76 per cent females. The largest proportion of males thrown out of employment is found in 1892 with 96.02 per cent and in 1887 with 94.76 per cent, while the smallest proportion is found in 1891 with 59.13 per cent and in 1886 with 63.02. A .similar table to the preceding, showing the data classified by industries, will be found in the analysis of Table VII. The following table shows the per cent of strikes and of lockouts which were 68.14 67.35 ''71.33 n74.83 33. 33 18.18 21.43 26.19 20.00 30.00 25.37 20.00 11.11 14.06 13.04 3892 70.72 69.43 n62.83 S54.25 a 64. ,59 55.29 60.42 62. 05 65. 43 22 96 1882 1893 1894 21.43 1883 9.09 1884 1885 1886 1895 1896 1897 7. .50 2.60 3.13 1887 1888 1898 1899 7.14 9.76 1889- .... 1900 5.00 1890 1891 Total 1-63.46 17.01 ctNot including 1 strike, for which these data were not obtainable. '•Not including 2 strikes, for wliich these data were not obtainable. cNot including 10 strikes, for which these data were not obtainable. It is seen from an examination of this table that of the 22,793 strikes which occurred during the twenty-year period 63.46 per cent were ordered by labor organ- izations, while of the 1,005 lockouts which occurred during the same period 17.01 per cent were ordered by combinations of employers. The years 1890, 1891, and 1892 show the largest proportions as regards strikes, 74.83 per cent being ordered by labor organizations in 1891, 71.33 in 1890, and 70.72 in 1892, while the first two years of the period, with 47.13 and 48.02 per cent, respectively, show the lowest propor- tions. As will be seen, the variations from year to year are confined within some- what narrow bounds. As regards lockouts, the largest percentages are found in 1881, with 33.33, and in 1886, with 30 per cent. The smallest percentages are found dur- ing the last seven years of the period, 1896 showing but 2.50 and 1897 but 3.13 percent. The variations are quite marked with a decidedly decreasing proportion toward the latter portion of the period. In this connection attention is called to the two tables on pages 36 and 37 of this report, showing, respectively, by years and by industries, the number of strikes ordered by organizations which succeeded, which succeeded partly, and which failed, and also the number not ordered by organiza- tions which may be properly classified under each of these three heads. The following table shows for each year of the twenty-year period the percentage of the establishments involved in both strikes and lockouts which Avere closed in consequence of such disturbances: EstaUiski lents closed January 1, 1881, to December SI, 1900. Year. Strikes (percent). Lockouts (per cent). Year. Strikes (percent). Lockouts (per cent). 1881 55.81 54,01 63. .57 64. 72 71.68 68.24 57. 65 63.45 61.89 56. 25 56.65 33.33 59. .52 .58. 12 37.85 79.23 67.93 83.84 55. 00 69. 09 03. K9 65. 93 1892 65.60 65.64 69. 90 85.82 83.67 83. 50 77.21 67.77 56. 02 66.90 1882 1893- 40 98 1883 . . 1894 61 14 1884 1895 90 00 1885. 1896 . 41.18 t,S86 1897 79 63 1887 1898 64 02 1888 1899 ... 30.66 1889 1900 . - . Tf )ta] 91.89 1890 1891 65.73 71 95 NATIONAL ARBITRATION HILL. 77 It in si^en from the talile that out of a total of 117,509 estabhshmeiits in which strikes occurred during the twenty-year period 65.7:i per cent, or 77,244, were closed, while of the 9,933 establishments subjected to lockouts 71.95 per cent, or 7,147, were closed. Of the nundier of establishments closed on account of strikes, 97 were closed permanently or had strikes still pending at the end of one of the three ]ieri_f)ds, the facts for which are combined in tliia report. The average duration of stoppage, or days closed, in the 77,147 establishments which were temporarily closed on account of strikes and for which data were obtained as regards this point, was 20.1 days. Of the number of establishments which were closed by lockouts, 27 were clo.sed permanently or had lockouts still pending at the end of one of the tliree periods, the facts for which are combined in this report. The durati(jn of stoppage, or days closed, in the 7,120 establishments which were temporarily closed on account of lockouts and for which data were obtained as regard.s this })oint, was 52.4 days. Referring again In the table it is seen that the ))er cent of establishment^ closed on account of strikes was greatest in the years 1895, 1S90, 1S97, and 189K, the figures being 85.82, 83.(i7, 8:!.50, and 77.21, while it was smallest in 1881, 1882, 1887, 1888, 1890, 1891, and 1900, being very close to .55 per cent for each of these years. A much greater variation is found in the per cent of establishuientsclosed on account of lockouts, the figures ranging from 30.65 per cent in 1899 to 91.89 per cent in 1900. The duration of strikes and lockouts — that is, the average length of time which elapsed before the establishments resumed o]ieratifms and were running normally, either by reason of the strikers or employei-s locked out having returned to work or by their places having l)een filled by others — apphes to all establishments, whether closed or not, and differs, of course, from the figures given for duration of entire stoppage of work, which applies only to establishments entirely closed. The follow- ing table shows the avenige duration or days to date when strikers or employees locked out were reemployed or their places filled by others for each of the years from 1881 to 1900, inclusive. A small number of establishments which were closed permanently in consequence of strikes or lockouts or in which strikes or lockouts were still pending have, of necessity, been omitted in computing the averages. Duration of HtrlkcK and lo(-kouts, Jamuiry 1, ISSl, to Dfcember 31, 1900. 1881 1882 1883 1884 1885 1886 ]«87 1888 1889 1890 1891 1892 1S93 IWIl 189S IRilll '. 1897 1898 1899 1900 Total Strike.s. Lockouts. Estab- Average Estab- Average li.ih- duration lish- duration ments. (days). ments. (days). 2,928 12.8 9 32.2 2,105 21,9 42 105.0 2,7.59 20.6 117 67.6 2,367 30.5 3.54 41.4 2, 2.S4 .30.1 183 27.1 10, 053 23. 4 1,.509 39.1 6,589 20. 9 1,281 49.8 3,506 20.3 180 74.9 3, 786 26.2 132 ,57.6 9,421 24.2 324 73.9 8,116 34.9 546 37.8 5,540 23.4 716 72.0 4,. 5.55 20.6 305 34.7 8,196 32.4 875 39.7 6, 973 20.5 370 32.3 5,462 22. i) 51 65.1 8, 492 27.4 171 38.6 3,809 '>■» 5 164 48.8 11,817 15.2 323 37.5 9,248 23.1 2,281 266.1 117,509 23.8 9,933 97.1 78 NATIONAL AEBITRATION BILL. The average duration of strikes during the twenty-year period, as shown by this table, was 23.8 days, while that of lockouts was 97.1 days. With the exception of 1881 and 1899, in which the average duration of strikes was very short, and 1884, 1885, 1891, and 1894, in which it was comparatively long, the duration as shown for the several years of the period does not vary greatly from the average of 23.8 days. The conditions, however, as regards lockouts are quite different, the variations from year to year being very considerable. Considering strikes only, which constitute the great mass of these industrial disturbances, while the average duration does not appear great, in the aggregate the number of days involved amounts to the enormous number of 2,789,160, which reduced amounts to 7,641.5 years. It should be remem- bered, however, that the days so lost to the wageworker and the producer do not represent in many instances an absolute loss, as m a great number of cases this ces- sation of the work of production does away with the necessity of stoppage at some other time for the purpose of restricting the output to the demands of trade, making repairs, etc. One of the most important features of the tabulation is the statement of the losses of the employees and of the employers bj^ reason of strikes and lockouts. These figures were collected with the greatest possible care, and, although in many cases only an estimate could be secured, the results as given are believed to be a very close approximation to the exact losses. It is natural to suppose that after the lapse of several years exact figures could not be secured concerning facts of which no record is kept in most instances. The figures here given are for the immediate, and in many instances only temporary, losses of employees and employers. In most busi- nesses, as previously intimated, there are seasons of entire or partial idleness among the employees, owing to sickness, voluntary lay offs, running slack time, etc., the working days per year being on an average from 200 .to 250 days out of a possible 313. When a strike or lockout occurs in an establishment whose business is of such a character it is often followed by a period of unusual activity, in which the employee and employer both make up the time lost by reason of the temporary cessation of business on account of the strike. The employer may in some instances be sub- jected to an ultimate loss by reason of his inability to fill contracts already made, but it may be accepted as a fact that much of the loss in the cases of both employer and employee is only temporary. It was found impossible, however, for the agents of the Department to take these facts into consideration, inasmuch as in many instances a period of six months or even a year must have elapsed before the whole or even a part of such loss was made up. The computation of wage loss has there- fore been based on the number of employees thrown out of employment, their aver- age wages, and the number of working days which elapsed before they were reem- ployed or secured work elsewhere. The amounts representing employers' losses are the figures (in most cases estimates) furnished by the firms themselves, the Depart- ment's agents being instructed to consider as well as they could their probable correctness. In the tables in which the statement is made by years the figures can not represent absolute accuracy for a given year, because many strikes beginning in one year ended in another; the entire loss and assistance, as well as the other facts included in the tabulation, have been placed in the year in which the strike or lockout began. These differences may, however, counterbalance each other and the reported results thus be nearly accurate. Bearing in mind, then, the difficulties in ascertaining the exact losses of employees and employers as a result of strikes and lockouts, reference may be had to the fol- lowing table showing the amount of loss to employees and to employers, and the amount of assistance granted employees by their labor organizations, for a. period of twenty years, from January 1, 1881, to December 31, 1900: NATIONAL ABBITBATION BILL. 79 Wage loss of employees, assistance to employees^ and loss of ' employers, January 1, 1881, to December 31, 1900. [In a small number of instances the facts covered in this table have not been reported and conse- quently have not been included In the figures here given.] Strikes. Lockouts. Year. To date when strikers were reemployed or employed elsewhere. Loss of em- ployers. To date when employ- ees locked out were reemployed or em- ployed elsewhere. Loss of em- ployers. Wage loss of em- ployees. Assistance to employ- ees by labor organiza- tions. Wage loss o£ em- ployees. Assistance to employ- ees by labor organiza- tions. 1881 83,372,578 9,864,228 6,274,480 7,666,717 10,663,248 14, 992, 453 16,560,634 6,377,749 10,409,686 13,875,338 14,801,506 10,772,622 9,938,048 37,145,532 13,044,830 11,098,207 17,468,904 10, 037, 284 15, 157, 965 18,341,570 $287, 999 734,339 461,233 407, 871 465,827 1,122,130 1,121,664 1,762,668 692,017 910,286 1,132,667 833,874 563, 183 931,052 559. 165 462. 166 721,164 686,228 1, 096, 030 1,434,462 81 , 919, 483 4,269,094 4,696,027 3,393,073 4, 388, 893 12,357,808 6,698,495 6, 509, 017 2,936,762 6, 135, 404 6,176,688 6,146,691 3,406,196 18,982,129 5,072,282 5,304,236 4,868,687 4,596,462 7, 443, 407 9,431,299 $18,519 466, 346 1,069,212 1,421 410 901, 173 4,281,058 4,233,700 1,100,057 1,379,722 957, 966 883, 709 2,856,013 6,669,401 2,022,769 791,703 690,945 583, 606 880,461 1,486,174 16, 136, 802 83,150 47,668 102,253 314,027 89,488 549,452 155,846 86,931 115,389 77,210 50, 195 637,684 364,268 160, 244 67,701 61, 3.55 47, 326 47,098 126, 957 448, 219 $6, 900 112, 382 1882 1683 297, 097 1884 640, 847 1885 456, 477 1886 . - . 1,9«,498 1887 2, 819, 736 1888 1,217,199 1889. 307, 125 1890 486,258 1891 616,888 1892 . 1, 695, 080 1893 1,034,420 1894 982, 684 1896 584, 155 1896 357,535 1897 298, 044 1898 239, 403 1899 379, 365 1900 5, 447, 930 Total 257,863,478 16, 174, 793 122, 731, 121 48,819,746 3,451,461 19, 927, 983 The loss to employees in the establishments in which strikes occurred for the period of twenty years was ?257,863,478. The loss to employees through lockouts for the same period was $48,819,745, or a total loss to employees by reason of these two classes of industrial disturbances of $306,683,223. The number of establish- ments involved in strikes during this period was 117,509, making an average loss of $2,194 to employees in each establishment in which strikes occurred. The number of persons thrown out of employment by reason of strikes was 6,105,694, making an average loss of $42 to each person involved. The number of establishments involved in lockouts was 9,993, making an average loss of $4,915 to employees in each estab- lishment in which lockouts occurred, while the number of employees thrown out was 504,307, making an average loss of $97 to each person involved. Combining the figures for strikes and lockouts it is seen that the wage loss to employees, as above stated, was $306,683,223, and the number of establishments involved 127,442, while 6,610,001 persons were thrown out of employment. These figures show an average wage loss of $2,406 to the employees in each establishment and an average loss of $46 to each person involved. The assistance given to strikers during the twenty years, so far as ascertainable, was $16,174,793; to those involved in lockouts $3,451 ,461, or a total of $19,626,254. This sum represents but 6.40 per cent of the total wage loss incurred in strikes and lock- outs, and is probably too low. In addition to this sum, which includes only assistance from labor organizations, much assistance was furnished by outside sympathizers, the amount of which the Department had no means of ascertaining. The loss to employers through strikes during the twenty years amounted to $122,731,121; their losses through lockouts amounted to $19,927,983, making a total loss to the establishments or firms involved in strikes and lockouts during this period of $142,659,104, or an average loss of $1,119 to each firm or establishment involved. Table VI. — Summary of strikes for the United Slates, by Slates. — This table summarizes the facts given in Tables I and III, showing in brief form, the data for each State, the strikes for all industries and for all of the twenty years being combined to secure the totals for the States as shown here. Table XVII of the report relates to lockouts and is entirely similar to this table in both its title and the arrangement of the facts included therein. 80 NATIONAL ARBITBATION BILL. The following table shows the number and per cent of strikes and of establishments involved in strikes in each State during the period from January 1, 1881, to Decem- ber 31, 1900, together witli information as to the average number of establishments to a strike and the number and pei cent of employees thrown out of employment by reason of strikes: iSlrikes hy Slates, Jamuiry 1, ISSl, to December 31, 1900. States aud Territories. Per cent of total. Establishments. Per cent of total. Average establish- ments to a strilie. Employees thrown out of employment. Number. Per cent of total. Alabama Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Idaho Illinois Indiana Indian Territory Iowa Kansas Kentuck J' Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolinn North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Total 31 341 213 586 46 62 231 190 13 :,640 6B2 7 351 101 223 64 172 242 ,705 344 383 10 406 43 77 1 128 805 17 1,460 9 22 ,571 2 28 !,846 199 22 18 236 144 33 32 115 98 180 656 26 0.921 .013 .136 1.496 .934 2. .571 .197 .272 1.013 .834 .057 11. 683 2.422 .031 1.640 .443 .978 .281 .756 1.062 7.480 1.509 1.680 .04+ 1.781 .189 .338 .004 .562 3.532 .075 28. 342 .039 .097 6.892 .009 .123 12. 486 .873 .097 .079 1.036 .632 .146 .140 ..506 .430 .790 2.439 .114 494 6 86 948 840 1,021 188 451 855 578 14 20, 784 1,964 67 1,408 303 895 1,488 254 1,049 5,099 1,174 1,633 35 3, 616 66 331 1 190 3,209 22 37,846 9 26 5, V12 3 244 18, 438 662 674 197 397 249 3.56 764 2, 668 28 0. 420 .004 .073 .807 .715 .869 .160 .384 .728 .492 .012 17. 687 1.671 .048 1.198 .2.58 .762 1.266 .216 .893 4.339 .999 1.390 .030 2.992 .0.56 .282 .001 .162 2.731 .019 32. 206 .008 .022 4.861 .002 .208 16. 691 .348 .043 .025 . .5.55 .488 .168 .338 .212 .302 .660 2.185 .024 2.4 1.7 2.8 2.8 3.9 1.7 4.2 7.3 3.7 3.0 1.1 7.9 3.6 8.1 4.0 3.0 4.0 23.3 1.6 4.3 3.0 3.4 4.3 3.5 8.7 1.5 4.3 1.0 1.6 4.0 1.3 5.9 1.0 1.2 3.6 1.5 8.7 6.5 2.1 2.3 1.7 2.8 4.0 6.0 12.4 2.2 3.6 4.2 4.6 1.1 .53, 609 147 8,941 42, 097 49, 774 53, 996 7,254 7,239 62, 599 30,448 ■ 3,331 850, 599 132, 344 7,544 72, 698 30, 090 60,849 62, 934 33, 961 69,590 348, 470 91, 364 69, 110 2,027 107,526 a 7, 746 23, 784 21 24, 877 150, 123 4,118 !' 1,193, 361 1,003 1,996 416, 651 261 8,387 1, 666, 043 45, 615 3,039 1,260 51, 251 19, 941 3,774 8,344 24, 258 12, 301 93, .583 99,642 6,874 0.878 .002 .146 .689 .815 .884 .119 .119 1.026 .499 .055 13. 931 2.168 .124 1.189 1.031 .656 .976 6.707 1.496 1. 132 .033 1.761 a. 127 .389 «001 .407 2.459 .067 6 19. .545 .016 .033 6.808 .«004 .137 27.287 .747 .050 .021 .839 .327 .062 .137 .397 .201 1.533 1. 632 .113 117, 509 6. 2 6, 105, 694 c 100. 000 a Not including the number in 12 establishments for which these data were not obtainable. & Not including the number in 21 establishments for which these data were not obtainable, o Not including the number in 33 establishments for which these data were not obtainable. During the twenty years included in the present report it is seen that New York shows the largest number of strikes as well as the largest number of establishments affected, the number of strikes being 6,460, representing 28.342 per cent of the total strikes during the period, and the number of establishments affected being 37,845, representing 32.206 per cent of the total number involved during the period. Penn- sylvania follows with 2,846 strikes, or 12.486 per cent of total strikes, and Illinois with 2,640, or 11.583 per cent. As regards establishments affected by strikes, Illinois follows New York with 20,784, or 17.687 per cent, while Pennsylvania comes next with 18,438, or 15.691 per cent. Considering the last two columns of this table, it is NATIONAL ARBITRATION BILL. 81 seen that the greatest number of employees thrown out of employment by reason of strikes is found in Pennsylvania, which shows 1,666,043 for the twenty-year period, or 27.287 per cent. New York follows with 1,193,361, or 19.545 per cent; Illinois with 850,599, or 13.931 per cent; Ohio with 415,651, or 6.808 per cent; Massachusetts with 348,470, or 5.707 per cent, etc. The following table for lockouts is similar to the one for strikes just preceding. Lockouts, by States, January 1, 1881, to December 31, 1900. StateB and Territories. Alabama Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia. Florida Georgia Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Missouri Montana Nebraska New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Lockouts. Number P®'' "^^t jNumoer. ^j ^oj^i^ Total. 1,005 0.30 .10 .20 2,19 .90 6,87 .10 ,20 ,80 1.09 .10 9.45 1.69 1.39 ,30 1,29 13 1,29 97 9.65 22 2.19 25 2.49 20. 1.99 5 .60 4 .40 6 .60 24 2,39 1 .10 JIB 21,49 1 ,10 3 ,30 80 7.96 2 .20 17 11.64 5 .50 1 .10 2 .20 IB 1,59 13 1,29 2 .20 1 .10 13 1.29 11 1.09 2,78 .10 100. 00 Establishmen ts. Number, 7 1 2 79 27 168 1 9 34 100 6 3,551 152 17 7 24 70 66 640 67 94 67 21 7 43 129 1 3,395 17 3 256 48 683 42 1 2 23 13 2 24 29 33 16 76 1 Per cent of total. 0,07 ,01 ,02 ,80 .27 1.59 .01 ,09 ,34 1,01 ,06 35. 76 1.53 .17 .07 .24 .70 .66 5.44 .68 .95 .68 ,21 .07 ,43 1,30 ,01 34.18 .17 .03 2,57 ,48 6,88 ,42 .01 .02 .23 ,13 .02 .24 ,29 ,33 ,10 ,77 .01 9,933 I 100,00 Average establish- ments to a lockout. 2,3 1.0 1.0 3.0 3.0 2,7 1.0 4.5 4,3 9,1 6,0 37,4 9.5 1.2 2.3 1.8 8,8 4,3 6,6 3.0 3,8 3,4 4.2 1.8 8,6 5,4 1,0 16,7 17,0 1,0 3,2 24.0 5.8 8,4 1,0 1,0 1,4 1,0 1,0 24.0 2,2 3,0 1.8 2.7 1.0 Employees thrown out of employment. 738 15 8 3,677 2,371 22, 660 188 168 3,621 6,376 3,000 132, 906 2, 432 1,464 5,080 1,149 6,989 1,636 35, 981 4,761 2,952 3,427 783 893 1,997 8, 454 200 149, 051 1,260 16 20, 866 460 57, 743 e, 574 20 73 1,,625 241 226 618 2,345 821 4, 535 6,346 173 9.9 j 604,307 of total. 0,146 .003 .002 .729 .470 4,473 .037 .033 .718 1,066 . 595 26, 3.54 .482 .290 1,007 .228 1,188 .324 7.135 .944 .585 .680 .155 .177 .396 1. 076 .010 29. 675 ,248 .003 4.138 .091 11. 450 1.301 .004 .015 .302 .048 .046 .123 .466 .163 .899 1,060 ,034 100,000 It is seen that 21.49 per cent of the lockouts which occurred during the period were in New York, 11.64 per cent were in Pennsylvania, 9.65 per cent were in Massachu- setts, 9.45 per cent in Illinois, 7.96 per cent in Ohio, etc. Considering the establish- ments affected, however, the order is as follows: Illinois with 35.75 per cent, New York with 34.18 per cent, Pennsylvania with 6.88 per cent, Massachusetts with 5.44 per cent, Ohio with 2.57 per cent, etc. As regards the number of persons thrown out of employment by reason of lockouts. New York leads with 149,651, or 29.675 per cent, and is followed by Illinois with 132,906, or 26.354 per cent; Pennsylvania with 57,743, or 11.450 per cent; Massachusetts with 35,981, or 7.135 per cent; Con- necticut with 22,560, or 4.473 per cent; Ohio with 20,866, or 4.138 per cent, etc. An examination of the preceding tables shows that during the twenty- year period ending December, 31, 1900, the majority of all establishments affected by strikes and lockouts were located in the five States of Illinois, Massachusetts, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. The following table shows the percentages for each year for the five States named: N A B — 04 6 82 NATIONAL AEBITKATION BILL. Establishments involved in strikes and lockouts in Illinois, Massachusetts, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, January 1, 1881, to December SI, 1900. Strikes. Lockouts. Year. Total estab- lishments in the United States. Establish- ments in the five selected States. Per cent of establish- ments in the five selected States. Total estab- lishments in the United States. Establish- ments in the five selected States. Per cent of establish- ments in the five selected States. 1881 2,928 2,106 2,759 2,367 2,284 10,063 6,589 3,506 3,786 9,424 8,116 6,640 4,655 8,196 6,973 6,462 8,492 3,809 11,317 9,248 2,154 1,499 2,046 1,896 1,586 7,675 4,761 2,4M 2,276 6,990 5,775 3,200 8,186 6,418 5,637 4,649 7,396 2,937 9,660 5,834 73.67 71.21 74.16 80.10 69.44 76.36 72.26 68.67 60.09 74.17 71.16 57.76 69.95 78.31 80.84 83.28 87.09 77.11 85.36 68.08 9 42 117 354 183 1,609 1,281 180 132 324 646 716 305 875 370 51 171 164 323 2,281 4 23 105 306 140 1,403 1,188 114 65 203 339 622 190 802 295 39 156 101 281 2,148 44.44 1882 54.76 1883 89.74 1884 86.44 1885 . 76.60 1886 92.98 1887 92.74 1888 63.33 1889 49.24 1890 , 62.65 1891 62.09 1892 72.91 1893 62.30 1894 91.66 1895 79.73 1896 76.47 1897 91.23 1898 61.59 1899 87.00 1900 94.17 Total 117, 609 87,878 74.78 9,933 8,424 84.81 These States contained 45.02 per cent of all the manufacturing establishments, and employed 55. 15 per cent of the capital invested in the mechanical industries of the United States, according to figures furnished the Department by the Census Office. It is seen from the table that these five States contained 74.78 per cent of all of the establishments involved in strikes and 84.81 per cent of all involved in lockouts during the twenty-year period included in this report. For strikes the proportion varied in the different years from 57.76 per cent in 1892 to 87.09 in 1897, while for lockouts the lowest proportion is found in 1881, with 44.44 per cent, and the highest in 1900, with 94.17 per cent. As regards the employees involved in strikes, almost the same per cent is shown. The information may be drawn from a preceding table that of all employees involved in strikes during the period of twenty years, 46.83 per cent were employed in estab- lishments located in the two States of Pennsylvania and New York; 60.76 per cent were employed in establishments located in the three States of Pennsylvania, New York, and Illinois; 67.57 per cent in establishments located in the four States of Pennsylvania, New York, Illinois, and Ohio, and 73.28 per cent in establishments located in the five States of Pennsylvania, New York, Illinois, Ohio, and Massachu- setts. Of all the employees involved in lockouts during the period, 56.03 per cent were employed in establishments in the two States of New York and Illinois; 67.48 per cent in establishments located in the three States of New York, Illinois, and Pennsylvania; 74.61 per cent in establishments located in the four States of New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts, and 78.75 per cent in establish- ments in the five States of New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, and Ohio. The distribution of strikes and lockouts, by principal cities, during the twenty years from January 1, 1881, to December 31, 1900, is shown in the following tables: NATIONAL ARBITRATION BILL. Strikes in principal cUies, January 1, 1881, to December SI, 1900. 83 Cities. NewYork.N.Y Chicago, 111 Philadelphia, Pa Allegheny and Pittsburg, Pa Bostoiij Mass St. Louis, Mo Cincinnati^ Ohio San Francisco, Cal Cleveland, Ohio Milwaukee, Wis Baltimore, Md Newark, N. J BufEalo.N.Y Lynn, Mass Fall River, Mass Paterson, N. J New Haven, Conn Detroit, Mich Minneapolis, Minn Total Total strikes. 5,090 1,737 615 500 363 286 250 215 207 187 182 166 164 155 146 134 126 116 114 10,723 Estab- lish- ments. Employees thrown out of employ- ment. 33, 161 17, 176 5,045 5,432 2,272 2,511 1,236 650 879 1,722 850 1,472 1,210 203 375 313 278 483 696 75, 964 %2, 470 593,000 197, 538 175, 795 63,154 71,889 67,098 18, 687 45, 569 38, 977 36, 572 28,460 40, 627 9,741 66, 424 37,883 8,435 22,193 16, 996 2,491,508 Wa£e loss of em- ployees. Assistance to employ- ees by labor organiza- tions. 822,172,603 18,787,422 5, 374, 653 9, 026, 746 1, 945, 333 3, 183, 524 1,796,317 1,101,921 1,962,432 2,014,380 1,156,949 937,028 1,303,798 430, 437 2, 123, 252 1,680,187 369, 157 972, 805 308, 627 76, 637, 571 $2,540,455 2,409,894 402, 161 813, 589 342, 865 342, 178 203,836 238,984 181,909 279, 325 106,097 109, 391 144, 329 50,969 90, 074 93,344 51, 078 165, 165 31, 707 8,637,360 Loss of em- ployers. $11,813,291 22, 123, 344 3, 186, 998 3,099,815 1, 504, 152 6,369,326 1,273,476 823, 702 1,106,194 1,133,810 651, 062 243, 997 1,291,215 194, 148 451,449 757, 611 136, 050 667, 367 331,795 56,058,702 Lockouts in principal cities, January 1, 1881, to December 31, 1900. Total lockouts. Estab- lish- ments. Employees thrown out of employ- ment. Wage loss ofem- ployees. Assistance to employ- ees by labor or- ganiza- tions. Loss of em- ployers. NewYork.N.Y Chicago, 111 Philadelphia, Pa Boston, Mass Allegheny and Pittsburg, Pa Cincinnatij Ohio San Francisco, Cal St. Louis, Mo Albany, N.Y Cleveland, Ohio Baltimore, Md St. Paul, Minn Minneapolis, Minn Milwaukee, Wis Detroit; Mich Newark, N. J Haverhill, Mass Buffalo, N.Y Norwich, Conn Total 145 67 40 22 19 19 17 15 13 13 12 11 11 11 11 10 10 10 10 2,808 3,469 159 135 394 128 74 56 222 24 65 66 31 29 19 71 57 50 10 84,802 128,691 17, 212 3,727 12, 929 8,121 3,682 2,622 4,044 1,938 1,611 1,061 1,767 2,147 2,777 3,411 7,436 1,686 2,365 $4,325,526 20,188,089 681,522 248, 034 5, 539, 078 760, 449 116, 760 541, 367 151, 186 80, 873 66, 762 30,866 29,956 260, 998 164, 904 170, 804 101, 606 120, 763 29,293 $855, 595 229, 478 77, 627 45, 660 290,025 248, 002 14,030 110, 469 26, 083 13, 690 a 29, 926 8,315 2,921 12, 375 29, 760 17, 727 6,900 6,453 2,577 $1,228,444 8, 574, 850 592,886 412,261 786, 234 411,440 49,325 100,740 107,040 95,039 34,720 46,250 26,100 516, 725 62, 500 57, 980 60,400 58,696 24, 776 456 7,841 291,929 33,597,825 o 2, 026, 603 13,245,403 « Not including the amount in 1 establishment for which these data were not obtainable. In the case of both strikes and lockouts the cities shown are the 20 in which the greatest number of these disturbances occurred during the period included in the report. It will be noticed that the cities are practically the same in both classes of disturbances. Considering the table for strikes, it is seen that out of a total of 22,79.3 strikes for the entire country during the twenty-year period 10,723, or 47.05 per cent, occurred in the 20 cities included in the table. The number of establishments involved in strikes in the United States during the period was shown as 117,509, of which num- ber 75,964, or 64.65 per cent, occurred in the 20 cities. The number of employees thrown out of employment in the United States during the period by reason of strikes was 6,105,694, of which 2,491,508, or 40.81 per cent, were employed in estab- lishments located in the 20 cities included in the table. The wage loss to emplovees through strikes in the 20 cities was $76,6.37,571, as against $257,863,478 for the entire country; the loss to employers $56,058,702, as against $122,731,121; and the assist- ance to employees by labor organizations $8,537,350, as against $16,174,793. 84 NATIONAL ABBITKATION BILL. The proportion of the total wage loss occurring in strikes in these cities was, con- sequently, 29.72 per cent, while that of the employers' losses was 45.68 per cent. The assistance rendered strikers in these cities was 52.78 per cent of the total amount of assistance rendered to strikers in the entire country. These 20 cities contained 25.30 per cent of all the manufacturing establishments and employed 35.38 per cent of the capital invested in the mechanical industries of the United States, according to figures furnished the Department by the Census Office. Six of the 20 cities — New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, Allegheny, Pittsburg, and Boston — reported 8,305 strikes, or 36.44 per cent of all the strike's which occurred in the United States dur- ing the period involved, and 63,086 establishments, or 53.69 per cent of the whole number of establishments involved. The table for lockouts may be analyzed in a similar manner. Table VII. — Summary of strikes for ihe United States, by industries. — This table summa- rizes the facts given in Table IV, showing in brief form the data for each industry, the strikes for all States and for all of the twenty years being combined to secure the totals for the industries as shown here. Table XVIII of the report relates to lockouts and is entirely similar to this table in both its title and the arrangement of the facts included therein. The industries affected by strikes during the twenty-year period ending December 31, 1900, are shown in the following table, with especial reference to the number of strikes in each, the number of establishments affected, and the number of employees thrown out of employment. Strikes, by industries, January 1, 1881, to December 31, 1900. Industries. Strikes. Number. Per cent of total. Establishments. Number. Per cent of total. Average estab- lish- ments to a strike. Employees thrown out of employment. Nnmhpr Percent Number, oftot^l. Agricultural implements Boots and shoes Brewing Brick Building trades Carpeting Carriages and wagons Clothing Coal and coke Cooperage Cotton and woolen goods Cotton ^oods Domestic service Food preparations Furniture Glass Leather and leather goods . . Lumber Machines and machinery . . . Metals and metallic goods . . Musical instruments Paper and paper goods Pottery, earthenware, etc . . . Printing and publishing Public ways construction . . . Public works construction . . Railroad car building Rope and bagging Rubber goods Shipbuilding, etc Silk goods Stone quarrying and cutting Telegraph and telephone ... Tobacco Transportation Trunks and valises Watches Wooden goods Woolen and worsted goods. . Miscellaneous Total 51 862 81 184 4,440 137 57 1,638 2,615 236 195 512 175 408 405 374 208 179 453 2,080 64 43 75 765 390 218 94 19 56 151 287 856 96 1,509 1,265 21 20 294 289 1,102 0.22 3.78 .36 .81 19.48 .60 .25 7.19 11.03 1.03 .85 2.25 .77 1.79 1.78 1.64 .91 .78 1.99 9.13 .24 .19 .33 3.36 1.71 .96 .41 .08 .25 .66 1.26 3.76 .42 6.62 5.65 .09 .09 1.29 1.27 4.83 52 1,264 364 1,193 41, 910 363 389 19,695 14, 575 891 280 637 468 6,126 1,108 599 382 699 1,174 4,652 86 43 ■ 179 1,723 648 243 96 23 56 373 398 3,583 136 6,153 3,436 22 20 1,066 307 3,118 0.04 1.08 .31 1.02 35.67 16.76 12.40 .76 .24 .54 .40 4.36 .94 .51 .32 .59 1.00 3.96 .07 .04 .16 1.47 .66 .21 .08 .02 .05 .32 .34 3.06 .11 5.24 2.92 .02 .02 .90 .26 2.65 1.0 1.5 4.4 6.4 9.4 2.6 6.8 12.0 5.8 3.8 1.4 1.2 2.7 12.6 2.7 1.6 1.8 3.9 2.6 2.2 1.6 1.0 2.4 2.3 1.7 1.1 1.0 1.2 1.0 2.5 1.4 4.2 1.4 4.1 2.7 1.0 1.0 8.6 1.1 2.8 13,881 137,267 8,948 66, 163 665,946 53, 740 11, 968 563, 772 1, 892, 436 20,444 44,104 212, 209 13, 014 110, 245 49, 901 89, 151 21, 462 64,415 89,495 611, 386 6,995 1,662 25,350 40,288 72, 766 30, 144 25, 573 3,696 14, 827 36,088 53, 819 110, 523 11, 712 251, 096 484,454 879 2,756 53, 359 68,986 182, 968 0.23 2.25 .16 1.07 a 10. 91 .88 .20 9.23 31.06 .33 .72 3.48 .21 1.81 .82 1.46 .36 1.06 1.47 8.37 .11 .03 .42 .66 1.19 .49 .42 .06 .24 .67 .88 1.81 .19 4.11 7.93 .01 .06 .87 .97 2.94 117, 509 100.00 5.2 a6, 105, 694 a 100. 00 a Not including the number in 33 establishments for which these data were not obtainable. NATIONAL ARBITRATION BILL. 85 The industries most affected by strikes during the period included in the present report were the building trades, with 4,440 strikes, involving 41,910 establishments and 665,946 employees; coal and coke, with 2,515 strikes, involving 14,575 establish- ments and 1,892,435 employees; metals and metallic goods, with 2,080 strikes, involving 4,652 establishments and 511,336 employees; clothing, with 1,638 strikes, involving 19,695 establishments and 563,772 employees; tobacco, with 1,509 strikes, involving 6, 153 establishments and 251,096 employees, and transportation, with 1,265 strikes, involving 3,436 establishments and 484,454 employees. It is thus seen that of the 22,793 strikes which occurred during the period, 59 per cent were in the six industries just mentioned, while of the 117,509 establishments involved, 76.95 per cent were so engaged. As regards the employees thrown out of employment by strikes, 71.56 per cent of the total number were connected with establishments engaged in these six industries. A table for lockouts similar in all respects to the preceding one for strikes follows: Lockouts, by industries, January 1, 1881, to December 31, 1900. Industries, Agricultural implements Boots and shoes Brewing Brick Building trades Carpeting Carriages and wagons Clothing Coal and coke Cooperage Cotton and woolen good.s . . . Cotton goods Domestic service Food preparations Furniture Glass Leather and leather goods . . Lumber Machines and machinery . . . Metals and metallic goods . . Musical instruments Pottery, earthenware, etc Printing and publishing Rope and bagging Shipbuilding, etc Silk goods Stone quarrying and cutting Telegraph ana telephone — Tobacco Transportation , Watches Wooden goods Woolen and worsted goods. . Miscellaneous Total of total. Establishments, 16 4 95 4 2 100 45 12 2 20 8 24 34 40 16 6 25 130 4 6 88 1 8 5 43 1 124 23 1 11 12 0.40 5.87 1.69 .40 9.46 .40 .20 9.95 4.48 1.19 .20 1.99 .79 2.39 3.38 3.98 1.59 .60 2.49 12.93 .40 .60 8.76 .10 .30 .60 4.28 .10 12.34 2.29 .10 1.09 1.19 3.88 100.00 5 292 160 49 5, 001 4 2 2,034 56 21 2 51 20 49 141 138 138 19 25 272 14 30 117 1 7 6 516 1 339 127 1 51 25 213 of total. 0.05 2.94 1.67 .49 50. 35 .04 .02 20.48 ..57 .21 .02 .51 .20 .49 1.42 1.39 1.39 .19 .25 2.74 .14 .30 1.18 .01 .07 .06 5.20 .01 3.41 1.28 .01 .61 .25 2.16 Average establish- ments to a lock- out. 1.3 4.9 10.4 12.3 62.6 1.0 1.0 20.3 1.2 1.8 1.0 2.6 2.5 2.0 4.1 3.5 8.6 3.8 1.0 2.1 3.5 6.0 1.3 1.0 2.3 1.2 12.0 1.0 2.7 5.5 1.0 4.6 2.1 6.5 9.9 Employees thrown out of employment. Number. 930 37, 013 7,173 2,114 120, 067 3,717 236 83, 606 12, 879 1,132 863 12, 941 311 22, 967 4,037 26, 845 7,781 3,249 4,213 36, 055 4,356 4,410 3,070 300 357 2,098 15, 864 15 41, 762 10, 875 65 1,716 7,820 23, 492 504,307 Per cent of total. 0.184. 7.339 1.422 .419 23.806 .737 .047 10.578 2.554 .225 .169 2.566 .062 4.654 .801 5.323 1.548 .644 .835 7.149 .864 .875 .609 .060 .071 .416 3.146 .003 8.281 2.156 .013 .840 1.551 4.658 100.00 In the lockouts which occurred during the twenty years also, the six industries — building trades, coal and coke, metals and metallic goods, clothing, tobacco, and transportation — bear a very large proportion of the burden, having 51.44 per cent of the total lockouts, with 78.82 per cent of the establishments involved and 60.53 per cent of the employees thrown out of employment 86 NATIONAL AEBITEATION BILL. The following short table, which includes data for the entire, period of twenty years, shows the number of persons thrown out of employment by strikes and lock- outs in each of the industries, subdivided as to sex: Sex of employees thrown out of employment, by industries, January 1, 1881, to December SI, 1900. Industries. Agricultural implements Boots and shoes Brewing , Brick Building trades Carpeting Carriages and wagons Clothing Coal and coke Cooperage Cotton and woolen goods Cotton goods Domestic service Food preparations Furniture Glass Leather and leather goods. . Lumber Machines and machinery Metals and metallic goods . . Musical instruments Paper and paper goods Pottery, earthenware, etc Printing and publishing Public ways consttuction . . . Public works construction. . Railroad car buUding Rope and bagging Rubber goods Shipbuilding, etc Silk goods Stone quarrying and cutting Telegraph and telephone . . . Tobacco T'ransportation Trunks and valises Watches Wooden goods Woolen and worsted goods . Miscellaneous Total Strikes. Employees thrown out of em- ployment. 13,881 137, 267 8,948 65, 163 3 666,946 53, 740 11, 968 563, 772 ,892,435 20,444 44,104 212, 209 13 014 110, 245 49, 901 89, 151 21,462 64,416 89, 496 611, 336 6,995 1,652 26, 350 40,288 72,765 30, 144 ■S, 673 3,696 14, 827 36,088 53, 819 110,523 11, 712 251,096 484,454 879 2,766 63, 359 58, 985 182, 968 6,106,694 Males (per cent). 99.06 73.24 99.86 99.79 a 99. 76 51.91 98.70 62.69 100. 00 99.99 47.16 47.54 96.69 97.20 97.97 95.25 97.93 99.96 99.46 99.23 99.07 68.11 82.41 92.17 100. 00 100. 00 99.67 67.05 57.08 100. 00 48.60 100. 00 94.35 62.62 99.99 98.75 78.56 98.13 63.81 89.00 90.00 Females (per cent). 0.94 26.76 .16 .21 a. 24 48.09 L30 37.31 .01 62.84 62.46 3.31 2.80 2.03 4.76 2.07 .06 .55 .77 .93 3L89 17.59 7.83 42.95 42.92 61.40 6.66 37.38 .01 1.26 21.44 1.87 46.19 11.00 Lockouts. Employees thrown out oi em- ployment. 930 37,013 7,173 2,114 120, 057 3,717 235 83, 606 12, 879 1,132 853 12, 941 311 22, 967 4,037 26,845 7,781 3,249 4,213 36, 055 4,365 4,410 3,070 367 2,098 16, 864 15 41, 762 10, 876 65 1,716 7,820 23,492 604, 307 Males (per cent). 100.00 67.34 99.99 100.00 99.99 37.46 93.62 60.93 100.00 100.00 32.24 47.10 100.00 95.96 100. 00 93.60 100.00 100.00 99.88 99.66 99.93 77.73 82.08 58.33 100.00 52.81 100.00 100. 00 60.87 100.00 100.00 100.00 53.77 51.62 80.24 Females (per cent). 32.66 .01 .01 62.66 6.38 49.07 67.76 52.90 4.06 'h'.m .12 .34 .07 22.27 17.92 41.67 "47.'i9 46.23 48.38 19.76 a Not including the number in 33 establishments for which these data were not obtainable. A preceding table gave similar data by years instead of by industries, showing that, as a whole, but 10 per cent of the employees thrown out of employment by reason of strikes were females, while 90 per cent were males. , In the present table may be seen the industries in which female employees were most deeply involved in strikes. Of the employees thrown out of employment by reason of strikes it is seen that in the cotton and woolen goods industry 52.84 per cent were females; in cotton goods, 52.46 per cent; in silk goods, 51.40 per cent; in carpeting, 48.09 per cent; in woolen and worsted goods, 46.19 per cent; in rope and bagging, 42.95 per cent; in rubber goods, 42.92 percent; in tobacco, 37.38 percent; in clothing, 37.31 percent; in paper and paper goods, 31.89 per cent; in boots and shoes, 26.76 per cent; in watches, 21.44 per cent; in pottery, earthenware, etc., 17.59 per cent, etc. In lockouts the largest proportion of females thrown out of employment are found in the following indus- tries: Cotton and woolen goods, 67.76 per cent; carpeting, 62.55 per cent; cotton goods, 52.90 per cent; clothing, 49.07 per cent; silk goods, 47.19 per cent; woolen and worsted goods, 46.23 per cent; rope and bagging, 41.67 per cent; tobacco, 39.13 per cent; boots and shoes, 32.66 per cent, etc. The following table shows the number of persons actually striking during the period from January 1, 1887, to December 31, 1900, by industries and by sex. It NATIONAL ARBITRATION BILL. 87 will be noticed that the first six yeara of the period are not included in this table. The fact that the employees striking were not subdivided as to sex in the first report on strikes i-endered necessary the omission of the period covered by that report. A comparison of the percentages shown for females in this table, whiLh includes only those employees actually striking, with those shown in the preceding one, which includes not only those striking, but also those thrown out of employment by strikes, will afford information as to whether female employees are as active as male employees in urging their demands which lead to strikes. Number and per cent of strikers, by sex and industry, January 1, 1S87, to December SI, 1900. Industries. Male. Female Total. Per cent. Male. Agricultural implements Boots and shoen Brewing Brick Building trades Carpeting Carriages and wagons Clothing Coal and coke Cooperage Cotton and woolen goods Cotton goods Domestic service Food preparations Furniture Glass Leather and leather goods Lumber Machines and machinery Metals and metallic goods Musical instruments Paper and paper goods Pottery, earthenware, etc Printing and publishing Public ways construction Public works construction ' Railroad car building Rope and bagging , RuDber goods Shipbuilding, etc Silk goods Stone quarrying and cutting Telegraph and telephone Tobacco Transportation Trunks and valises Watches _ Wooden goods Woolen and worsted goods , Miscellaneous Total 2,530 43, 203 4,212 40,914 463, 052 12, 132 4,967 302,981 1,360,040 8,212 8,216 48,316 11,855 41, 870 19, 552 30,363 11,444 23,335 45, 310 193,870 4,242 607 13, 386 25,102 47, 748 20, 480 12, 098 1,006 1,985 21, 181 18, 690 80,608 4,421 93,485 248, 491 861 754 30, 978 11,927 105, 653 12, 379 1,183 7, 571 30 103, 762 7,532 48, 823 338 1,556 673 5S7 281 69 1,487 6 490 3,131 1,491 100 1,055 1,971 9,026 260 38, 160 44 I 130 43 10,866 11, 694 2,530 65,582 4,212 40, 914 464,235 19, 703 4,987 406, 743 1,350,040 8,212 15, 748 97, 188 12, 193 43, 426 20, 225 30,960 11, 726 23,335 45, 369 195, 367 4,247 1,097 16,617 26, 693 47, 748 20, 480 12, 198 2,061 3,956 21, 181 27, 716 80,508 4,681 131,646 248, 535 862 884 31, 021 22, 792 117, 347 100. 00 77.73 100.00 100. 00 99.75 61.67 99.40 74.49 100. 00 100. 00 62.17 49.74 97.23 96.42 96.67 98.10 97.60 100.00 99.87 99.24 99.88 65.33 81.04 94.39 100. 00 100.00 99.18 48.81 60.18 100. 00 67.43 100. 00 94.45 71.01 85.29 99.86 52.33 90.03 .25 38.43 .60 25.51 47.83 50.26 2.77 3.68 8.33 1.90 2.40 .13 .76 .12 41.67 18.96 5.61 .82 51.19 49.82 32.67 5.55 28.99 .02 .12 14.71 .14 47.67 9.97 3, 409, 966 264, 727 3, 674, 693 92.80 7.20 Table VIII. — Causes, etc., of strikes, by States. — In this table is taken up separately each of the States in which strikes have occurred during the twenty-year period, and under each of these States separate data are given for each cause or object, showing, for the strikes which occurred on account of each cause or which were undertaken for each object, the number of establishments involved, and the number of these in which strikes succeeded, succeeded partly, and failed. Table XIX of the report relates to lockouts, and is entirely similar to this table in both its title and the arrangement of the facts included therein. Table IX. — Causes etc., of strikes, by years. — This table is similar to the preceding one, showing separate data for each year of the period, classified as to the causes or objects for which the strikes were undertaken. Table XX, for lockouts, corresponds to this table in both title and arrangement. 88 NATIONAL ABBITKATION BILL. The per cent of establishments in which strikes and lockouts succeeded, succeeded partly, and failed during each of the twenty years ending December 31, 1900, together with a total for the entire period, are shown in the following summary: Remits, for establishments, of strikes and lockouts, January 1, 1881, to December 31, 1900. [This table does not include the results for 180 establishmente tor which the data were not obtain- able by reason of the fact tliat strikes or lockouts were still pending, etc.] Per cent of establishments in which strikes — Per cent of establishments in which lockouts — Year. Suc- ceeded. Suc- ceeded partly. Failed. Suc- ceeded. Suc- ceeded partly. Failed. 1881 61.37 63.59 68.17 61.60 52.80 34.60 45.64 52.22 46.49 52.66 37.88 39.31 50.86 38.09 65.24 59.19 67.31 64.19 73.24 46. 43 7.00 8.17 16.09 3.89 9.50 18.85 7.19 5.48 18.91 10.01 8.29 8.70 10.32 13.50 9.94 7.47 28. 12 6.38 14.26 20.62 31.63 38.24 25.74 44.61 37.70 46.65 47.17 42.30 34.60 37.34 53.83 61. 99 38.82 48.41 34. 82 33.34 14.67 29.43 12.61 32.96 88.89 64.29 56.41 27.97 38.25 21.18 34.19 74.44 40.91 65.74 63.92 69.13 41.90 11.31 13.24 80.39 60.82 63.41 18.01 94.30 11.11 1882 36.71 188S . 43.69 1884 .28 3.28 13.11 1.25 3.89 25.76 5.56 14.29 25.28 18.31 2.40 .27 1.96 3.61 .61 .62 .31 71.75 1885 58.47 1886 66.71 1887 1888 64.56 21.67 1889 1890 S3. 33 28.70 1891 - - 21.79 1892 5.69 1893 39.79 1894 86.29 1895 86.49 1896 17.65 1897 35.67 1898 36.98 1899 81.37 1900 6.39 Total 50.77 13.04 36.19 50.79 6.28 42.93 So far as strikes are concerned, it is seen that out of a total of 117,472 establishments affected by strikes during the twenty-year period, and for which the results were ascer- tained, the employees were successful in gaining their demands in 59,637, or 50.77 per cent; they partly succeeded in attaining the objects for which the strike was instituted in 15,325, or 13.04 per cent, while failure followed in 42,510, or 36.19 per cent. In a small number of establishments, constituting three-hundredths of I per cent of the whole number involved in strikes, data were not obtainable by reason of the fact that strikes were still pending at the end of one of the three periods included in the report, and these, therefore, have not been included in the table. Of the lockouts during the twenty years for which results were ascertained, the firms gained their point in 4,972, or 50. 79 per cent, of the establishments; they partly succeeded in 615, or 6.28 per cent, while they failed in 4,203, or 42.93 per cent. In 1.44 per cent of the whole number of establishments involved the lockouts were either still pending at the end of one of the three periods comprised in the report or the results were not obtainable, and for this reason they have not been included in the table. The number of establishments, both in strikes and lockouts, for which no result could be secured for the reason stated is too small to affect in any appreciable degree the proportions given. The considerable variations in these proportions from year to j^ear may be seen by reference to the table itself. In order to show the results of the strikes ordered by organizations as compared with those of the strikes not so ordered, the following series of tables is presented. The first two tables show, respectively, by years and by industries, the number of strikes ordered by organizations and the number of establishments in which strikes succeeded, succeeded partly, and failed, and the number not so ordered which could be properly classified under each of these three heads. The last two tables of the series are drawn from the fir.st two and are entirely similar in form, showing the facts in the form of percentages. The tables follow: NATIONAL AEBITEATION BILL. 89 Number of establishments in which strikes succeeded, succmled partly, mid Jailed In si ri !:(■■■< ordered and not ordered by organizaiioTU!, by years, January 1, 1881, tn December 31, 1900. [Attention is drawn to the fact that the first column of each section of this table relates to the number of strikes, while the succeeding columns relate to the number of establishments in which these strikes occurred. The latter number is much greater owing to the fact that a single strike frequently extended to two or more establishments. This table does not include the results for 37 establish- ments for which the data were not obtainable by rea-son of the fact that strikes were still pending, etc., and for 10 strikes involving 104 establishments for which information was not obtainable as to whether they were ordered or were not ordered by organizations.] Strikes ordered by organizations. Strikes not ordered by organizations. Year. Num- ber of strikes. Number of establishments in which strikes — Num- ber of strikes. Number of establishments in which strikes- Suc- ceeded. Suc- ceeded partly. Failed. Total. Suc- ceeded. Suc- ceeded partly. Failed. Total. 1881 222 218 271 239 361 760 952 616 724 1,306 1,284 918 906 847 658 662 596 638 1,115 1,164 1,452 902 1,489 1,094 1,082 2,949 2,780 1,721 1,377 4,607 2,838 1,986 2.169 2,716 3,614 3,069 4,653 2,245 7,968 4,039 143 153 426 64 170 1,801 413 153 645 868 598 442 436 994 613 322 2,301 198 1,481 1,845 618 646 402 803 418 4,054 2,553 1,190 997 3,068 3,943 2,622 1,408 3,661 1,873 1,522 844 777 990 2,621 2,213 1,600 2,317 1,-961 1,620 8.804 6, 746 3,064 3,019 8,533 7,379 8,050 4,003 7,271 6,100 4,913 7,798 3,220 10,439 8,405 249 236 207 204 284 672 483 288 3.61 .525 432 380 399 601 .565 363 482 418 682 615 345 226 116 126 174 514 227 110 383 364 236 192 166 406 237 164 214 200 321 247 62 19 18 28 47 91 61 39 71 76 75 40 34 112 80 86 87 45 131 68 308 260 308 253 443 629 554 291 313 459 331 268 359 406 654 298 393 344 426 620 715 1882 505 1883 . . . 4i2 1884 1885 664 1886.. 1,234 1887 1888 . . ■- 440 1889 . 767 1890 888 1891 642 1892 490 1893 549 1894 924 1895 871 1896 648 1897 . . 694 1898 689 1899 878 1900 825 Total 14,457 64, 690 14, 066 34, 699 103, 4.65 8,326 4 947 1,269 7,707 13,913 Number of establishments in which strikes succeeded, succeeded partly ^ and failed in strikes ordered and not ordered by organizations^ by industries, January 1, 18S1, to December SI, 1900, [Attention is drawn to the fact that the first column of each section of this table relates to the number of strikes, while the succeeding- columns relate to the number of establishments in which these strikes occurred. The latter number is much greater owing to the fact that a single strike frequently extended to two or more establishments. This table does not include the results for 37 establishments for which the data were not obtainable by reason of the fact that strikes were still pending, etc., and for 10 strikes involving 104 establishments for which information was not obtain- able as to whether they were ordered or were not ordered by organizations.] Strikes ordered by organizations. Strikes not ordered by organizations. Industries. Num- ber of strikes. Number of establishments in which strikes — Num- ber of strikes. Number of establishments in which strikes — Suc- ceeded. Suc- ceeded partly. Failed. Total. Suc- ceeded. Suc- ceeded partly. Failed. Total. Agricultural im- plements Boots and shoes... 30 639 73 96 3,989 45 20 1,365 1,303 162 23 106 101 412 132 307 22,696 65 313 14,073 2,147 437 6 25 122 4 97 71 211 5,393 5 11 1,488 3,891 65 25 46 123 20 606 151 337 12,917 63 27 3,451 5,544 176 68 135 138 31 1,015 354 866 40,906 133 351 19,012 11,682 677 99 206 383 21 223 8 88 451 92 37 273 1,209 84 172 406 74 6 86 6 93 616 63 12 377 967 137 42 96 2 12 i' 91 32 6 33 296 6 29 33 2 13 161 4 241 381 136 20 273 1,629 72 110 301 75 21 249 10 338 Building trades . . . 988 220 Carriages and wag- ons 38 Clothinsr 683 Coal and coke — Cooperage Cottonandwoolen 2,892 214 181 Cotton goods Domestic service.. 429 86 90 NATIONAL ABBITBATION BILL. Number of establishments in which strikes succeeded, succeeded partly, and failed in strikes ordered and not ordered by organizations, by industries, etc. — Oontinued. Industries. Foodpreparations. Furniture Glass Leatherand leath- er goods Lumber Machines and ma- chinery Metals and metal- lic goods Musical instru- ments Paper and paper goods Pottery, earthen- ware.etc Printing and pub- lishing Public ways con- struction Public works con- struction Railroad car build- ing Rope and bagging. Rubber goods Shipbuilding, etc . . Silk goods Stone quarrying and cutting Telegraph and tel- ephone Tobacco Transportation Trunks and valises Watches Wooden goods Woolen and worst- ed goods Miscellaneous Strikes ordered by organizations. Num- ber of strikes. Suc- ceeded. 188 110 83 300 1,055 46 8 40 657 70 35 25 4 13 83 133 612 28 1,102 664 11 9 227 37 444 Total 14,457 54,690 Number of establishments in which strikes — 3,274 359 91 71 583 1,778 18 3 13 669 115 24 6 6 1 110 86 1,663 28 2,223 1,215 11 1,193 Suc- ceeded partly. 87 110 30 52 107 361 13 1 62 159 23 9 1 17 324 244 1 2 27 13 295 14, 066 Failed. 1,549 654 156 160 243 316 1,305 47 4 41 750 46 14 20 2 10 94 127 20 2,755 4 672 25 664 Total. 4,910 1,023 344 271 366 1,006 3,434 78 8 116 1,678 184 47 26 8 13 243 238 3,178 60 6,302 2,247 ■ 12 9 949 49 2,162 103, 455 Strikes not ordered by organizations. Num- ber of strikes. 100 72 186 98 95 152 1,024 35 35 108 320 183 69 15 43 68 154 244 67 407 708 10 11 67 262 657 Number of establishments in which strikes — Suc- ceeded, 78 42 341 2 4 11 41 168 76 15 6 11 16 515 387 3 3 16 71 279 Suc- ceeded partly. 6 14 7 26 18 121 1 2 9 3 54 24 14 2 5 16 21 6 94 115 Failed. 123 67 189 71 229 107 752 5 29 43 94 252 97 41 8 27 76 91 64 242 154 696 7,707 Total. 216 85 253 111 167 1,214 8 35 vo 15 43 130 160 405 74 861 1,185 10 11 107 268 964 13,913 NATIONAL ARBITRATION BILL 91 Per cent of eslahlishmenis in which strikes smxeeded, succeeded partly, and failed in strikes ordered and not ordered bt/ organizations, by years, January 1, 1881, to December 31, 1900. [Attention is drawn to tlie fact that the first column of each section of this table relates to the number of strikes, while the succeeding columns relate to the number of establishments in wlilch these strikes occurred. The latter number is much greater owing to the fact that a single strike frequently extended to two or more establishments. This table does not include the results for 37 establishments for which the data were not obtainable by reason of the fact that strikes were still pending, etc., and for 10 strikes involving 104 establishments for which information was not obtainable as to whether they were ordered or were not ordered by organizations.] Strikes ordered by organizations. Strikes not ordered by organizations. Year. Number of strikes. Per cent of establishments in which strikes — Number of strikes. Per cent of establishments in which strikes — Suc- ceeded. Suc- ceeded partly. Failed. Suc- ceeded. Suc- ceeded partly. Failed. 1881 .. 222 218 271 239 361 760 952 616 724 1,306 1,284 918 906 847 658 662 696 638 1,115 1,164 65.61 66.38 64.26 55.79 63.70 33.49 48.38 66.17 4.5.61 D3.99 38.46 39.33 63.94 37.35 59.26 62.47 59.67 69.72 76.33 48.06 6.46 9.56 18.39 3.26 10.50 20.46 7.19 4.99 21.37 10.17 8.10 8.75 10.89 13.67 10.05 6.55 29.51 6.15 14.19 21.96 27.93 34.06 17.35 40.96 25.80 46.05 44.43 38.84 33.02 35.84 53.44 51.92 35.17 48.98 30.70 30.98 10.82 24.13 9.48 29.99 249 236 207 204 284 672 483 288 361 525 432 380 399 501 555 363 482 418 682 615 48.25 44.75 26.26 30.79 26.20 41.65 26.96 26.00 49.93 39.86 36.76 39.19 28.42 43.94 27.21 29.93 30.83 33.96 36.56 29.94 8.67 3.76 4.07 6.90 7.08 7.38 7.24 8.86 9.26 8.46 11.68 8.16 6.19 12.12 9.18 16.69 12.64 7.64 14.92 7.03 43.08 1882 51.49 1883 69.68 1884 62.31 1885 66.72 1886 50.97 1887 66.80 1888 66.14 1889 . 40.81 1890 51.69 1891 51.56 1892 52.65 1893 66.39 1894 43.94 1895 . 63.61 1896 64.38 1897 56.63 1898 58.40 1899 . . . 48.52 1900 63.03 Total 14,457 .52.86 13.60 33.54 8,326 35.66 9.05 55.39 92 NATIONAL ARBITKATION BILL. Per cent of establishments in whicli strikes succeeded, succeeded partly, and failed in strikes ordered and not ordered by organizations, by industries, January 1, 1881, to December SI, 1900. [Attention is drawn to the fact tliat tlie iirst column of each section of this table relates to the number of strilses, while the succeeding columns relate to the number of establishments in which these striiies occurred. The latter number is much greater owing to the fact that a single strike frequently extended to two or more establishments. Thi.s table does not include the results for 37 establishments for which the data were not obtainable by reason of the fact that striltes were still pending, etc., and for 10 striiies involving 104 establishments for which information was not obtain- able as to whether they were ordered or were not ordered by organizations.] Industries Agricultural imple- ments Boots and shoes Brewing Brick Building trades Carpeting Carriages and wag- ons Clothing Coal and coke Cooperage Cotton and woolen goods Cotton goods Domestic service . . . Food preparations . . Furniture Glass Leather and leather goods Lumber JMachines and ma- chinery Metals and metallic goods Musical instruments Paper and paper goods Pottery, earthen- ware, etc Printing and pub- lishing Public ways con- struction Public works con- struction Railroad car build- ing Rope and bagging . . Rubber goods Shipbuilding, etc . . . Silk goods Stone quarrying and cutting Telegraph and tele- phone Tobacco Transportation Trunks and valises. . Watches "Wooden goods Woolen and worsted goods Miscellaneous Total Strikes ordered by organizations. Number of strikes. 73 96 3,989 45 20 1,365 1,303 152 23 106 101 188 110 1,055 46 8 40 657 70 35 25 4 13 83 133 612 28 1,102 554 11 9 227 37 444 Per cent of establishments in which strikes — Suc- ceeded. 22.68 40.69 37.29 35.91 55.24 48.87 89.17 74.02 18.54 64.55 6.06 12.14 31.85 66.68 35.09 46.22 33.58 19.40 67.95 51.78 23.08 37. 50 11.21 42. 39 62.60 51.06 19.23 75.00 7.69 45.27 35.71 62.33 88.84 41.93 64.07 25.00 33.33 22.46 56.44 Suc- ceeded partly. 12.90 9.66 20.06 24.68 13.18 3.76 3.14 7.83 33.69 9.60 25.26 22.33 32.12 1.77 10.75 8.72 11.07 14.21 10.22 16. G7 12.50 53.46 10.08 12.50 19.15 3.86 16.39 16.05 10.93 19.23 28.33 6.11 10.86 8.33 22.22 2.85 26.53 13.71 Failed. 64.62 49.86 42.65 39.41 31.68 47.37 7.69 18.16 47.87 26.85 68.69 65.63 36.03 81.66 54.16 45.06 66.35 66.39 38.00 60.25 50.00 36.34 47.53 25.00 29.79 76.92 25.00 76.92 38.68 63.36 28.44 33.33 61.96 35.07 66.67 44.45 60.27 51. 02 30.86 33.64 Strikes not ordered by organizations. Number of strikes. 21 223 451 92 37 273 1,209 74 100 72 186 95 162 1,024 8 36 36 108 320 183 67 407 708 10 11 67 252 667 Per cent of establishments in which strikes — Suc- ceeded. 28.67 34.64 60.00 27.52 52.23 24.09 31.68 55.20 33.44 64.02 23.21 22,15 9.41 39.35 14.12 19.76 29. 73 23.49 28.09 25.00 11.43 17.46 29.71 34.05 38.27 21.43 33.33 26.68 30.00 30.00 51.85 20.27 60.62 32.66 30.00 27. 27 14.96 27.52 28.94 Suc- ceeded partly. 9.52 4.82 1.18 9.21 14.56 15.79 4.83 10.23 2.34 16.02 7.69 2.35 3.70 7.06 5.54 6.31 7.53 9.97 12.50 5.71 14.29 2.17 11.64 12.24 20.00 13.33 11.63 11.54 13.12 6.17 6.76 11.04 9.70 30.00 12.79 9.34 Failed. 61.91 60.64 40.00 71.30 38.66 61.36 52.63 39.97 56.33 33.64 60.77 70.16 88.24 56.95 78.82 74.70 63.96 68.98 61.94 62.60 82.86 68.25 68.12 54.31 49.49 58.67 53.34 62.79 68.46 56.88 41.98 72.97 28.44 57.64 40.00 72.73 86.05 59.69 61.72 NAIIONAL ABBirBATION BILL. 93 Taking up first the tables which show the number and per cent of establishments in which strikes succeeded, succeeded partly, and failed in strikes ordered and not ordered by organizations, for each year of the period, it is seen that of the 10,3,455 establishments in which strikes were reported as ordered by organizations during the twenty-year period, the strikers gained their demands in 54,690, or 52.86 per cent of the establishments; they succeeded in partly gaining them in 14,066, or 13.60 per cent of the establishments; while they entirely failed in only 34,699, or 33.54 per cent of the establishments. On the other hand it is seen that in the 13,913 estab- lishments in which strikes were reported as not having been ordered by organiza- tions, the strikers succeeded in gaining their demands in but 4,947, or 35.56 per cent of the establishments; they partly succeeded in 1,259, or 9.05 per cent of the estab- lishments; while in 7,707, or 55.39 per cent of the establishments, they entirely failed in gaining any part of their demands. An examination of the figures for each of the twenty years of the period shows without exception similar conditions as to the success and failure of strikes ordered and not ordered by organizations; and, while the percentages vary in the different years, the tables show that strikes ordered by and carried on under the auspices of labor organizations were more generally successful than those not so ordered and assisted. The per cent of establishments in which strikes ordered by organizations succeeded varied from 33.49 per cent in 1886 to 76.33 per cent in 1899, while the per cent in which strikes not so ordered succeeded varied from 25 per cent in 1888 to 49.93 per cent in 1889. The conditions as regards the success and nonsuccess of strikes ordered and not ordered by organizations, especially as regards the different industries in which strikes occurred during the period, may be seen by reference to the table immediately preceding. The following table shows the results of strikes, so far as the employees are con- cerned, for the twenty years ending December 31, 1900: Results, for employees, of strikes, January 1, 1881, to December SI, 1900. [Thia table does not include the results for 37 establishments for which the data were not obtain- able by reason of the fact that strikes were still pending, etc.] Number thrown out of employment. Per cent thrown out of employment. Year. In success- ful strikes. In partly successful strikes. In strikes which failed. In success- ful strikes. In partly successful strikes. In strikes which failed. 1881 .. 65, 600 45,746 55,140 62, 736 115,376 195, 400 127, 579 41,106 72, 099 168, 787 80, 766 61, 125 62,018 117,500 166,388 99,823 168, 858 108, 669 227, 203 145, 218 17,482 7,112 17,024 5,044 23,856 74, 167 26,442 11,130 62, 607 48,444 22,885 16,429 41,765 137, 534 43,729 34,508 162,312 23,012 59,665 195 307 66,439 101, 813 77,699 89,274 103,475 238, 229 226,656 96, 468 114,853 144. 681 196, 288 129, 117 160, 741 405,391 192,286 106, 839 97,221 117, 321 130, 214 163 477 42.93 29.58 36.82 35.86 47.54 38.48 33.60 27.83 28.89 45.12 27.02 29.58 23.44 17.79 39.86 41.39 88.90 43.64 54.48 28.81 13.50 4.60 11.37 8.43 9.83 14.61 6.97 7.54 25.09 13.77 7.65 7.95 15.79 20.83 11.14 14.31 37.29 9.24 14.30 38.76 43 57 1882 1883 1884 60 71 1885 1886 . , 46 91 1887. 59 43 1888 1889 46 02 1890 1891 1892. 62 47 1893 1894 61 38 1896 1896 44 30 1897 . 23 81 1898 1899. 31 22 1900 32 44 Total 2, 137, 136 1,020,443 2,946,381 35.02 16.72 48.26 The totals, as given in this table, show that the number of persons thrown out of employment in the 59,637 establishments in which strikes succeeded was 2,137,136. In the establishments in which partial success was gained 1,020,443 employees were involved, while in the 42,510 establishments in which strikes failed 2,945,381 persons were thrown out of employment. The last three colunms of the table show for each year, and for the twenty years, the per cent of employees thrown out of employment in establishments in which strikes succeeded, partly succeeded, and failed. In com- piling these percentages the employees involved in the comparatively small number of establishments in which strikes were still pending or in which the results were not reported for other reasons i" about four and one-half hundredths of 1 per cent) 94 NATIONAL ARBITRATION BILL. were not considered. Taking the total for the period of twenty years, it is seen that 35.02 per cent of the whole number of persons thrown out of employment, in strikes whose results were obtainable, succeeded in gaining the object for which they struck; 16.72 per cent succeeded partly; while 48.26 per cent failed entirely in gain- ing their demands. Table X. — Causes, etc., of strikes by industries. — This table includes the facts for all strikes which occurred during the twenty-year period, and furnishes data similar to those given in Tables VIII and IX, classified by the industries in which establish- ments under strike were engaged, instead of by States as in Table VIII, or years as in Table IX. The corresponding table for lockouts is numbered XXI. Table XI. — Summary of causes, etc., of strikes for the Uniied Slates. — This table sum- marizes the causes, etc., of strikes for all States, all industries, and for the entire period of twenty years, a line being given for each separate cause or object of strikes, without regard to the State, year, or industry in which the strikes occurred. The corresponding lockout table is numbered XXII. The following shows the 20 leading causes or objects of the strikes which occurred during the twenty-year period beginning January 1, 1881, and ending December 31, 1900, together with the number and per cent of establishments falling under each: Leading causes of strikes, January 1, 1881, to December 31, 1900. Cause or object. For increase of wages For increase of wages and reduction of hours For reduction of hours Against reduction of wages In sympathy with strike elsewhere Against etiiployment of nonunion men For adoption of new scale For recognition of union For increase of wages and recognition of union For enforcement of union rules For adoption of union scale For reduction of hours and against being compelled to board with employer Against task system " For reduction of hours and against task system For adoption of union rules and union scale For reinstatement of discharged employees For increase of wages, Saturday half holiday, and privilege of working for em- ployers not members of masters' association Against reduction of wages and working overtime For increase of wages and against use of material from nonunion establishment. For increase of wages and Saturday half holiday Total of 20 leading causes All other causes (1,382) Estab- lish- ments. 33,731 13,201 13,116 8,423 4,078 2,751 2,742 1,649 1,1U 1,068 928 927 917 901 880 800 750 7.50 729 90,320 27,189 Total for the United States 117, 509 28.70 11.23 11.16 7.17 3.47 2.34 2.33 1.40 .95 .91 .79 .79 .78 .77 .75 .74 .68 .64 .64 .62 76.86 23.14 An examination of the causes or objects for which strikes were undertaken during the period included in this report, as given in Table XI, shows that 20 principd causes included 76.86 per cent of all the establishments, leaving the remaining 1,382 causes active in only 23.14 per cent of the establishments subjected to strikes during the period. It is seen further that practically three causes, involving increase of wages, reduction of hours, and reduction of wages, cover the first four lines of the table, and that these included not less than 58.26 per cent of all the establishment involved in strikes during the last twenty years. The following table shows for each of these 20 leading causes of strikes the per cent of establishments in which strikes succeeded, succeeded partly, and failed. A few establishments in which strikes were still pending or in which the results were not reported have not, of course, been included. NATIONAL ARBITEATION BILL. 95 Segults of strikes undertaken fvr tite twenty leading causes, January 1, 1881, to December si, 1900. Cause or object. Per cent of establishments in which strikes — Succeeded. Succeeded partly. Failed. For increase of wages For increase of wages and reduction of hours For reduction of hours Against reduction of wages In sympathy with strike elsewhere Against employment of nonunion men For adoption of new scale For recognition of union For increase of wages and recognition of union For enforcement of union rules For adoption of union scale For reduction of hours and against being compelled to board with employer Against task system For reduction of hours and against task system For adoption of union rules and union scale For reinstatement of discharged employees For increase of wages, Saturday half holiday, and privilege of working for employers not members of masters' association Against reduction of wages and working overtime For increase of wages and against use of material from nonunion establishment For increase of wages and Saturday half holiday Total . 52.77 62.49 49.43 32.64 25.03 67.21 35.34 12.37 13.41 89.79 46.23 32.47 60.93 100.00 64.20 40.67 100.00 100.00 77.64 17.38 21.08 8.66 13.14 2.33 1.38 30.09 17.46 '".43 5.23 1.96 29.85 16.43 41.91 54.32 72.64 31.41 34.67 87.63 69.13 10.21 63.34 67.58 49.07 30.67 57.37 100.00 7.27 In the strikes undertaken to secure an increase of wages, which, as has been seen from the previous table, included 28.70 per cent of all establishments involved dur- ing the 20 years, success resulted in 52.77 per cent of the establishments, partial suc- cess resulted in 17.38 per cent, while in 29.85 per cent such strikes entirely failed. In the strikes undertaken for both an increase of wages and a reduction of hours 62.49 per cent of the establishments involved succeeded, 21.08 per cent succeeded partly, while 16.43 per cent failed. The results for strikes undertaken for a reduc- tion of hours, against a reduction of wages, and for each of the other leading causes may be seen by reference to the table. 1 am sorry that 1 have not before me the statistics that will enable me to tell you of the loss of life directly chargeable to the strike and lockout. This would surely be appalling, as is the industrial waste indicated. COMPULSORY ARBITEATION IMPOSSIBLE. Mr. Gompers said that he objected to the establishment of this tribu- nal for the reason that it would lead to compulsory arbitration, which I might say I firmly believe to be an impossibility under our form of Government. His statement seemed to indicate that the gentleman discovered force in this bill, and nowhere can he interpret it as other than a moral force. Later he says that the tribunal would not have a " scintilla of influence with labor unions," or words to that effect, meaning, I suppose, that they would ignore the invitations and solicitations of such a tribunal. A MOST BENEFICENT ARM OF GOVERNMENT. In this conclusion I differ radically. The high character of the tribu- nal would invite confidence from all classes of people. They might come to use its facilities slowly at first, but finally, 1 firmly believe, and that within a short time, it would be regarded as the most profit- 96 NATIONAL ARBITRATION BILL. able and beneficent arm of our Government, by at least the rank and file of every organization — a Government that fears no foreign foe, but that must in the full working of the spirit of our Constitution guard the life, the liberty, and the pursuit of happiness of the least of her citizens. I am not of those who believe that all disorder is anarchy. Great disorders we have had, others we will have, and I do believe that we are the unset notes of the greatest harmony the world has known, and that we are waiting for the hand of the Master, DO NOT WASTE TOUR OPPORTUNITIES. Men, men, prosperity is crowding itself upon you; do not waste your opportunities. In m}' own home, where the facilities for distribution have invited capital, and which city is now becoming perhaps the greatest manu- facturing city of the world, I find a storm center for discord. Our police are distracted from the ordinary channels of their duty to guard the places where disorder reigns. Lockouts and strikes are the order of the day. 1 have before me the Washington Star, dated April 1, in which a Chicago dispatch says: FATAL AFFRAYS. Probably fatal affrays between union and nonunion men and vicious encounters between the rival organizations have marked a sudden revival of strike violence in Chicago. The more seriously injured of the victims were: Stanley Danosky, non- union employee of Hammond Packing Company, fatally stabbed during labor dispute at stockyards — K. Mesisiane, union man, arrested; Frederick Drebus, pressman, employed by American ColortypeCompany, attacked at his house by Franklin union men — Morris Sanger arrested; John Flynn, union picket at Swift & Co.'s plant, shot by L. A. Huff, nonunion employee — will probably die; Robert W. McGinley, presi- dent of the International Pressmen's Union, beaten by members of Franklin Union, No. 4 — S. Rimour Symere arrested; John Kaufman, nonunion machinist at Illinois Steel Company's plant, South Chicago, beaten, probably fatally, by six supposed union men. Is it possible that it will still be contended that the strike is a good thing? Would you be able to make a convincing argument in support of that statement to the members of the families to which these dead bodies were carried ? The wages of industrial peace is industrial pros- perity. But this does not mean that any organization of men may not demand what they consider just and fair as compensation for their labor, submitting, however, such demands in regular and orderly man- ner to the representatives of this proposed tribunal. It is a court in which all men will stand equal. It would be as dignified a body as has ever been vested with duty in this world. BILL IS UNDERTAKING TO CAPITALIZE MORAL FORCE. It is an undertaking to capitalize the moral force of two thousand years of moral teaching. It is an undertaking to harvest the things of moral and ethical teaching in the particular application of these prin- ciples to the settlement of disputes between men. It would be the only court in which a moral obligation would have full standing. I should welcome from any source intelligent constructive criticism of the bill to the end that it may have the best possible form to accom- plish the purpose for which it was intended, and I sincerely hope that NATIONAL ARBITEATION BILL. 97 it will never be in the power of tlie representative of eitiier capital or labor of his own motion, as was suggested here, to "striise out all of the bill except the title. " Mr. Vreeland. You are not in favor of anything leading to com- pulsory arbitration? HAVE NOT SLIGHTEST CONCEPTION OF COMPULSORY ARBITRATION. Mr. Foster. I have not the slightest conception of it, although I will confess to you, Mr. Chairman, my estimate of the compelling power of this moral force. _ Mr. Vreeland. Are not all our courts simply compulsory arbitra- tion courts? Mr. Foster. They are. Mr. Vreeland. Each partj' presents what testimony he sees fit? Mr. Foster. He presents his own side. Mr. Vreeland. But our courts are a system of compulsory arbitra- tion, as I take it. Mr. Foster. Yes. "It may be that I overestimate the force of public opinion so directed, but I really look upon it as having as much force as an armed body of men. Mr. Vreeland. I see you allude to this tribunal as a court this morning? Mr. Boster. Yes, sir. I called Bishop Spalding's attention to it, and he objected to it. He thinks it is a poor word because it is not exactly what we mean perhaps. Mr. Vreeland. If we consider it as a court it would have to pay some attention to its own precedents and decisions, I assume. Mr. Foster. I do not know, Mr. Chairman, that we are confined to the legal interpretation of the word ' ' court. " Mr. Vreeland. Oh, no; we are not. Mr. Foster. We use that word. There are trade courts, and there are various organizations called courts, and the use of the word here was in its most general sense, and not in any way intended to be technical. Mr. Vreeland. Yes; but unless we are to consider arbitration as a system of give and take, of compromises taking a part from one and a part from the other, if an arbitration tribunal is to proceed along judi- cial lines in determining with some exactitude the rights of parties, then would not such a tribunal be obliged to pay some attention to its own precedents and make its own constructions of profits and hours of labor and all matters pertaining to an arbitrary tribunal? Mr. Foster. It is logical to believe that the accumulated informa- tion that would be acquired by such an organization would have an effect upon its decisions; but unless they had too strongly pride of opin- ion they would not be held by precedent to the embarrassment of a just verdict. Mr. Vreeland. My mind goes back to the same question which I raised at the last hearing. A tribunal of that kind, being obliged to proceed somewhat on judicial lines, has to adopt some uniform scale to apply to similar cases. Suppose in two factories a hundred miles apart running under the same conditions they find a strike in one, whei'e the employers are making 15 per cent on their investment. In another one they are making 10 per cent on their investment. Would not such N A B— 04 7 98 NATIONAL ARBITRATION BILL. a tribunal be obliged, in order to apply any unity of measurement to the disputes in question, to determine what in their opinion as a tri- bunal is a proper return upon the capital invested there? Mr. Foster. Possibly so. That might be a part of the investigation that would be made by such a tribunal, and a source from which they would get information to determine according to right and equity the contention between two parties. 1 do not believe such evidence would be the chief basis of decisions of the tribunal, but considered only vel'y exceptionally. Mr. Vreeland. Now, the law court tries to proceed all the time with exactitude. Mr. Foster. Yes. Mr. Vreeland. They have an exact law or statute to apply as a scale. They have the testimony of witnesses, which they interpret to apply as an exact scale. Would not this tribunal be obliged to follow along the same lines, and, if so, how can an arbitration tribunal settle the income which should be paid upon capital invested in manufactur- ing or in transportation, or the hours of labor which the men should work? I am looking to the practical application of such a tribunal to practical questions. ARBITRATION IS NO NOVELTY. Mr. Foster. Arbitration is no novelty. It has been going on in one form or another since history began. It has lost noming, in its general acceptance b}^ the people, in its respectability as a mode of settling differences between men. The tribunal proposed would undoubtedly consist of very able, very intelligent, and very conscien- tious men. The work before them would be to adjust the differences between capital and labor according to their best judgment. Mr. Vreeland. Right there is where the practical questions would arise, as to their best judgment. Can the judgment of any man deter- mine, for instance, what the returns upon capital invested shall be — that is, such a judgment as will be accepted; can they determine the hours of labor or the conditions of labor in such a way that their judg- ment will be accepted ? Mr. Foster. In voluntary arbitration many commissions have made findings and conclusions that were accepted. Mr. Vreeland. They have. I think it is generally agreed that arbitrations as a rule are a system of mutual concessions, in which they nip off of each side as a rule a propoi'tion which will bring about a resumption of labor; but would it be your idea that a tribunal estab- lished along these lines would be such a tribunal as that of determining mutual concessions on each side? Mr. Foster. I would expect that its judgments would be judgments of men, and would not always be perfect; but as near as the judgments of men are perfect, and under whose administration we are compelled to live and whose conclusions will have to govern in the affairs of nations and communities. That they would not always be perfect would proba- bly be granted; but that they would be useful and always very nearly approximate equity and justice I think is also true. Mr. Vreeland. Could they formulate any judgments along those lines which would be accepted? That is the question which bothers me the most. NATIONAL ARBITBATION BILL. 99 Mr. Foster. Well, Mr. Chairman, that other arbitration organiza- tions and other arbitrations have been accepted and thej' have been the means of settling disputes is certainly true, and why should not such a tribunal with better facilities for investigation and for accu- mulated information and access to it — why should they not accomplish what has been done, and more too ? Mr. Vreeland. Well, of course they may. 1 am merely bringing out the practical application of such a tribunal, as to along what lines it would proceed, and its chances of being accepted as a tribunal whose judgments would carry. Ordinarily voluntary arbitration is an agree- ment between two parties to leave to some third party the questions at issue. They agree to accept it whether it is satisfactory or not. It is made for that particular case. It is a series of concessions usually from each side. It could not be accepted as a standard to be applied uni- versally to other disputes of the same nature, or at least would not be. I merely bring this out again because I had thought of it considerably along this line, as to the practical operations of such a tribunal operat- ing along judicial lines. I do not care to take up any further time in questions, and I think we would be glad now to hear Eishop Spalding. STATEMENT OF BISHOP JOHN LANCASTER SPALDING, OF PEORIA, Bishop Spalding. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I do not know that 1 have anything of any special worth to say to the committee. I think, however, that your remarks concerning the duty of this permanent commission, concerning the probability that it would be called upon to declare what is a legitimate profit and what are right hours of labor, need not be considered. I do not think it will ever be the duty of this tribunal or commission to declare what are legitimate profits. NOT DUTY TO DECLARE WHAT ARE LEGITIMATE PROFITS. It is rather to consider whether the relations between employer and employee are satisfactory on the general principles of equity and on American ideas of what the standard of living that becomes a human being is. I do not think any tribunal could undertake to determine what profits are legitimate. If the workmen are treated satisfactorily I do not see that it should matter to them whether the employer is making a great or a small profit. Mr. VREELAND. But does it not matter? Bishop Spalding. I do not think the commission would have any- thing to do with that; and, as this bill contemplates, the commission's duties will arise only when it is appealed to by one or both parties, where there is a dispute or a strike or lockout, and its duties then will be to take up the points in contention, not confining itself rigidly to those points, but giving its chief attention to them, and to find some way bj' which an understanding can be brought about. I think that the mere fact that two contesting parties are brought face to face before a dispassionate tribunal tends to disarm them of their opposition and enmity toward one another, and after the investigation has been car- ried on with this kind, humane, and equitable purpose both of them become more ready to arrive at an understanding and agreement. Mr. Vreeland. An understanding about what? 100 KATIONAL ARBITBATION BILL. Bishop Spalding. About the matters in dispute. Mr. Vkeeland. Does an interruption disturb the course of your argument? Bishop Spalding. Not at all. Mr. Veeeland. We will take a manufacturer's plant, for instance. As it runs a series of years it must be running because it pays? Bishop Spalding. Certainly. Mr. VEEELAND. It makes, we will say, a profit of 20 per cent. That is the profit out of which the capital invested must be paid. Out of that profit the wages of the laborer must be paid. In other words, that 20 per cent which I call profit is what must be divided between all parties at interest, the employers and the employees, after paying all expenses, etc. Now, is not that the very meat of the question as to what proportion of that 20 per cent shall be divided between the employers and the employees? There is a strike; the employees say that they are not receiving a sufficient amount; that they are not being properly paid. The employers say that they are paying all that they can afl:ora to. To what does that refer? It refers to the division of profit arising out of that plant. Then, is not that the heart of the controversy that a tribunal must consider to start with — as to what is a fair and proportionate amount to give to each of the parties as profit? FAIE wages NOT DETERMINED BY AMOUNT OF PROFIT. Bishop Spalding. 1 do not think so, Mr. Chairman. 1 do not think a fair wage is to be determined by the amount of profit a com- pany is making. For instance, take the soft-coal mines of the West, where they enter upon agreements from State to State, the whole State. They agree to accept a certain wage, determined considerably by the conditions of the varying mines, but not at all bv the profits the mine owners are making. It is what is a fair wage for the work done, irrespective of the profits. Mr. Veeeland. By what standards do j^ou judge that, Bishop? FAIE WAGE IS A LIVING WAGE. Bishop Spalding. It is not easy to determine a fair wage. I sup- pose a fair wage is what we call a living wage, and a living wage is determined by what we call the American standard of living; that a man shall have a comfortable home and shall be able to provide for the decent needs of his wife and children, shall be able to educate his chil- dren and bring them up in a way suited to Christian and American citizenship, which does not require a great deal of money. Mr. Vkeeland. Shall the employer, then, pay that amount which will fulfill those conditions regardless of the amount of profit he is making? Bishop Spalding. That is what ought to be aimed at, what ought to come to pass, but whether in a given case or not that would be so would rest with the commission. Of course a man ought not to be obliged to do what he can not do. In my opinion if in any business the working- man or working woman can not be paid enough to live decently, in a decent way, then that business ought to close up. That is a thing for the commission. NATIONAL ABBITBATION BILL. 101 NO PIUCTIOAL DIFFICULTIES IN THE WAY OF PERMANENT TRIBUNAL. 1 do uot think, Mr. Chairman, that there can be any practical diffi- culties in the way of a permanent arbitration commission. Of course, as you say, it is largely a matter of compromise. It is largely a mat- ter of overcoming minor points; but human life and human relations are of that kind in all spheres of action. My idea of the need of a tribunal such as this is not based on any consideration of that kiad. I think the troubles existing and that have existed for some time, and that seem to grow more acute, between capital and labor are a great evil to the country in every way. TROUBLES BETWEEN CAPITAL AND LABOR GREAT AND GROWING EVIL. They are injurious to the common welfare. They lead to enmities and bitternesses and strifes, and I think the common agreement of all men who have paid attention to matters of this kind is that a strike is a great evil. STRIKE IS HELL. I would almost say about them as Mr. Sherman said about war, that the strike is hell. It is a greater evil than it appears to be. It is not merely the loss of money and the loss to owners and employers; but it is the degradation of huuian beings. Men who have been out on strike for weeks and months do not go back to work the same men they were when they went out. They have become demoralized; they have been in a bad mood, and have listened to bad opinions. They have been made antisocial to a certain extent; it may be they have formed habits of inebriety; it may be their children have been taught to mock and to insult human beings. Upon general grounds, the strike is bad. STRIKE IS BAD. It is the cause of demoralization. I always place the worth of the human being above any capital worth. It seems to me that our Grovern- ment and our civilization ought to aim first at the good of human beings, and not at their enrichment — not at the eniichment of any class; and I do not see that capital and labor are getting nearer together. I believe the anthracite coal commission did a good work, and I believe incidentally it lead to a great deal of evil. PEOPLE MORE WILLING TO STRIKE. It seems to me the laboring people have become more restless, more willing to strike. We have certainlj' seen a scandalous condition of affairs in some places in the country. Take it in Colorado. Out there it has been only a little less than civil war. In Chicago there has been a state of affairs bordering on anarchy. It has been much the same way in San Francisco. This kind of terrorism comes forth here and there not infrequently in our country. I see that a woman was assaulted yesterday in Chicago, that her face was bruised and her hand mangled. I see that a mob of 10,000 gathered to receive 300 nonunion men that came out of a factory. 102 NATIONAL ARBITRATION BILL. DISGBACEFUL TO OUR CIVILIZATION. Now, these things are disgraceful to our civilization. They make us less zealous and less hopeful in our endeavor to build up a higher manhood. And so it is not the interest of the laboring man or of cap- ital alone, but the interest of the American people that is involved. Mr. Vreeland. And what would j'ou say to first applying the laws that are already on the statute books to such violations of the law? CAN NOT APPLY LAW CONTRARY TO PUBLIC OPINION. Bishop Spalding. Mr. Chairman, you can not apply a law contrary to public opinion. If public opinion does not enforce, a law you can not do it. Look at our laws controlling saloons. Look at our laws in regard to houses of prostitution. Look at all our municipal laws. They are simply an agreed-upon lie. They pass a law knowing it is going to be violated and deliberately consent to it, and the police levy blackmail on the violators of the law instead of punishing them. It will be the same way in regard to the laws against picketing and intimidation and that sort of thing. The strike is the great weapon of the laboring people and the strike can not be successfully conducted without some kind of intimidation. I am not saying that it is right or wrong, but it is the fact that there will be intimidation. There will be a demand brought upon all who do not cooperate with the strikers. The men will be terrorized, women will be terrorized, children will be made hoodlums of, and a lawless spirit will grow up in them and no law can prevent that, no law. You can not enforce the law, that is my opinion. capital and labor have interdependent interests. I think capital and labor have common interests — that is, they have interdependent interests. Capital could not be well invested if it were not for labor, and labor could not subsist unless it were employed. And in our complex commercial and industrial age this is becoming more and more manifest. They are interdependent interests. It seems to me that reason and common human feeling and the principles on which our civilization rest must lead the employers and employees to come to an understanding little by little. We ought to facilitate that. Mr. Vrebland. Do you not think that for the last year or two public opinion has been moving pretty rapidly along the lines of stop- ping intimidation and violence and strikes ? Bishop Spalding. It has done little to stop it, I think. I think, for instance, in the great anthracite strike there was not anywhere near as much lawlessness as the newspapers led the public to believe. I think they were remarkably law-abiding people considering that there were 150,000 on the verge of starvation. But there was picket- ing, and intimidation, and calling names, and burning people in efiigy. The whole population was very uncomfortable. And that will be the case in every strike, and in minor strikes it will be the case to a gi eater or less extent. DO AWAY with STRIKES. The thing is to do away with strikes, to work toward that end, to bring about a settlement of disputes, not appealing to the sword but NATIONAL ARBITRATION BILL. 103 appealing to reason. If a tribunal sucli as is contemplated in this bill is established, it would have the sanction of the nation, the sanction of the National Congress, and it would loom up before a public opinion in a way that no State tribunal can loom up. It will attract the atten- tion of the country in a way that no minor tribunal can attract it, and it would, little by little, if it were composed of the right men, win its way to the favor of both employers and employees. I think it would lead to there being very few cases submitted to this tribunal, but, instead, that they would agree among themselves td have collective bargainings, to settle their disputes among themselves and not let them come to a crisis. MUST TEACH THEM. That is the thing we must teach them. We must educate them not to appeal to any tribunal, but to agree among themselves, just as two sensible individuals will agree among themselves rather than go to court to settle their differences. It is said sometimes that lawj'ers live on fools. I do not know about that, but certainly foolish men go to law more than sensible men do. I do not think there is in America any class of employers who deliberately do injustice to their men. There may be some sweat shops where the employees are made to work too hard for too little, but we did not find that in the anthracite coal region, which was supposed to be one of the worst parts of the country in that respect, and I do not think it exists — that is, a condition where the employers deliberately do their employees wrong. Mr. Vkeeland. Do you think strikes are sometimes brought about by employers; that is, do you think they are incited by the employers? Bishop Spalding. 1 do not know any instances of the kind. Of course, in a multitude of employers a case might arise. But they have the lockouts Mr. Vreeland. You think there is nothing done on a considerable scale on that line? Bishop Spalding. I d'o not think so. It has not come to mj^ knowledge. I never investigated it specially, but I have no reason to think so. Do you think so? Mr. Vreeland. I have heard it charged in newspapers sometimes that, for instance, strikes in the coal region were brought about on purpose by employers, in order to restrict the output. Bishop Spai,ding. Yes; that may have been charged. Mr. VKfiELAND. And with a view to bring about a strike ? Bishop Spalding. Yes; I heard it charged in the anthracite regions that the soft coal miners were largely responsible for that anthracite strike, because they were rival interests, and the injury done to the anthracite region by a strike would redound to the profit of the bitu- minous mines; but I do not believe that to be true to any extent at all — I do not believe it is true. Men are veiy suspicious, you know, when they think they have a wrong; where they feel that they have a grievance their suspicions are more than normally alert. I do not think that that sort of thing prevails greatly in our country. WE have GREAT GOOD WILL FOR LABORERS. 1 really think that we are disposed as a people to be fair minded, and I think we have great good will, and 1 think our good will is 104 NATION AI. ARB ITKATIUIN Jii.L,i T. applied more emphatically to the laborers, to the poor and hard pressed, than to the rich, and I think that men who employ labor have the welfare of their employees at heart as a rule, and 1 think that a man would feel disgraced and ashamed to go out among enlightened people if he were known to be a grinder of labor, a man living on the blood of women working in sweat shops.- No man who attaches any impor- tance to the good opinion of his fellow-men would like to be known to do that sort of thing, and I think that our laborers, that our American laborers, are very free from anarchist virus. I think they are only in a very minor way inoculated with socialism. MUCH AGITATION AND UNREST BUE TO SOCIALISM. I think much of the agitation and much of the unrest is due to social- istic ideas brought here from abroad, and this not being a natural soil for them they do not flourish here. But I believe that if the warfare between capital and labor is allowed to become more intense and these disputes to break out into strikes more and more and into lawlessness socialism will grow up and gain power and that public opinion will turn more and more away from the labor union. During the anthracite coal strike, when the commission was in Scranton, Mr. Mitchell said emphatically, in reply to a question I asked him as to whether if public opinion turned from the labor union he thought they could thrive, that in his opinion they would disinte- grate if public opinion resolutely turned against them. PUBLIC OPINION. It is not easy to concentrate public opinion. Public opinion exists in a sort of iloating, gaseous, unformed state, as a rule, because men feel that upon many questions they have not sufficient data to come to a positive view. Public opinion on labor and capital would be con- centrated, at least there would be a force brought to bear to concen- trate it, by the action of such a tribunal of men, able men, not specialists, but men of cultivated minds, open, fair, flexible, reason- able, and who more and more would familiarize themselves with these conditions. It seems to me that their opinions would gain weight with the people. Thejr would publish their opinions under the condi- tions contemplated in the bill, and it would be a school in political economy for the whole people, a most important school, I think, for our American civilization. SEES NO EEAL OBJECTION TO BILL. I do not see that there can be any real objection to this bill. It is not compulsory arbitration. 1 suppose compulsory arbitration has very few advocates in this counti'y. Whether compulsory arbitration would be contrary to the constitution or not I could not say, there may be a difference of opinion about that, but it is absurd on its face; you can not compel men to arbitrate. You may go through the forms of it, but you leave it just where it was before. The men will not go back to work, if they have been compelled to arbitrate and all the questions have been decided against them. A number of miners said to me in the anthracite region, "■ If thej"- send the United NATIONAL ARBITRATION BILL. 105 States Arm^' here thej^ could not make us go back to work; if tliey sent the German army here they could not make us go back to work. " And that is very true. 1 do not think compulsory arbitration would suit so complex an indu,strial condition as we have. And it is on its face, as I have said, impractical and a contradiction in terms. COMPULSOET ITTVESTIGATION. But a compulsory investigation is a different thing. By it public opinion may be enlightened and the public is interested in these gi-eat enterprises, and in a minor way in every industrial enterprise. This seems to me the most desirable thing to be accomplished in the condi- tions of capital and labor to-day in our country, and I see nothing so likely to do this work as the passage of some such bill as this. Of course people may differ as to the minor points, and the wording may have to be changed here and there. Mr. Veeeland. Do you think a permanent commission, Bishop, is better than one appointed for each case? PEEMANENT FAE BETTEE THAN TEMPOEAET COMMISSIONS. Bishop Spalding. Far better, Mr. Chairman. I think, in the first place, the permanent commission would have this advantage: It would be a body of trained men, men familiar with the conditions, whereas you take even educated and strong-minded men and if you have to appoint them specially for each case as it comes up they will have to take a long time in the work before they get an insight into what they are doing. 1 do not think it would be easy to find the right kind of men who would be willing to go on these commissions that would last for weeks or months, whereas if it is a permanent commission I believe the best kind of men could be procured. Of course good salaries will have to be paid. So far as the salaries are concerned, I think we should not try to save monej^ in that way for a moment. The saving in that direction would be so infinitesimal compared to the importance of having the best possible men that it should not be considered. 1 believe that men who do-impoi-tantwork ought to be paid in a large waj', certainly where the Government is concerned — not extravagantly, but what is considered decent and just. MONET CONSIDEEATTON OF COST NOT IMPOETANT. Mr. Veeeland. You do not consider the money consideration impor- tant? Bishop Spalding. No. Mr. Veeeland. There would be this about it. It would go back again to the question I raised a moment ago as to whether such a tri- bunal could formulate lines which will be accepted by the public as satisfactory, so that after thej' had made a decision in a few strikes they would continue to find employment and not have to go out of business. Of course, if their work was unsatisfactory, and they were no longer called in to settle strikes, the commission would be useless, whereas a new commission in each case would not be open to that objec- tion. It would be more on the lines of voluntary arbitration. Bishop Spalding. jVIr. Chairman, suppose this commission were 106 KATIOKAL ARBITKATION BILL. called upon only once or twice, and then, after that, not at all. Would not the existence of that commission be justified from the fact that labor and capital had agreed to come to an understanding; would it not be justified from the fact that that had been the effect? Mr. Vreeland. Unless the strikes and lookouts went on just the the same. Bishop Spalding. If they did go on just the same, one or the other party would appeal to the commission, I think, and then that party submitting its case, and the other party being invited to sub- mit its case, if the other party refused to submit the public would get authentic information of exactly what occurred. The trouble is we do not know what is true or false. W ho can say what has been going on in the Eussian- Japanese war? We do not know. If you leave it to the newspapers you do not know. If we have one body of men appointed simply to give us the facts, then we say, "Here is what they have said. They are not going to lie. They are not partisans. This is the truth." We would have the facts about that case, and the same way about another case, and little by little the whole people will get an inside view into the conditions of industrialism in this country such as we have not now. I did not know much about it until I was appointed on that com- mission. I had read political econom}' and a whole lot of things, but you can not get the exact facts without great trouble unless you have some source that will give them to you, and this tribunal would be that source, in mj^ opinion, and that is the concern of the American people that they should know about these things, and these cases which lead to trouble, to strikes, and lockouts. If there is any con- siderable portion of the workmen in America, or even a few, living like animals, and forced to live that way on account of the wages they receive, I think the people ought to know it. Don't you think so ? Mr. Vreeland. It is very desirable to have accurate information always. Bishop, suppose j^ou and Mr. Foster and Mr. Hughes were appointed an arbitration tribunal, and there were a factory here that had ordered a reduction of 10 per cent in wages of the men, and you were to determine whether it is proper or not, what information would you seek to get, what lines would you follow ? Bishop Spalding. You say there is a reduction of 10 per cent ordered ? Mr. VREELAND. Yes; and the men appeal to you as a tribunal. Bishop Spalding. And the men will not accept it, but go out on strike ? Mr. Vreeland. Yes. Bishop Spalding. First I would get what information I could from the two parties. Mr. Vreeland. Information about what? Bishop Spalding. I would ask these operators why they were com- pelled to reduce the wages 10 per cent. I would get all the informa- tion that they could give me or would give me. Then, from the employees, I would find out why they were not willing to accept a reduction of 10 per cent, their reasons for not being willing to accept a reduction, ancf 3'ou would get a considerable degree of information in that way, and then one thing would lead to another. It would be the same way with the employers. What they would say would lead us to a further investigation, and so, little by little, we would get at the bottom of it. JSATIONAL ARBITRATION BILl,. 107 Mr. Veeeland. I am not clear just what the information would be that you are going to get. You nay you would ask the men why they would not accept the reduction ? Bishop Spalding. I would ask the operators why they felt they ought to reduce the wages 10 per cent. Mr. Veeeland. What answer would justify them in saying that they had to reduce the wages 10 per cent? Bishop Spalding. They might say that their prices had changed, that the raw material cost more, and the prices they could get for the manufactured article were less, and there is the question of competi- tion, and so forth. Mr. Hughes. That the men were becoming expert and were earn- ing more than they were entitled to? Bishop Spalding. There are many reasons, of course. Mr. CoNNEE. Suppose it should be disclosed that the factory would run at a loss if they continued to pay the same wages. Would that consideration appeal to you? will not exjn at a loss. Bishop Spalding. Yes. Of course, no man will long run his busi- ness at a loss. It would mean bankruptcy in the course of time. Mr. Veeeland. Suppose your investigation discloses the fact that the plant is earning 6 per cent on its investment, and they claim that is not sufficient return. Would that be a matter of importance? Bishop Spalding. Not to me; the percentage of profit, even if they were making 60 per cent, would not be a matter of importance to me. Mr. Veeeland. If they were making nothing, would that be a matter of importance ? Bishop Spalding. If they were losing, or — yes, if they were making nothing. Mr. veeeland. Suppose they were only making 3 per cent? Bishop Spalding. I think if they are making a very small profit that that would be a reason for reducing the wage, unless the wage were already at a point below which itTvould not be possible to go and enable the men to live in a human wa3^ Mr. Hughes. You would believe in having the men bear a fair pro- portion of the loss so long as it did not reduce them below the Ameri- can standard of living? Bishop Spalding. Yes, sir. Mr. Hughes. But, as you said before, you do not believe that any business should be carried on if it is necessary, in order to carry it on, that the employees should be paid so small a wage that it will not enable them to live according to the American standard of living? Bishop Spalding. That is my view in such cases where there is no hope of improvement in such conditions. I lived in New York for a few years, and I knew girls there who were really starving and who were working all the time, too. I think that sort of thing ought to be interfered with by the police or something done to stop it. Mr. Veeeland. Then, j^ou think the tribunal can not escape con- sidering the question of profits that are made and determining whether one party in the division of profits is getting enough or not? 108 NATIONAL ARBITRATION BILL. COMMISSION WOULD NOT DETERMINE BEYOND LIVING WAGE. Bishop Spalding. Unless we have what we call a living- wage; the commission would not determine beyond that. Mr. Vreeland. You think a man is entitled to a living wage if he can get it; but suppose the mill shuts down, what becomes of him then ? Bishop Spalding. He must seek work somewhere else. Mr. Vreeland. Yes; but then what becomes of that mill or factory ? Mr. Hughes. The capital seeks employment in more lucrative channels. RIGHT TO CONDUCT BUSINESS. Bishop Spalding. The mill will not shut down unless it is not making money. That brings up another question to my mind. A great deal has been said — and something has been said in regard to it before this committee — that an owner, an employer, an operator, has a right to conduct his business as he pleases; that property is sacred, and it is not the Government's business, and it is nobody else's business, what a capitalist does in his business. Now, I think that is a false view. I believe in the sacredness of property as much as anybody does, but I do not believe in the right of an unrestricted use of property. I think the use that men make of property is restricted and has to be restricted in many ways, and I think where you employ a large number of men in certain lines of work, when they have accustomed themselves to it, they do not know any other kind of work. It is especially so with the coal miner. When he has worked four or five or six or eight years in the coal mine he is unfit to do any other kind of work. He has acquired a kind of equity in that property and has become a part of the business, and I do not know that you have the right to turn those men out and bring in other men without saying a word about it. That is the view that union men take of it, in my opinion, and that is the reason they resent lockouts and attempts to substitute other laborers for them. A man has given his life to that particular work by working in the mines six or eight years; that is, he is unfit for any other work. I do not know the exact number of years, but the evi- dence could be brought forth to show .that a man that has worked many years in the mines is practically unfit for anything else. If you turn him out you condemn him to misery and condemn his family to crime and vice, probably. He feels he has an equitj' in the business, and that is what the miners maintained when they said, "We will picket, we will intimidate, without permitting violence, because we are protecting our lives, our means of living, the means of keeping our families from starvation, and if you put us out of this we can do nothing else." OLD IDEA THAT MAN HAS RIGHT TO WORK. The conditions have changed. The old idea was that a man has a right to work. He has a right to work, but has he the right to work if he uses it so as to throw other men out of work and prevent them from doing anj'thing, if they have become inured to this and are inca- pable of doing anything else? That is a doubtful question in my mind. NATIONAL ARBITRATION BILL. 109 That might be elucidated by the commission. I feel confident that any President of the United States would appoint a commission like this from nonpartisan men, and we have a great many men capable of doing this kind of work, if we pick them out — a great many, and we need them, too. Mr. FuKUSETH. There are some questions that I would like to ask the reverend bishop. Bishop Spalding. All right, sir. Mr. FuEUSETH. Are not trade disputes indicative of an effort on the part of the wage-earner to realize, practically to materialize, some higher standard of life which he has intellectually and morally evolved ? Bishop Spalding. I think so. That is, taking it in the large sense. I agree with that question,! answer it affirmatively. Mr. Vkeeland. He wants more money. Mr. FuRUSBTH. Money is never aimed at for itself; it is a means to something else. In the sympathetic strike is he not endeavoring to put into practical application the instruction of the Master, "To bear each other's bur- dens," "To be thy brother's keeper?" NOT BELIEVER IN SYMPATHETIC STRIKE. Bishop Spalding. I will say that 1 am not a believer in the sympa- thetic strike at all. I think the sympathetic strike is a misplaced sympathy. It works more harm than it does good. Experience is that the sympathetic has generally failed to accomplish anything for the laboring man, and 1 think that the great weight of opinion among labor leaders is in opposition to the sympathetic strike. It is a foolish sympathy. Sympathy may be a dangerous thing to deal in, Mr. Chairman. Mr. FuRUSETH. Are strikes, if they be an indication of growth toward higher ideals, something to be suppressed? Bishop Spalding. Well, that is the question of war. I suppose we come to higher things through all sorts of battles and contentions. Strikes are the causes of innumerable evils and we ought to do away as far as possible with the causes. I think that the growth toward the higher ideals could be accom- plished in other ways; I think that if you teach men to trust one another, to feel kindly toward one another, to cooperate with one another, to cherish a conciliatory disposition toward one another, you bring them nmch more rapidly forward than by teaching them to fight one another, and a strike is a bitter fight. Mr. FuRUSETH. I was looking at it from the point of view as an indication of something else underlying, as an indication of that which underlies the strike. Bishop Spalding. I believe that most efforts of human beings Mr. FuRUSETH. As a force that ma}-- be for good or for evil; in other words, that it depends purelj' upon its use, that in itself it is only a force. labor unions could have accomplished more without strikes. Bishop Spalding. I think that labor unions have accomplished a great good for the world, and 1 think the labor unions could have accomplished nothing without the strikes. 110 NATIONAL ABBITRATlOlir BILL. Mr. FuRUSETH. That answers my question. Bishop Spalding. But the effort and the tendency ought to be to outgrow that condition. 1 know that striises are a great evil, but so is a battle Mr. Hughes. A necessary evil? Bishop Spalding. No; I would not say a necessary evil. They have been necessary at times, but they would not be necessary if men were wiser and more kindly and conciliatory. Mr. FuHUSETH. In other words. Bishop, men have the right to strike? Bishop Spalding. I would not deny the right to strike. Mr. FuRTJSETH. You would have the right to strike kept intact, but you would minimize as much as possible the interfering with funda- mental rights Bishop Spalding. To deny the right to strike would be practically to deny the right to organize; there is no doubt about that; it would practically amount to that; but the strike nearly always is accom- panied by things that a wise and good man can not approve of. Nearly always crimes accompany strikes. They ought to minimize those things and strike as little as possible; that is it, they ought to settle things without strikes. The loss to the laborers is as great or greater than it is to the capitalists. The labor leaders claim that 50 per cent of the strikes have been won. I do not know whether that is so or not, but even if it is so the em- ployers, while they lose money, do not lose as much as the strikers. The strikers lose their morality, their sobriety, their virtues. They suffer in the vital things; the others suffer in the accidental things. That is the advantage the rich have over the poor in all things. Mr. FuEUSETH. The difficulty, then, is in arriving at these higher ideals of life, and better conditions of life; and to reach them we are compelled to go through sufferings ? NOT COMPELLED TO GO THROUGH CRIME. Bishop Spalding. Yes; that is the law of nature and of God, it seems. But we are not compelled to go through crime. Mr. FuRUSETH. Standing for something new — the growth of new ideals, the assimilation into the mass of the higher moral principles — should it not be permitted to grow freely, would not such tribunal reflect the more general concept, and is not the inherent conserva- tism of society a sufficient check upon that which society looks upon as dangerous because untried ? Bishop Spalding. It seems to rae that that is expressed in a some- what confused way. You mean to say that the natural tendency is toward higher things, and if left alone society will evolve in that direction ? Mr. FuRUSETH. Yes; and this tribunal is an interference with natu- ral evolution, that society's business is to keep the peace purely? IT CAN NOT KEEP THE PEACE. Bishop Spalding. It can not keep the peace, it does not keep it wherever these strikes exist. Societj''s particular business is to pre- vent crime and to prevent men doing wrong to one another, to make NATIONAL AEBITBATIOTS BILL. Ill the pursuit of life, liberty, and happincsa more and more easy and successful. Now, as 1 look upon it, these continuous strikes not only hurt our business affairs, our financial prospects, but they tend to weaken our faith in our Government, in the rule of the people by the people, and to make men believe that nothing will be right until there is a radical revolution, until private property ceases to exist, until the State owns everj'thing, which 1 do not believe in at all. Mr. FuEUSETH. I am not a believer in that. Bishop Spalding. I am not. Mr. FuRUSETH. I have a few more questions here: Is it well that the moral concepts which underlie such efforts should in any waj^ be hindered, guided, or otherwise interfered with? Bishop Spalding. If you define those moral concepts, and if they are the moral concepts upon which we agree, I would say that this tribunal, far from hindering that, would help their development, would be an educational force. Mr. FuRUSETH. In the question arising about the division of profits from industry, what rules are to govern; the rules laid down in the decalogue or the ordinary rules of business? Bishop Spalding. I suppose the ordinary rules of business are in theory founded upon the decalogue, founded upon honesty. Do you not think so ? Mr. FuRUSETH. I might be inclined to dispute that. Bishop Spalding. I like to suppose that, anywaj-. Mr. FuKUSETH. In the ordinary business rules, is capital to have its share first or labor have its share first? In either case, how much is going to each? Bishop Spalding. I think I have answered that in reply to a question from the chairman. Mr. FimusETH. Very well, then, I will ask nij' next question. If the rules of the decalogue — what are they, how are they to be construed? Bishop Spalding. Well, the rules of the decalogue, I suppose, mean ' ' Thou shall not steal. " Is that it ? The Chairman. It is to be supposed that all the members of the committee are familiar with that. Mr. FuRUSETH. And "Thou shalt not be stolen from" is a part of it. Bishop Spalding. If nobodj' steals nobody will be stolen from. CAN PUBLIC OPINION f'OJIPEL OHEDIENCE ? Mr. FuRUSETH. Do you believe that public opinion concentrated upon any party who shall refuse to grant jurisdiction, or having granted it shall refuse to abide bj- the award, will be strong enough to compel obedience ? Bishop Spalding. Well, I think it will grow to be strong enough. I do not say that it will compel obedience in eveiy instance, or the first instances; but I think the more public opinion is brought to bear upon any kind of human interest the. more will that human interest conform itself to public opinion. I think that the efficacy of law comes from the support of public opinion. Law is simply the declaration of men's beliefs as to what is right and just and well and profitable, and where the public opinion is lacking the law lacks vitalitj', and where the public opinion concentrates itself sufficiently and it becomes 112 INATIONAL AKBITRATION BILL. sufficiently strong it enforces the law, and the more enlightened a people is the more they should trust themselves to public opinion. That is the idea of the American Government. Mr. FuRUSETH. Do you base this belief upon the conviction that any force inherent in public opinion is a moral force which, if concen- trated, would be irresistible ? Bishop Spalding. Yes; 1 have said that. Mr. i'uRUSETH. Do you believe that a tribunal as made up as pro- vided in this bill could concentrate or focus the moral force existing in the communitj^ in the way contemplated in this bill? Bishop Spalding. I think so; not all at once, but little bj^ little. Mr. FuRUSETH. Is not this making the tribunal the judge of religion as well as of morals ? KELIGION AND MORALS INSEPARABLE. Bishop Spalding. I contend that religion and morals are inseparable, and everybody who passes on questions of right and wrong is passing upon a question of religion as well as morality; there is no doubt of that in my mind. I know there are some who deny that. Mr. FuRUSETH. Do you believe that it would be safe to vest the power which you claim exists, and which you claim this tribunal could focus, in the hands of a committee of men, who, having families, might be influenced through their love of an apprehension for them ? Bishop Spalding. I have the greatest faith in honest, intelligent, strong men, and I believe it is safe to trust anything to a body of six or seven men rightl}^ composed. I believe it would be better to trust this power to them than to the human race. If you can not trust seven men rightly chosen, you can not trust the human race. Mr. FuRUSETH. Even if influenced in that particular way? Bishop Spalding. You must take in every influence. They won't be influenced to do wrong in any way, in my opinion. Of course the same objection jo\i suggest applies to judges ^nd Senators and Con- gressmen and to every liuman being; but, in the end, after all, the sense of justice rises superior in the better sort of men. Mr. Foster. Mr. Chairman, Bishop Spalding referred without explanation to compulsory investigation and left it at that. I think it well to bring out from the bishop his concept, which of course would include "after agreement of the parties." We have some friends here that are looking for any statements not made quite clear, complaining that we have some compulsory elements in the bill. Bishop Spalding. The bill does contemplate compulsory arbitration. What I would say is this: Suppose in the anthracite coal strike neither party had appealed to the President; that they had both been willing to stay there and fight it out. In the meantime the people were freez- ing in Philadelphia and New York and Washington. There would have been mobs. Ought they to have been let alone there, neither appealing to any tribunal ? Ought they to have reduced several mil- lion of people to the condition of freezing and suffering because of the lack of coal? IN bitter strikes one party will always appeal. Bishop Spalding. I suppose it is not necessary to modify the bill, perhaps, because in these bitter strikes there will always be one party or NATTOJMAL ARBITRATION BILL. 113 the other which will appeal. According to this bill they could not go there at all if not invited by one party or the other. Mr. Foster. They would have to be invited by both parties. Bishop Spalding. The arbitration board in Massachusetts has the right to go in without being appealed to by either party. It settled that great railroad strike without being appealed to. Mr. Foster. That was a commission of investigation? Bishop Spalding. Yes. SATISFIED WITH BILL. I am satisfied that with the bill as it is, without putting that other clause in (although I believe under the proper conditions compulsory investigation is a good thing) those conditions would rarely arise; I think that one or the other party would appeal to a board like this. Mr. Hughes, of New Jersey. You do not think that intimidation, this mild form of coercion — not referring now to overt acts of lawless- ness — is confined peculiarly to labor people? Bishop Spalding. Oh, no; I think there is strong pressure brought upon all sorts of people occasionally. Mr. Hughes, of New Jersey. For instance, a member of Congress gets out of line with his constituents. Bishop Spalding. Yes. Mr. Hughes, of New Jersey. He is perhaps afraid of the capitalists. Bishop Spalding. Some few, not many, of them, in my opinion. We are all human, of course, and we are subject to all sorts of influences. 1 heard Mr. Mitchell say often in the investigation that he was opposed to all kinds of intimidation and terrorism, and that he contin- • ually counseled his men not to go into that sort of thing. no need of intimidation. There is no need of intimidation unless the tramps of the country are brought in to take the place of the strikers. The professional strike breaker is the man they have the great hatred against. Do you represent the labor unions? Mr. Hughes, of New Jersey. No; 1 am a member of Congress. Bishop Spalding. Oh, excuse me. Well, as far as I know, the bitterness of the union men is against what they call the professional strike breaker. It seems that there are a lot of men ready to jump in and take the place of strikers, and naturally the strikers feel bitter against that class of men. Mr. Hughes, of New Jersey. Tliat is natural — yes. Bishop Spalding. I suppose the}^ exaggerate that, too. Mr. FuRUSETH. When j^ou speak of intimidation what do you really mean? Would it be intimidation, for instance, if I were to go to see a man who was about to go to work in a shop and say: "John, we have left this shop because the employer has been unwilling to deal fairly with us as we see it, and we ask you not to go into this shop, and we say to you, in addition, that if you do go into this shop we will not speak to you again, and will not associate with you in the future;" do you consider that intimidation or unjustifiable? Bishop Spalding. No; I do not consider that intimidation. You are not bound to speak to a man or associate with him, and you have N A B— 04 8 114 NATIONAL ARBITRATION BILL. a right to advise a man. As a rule, a man docs not want to be advised; he would rather be insulted. Mr. Hughes, of New Jersey. I suppose you are aware of the fact that the courts almost uniformly have, upon application, held that even that sort of conduct is unlawful and is intinudation. Bishop Spalding. I do not think so. Mr. PluGHES, of New Jersey. I can give you some information on that point. Bishop Spalding. The courts ma}' have decided that; but still my opinion is that that is not intimidation. Mr. Conner. Is not social ostracism intimidation'? Bishop Spalding. For instance, no man is obliged to associate with another, and you need not invite a man to your table, or introduce him to your family, or go into any social gathering with him if you do not wish to. And in the same way you need not buy goods of a man. Mr. Hughes, of New Jersey. That is what 1 was going to ask you, whether that sort of intimidation is not prevalent throughout the counti'y ? Bishop Spalding. Certainly. There are many people, for instance, who say, "I will not have anything to do with you because you are a saloon keeper." Those people are not considered criminal for doing that. Mr. Hughes, of New Jersey. Or because a man is a Democrat, or a Republican, or a socialist, or an anarchist Bishop Spalding. Yes; or because you are a colored man. Mr. Veeeland. Mr. McDermott, would you like to be heard on your bill ? Mr. McDermott. I would like to say two or three words. Mr. Veeeland. As far as 1 am familiar with the views of the com- mittee, it is that in the matter of an arbitration commission like this, or the one proposed in your bill, we want to proceed cai'efully, and I think it has been the desire of the committee to have men appear before them and put their statements into print and have it go into the news- papers, and in this way feel their way to conclusions. STATEMENT OF HON. ALLAN L. M'DERMOTT, A REPRESENTA- TIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY. Mr. Chairman. I will say onl}"- a few words. 1 want to present in extenso my views after reading the statements that had been made, including the bishop's statement. This committee has already passed on m}' bill. Mr. Veeeland. A committee of a former House? Mr. McDeemott. Practically the present committee. When the strike was ordered by Mr. Mitchell Mr. Hughes, of New Jersey. This is almost entirely a new committee. Mr. Fueuseth. It would be better to say that the miners voted to strike. Mr. McDermott. Well, it was practically ordered bj^ him, I will say, when the miners voted to strike. At that time the different con- cerns that I was connected with, one particularly being in the hands of receivers under the United States court, and I, being the receiver, was prepared to use a good many thousand tons of coal, this particular NATIONAL ABBITBATION BILL. 115 concern alone needing 75,000 or 80,000 tons. The Grand Army of the Republic was expected in Washington in the f oUowing October, and it was quite evident that it was necessary to light the city and run the railways here if we were going to receive them. I made up my mind that the strike in the anthracite regions was going to affect the soft- coal regions, that there would be practically a coal famine in the city of Washington, and 1 wanted, if possible, to avoid it. 1 do not pretend that 1 was hunting after any problem in political economy: I was sim- ply looking for the practical question. I have had some experience with labor unions. 1 have been a mem- ber of one all my life. I have been in strikes, have ordered them, and settled them. Strikes are of peculiar kinds. In a strike, for instance, among the printers in the city of Washington, you could not settle it by any board of arbitration in the world. Mr. Veeeland. Do you belong to the printers" union '. Mr. McDekmott. Yes. ^Ir. Vkeeland. You have also been a large employer of labor ( Mr. McDeemott. Yes; and I am now directly and indirectly an employer of two or three thousand men. The ordinary strike will settle itself; the men will get together after a while. If you have a standing board of arbitration — that is, a bureau of arbitration — the adjustment of the differences between capital and labor by that bureau will gradually grow into disrepute. That has been the experience, in my judgment, of every standing bureau of arbitration. In the State of New Jersey it has gone to such an extent that in his last annual message the governor recommended that the law be repealed — that the bureau be abolished. In any board of arbitration where men are to receive large salaries, salaries say of $l(X(ii.iO a year, the members will necessarily be appointed under political pressure. They will be appointed because they are fair-minded men, but they will have no particular knowledge of any particular thing as a body. NO POWER TO SETTLE STRIKES. There is no power under our Constitution to vest them with the power necessary to settle a strike. The interstate conmaerce propo- sition does not reach that far. m'dekmott bill. I introduced this bill two years ago with this idea in mind. If the President of the United States, being informed that there was a lock- out imminent, or a strike, he would appoint, as he did subsequently, a commission of gentlemen who would receive immediately, because of their high standing, intelligence, and positions in the community, the confidence of the people, and they should examine the situation and report to the President, and the President should report back to the public, or give it to the public, that would settle the strike. You could not settle a strike of carpenters in Washington that way, or a strike of printers, as I illustrated. They would say. '■ ]Slind your own business." Mr. Vkeeland. May I interrupt you a moment i Mr. McDermott. Certainly. 116 NATIONAL ARBITRATION BILL. PERMANENT TRIBUNAL COULD INVESTIGATE BEFORE STRIKE OR LOCKOUT. Mr. Vreelanu. It has been urged here J:hat the greatest benefit arising from a permanent tribunal would be the fact that such a tribu- nal existed all the time where complaints from one side or the other could be sent and investigated before a strike or lockout occurred; that one of the greatest benefits would be that it would very likely prevent strikes and lockouts. If you would only have a temporary tribunal, such as you suggest, how would you meet that? Mr. McDermott. My judgment is that if that is true, if you have a standing board of arbitrators to whom are referable matters of dif- ference which are imminent, let us see what the result will be. You will have every little question in this country that in any wise might efl;ect railroad transportation, for instance, sent to that commission. They would be kept very, very busy; they would have to decide every little dispute that came up. Bishop Spalding. They have the privilege of not accepting anything; they are to determine whether the case is of sufiicient importance. Mr. McDermott. If they determine it is of sufficient importance, yes, then they must settle it. If the}^ decide that the case referred to them is not of sufficient importance for their action, then the cry will go up from one side or the other, "What is this board for?" After that board has decided a dozen cases, in my judgment, it will have lost all its standing in this countr}'. There is no bodj' in this country that is not subject to political assaults. Even the Supreme Court of the United States, in my judgment the greatest body on the face of the earth, is subject to political assaults. A body of the kind proposed would be subject to criticism. It would grow into a non- respected bodjr, in my judgment, if it was a continuous body. Again, if a body of that kind is necessaiy, let it be a bodj' of the State. I do not believe the United States, under the Constitution, was ever organized for the purpose of meddling in every labor dispute that happens to arise. Mj^ own judgment is that the right way to do is to let labor and capital alone as far as we can, and not meddle in human affairs with legislation unless it is necessary to. Don't say that we shal I have a board at every corner. You have bureaus enough now in the city of Washington. You have a system of government by bureaus, and in my judgment it is a bad system. I say, let a State that wants a board of arbitration create it, and let the United States interfere only when the question is so great that it reaches somewhat of the importance of the coal strike in Pennsj^lvania. As the Bishop has very well said, the question there involved the possible, freezing of the people of this country. Bishop Spalding. Do you believe in passing laws for public sanita- tion, and enforcing them? Mr. McDermott. Yes; that i.s a State matter. LAWS FOR MORAL SANITATION IMPORTANT. Bishop Spalding. Is it not as important to pass laws for moral sanitation ? Mr. McDermott. Yes. Bishop Spalding. The objection to State boards of arbitration is NATIONAL ARBITKATION BILL. 117 that thej^ arc minor affairs, and that they would not have the weight at all of a national court. Mr. McDermott. They should have charge of everything, so far as domestic procedure is concerned; so far as the domestic policy of the States is concerned. Bishop Spalding. 1 am a States' rights man. Mr. McDeemott. I am a States' rights man, too, because the Con- stitution is there. If I was going to frame the Constitution I am not sure but what I would wipe out some State lines. Mr. Hughes. Would there not come a situation in a railroad strike where two or three or more States would be involved ? Mr. McDeemott. Then you would have a case where the President of the United States should do this: He should ascertain and tell the people the truth of the conditions there. What would be the result? You say that President Baer, of the Reading Railroad, and the others were forced by public opinion to arbitrate — that is, so far as they did arbitrate. They submitted their case to you and the}' would have been very foolish not to have done so. They probably could not have had a tribunal that commanded the respect of the people of this coun- try as that coal strike commission commanded it, Bishop, and if they had refused, it would have lead to a denunciation of the railroads and coal companies. They did not care for anything of that kind. A man chosen as president of a big corporation is not going to be moved bj^ denunciations. He is thei-e to represent the stockholders. What they were afraid of was this: That public sentiment would take away their corporate rights in the State of Pennsjdvania. Bishop Spalding. They own the State of Pennsylvania; there would be no danger of that at all. Mr. McDermott. But the}' could reach a point where their rights might be taken away. Mr. Hughes, of New Jersey. I think the Bishop has that correct. Mr. McDermott. Then the people could change that ownership. They could have taken awa}' the railroads' rights in the State of New Jersey. There was a petition prepared to the governor of New Jersey to call a session of the legislature for the purpose of legislating along such lines. I can draft a bill which, if you put on the statute books, will wipe out the value of the Reading Railroad in New Jersey. Now, if you have a commission appointed in the manner I suggest, which ascertains the facts, and those facts are given out and show that capital is unjustly oppressing labor — in othei words, that the facts show, in the judgment of the public, that labor is not getting its fair share of what is taken from the earth — in my judgment capital will give way. If you have a permanent bureau, I am a little afraid that its political environment will govern it. You can not have any such commission as settled the coal strike. The President of the United States could not get such a commission as that as a permanent commission. Bishop Spalding. I do not see whj' not. Mr. Foster. I do not see why not. Mr. McDermott. Because of the character of the men. You could not get the mentality of that commission in a bureau in the city of Washington. 118 NATIONAL AEBITEATION BILL. Bishop Spalding. It does not require great mentality, but, rather, honesty and fearlessness. Mr. McDekmott. But the trouble is that you could not get the kind of men you need to take those jobs permanently. Bishop Spalding. It is not a pleasant job. Mr. MgDeemott. I do not believe a permanent body, with the political environment it would have here in Washington, could be a success. I do not mean to say it would be done; but when some great question arose it is possible to conceive that those close to the Grov- ernment or those opposed to the Government would try to move that permanent commission. What would that commission do in a Presi- dential campaign ? It might be a little above or a great deal above the average of men, but the environment of the political campaign would affect that permanent bureau of the United States Government. It was with that idea that I drew this bill. I did it for a purpose selfish; I wanted the coal strike settled. The committee unanimously reported in favor of my bill, and Speaker Henderson at that time gave it the right of way on the Calendar. It was called up shortly after- wards and was reported, but objection was made by Mr. Burke, of Pennsylvania, who misapprehended the bill. He thought it was inter- fering with the rights of employers, as he said. He afterwards with- drew his objection, but it was too late, and it lost its place on the Cal- endar, and there it is. Bishop Spalding. That is a bill for compulsory arbitration ? WHAT m'dEEMOTT BILL PROVIDES. Mr. MgDeemott. No; my bill provides that the President, being informed that a lockout is imminent, shall appoint a commission, and that commission shall go without invitation from anybody to the place of the strike and examine into the economic conditions, the manner of living, the wages, and so forth, of the men employed and report the truth. Bishop Spalding. Suppose the laborers and employers will not give them any information ? Mr. MgDeemott. They have the right through the process of a court then to summon and examine witnesses. Of course, if you have any commission you must give them the right to summon wit- nesses. A commission that can not order the production of papers and witnesses might as well go out of existence. We have just had a decision in the Federal courts on that question. Mr. Hughes, of New Jersey. Mr. Foster's bill contemplates issuing process only after each of the parties have given jurisdiction by consenting. Mr. MgDeemott. I do not see anything dangerous about issuing processes. You can issue it in the meanest police court in the District of Columbia and it will be effective. Then if the process is issued and disrespected my idea is to apply to the circuit courts. If j^ou are not to have process unless the parties agree, how far will j'our commission go? Either party will stop it. Bishop Spai.ding. One party has appealed to them and the}' publish what they know and the grounds for the refusal of the other parties. Mr. MgDeemott. With the great number of cases that would be presented to this commission if it were a permanent board, what could NATIONAL ABBITKATION BILL. 119 this commission present that either side could not present in the press ? Bishop Spalding. The important point would be the cei-tainty of the public that the facts as given out by the commission would be the truth. Mr. McDermott. The commission will say "We went there to settle the strike, and A sa3's this and B sa3's so and so." In the forum of public opinion it may be that B will stand convicted of telling an untruth. Bishop Spalding. And the fact that they have refused to submit would discredit them with the public. Mr. McDermott. Without any question, except this: There are a large number of people in this world — a growing number — who believe that the Government ought to mind its own business, and that it should not intrude in these strikes. The general public, however, would say this: One side is willing to submit to publicity; that is the real point; but the other side will not submit to publicity; therefore it is a fair inference that they won't submit because their case is against them. HE WHO CONCEALS IS AFRAID. He who conceals is afraid. That would be the maxim they would apply. I do not see that 3'our commission would have accomplished anything in this coal strike. Mr. Baer would have said, "Very happy to meet you; but I do not care to have any further intercourse with you." They would have refused, and then you would have had what? You have had statements from Mr. Mitchell, and they would have been received with very considerable credit, because — 1 speak of him in relation to his position — he has the confidence, in my judgment, of the people of this countiy. I am not personally acquainted with him, but I must say that I ha^e formed a considerable admiration for his judgment. He would have presented his case. He did do it, but it did not have any efiect. What he did in that case would have been this. The railroads claimed that there was not sufficient profit from the mines to pay anything on the invested capital — that which capital is entitled to under the laws of average. I could take their plant and their capitalization and in a little while have figured up what would be a fair return. Bishop Spalding. It is not as easy as j^ou think. They are mixed up with the carrying roads, and it is a most involved and complex situa- tion, as we discovered. Mr. McDermott. That may be. I was once called upon to assess the railroads of New Jej-sev. A board was appointed to assess them. They said it was absolutely impossible, because, considering one line of railroad as a unit, you could not ascertain the value of that; you would find it practically impossible on any rules that would apply to the assessment of property'. The first thing I did was to hire a corps of men. I paid them some ^0,000. I found out the cost of repro- ducing every railroad in the State of New Jersey; what it would cost to cut through the hills and make the fills and build the roads. I then said, "I will go into the markets of the world and find out what they are willing to pay, and then I will subtract one from another and I will find out what the State has given." Bishop Spalding. You do not assess them at their full valuation. Mr. McDEEMOTf. Well, they said in that element of remainder 120 NATIONAL AKBIXBSTKjnN^Biiriu there are the vagaries of financial difficulties, and wars abroad and that sort of thing, and therefore we will take an arbitrary figure of 55 per cent. It was sustained after two years of litigation; that is, the rule and the assessment were sustained. Now, I would not find any trouble, in ray judgment, in ascertaining the truth in relation to the Reading Railroad and the Reading mines. The Reading road is the one that fought in the strike I am speaking of, through the Central Railroad of New Jersey. The Central Rail- road of New Jersey reallj^ owns the Wilkesbarre mines. It was really the Reading road. Mr. DeForrest and other counsel appeared there in the fight. I do not think there would be any trouble in finding out what the relations of capital are to the mines or to the railroads in the State of Pennsyl- vania. Then taking, not some sensational view of capital, but taking the true relation of production of profit from those mines to invest- ments, j^ou could tell the people whether they could afford to pay the wages asked. Mr. Vkeeland. Is there any fixed rule, Mr. McDermott, as to how much invested capital ought to be paid in this business or any other business ? Mr. McDekmott. Mj^ judgment is this: If I could wipe out the usury law I would wipe it out Mr. Veeeland. I would like to ask you the same question I asked Bishop Spalding. A permanent tribunal would be governed by its own precedents, or ought to be; they could not make a decision which would go on record this way to-day and then make a contrary decision to-mor- row. They would have to follow some line of decisions which would appeal to the reason of the people. Then, must they not fix under the same condition the returns, we will say, which capital should receive ? Mr. McDermott. They must do that. Capital's proper earning has some relation to the usury laws. Where a road like the Reading Railroad is constructed it is constructed generally by giving bonds of the contractors, and a certain amount of stock as the road goes on in earning capacity. The stock dividends are issued and the stock inci'easing, going from millions to millions, it is very difficult to find what the true rule should be as to earning capacity, especially when you come to consider that that stock passes from the first hands and goes into second hands. If you take the man who issued $10,000,000 of stock to build a $2,000,000 plant and say to him "We will subtract your $8,000,000, because it is watered," what does he reply? He says that that water has passed into the hands of innocent holders. The Government authorizes the issuing of it and therefore should protect it. I should say that the interest laws, being the judgment of borrower and lender to a great extent in each State, the average of interests laws would come very nearly settling what is a fair return for money. Take that and take the other great investments of the average holder of five, ten, or twenty thou- sand dollars, buildings used for rental, take those and I think you can come to a fair idea of what money should pay. Mr. Gardnek. Mr. McDermott, right there, my recollection is that some two years ago, when you had introduced your first bill, we had a discussion exactly on the point which you are on now — as to the relative merits of the permanent board and the temporary board — and that the most forceful objection urged at that time to the permanent board was NATIONAL ARBITRATION BILL. 121 that a permanent board would be guided by permanent rules, would have rules of procedure, would make case law, and would attempt in each to be guided too much b}' its previous decisions; that the result would be to build up sort of a government policy' ; that that board would decide in some given case what the rate of profit ought to be under all the circumstances of that case; that that would go into the record. The next time the board had a case to try the case might be entirely different, but there would be that principle right there, and there would be a tendency, by a line of decisions, to establish by case law in the com- mission the rate of profit on investments of capital where the employees might strike. Was not that one of the evils that we were most afraid of ? Mr. McDermott. Not only that, but it would render j'our commis- sion after a little while useless, because you would have laid down these rules and the people would saj^: "1 am not going to submit my side to those rules." Mr. Gardner. Again, it led on, if 1 remember rightly, to this: That the commission, acting in time of depi'ession and when no prop- erty was paying largely, would settle a controversy over in West Virginia under a low rate of profit, and under different circum- stances would settle a controversy in Pennsylvania on the basis of a higher rate of profit to the company. The result would be greater agitation before Congress than ever has been to secure legislation overruling some decisions or some rules of the commission itself. Mr. McDermott. There would be immediate dissent the minute there was a difference. But also this. For instance, a commission that would be proper to settle a great railroad strike, the personnel of it being selected with reference to that particular strike, would be useless when it came to some other kind of a strike. Mr. Foster. Will j'ou permit me to call your attention to that pro- vision of this bill, Mr. Chairman, that the President may appoint two special members ? Mr. McDermott. Yes; that would be a good thing, and meet that objection. Mr. Foster. May I also ask if the statement made involves this idea: That this organized tribunal would give less attention to the special details of each particular case than would a special tribunal, and that their decisions would be colored more by precedent than by actual evidence in the particular case ? Mr. Gardner. They would be somewhat in the nature of a court. 1 am only recalling conclusions reached in what attempted to be a dis- cussion of the merits of the two. If I remember rightly it was brought out then that a permanent commission would be inclined to follow its own precedents as all courts do, and that while they would not give less attention they would be more subject to their own records; that if they decided, as 1 have said, in time of depression and difficulties on a rate of profits in one case and another rate of profit in another case, that that would be attacked bj' interested parties. Now, the public never fully informs itself in a matter in which it is not interested. The case is over; the commission has acted; it drops out of the public mind in a general way; but if a railroad thinks it has been injured, and the decision of the tribunal is inconsistent with pre- vious rulings of the same tribunal, it will be attacked, and this will beget doubts in the public mind. Whereas if it was a new commission, drawn from the best men, presumably, that could be gotten for the 122 JSTATIOHAL ABBITBATIOJN tuiju. purpose, they would have no record to bind them and they could not be attacked for inconsistency' — now, bear in mind it is not the com- mission whose aid you are invoking to settle strikes; it is voluntary, and the great tribunal after all is the public — the new commission try to settle that particular case. In doing it, with all the light it could get in the environment around it, the condition of the country at that time would be taken into consideration by that tribunal and they would set- tle it in the wisest manner under all the circumstances, and that would be the end of that for them. That commission would not be attacked because it had not decided like any other commission might have decided at some other time. But with a commission deciding two cases, legal ingenuity could draw out inconsistencies in the two decisions, and the permanent board would be attacked on and on and on by those who got the worst of the decision. That was a line of thought that, I think, prevailed in that line of discussion. Bishop Spalding. In the first place, where both parties submit their cases to this tribunal nothing is published. Mr. Foster. Unless the parties consent. Bishop Spalding. Unless they consent; and in the next place, I do not think that a commission or tribunal, if it bases its decision on profits and things of that kind, would have to publish its reasons. In giving the anthracite decision we did not give reasons; there is nothing there that would lead other tribunals to decide b^^ precedent. We simply made our decision. Bishop Spalding. The first I think this tribunal would do would be to declare that it would not lay down precedents, that they would not go into the principles of political economy, but simply take the facts as they come. Mr. Veeeland. The facts about what, Bishop? Bishop Spalding. About the actual situation. A court that would lay down principles of political economy and then try to base its decisions on them would, as has been suggested, not last. Mr. Veeeland. In any great strike are not the two great points what amount of piofit is being made and what proportion each party is getting? Is not that the first great proposition to find out in any strike? Bishop Spalding. In the anthracite strike we did not go into the question of profits. Mr. Connee. They did not raise that question ? KNEW nothing ABOUT PEOFITS. Bishop Spalding. No. We knew nothing about that and know notjing about it to this day. We based our decision upon the condi- tions of work there, and the wages paid, and other things, and we did not explain to the public what our decision was based upon. We came to a conclusion after knowing the facts, and that is what eveiy com- mission would have to do. ' Mr. Hughes, of New Jersej-. You did not lay down principles which would rise up to confront you in another case? Bishop Spalding. No, sir; we did not. Mr. MoDeemott. After you had given ten decisions if I could not NATIONAL AEBITEATION BILL. 123 find out the mental rules that governed 3'ou I would consider myself dumb indeed. Mr. Vreeland. Unless each decision was a system of give and take, trying to give to each side something of what they claimed. Mr. Gardner. 1 would like to ask one more question. I would like to know if anybody here knows of any instance in the history of the world where a permanent board has failed to make its own previous rulings or precedents or to have embodied them in a rule or set of rules which bound the commission to a considerable extent? Is there an instance in history of a board which failed, and failed in a year after its organization, if it had anything to do, to establish rules which resulted in binding the board very largely to its own precedents as to setting up permanent methods of its own procedure ? Mr. Hughes, of New Jersey. This bill provides that it may make those rules. Mr. Foster. Yes; they make their own rules. Mr. Gardner. There is no case in the world, for we looked for it. And, strange to say, the same damnable thing happened in the Com- mission. It made a stretch to prove that it had not been done, to ju3- tify themselves for not doing it, but it had not gone six months until a faction grew up that began to force in rules. Mr. McDermott. I think you may take a board like this in any State in the Union and you will find it has been a failure, except in one or two instances, which would have been settled by a special board. As a board I have never seen a permanent board successful. Mr. Vreeland. Why do you think they failed? You say that all of our State boards have failed. They have failed before they started in business because they have been men of no particular force or men who have simply been appointed as a reward for political service, in whom people nave had no confidence — have had no confidence in their ability to take up these questions. Is that the fact, or is it because they have been permanent boards? permanent board is menace to liberty of capital and labor. Mr. McDermott. It is the fact that the}' are permanent. They are a permanent menace to the liberty of capital, to the liberty of labor. No man likes to feel that if he is going to make a movement either to better his capital or to better the value of his labor there is some board at the capital that can come in and prevent him from doing so. A man likes to be free in his actions, and the fact that you have cre- ated a board of this kind discredits the board immediately; the fact that the board is there as a permanent proposition antagonizes capital and antagonizes the minds of labor. If I, for instance, am engaged in interstate commerce, and I propose to take certain steps, I do not propose to take them subject to some permanent board, and the very permanency of the board as a bureau, with its clerks and secretaries appointed because of political recommendations or influence, subtracts from the influence of that board. My idea of the special board is that it is better because it is a special creation. It investigates, and then it reports and goes out of existence. It will have that standing, in my opinion, that will be of some use, and after careful research I have come to the conclusion that that is all the Federal Government has a right to do. 124 NATIONAL ARBITRATION BILL. Mr. Vreeland. You have not examined Mr. Foster's bill along that line? It follows the interstate law pretty closely. Mr. McDekmott. You might make it a condition of interstate com- merce; you might make it a condition precedent to the entry of inter- state commerce that any labor dispute should be submitted. Mr. Gardner. Could you do that? The National Government and the State governnaent differ widely, one being a government of granted powers and the other of inherent powers. Mr. McDermott. It is only bj' tacking it onto the interstate com- merce proposition. I hope if any such power exists at all it will be taken awa;/. I do not want to say it does exist. I do not believe in compulsory arbitration. Mr. Foster. You do not understand there is anything of that kind in this bill? Mr. McDermott. No, sir, no; but if you have the right under the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution to enforce arbitration, necessarily you must have the right to enforce your decree. Bishop Spalding. But in your opinion it would be extremely rare; the President would be called upon only rarely. Mr. McDermott. Probably only once in five years. Bisliop Spalding. Take that trouble in Colorado. Would that be interstate ? Mr. McDermott. 1 think so. Bishop Spalding. Anything could be made interstate. Mr. McDermott. I think you can take any great system of mines, iron or coal, and say that they would come under interstate commerce. Or j'ou could take the wheat fields and say that anything disturbing the natural movement of the pi'oducts there becomes an interstate proposition. I think the courts hold that. The coal from Pennsyl- vania, of course, goes into many States, and it is an interstate pro- position — a question of interstate commerce. It was with the idea of meeting the conditions then existing that I framed this bill. I was very glad that the President took the step he did, although I do not suppose he ever saw the bill. Nevertheless he took the step that the bill provided for and eventually settled the strike. I had some hope that it would be settled before, because I recollect after the Grand Army of the Republic got here we had to burn slate and brick and oil and tar to keep the city lighted, all of which detracted from my value as a receiver. Mr. Foster. Do we understand that one of the chief objections to this bill is that political influence would govern in the appointment of the members of the tribunal ? Mr. McDermott. I do not see how you could get away from that. It is not merely the appointment, because many men holding impor- tant offices are appointed — for instance, our Chief Justice of the United States is appointed because of political influence, and we are a nation of parties. What I am afraid of is this: You have a perma- nent board and it becomes a political bureau. It is bound to be polit- ical in its appointments and in its investigations. If the majority is Republican it will listen more kindly to a suggestion from the Repub- lican Senators from Pennsylvania than from the Democratic Senators from Geo.-gia. So you see it is bound to have that political environ- ment — although I am not attacking your bill, and I have not studied NATIONAL ARBITRATION BILL. 125 it sufficiently if I wanted to, and am here simply to revive suggestions made two years ago. Mr. Veeeland. Do you want to be heard next Wednesday ? Mr. MoDekmott. After reading the testimony I may want to say a few words. Mr. Vreeland. Do you know whether Mr. Gompers wants to be heard next Wednesday? Mr. FuRUSETH. He wants to be heard before the close of the hearing (Thereupon, at 1.15, the committee adjourned until Wednesday, April 13, at 10.30 o'clock a. m.) Washington, D. C, Wc'dnesdrny, April 13, 1904.. The subcommittee met at 10.30 o'clock a. m., Hon. Edward B. Vree- land in the chair. STATEMENT OF MR. ANDREW FURTJSETH. Mr. FuBUSETH. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, the purpose of this bill, the title of which is "to create a national arbitration tribunal and to define the duties and powers thereof," is to stop strikes, so that all its terms will have to be read with that central purpose always in view. It provides for a tribunal of six members, and the Secretary of Commerce and Labor as an ex ofBcio member, the latter to be without a vote. They are to bo appointed by " the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate." One of them is to be appointed each year, as one other completes the term of six j-ears for which each is appointed. They shall have power to hear and determine all con- troversies " concerning wages, hours of labor, or conditions of employ- ment between employers * * * and employees in which a strike or lockout is threatened or exists, in which controversy there is involved any commerce, with foreign nations, or among the several States, or with tlje Indian tribes, or * * ^'' within any of the Territories of the United States, or the District of Columbia." The tribunal shall — investigate privately (unless botii parties consent to a public investigation) the mat- ters and things involved in said controversy, determine the merits of the same on the basis of right and equity, and render its decision thereon, which decision shall be definitely and distinctively an affirmative or negative decision of each of the claims of both parties to the controversy, respectively: Promded, however, That said tribunal, of its own motion, may make additional findings and recommendations for the pur- pose of adjusting such controversy. In addition to sitting in private the tribunal may publish as much or as little of the testimony as it shall think proper, as much or as little of the correspondence as it shall choose, after having obtained the con- sent of the parties to publish anj^thing at all, unless one or both shall refuse to abide by the decision, in which case it is to publish whatever it shall deem proper as a penalty; or where one party has submitted the controversy and the other shall refuse to confer jurisdiction by also submitting, then it shall publish such refusal as a penalty, along with such other matters as it shall deem proper. 126 NATIONAL ARBITRATION BILL. The tribunal is to acquire jurisdiction by the parties to any contro- versy granting the same by submission. If one party shall refuse it will be compelled, it is hoped, by public opinion. If both should refuse — something almost unthinkable — then the tribunal maj% after endeavoring to obtain jurisdiction, give such information as it shall think proper. Public opinion is to compel submission of jurisdiction. Public opin- ion is to enforce the decision. The tribunal is to decide who is in the wrong, and to furnish to the public, in order that it may have an opinion, its decision along with such other data as the tribunal shall think wise and useful, and both parties shall agree to. If it shall be refused the opportunity to ascer- tain who is wrong, then it shall inform the public of who stands in the way, and that will give to the public the presumptive evidence of who is in the wrong. The public being, it is thought, prejudiced, too busy, interested, too careless, or perchance incapable to make up its own opinion, is by this tribunal to be corrected, assisted, and guided. In substance, this tribunal is to furnish the public with an opinion ready-made. In doing so it is to "determine the merits of the same on the basis of right and equity." In other words, it is to applj^ to industrial dis- putes, as it understands them, the religious and moral principles as understood by it. This tribunal, which is to be supreme, from which there will be no appeal, is to act according to its spiritual light and to appeal to the religious or moral — that is, to the spiritual — force in society. Then what is this tribunal? It seems to me to be the Roman censors under a new name. This tribunal is theocratic. Its members are, in the highest meaning of the word, priests. What is public opinion in the sense in which it is here considered? It is the public conscience, the aggregate of all the individual con- sciences; it is the aggregate of individual spirituality, which, when really individual, and therefore healthy, is said to be the voice of God. Public opinion. Will it be strong enough to stop strikes ? Who can doubt it? It was this force which made it possible for the Roman Emperors to slay Christians by the millions, and which, changing around, made Constantine the iirst of the Christian Emperors. It kept the Roman arena as a festival, yet abolished it ' after the self- sacrifice of Telemaclms. It supported and was the strength of the spiritual power which compelled the Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire to debase himself at Canosa; it made possible the imprisonment of the Pontiff in France. While the temporal and spiritual powers were apart, it permitted the guilds to grow, and, when together, they were killed by legislation. It sent the populace to the auto da fe as to a festival, and later crowned with oak leaves the champions of freedom of conscience. It made possible the success of the revolution of the American colonies; it burnt witches at Salem. It deprived the negro of his humanity, and later poui-ed out seas of blood and untold wealth to reestablish it. It gave force and effect to the emancipation procla- mation and wrote into the Constitution the thirteenth amendment. It sent the Nazareno to the scaffold, and, later on, recognizing His divinity, made of that scaffold a sacred emblem. It is the spiritual force, when guided by men, known as the spiritual power. "Grasp the spiritual scepter and thy ci-own shall shine like the sun " is a legend found on a prison wall in Europe. NATIONAL ABBITKATION BILL 127 In the struggle between the spiritual and the temporal powers which raged for centuries it was made abundant!)^ plain that unless these two powers could be united there was no possibility of reestablishing that absolutism which had been the strength and pride of Rome until disin- tegrated by the spiritual solvent poured in upon it by the doctrine of human brotherhood, human equality, and human sympathy derived from Christian teachings coupled with that fierce desire for human freedom which was characteristic of the barbarians of the north. While the struggle was progressing the wilderness was made to bloom, cities were built, industry dev^oped, chivalry was instituted, and churches were erected. Kings were respected by their people, if personally they deserved respect, and in return they respected the rights and liberties of the people and generally observed such guaran- tees to preserve "the rights and liberties of the people of the realm" as they had sworn to maintain and protect. When through the alliance of these two powers there arose the dogma of "divine right," the formerly intense activity amongst the people began to wane. Continental parliaments became mere record- ing bodies to register the king's will; first losing the power to deter- mine war or peace, then the power over taxation and expenditures, and finally the power to refuse to register the king's decrees. The king was supreme, the people his property. In Britain alone did the Parliament retain the power over the purse, and from that power, judiciously used, arises all the freedom now enjoyed by the British people. "Eedress our grievances and we will furnish supplies" were the terms laid down and lived up to; and thus, the King knowing that supplies might be refused, and the people feeling that they each jxar had a remedy by and through which they might destroy the very Gov- ernment itself, there gradually developed that political democracy which has made England the political model of other countries. The right to petition the Crown for redress of grievances and the right to withhold supplies, along with a gradually developed public opinion arising out of the freedom of speech and the freedom of the press in that countrj', caused freedom to broaden down from prece- dent to precedent, until there are people who consider the English Government the most democratic in the world, the one most respon- sive to popular will. The popular will, knowing that it could assert itself, knowing that it could express itself in statutes binding upon the king, had no fear of him, but this knowledge made the people to feel the responsibility of such power and to act with that care which can only come from such knowledge and responsibility. Thus has been developed that conserv- atism in the making of new law, in the gradual development and tentative absorption of new ideas, together with the respect for the •common weal and the obedience to law, only found among a people that feel themselves to be reallj^ free. Otherwise it is with a people which feels its freedom lost. It becomes saturnine, suspicious, treach- erous, and then dull — dull as the ox, but also fierce and relentless as he. Having been reduced to mere animal existence the human qualities atrophy, and the very power of a real human life becomes more and more impossible until some catastrophe brings death or regeneration. The Chairman. I beg your pardon, but what is this? Mr. FuRUSETH. 1 am trying to describe the results upon humiui 128 NATIONAL AKBITEATION BILL. society of the coming together of, the uniting of, the spiritual and temporal 23ower existing in society. I hold, sir, that this bill is that in its essence. It provides for»that. The Chairman. I thought you were describing some actual con- dition somewhere. This is a hypothetical case? Mr. FuRUSETii. No, sir; it is not, really. What I am saying here I think can bear investigation as being absolutely historical. Ill fares the land where those at the bottom are losing or have lost hope. To take away the power of self-defense is to take away hope, and that is what the enactment of this bill would do, if it meets with the success which its sponsors claim for it. It is nothing less than the abolition not only of strikes but the very possibility of strikes, through the focusing of the public anger upon those whom such tribunal shall determine to be responsible for them. Mr. Whitney. Do you believe that the bill will absolutely prevent strikes and lockouts? Mr. FuEUSETH. I do; not in the beginning. Mr. Whitney. But in the end? Mr. FuKUSETH. That is exactly what it will do. It will do exactly what was accomplished hj the statute of laborers in England under the operation of the quarter sessions. Mr. Foster. May I ask you why you leave out lockouts ? Mr. Fueuseth. Because that is simply the other side of the shield. Mr. Foster. But you believe that it would be also effective in stopping lockouts as well as strikes ? Mr. Furuseth. It will stop lockouts, I presume, except in so far as — and that is not called a lockout, and would not be — except as' a man running a business would close it down. Mr. GoMPEES. Would another question interfere with your train of thought? Mr. Furuseth. Not at all. Mr. GoMPEES. When you say if that bill were enacted into law it would stop strikes and lockouts, do I understand you to say that it would absolutely stop strikes and lockouts or that it would ultimately tend to the enactment of a law seeking to stop strikes or lockouts or to make them unlawful? Mr. Furuseth. I should think it would do both; but I am dealing with this bill purely as it now stands, having within itself, giving within itself certain powers that men agree to, and I am dealing with the weight that public opinion will have. I look upon this bill as transforming public opinion — as seizing upon it, as using it. What is a strike? It is quitting work in combination to enforce a petition for redress or to resent additional grievances being imposed. It therefore has its origin on the mental plane. The reverend Bishop assented to it being defined as being " indicative of an effort on the Eart of the wage-earners to realize, practically to materialize, some igher standard of life which they had intellectually and morally evolved" — to change the existing order of things. The truths of the concepts of the fatherhood of God, the brotherhood of man, and man's body being the temple of God are penetrating the mind of the wage- earning class — somewhat unconsciously, it is true, but penetrating nevertheless — and he applies the power of nonresistance to change the existing order of things to make it conform to the newly developed ideal. NATIONAL ARBITRATION BILL. 129 The distinguished gentlemen who have come before you in support of this bill believe that this tribunal — this new priesthood — will use its power to assist in this development bj- justly and mercifully, as if inspired, concentrating, focusing, upon either or both the spiritual force in the country, and thus do without the strike what the strike is assisting in doing. In this 1 think them entirely mistaken. I find no instance of any permanent advancement having been made by the race or by any class thereof except through suffering. We have been com- pelled to buy by the sweat and blood of man and the tears of women everj' advance made. This power maj' not be used as the excellent gentlemen are expecting; nay, it is sure to be used otherwise. When the bishop was asked, "In the question arising about the divi- sion of profits from industry what rules are to govern, the rules laid down in the decalogue or the ordinary rules of business? " he answered that he presumed that the rules really were the same. To another question as to who should be considei'ed first in this division he said, "Man first, the accumulation of property second." Thus there is no question but that he expects the rules of the decalogue to govern. If this new priesthood are not to be the ministers of a new religion, then it must be that the existing priesthood are not doing their dutj% and that we despair of inducing them to do it. This is manifestly not the fact, because the bishop says, "man first." This is the very core of the Christian religion. The bishop is himself the living evidence that our present priesthood stands for it. If this is to be the main thought of the new priesthood it would manifestly be useless. If such tribunal be established it will not be simply an annex of the old. It will serve some new god. It will develop, focus, and guide some new, or apparently new, ideal. The line upon which political equality has been developed in England in a peaceful way is the line logically followed by industrial democracy in its evolutions, if permitted to develop naturallj'. The struggle in modern society is between industrial absolutism and industrial democracy. The Christian ideal of human equality is seek- ing to extend itself in upon the industrial field and is meeting a power grown so great that it has to a large extent seized upon the state and is using its power for its own purposes, it controls, in a large meas- ure, the churches thi'ough the pew, institutions of learning through endowments, the press through its advertising columns, the education of the young through the school boards; it is expurgating the poets of the past, or suppressing them, through the great publishing houses; and if this tribunal be created it will, through it, seize upon and focus the general public opinion in such ways as shall make it serve where the state can not, or where it might be unwise to exert the power of the state. The public is annoyed and inconvenienced by any strike, but more especially so when the strike occurs in transportation. Its first thought is, "Why don't they settle these differences?" and it blames some walking delegate. There is a disposition to look upon the whole thing as a nuisance which ought to be suppressed by law. Finding in some way that the strikers have sacrificed their employment, and with it the bread of their children, it gradually is prevailed upon to look into the facts, and if by looking it finds that a real injustice is done, that there is a real grievance, then, and not until then, is any sympathy aroused for the strikers. N A B— 04 9 130 JSTATIONAL ARBITRATION BILL. In all such cases the strikers must first overcome resentment, then inertia, and must then have a cause good enough to convince upon the most casual investigation. Grievances that are not sufficiently simple to be thus easily understood, yet serious enough to cause men to risk their all to obtain redress, are sure to be brushed aside with a con- temptuous anger at those who for no better reasons are stopping the regular flow of business to the great inconvenience of the public. Being busy and interested, it will gladly accept the ready-made opin- ion from this tribunal, which, we will suppose, has before it a case in which the employer shows that if he can not have a reduction he must close up, and thus throw the helpless, landless wage-earners on the street in utter destitution. Their very concern for the men will induce their action. That something is better than nothing will be the guid- ing idea, and the reduction comes, to be followed by another and another and another as the purchasing powers of the wage-earners are diminished, going the same way that was trodden by the operation of the statute of laborers in England. The judges sitting in quarter ses- sions were probably good and humane men, but the tendency was downward, downward, downward, until to preserve the race it was seen to be absolutely necessary to adopt some other way. Modern industry is a complex machine and is easily thrown out of gear. The operations of the steel corporation may be stopped by the miners, seamen, blast-furnace men, rolling-mill men, or railroad men, if either could organize well enough to stop their part of the work. This, too, would have to be considered by the tribunal. The needs of the public would be the main thought. So that the first considera- tion would be to Iceep going, to j>rotect the existing order of things, and thus leave the wage-earner where he now is, with this exception, tha the drift of public opinion through the molding being done by the Christian truths is now shaping the future so that he may toil on in hope. It is customary to say that the age is materialistic, and in a sense that is true. It is charged that as a people we worship wealth. I am afraid that this is but too true. Is it not this god which this new priesthood will be compelled to serve? It is to be composed of men who have " died to the small things of life;" such is the hope of Mr. Foster. So no doubt it will be, but how does he know what they will consider the " small things? " They may not agree with him as to what are "small things." Let us remember that they are to be appointed by the political power, they are to live in a political atmosphere, they are to associate with the human products of wealth, they are to have children to marry and provide for, they are to be surrounded on every hand by the representatives of industrial absolutism, they are to stop strikes; and yet the gentleman thinks that they will remain humane? Truly, the gentleman is fatalistic in his optimism. Mr. Foster. Would you not be willing to have the word "lockout" follow the word "strike" in every case all through this? Mr. FuRUSETH. Yes, sir. Mr. Foster. So that the stenographer may insert the word " lock- outs," so as to make it read " strikes and lockouts," wherever j^ou have used the word " strikes," and let them go together? Mr. FuRUSETH. I do not object to that. I do not see any particular objection to that; although, as a matter of fact, 1 understand that — that NATIONAL ARBITRATION BILL. 131 is understood all through. But I am dealing with this from purely the workman's point of view. Mr. Foster. And you believe positively that the effect of this bill would be to stop strikes ? Mr. FuRUSETH. I have not any doubt about it myself. Not to-mor- row, or next year, or next year after that, but in the development of ten or twenty years it will not only stop strikes, but it will stop the possibility of a strike, in my opinion, and for these reasons: You begin at the school and you follow it through literature, and then here you have got the ready-made opinion given to the public, which is too busy — or too interested, if j^ou please — to inquire when it has got somebody to inquire for it. It can not be assumed^ — it is certainly not assumed by me — that you can develop here a power absolute in itself, responsible to no one, governed by rules of its own, and have them apply to industrial affair's, to industrial disputes as they understand them, the spiritual power as they understand it, and yet remain unin- fluenced by the power of their surroundings. Why, they would have to be gods, Mr. Foster, they could not be men. Mr. Foster. Would not this tribunal be responsible to the same force that they invoked, namely, public opinion? Mr. FuRUSETH. No; they would cultivate that force, they would determine that force. They would gradually do in industry and for industry what the Pontiff' does for Christianity in its Catholic aspect. Mr. Foster. Do you not believe, Mr. Furuseth, that that culmina- tion of evils of the fourteenth, fifteenth, and other early centuries to which you have referred was the result of the whole condition of the time, the environment, you might sa}', the historical soil in which these men grew; and do you think it fair to compare those historical conditions and culminations to what may transpire in the twentieth century ? Mr. Furuseth. 1 believe, sir, that the same principle that was at work then is at work now. I believe that as in the early middle ages there gradually developed, and at first in a healthy condition, what is known in history as feudalism, based upon the ownership of land, the occupation of land, then the existing visable wealth of the world; so there is now developing in society another feudalism, an industrial feudalism, based upon the now visible wealth of the world, which is the industrial production that has come about through the mastery over the forces of nature. Mr. Foster. Has there been any material historical period when there was less evidence of a tendency to feudalism than there is now ? Mr. Furuseth. Certainly; certainly. There have been periods in history where the tendencies have been setting all the other way, toward freedom. The tendency now is from freedom. The Chairman. Where? Mr. Furuseth. Here. Mr. Whitney. You think, then, this bill would have a tendency to stop socialism? Mr. Furuseth. I do not know that. I have not looked upon it from that point of view. The socialist propaganda is based upon an entirely different concept of life. It is based upon a concept that the owner- ship of a mine, a mill, a factory, or a means of transportation carries witn it, as such, the ownership of so much labor power as will make that means profitable to its owner. The socialist accepts that, and upon 132 NATIONAL AEBITEATION BILL. that premise he then goes on to say that in order to restore human freedom to man it is necessary to make all means of production and distribution public property. Mr. ^A'hitxey. You referred to the Roman censors. Do you raise that objection, that it will ha\e that tendency? Mr. FuRUSETH. I do. They represented the spirituality of Rome. Mr. Whitney. As I remember it Mr. FuRDSETH. Now. I am standinjj here to do, to the best of mj' ability', what I can to prevent industrial absolutism, and to prevent the employing class from seizing upon the spiritual force as well as it is 'endeavoring to seize upon theState, and to a large extent has seized upon it, for its own use. And if it should appear that with all this machinerj' to train the mind — the school, the literature, and this new priesthood — the wage-earners would j^et refuse to pay proper deference to the exist- ing order of things, and they should still continue to disturb industry "with their "unreasonable clamor," then the rest of the people would finally be induced to permit the reintroduction of in voluntary servitude, by either amending or — and this has been tentatively done already — construing away the thirteenth amendment to the Constitution. We beg of 3^ou, gentlemen, to condemn this bill. Mr. Foster. May I ask if you discovered in the careful reading of the bill, which 1 am certain you have given it, any bias toward either of the interests involved — that the bill is written in the interest of either of the parties that would be affected ? Mr. Furuseth. In m}- remarks I have said the very opposite. I have said that you, the author of the bill, assume that this new priest- hood will use their spiritual power in the advancement of the Christian ideal. I simply dispute that fact. 1 saj' that they will use their power to protect, to develop, that which we now know as the worship of wealth. Mr. Gompeks. Before you leave that, for a moment. Mr. Foster asked you whether j-ou believed that the bill was designed with any partiality to either the one side or the other side. I think you, as well as those others who are representing labor in this combination against the bill, admit the honestj' of purpose, or do not dispute the honesty of purpose. Mr. FtJRUSETH. Certainly I do not. 1 have just said so. Mr. GoMPERS. It is just the tendency of the bill which you oppose? Mr. Furuseth. I have said so, yes; as strongly as I could. I have no idea that there is any purpose in this bill to enslave the working people. But I do say, and say again, that if this tribunal is established it will inevitably be used for that purpose. STATEMENT OF MR. E. F. DTJBRUL. Mr. DuBRUL. 1 want to saj% Mr. Chairman, that a great deal of the very forcible argument of Mr. Furuseth meets my views exactly, from the other side of the labor question, purely as a labor question. Mr. Furuseth. I almost doubt mj' own reasoning, then. The Chairman. I am glad to see capital and labor standing together. Mr. Furuseth. I was just saying quietly to myself that I doubt almost my own reasoning, now. [Laughter.] Mr. Foster. You had better. NATIONAL ARBITRATION BILL. 133 Mr. FuRUSETH (continuing). After what the gentleman has said, almost. [Laughter.] Mr. DuBRUL. 1 think we will get at it, though, from a little different point of view. The bill, as I am perfectly willing to admit and as Mr. Furuseth has admitted, is no doubt an honest attempt on the part of the authors of it and the advocates of the bill to do something to stop strikes. Mr. Foster. And lockouts. Mr. DuBRUL. And lockouts. And I have not any doubt but what, carried away with the idea that the public have a personal interest in the relation between employer and employee, this idea spreading around through the country as it has been doing, that they think it is time for the public to step in and take a hand in the game. They are asking for this bill for the purpose of stopping strikes and lockouts. I am not so sure as Mr. Furuseth is that it will have that effect. Mr. Ctompers. There is where I agree with you. Mr. DuBRUL. That it is one thing in which Air. Furuseth and I will differ. Mr. Furuseth. If it would have that effect, would you be in favon of it? Mr. Dubrul. I would not. I stand rather in the position of Abra- ham Lincoln, who said "Thank God for the right to strike;" and I want to say "Thank God for the right to lock out," by the same token. Not on the part of the men who strike for the purpose of crushing industr}' or putting their employer out of business, as so many of the radicals who strike express it, and not on the part of the men who lock out for the purpose of crushing their laboring men, but, on the part of both of them, to defend what is properly theirs and what has been so from the beginning of British and American liberty; and on that I am with you. 1 do not believe that this bill or any other bill of this sort is going to have the effect of compelling men to give up what they feel is inher- ent in them, and which the spirit of all our institutions from both sides of this question has said is inherent in them. I am not in favor any more than Mr. Furuseth is of a ready-made public opinion. I do not believe that all the industrial commissions, all the coal-strike commis- sions, all the monetary commissions on earth are going to settle the industrial, the labor, or the monetary question to the satisfaction of the people. They maj' have some influence, but it is as these things hit men in their own personal interest, one after the other, becoming affected this wa}^ and that waj' and the other way, until finally public sentiment is crystallized; and it is better and more practically crystal- lized, not by a ready-made opinion handed down, as Mr. Furuseth says, by almost a divine tribunal, but by the working of the social and economic forces right through the people who are personally affected. There has been a whole lot of talk about strikes. The right rever- end bishop who appeared here said that a strike is hell, and so it is very often, just as much as war is hell, and that is as appropriate as to talk about war being hell; and all the international voluntary tribunals for arbitration between nations are not going to stop war, and they never will. The Chairman. Should we stop all efforts in that direction, then? Mr. Dubrul. No; we can not stop our efforts. No; that is all right to go along and settle these things as peaceably as we can. 184 NATIONAL ARBITEATION BILL. The Chairman. Would it be advisable if we could succeed in that? Mr. DuBRUL. No; I do not think so. The Chairman. It is better to have war once in a while? Mr. DuBRUL. No, sir; but I believe it is better to have the spirit that maj^ make war and make it justly and effectively than to have an absolutely peaceable condition, or rather a spirit of nonresistance. The history of humanity is a history of strugfgle, as Mr. Furuseth has pointed out, and everything that has been gained by humanity has been gained by struggle, and the struggle grows only more severe according to the conditions it has to meet. But while we can not legislate people into happiness and sweetness The Chairman. When do they make their progress, during the time of war or during the peace that follows? Mr. DuBEUL. The nations make their progress, certainly, in the time of peace; and still, unless they have the final appeal to the cause of war, the nation would be of very little account. That is my personal opinion. The authors of this bill have no doubt the feeling that the inconven- ience to the public caused by strikes is suiBcient justification for such legislation as this; but if thei-e ever will be a time for such legislation it is not in my judgment the present time at all, nor will it be the time until things crystallize to a great deal larger extent than they have to-daj', so that we will know whither we are trending. I do not think that the strike is the question. Let us analj^ze the common acceptance of a strike. If you were to saj^ to the average laboring man that strikes are not the most creditable method of settling a labor dispute, he will say, as Mr. Fui'useth has said, that a man has a right to quit work whenever he sees fit. That is an unquestioned right; it is a right that no legislation can deny, and I do not believe that it is a right that it would be wise to attempt to limit in anjr wa}-. This is a bed-rock principle. The Chairman. Do you think this bill limits it? Mr. DuBRUL. I am coming to that. That part of it is a bed-rock principle. A collective body of individuals has a right to quit work, just the same as the individual has. Of course I mean in the absence of contract. That has been laid down by the Anthracite Coal Sti'ike Commission as a principle, and as an abstract principle it is undoubtedly correct. I do not know whether this definition of a strike will meet the views of the unions, but it seems to me it is a good one: A strike is an organized refusal on the part of laboring men to continue at work until some demand or petition upon an employer has been granted. And there is no question that in many cases such an organized refusal is perfectly correct. But the question that it seems to me gentlemen like Mr. Foster and Mr. Whitney and others who are not directly engaged in either the labor of producing goods by the power of the hand and the machine or the other part of that labor by the directing forces of the brain do not get at is this — this is the element that you want to get at: It is the way that strikes are made effective. That is the evil. Certain claims are set up in every strike, which, if allowed, destroy the definition of a strike which I have just quoted. Mr. Furuseth. What are those claims? Mr. DuBRUL. Strikers, in my experience, invariably take the posi- tion that they are still employees of the firm or the person they have struck against. I have been through the picket line, and I have heard NATIONAL ARBITRATION BILL. 135 the arguments used. This is an essential feature; it is a matter of common knowledge. Without that provision their strike is doomed to failure as long as men can be had to take the place of the strikers and as long as there is no interference with what Vice-Chancellor Pit- ney, of New Jersey, ruled on — the right of men not to be made uncom- fortable. Mr. FuEUSETH. Will you allow me a question right there ^ Mr. DuBRUL. Yes. Mr. FuRUSTiTH. Will you take away the right of those men who have left your employ to appeal to other men Mr. DuBRUL. No, sir. Mr. FuRUSETH (continuing). Not to go into 3'our employ 'i Mr. DuBRUL. No, sir; but I would take away the right of their appeal like this [shaking his fist under the nose of an imaginary adver- sary]: "Look here; we are out on strike there." That is the sort of appeal that I would take away — the shaking of the fist and the threat and the intimidation. Mr. FuRUSETH. The threat of what? Mr. DuBRUL. The threat of personal violence? Mr. FuRUSETH. The intimidation of whati' Mr. DuBRUL. The intimidation of personal violence and making them uncomfortable in their employment. Mr. FuRUSETH. Making them uncomfortable? What do you mean by that? Mr. DuBRUL. I mean this. I feel that as an American citizen I have a right to go and come as I please. Mr. FuRUSETH. Yes. Mr. DuBRUL (continuing). As long as I interfere with no one else's right in that direction; that according to our Constitution and laws, it should be my privilege to work — which you do not agree to, perhaps — when, where, and how, and on what terms /please. Mr. FuRUSETH. Certainly I agree to it. Mr. DuBRUL. If our terms are agreeable to you, and you and I combine not to accept other terms, that is our privilege; but we must not interfere with the right of ai^other man to exercise his privilege. Mr. FuRUSETH. Not even by persuasion? Mr. DuBEUL. Possibly by persuasion, if there was such a thing Mr. FuBUSETH. And using circulai's? Mr. DuBRUL. I do not question the right of persuasion nor the right to use circulars, but Mr. FuRUSETH. How are you to get at the man who has not read the circulars nor heard the arguments nor been at the meetings, except by putting out a picket line and quietly asking him to listen to you — per- suading him ? Mr. Dtjbeul. But you do not ijidetly ask him. Mr. Fdruseth. If we do not quietly do this, then call in your police, but do not call in the judiciary, as you advocate doing here. Mr. DuBRUL. That is what I am coming to. I am coming to that exactly. Now, if this theory of the strike, that the ex-employee has still ahold on his job, as they have told me, and I have gone through the picket line Mr. Foster. Does it disturb you to ask you questions? Mr. DuBRUL. Not very much. Mr. Foster. No; I judge not. Do you deny that there is any moral 136 NATIONAL ARBITRATION BILL. obligation on the part of the employing institution toward these employees that have gone out on the strike — these people, if you will permit me to add this, who have been for a number of years the employees of the particular institution — of the particular craft — when they are on a strike? Is there any moral obligation that would affect the adjustment of the differences? Mr. DxjBRUL. Supposing that I were engaged by you as a clerk, or in any other capacity. You and I individually have a difference. I am not satisfied with my employment with you. J leave you. 1 do not think that there is any moral obligation on your part in connection with me anj' longer. Now, if the right to quit work collectively is just the same as the right to quit work individually, which I think it is, there is no more moral obligation. If there is a moral obligation on the part of the employer towai'd these emplo3rees they have no right to quit collect- ively, which is a proposition 1 deny. Mr. Foster. One moral wrong would not justify another. Mr. DuBRUL. What? Mr. Foster. One moral wrong, if it were committed, would not justify another? Mr. DuBRUL. That is an abstract proposition. Mr. Foster. Very true. Mr. FuRUSETH. Since when have the employers become so conscious and tender about the rights of the workmen that they necessarily must prevent them from being interfered with? Mr. DuBRUL. 1 do not know, Mr. Furuseth. Maybe you can answer that better than I. You have been in this pai-t of the work longer than I have. If they have such a consciousness, which 1 believe thej' are getting, it is a good thing. Mr. Furuseth. Is it not a virtue arising, by your own argument, out of their self-interest? Mr. DuBRUL. All business questions, all industrial questions, arise more or less out of self-interest; but there is an enlightened and well- balanced self-interest as well as a shortsighted and foolish self-interest, and I hope we will all tend to use more the enlightened self-interest on both sides of this proposition than to appeal to the baser motives — to appeal to the better motives rather than to appeal to the baser motives of self-interest. The Chairman. You have six minutes I'emaining. Mr. DuBRUL. Then I would like to have no further interruptions from the gentlemen until I get done. Now, basing it on this, it seems to me that the best thing we can do for the public is to say this: There is a function for the public to per- form under the present method under which strikes are conducted, and that is to confirm and crystallize and work upon the public senti- ment without any legislation in that respect, but to work on their enlightened self-interest to see that the picket line is not threatening violence, and so forth. The whole evil comes from that. That is the tap root of all the present-day strikes. I had a man come to me a short time ago — he was a machinist Mr. Davenport. May I ask you what is your position — what organi- zation you represent? Mr. DuBRUL. I am commissioner of the National Metal Trades Association. NATIONAL ARBITRATION BILL. 137 Mr. FuRUSETH. And at present walking delegate for them :■ Mr. DuBRUL. Yes; for the employers in that business, I am a walk- ing delegate. This man came to me and said, "I think there is room for a better kind of union." I think these gentlemen will admit that no human institution is perfect, and there is always room for improvement, and this was that man's idea of it — to work through a man's self-interest; to make a man's personal character much more than at present a requi- site for membership in the unions, and to devote a large proportion of the time and attention of the unions to the personal education of these men, showing them a better way to make money, and making them more competent, and giving them a wider and better vision, and mak- ing better men of them. 1 talked over with him his plan in particular. I asked him "How about the strikes; would you eliminate from that sort of anion the right to strike? " He said, "Never; the right to strike is fundamental. But," he said, "I would eliminate the picket line and the boj'cott and the violence and intimidation." I said, "Do 3'ou think you could be successful in carrying on a strike with such a union as that? " He said, "When that sort of a union left an employer for cause — collectively — anybody who wanted that job could have it, and there would not be any difficulty in the members of that union getting jobs anywhere else." That is the strike as defined — the theoretical strike. Mr. FuRUSETH. The condition would be so bad, in other words, that no human being could be expected to stand it? All right. Mr. DuBRUL. That is the theoretical strike. The actual strike is the thing that these worthy gentlemen, like Mr. Foster and Bishop Spalding, who see the evils, are striking at. But they do not strike at the taproot, which is the violence and the breaking of the law. This thing is being corrected. You will find all over the country organizations arising, law and order leagues in their essence, called citizens' alliances. They are organizing all classes of the communi- ties. They arise only in communities where the citizens have suffered from this violence and lawlessness. Mr. FuRUSETH. Whj' not call them by their real name, "vigilance committees ? " Mr. DuBRUL. Law and order leagues, citizens' alliances, vigilance committees, if you will. Mr. FuRUSETH. Usurping the functions of the State. Mr. DuBRUL. I beg your pardon; they provide, in every constitu- tion 1 have seen, for respect of the laws of the State and of the United States. And if they go against that they can be brought to book for it. Mr. FxjRUSETH. So, then, the3' charge all the judges and juries and grand juries and sheriffs with inefficiency and incapacity and Mr. DuBRUL. Not necessarily. They are upholding the attempts of the sheriffs and the grand juries and the juries to uphold the free- dom of action. There is the taproot; there is the thing for the dear public to work on. There is the thing for those to look to who may be indirectly affected. In my strike you may be a part of the public, and in your strike I may be a part of the public, and it is the same way with the laborers; we are all a part of the public when the laborer is in controversy. But the thing which must stand out in all this is the keeping in mind of the personal securit}', of the personal freedom, as guaranteed in our institutions, and then, when we recognize that, 1 138 NATIONAL ABBITRATION BILL. believe there is more chance for men to agree when they stand around the same table and talk about the same thing's, when they use the same words with the same meanings; and until then I do not think there is any chance for even ^'oluntarj'^ arbitration, except to use this ready- made public opinion. STATEMENT OF MR. SAMUEL GOMPERS, PRESIDENT OF THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR. jNIr. GoMPERS. Mr. Chairman, you will no doubt observe how peculiar it nmst evidently be when you find Mr. Davenport and Mr. Dubrul and the representatives of organized labor, from widely divergent stand- points, agreeing in opposition to the bill. I want briefly to take cogni- zance of a few of the statements made by Mr. Dubrul, and just as brieflj' as I possibl}' can, in considei-ation of the limited time and an engagement which I must meet as soon as possible. By reference to the hearings before the Senate Committee on Edu- cation and Labor on the eight-hour bill, you will find there that I sub- mitted for the consideration of the committee a number of the official journals of the unions, showing diagrams and plans and problems in each of the industries in which the members are engaged, gotten up by specialists in designing, in forming, in framing, and in creating, in helping the men of the trades to become more eliicient and more prac- tical and more competent workmen. That was done to supply what is an evident need to e\'erj^ observer — the deficienc}' which too many workmen now labor under of onl}^ knowing a part or an infinitesimal portion of the trade, l\v reason of the division and subdivision and specialization which has gone on in industry. As a matter of fact, the organizations of labor publishing official journals supply that very information which Mr. Dubrul contends is not given by the organizations of labor. Mr. Dubrul. I beg your pardon; it is not given as much as some men would like to see it; that is all. Mr. GoMPERS. Mr. Dubrul did not so qualify his statement before. Mr. Dubrul. I was quoting another man. Mr. GoMPERS. And further, by his statement, he would have the committee believe that nothing of that sort is being done. When he says it has not been done to the extent that some would like to see it done, I assume he has in mind trade schools rather than our trade unions; and we make of our trade unions the paramount purpose to be of mutual help to each other, and the making of a better workman is IJart of the work that the unions now do — supplying that which modern industry has deprived the workman of, by reason of the causes that I have already mentioned. There is not a thing that organized labor can do but what it will meet with the same antagonism — it does not make a particle of difference what they do — fi-om Mr. Dubrul and his associates. Even when we ask for relief in a perfectly lawful manner and through the onlj^ means which the law prescribes by which we can secure relief — at the hands of the Congress of the United States, or an}^ of the State legislatures, or from any of the municipal bodies — we there are met with the same kind of opposition from these our momentary allies in this opposition to this bill. And when I saj' "allies," 1 say we are unconsciously and temporary allies at this moment. But I resent this, that in appearing NATIONAL ARBITBATION BILL. 139 before this committee in opposition to the bill Mr. Dubrul will, like his associates, always extraneouslj- and unnecessarily drag in the old, old, and oft-repeated charge of the criminality and the unlawful con- duct of the organizations of labor; and I want to call attention to the fact that the so-called citizens' alliances and associations for the enforce- ment of law and order are to-day outlawed by the courts of Colorado. Mr. DuBRUL. If they are outlaws they deserve it. Mr. GoMPERS. They are outlaws by the courts of Colorado, and a writ of habeas corpus issued by a competent court of jurisdiction of Colorado within these past forty-eight hours has been set at defiance under the direction of your law and order leagues and citizens' alli- ance of Colorado. Mr. DuBRUi.. How about the murders in the mines { Mr. GoMPERS. Then catch the murderers and hang them, but you have no right to invoke anj' law but the criminal law to try men for crime. The Chairman. Do I understand that martial law has been declared up there in Colorado? Mr. GoMPERS. Yes; in Telluride men have been arrested without any charge of anj' crime having been alleged against them and held without any process of law, and the courts have issued writs of habeas corpus Mr. Ftjruseth. And they have been deported. Mr. GoMPERS. Yes; and they have been deported, and the courts have issued writs of habeas corpus for the production of these bodies, so that the courts may inquire into whether these men are legally or illegally detained and deprived of their freedom, and men have been deported from the State of Coloiado by armed forces; and if there be any man who can point out to me any law which would warrant any such procedure I tnink I shall have little further to say in advocacy of the cause which I have espoused. But what I have just said is simply incidental, simph' to meet these attacks which are made bv our "allies" upon us, and which we are required to meet everywhere, because our friends and allies, the enem}', constantly repeat these charges in the hope that some of it will stick. However, I want to address myself to the bill under consideration. 1 am in entire accord with almost everything that my friend ]\Ir. Furu- seth has said to this committee. There is one thing in which 1 disagree with him, and that is where he saj's that this bill or any other bill which the Congress of the United States could pass would stop strikes and, I suppose, anticipating the question of Mr. Foster, "lockouts." You may by legislation outlaw them; you may make them illegal; jou may send men to prison; you may go further than that bill Mr. Foster. Under our Constitution for a strike '. Mr. GoMPERS. I do not see the connection of your question. But 1 say, gentlemen, j'ou can not and will not stop strikes by law. There was a time, in the days to which Mr. Furuseth referred, when to strike, when for two or more men jointly to ask their employer to increase their wages or protest against a reduction in wages, when for two or more men to make any such representation to the employer, was a conspiracy in the law, and was so regarded, and they were sent to jail. The Chairman. English law? Mr. Gompers. That is the English law; yes, sir; and it was the law of the States in the United States since the adoption of the Constitu- 140 NATIONAL ARBITRATION BILL. tion. Under the old English law men were not only sent to jail if they quit their employ, but they were whipped, they were branded, and they were hanged. That did not stop strikes; they struck, and they took the consequences for themselves, that others might enjoy the freedom and the opportunity that we now enjoy of the choice to improve our condition. I dissent from the view expressed b}^ Mr. Furuseth that the bill will have the eifect of preventing or eliminating strikes; but you will make them unlawful and you will accentuate the differences. These men have been brought up for a century and a quarter of the history of our country under the belief that they have this right, and this is transmitted to our children and our children's children, and you may outlaw these men in the exercise of their natural right, but you will not prevent them from taking that lawful and natural action among men to protect their lives and advance their interests. The Chairman. Are you talking about the effect of this bill now? Mr. GoMPERS. 1 am expressing my dissent from the view given by Mr. Furuseth that the bill would, and the tendency of this legislation would be to, prevent strikes. The Chairman. You do not mean that this bill would make them unlawful? Mr. GoMPERS. No; not directly; no. But I have not the slightest notion — I can not dream of such a condition of affairs — that the Con- gress of the United States would pass the bill in its present apparent voluntary condition. I can not believe that the Congress would pass, even if it did pass a bill which in its essence was the same as that which is proposed and is now under consideration by this committee, that would not be improved upon at subsequent Congresses. And I say "improved" in the worst sense in which it can be applied, for already in these hearings you will have noticed where our friend Mr. Maddox, in questioning Mr. Foster upon this bill, sa5's: I confess that is true morally, but we do not want to go into child's play; we want them to be legally bound, if we do anything at all. He is speaking of the unions when he says, " We want them legally bound." Further on Mr. Maddox, in connection with a statement by Mr. Foster, says: I would not hardly think that, because I am in hearty sympathy with the move- ment — if we can ever do it — That is, arbitration — to make it binding; if we can make it successful, I would like to see that done. That is a statement made bj^ Mr. Maddox, a member of this com- mittee. Now, I presume that some one has had the hearing of Mr. Foster for revision, for I find that it is very frequently italicized, and I am under the impression, from what 1 know of these hearings, that neither the stenographers nor the secretary of the committee, nor the members of the committee itself, italicize any statements of the gentlemen making- arguments before the committee. Mr. Foster, in one of his state- ments — which I presume he has italicized — saj^s: The conflict always involves the arousing of malice, hatred, and murderous intent. NATIONAL ARBITRATION BILL, 141 I want to say that that is a misunderstanding of strikes. Mr. Foster. You are speaking of lockouts always at the same time, are you? Mr. GoMPEES. If Mr. Foster, who is so powerful a linguist, will rest content with making his own argument, and not onlj' italicizing his own points that he wishes to bring to the attention of the com- mittee and to the attention of those who read the report, but also undertaking to italicize statements made b}- some one other than him- self, I think he will do us a little better justice, and permit us to make our own statements in our own way, even though it may be uncouth or ineffective. I think when we have said that we do not attribute to the authors of this bill any sinister purpose, that ought to stand for itself. We contend against the passage of this bill because of tlie history of such legislation, the history of the attempts of the States to under- take the regulation of the conditions between the employer and employee, and because we know the consequences that have come, and against which the working people have been compelled to contend and contend because the alliance of tlae employing class with those in power has always been toward the denial of liberty' to the working people, and that denial of libertj^ going to the extent to which I have referred, of sending men to jail and the incurring of ph3^sical punish- ment and even deatn as the consequence. During the last hearing, and when I was engaged before another committee of Congress on a bill of great importance, a statement that I made, or was supposed to have made, was much harped upon, and that was in reference to strikes ; and erroneously I have been quoted as saying (or comments have been made upon what 1 was supposed to have said) that strikes are a good thing. I think I have alwaj's tried to make it clear that strikes ought to be avoided as much as possible. I do not think that there are man}^ men in this country who have done more to try to prevent strikes than I have. I do not think that there are many men in this countrj' who have prevented and avoided and evaded strikes more than I have. Mr. Foster. I believe that to be true. Mr. GoMPERS. And I do not believe I ought to be placed in a false position by a man so eminently fair as Mr. Foster so as to convey the idea that I did say at any time that strikes were a good thing. There is quite a contrast between believing that strikes are a good thing and the position of believing that all strikes are so ruinous that they ought to be stopped by law. That is the difference. 1 agree that strikes ought to be avoided, and I know of no human agency that will have the tendency to diminish the number of strikes so much as the organization of the workmen in their unions and their preparation for strikes. I do not believe that it is possible to elimi- nate strikes from our industrial history, from the industrial field, so long as men will have divergent interests in the buj'ing and selling of labor power. But their number can be diminished. The bitterness with which they are contested can be reduced and minimized. What is a strike or a lockout but the buyer and the seller of labor power disagreeing as to the terms upon which that labor power shall be sold and bought? It is a cessation of those former relations, a ces- sation of industrj' in that particular line — if I might use the common 142 NATIONAL ARBITRATION BILL. parlance of the street — for "a new deal," for new conditions under which labor shall again be performed, which is sold and bought. And the continuation of industry, the agreement, the maintenance of the industrial peace in an industry is largely determined not onlj' by the power which the emploj^er has, but by the new-found power which the workmen have developed by their association, and the assurance that thsir idleness, occasioned by the cessation of labor, will not be attended by starvation; in other woi'ds, by the knowledge that they, through their association in the times of industrial peace, have con- tributed something to buy them the merest necessaries of life during a period of cessation of labor caused by a lockout or a strike. Strikes are not a good thing, but there are some things that are worse than strikes, and among them is a depraved or a degi'aded or a demoralized manhood. No man who loves his fellows loves contest and conflict; but I trust that the day may never come when the people of our country will not have the ability to defend their interests, their honor, and their good name. We have established with other nations the international arbitration court at The Hague. It is voluntary on the part of any nation to submit the matter in dispute to the arbitration board or court. In the last analj'sis the right to fight for honor and interests and home is reserved to every country. And if perchance there was any fear that a country could be by any future policy coerced into an involun- tary submission of her honor to an international court the present court would be dissolved b^^ mutual consent. In the court at The Hague it rests upon the consent of every Government, the weakest as well as the strongest. Thus it is voluntary to the last degree. And so it is provided, apparentl}', in this bill, so far as labor disputes are con- cerned. But in the international relations of nations to the court at The Hague there is reserved to the nation not ohlj^ the right but the power to enforce the right of withdrawal. That is not contained in the elementary features of this legislation that we are now considering. While strikes should be avoided and evaded, I do not know of any one thing that could occur in any country on the face of the globe that has to-da}^ had so wonderfully beneficial an eii'ect as the strike of the miners last year and two years ago upon the miners. "No court of arbitration" it may be argued. Yes; but the improved conditions under which the miners in the anthracite regions now work are the result of the award given by the anthracite coal strike commission, a tribunal appointed by the President. Very true, but fii'st had there been a tribunal appointed to investigate the conditions of the miners, had that tribunal been empowered to make an award, they would never have made an award so favorable to the miners as was made by the commission, not simply because of the justice involved in the demands of the miners, but by reason of the demonsti'ation of the miners that they were willing to go hungry in order to impress it upon the minds of all that they were thoroughly in earnest in demanding the increase or improvement. The award was only possible after that demonstra- tion and that strike. It would never have been given by any board, no matter how fair-minded such a board might have been, unless that demonstration or strike had been undertaken. The greatest achievement ever made on the lines of international peace was made by the Government of the United States and the Gov- ernment of Great Britain, without any court having been created in NATIONAL ARBITRATION BILL. 143 >dvance. We have read in the newspapei's within the past three days if a, treaty having been made between the Governments of Great 3ritain and of France, removing almost everj' obstacle that stood in he way of maintaining international peace between those two coun- ,ries. There was no court to establish justice, but this was the result )f the growing of the great powers which each nation has vested in its )wn great people, and the growing conviction among men that peace )ught to be maintained wherever it can be maintained, a conviction rrowing out of the self-interest and the mutual interests of the nations. ind the same rule and the same elements are at work in the industrial iflfairs of our country, and we are having more of these arrangements, nore of these agreements, more of these understandings with our jmployers, despite the antagonism of some employers toward our jrganizations, our unions. I have said elsewhere, and I say it now, that we are living not only 'or the pi'esent. We are deeply interested in our day to bring about ;he very best possible conditions, but our work is confined not alone ;o the day. Our work and our institutions of labor are for to- norrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow. Within a very few j^ears we lave organized more than two and a half millions of wage-earners of )ur country and federated them; and our labor movement in the United States is simply in its swaddling clothes. We are in our nfancy; and despite the antagonism of Mr. Parry and Mr. Cushing md Mr. Dubrul and Mr. Davenport to the organizations of labor, nany of whom denounce the organizations regardless of what they do 31 where they may be engaged in the performance of their work of jarrying on the good work of organization and associated work, the organizations are going to grow. And though Mr. Parry and other employers are now antagonistic to us and will have nothing to do with lis, Mr. Parry, to whom I do not wish any ill by any means — for I may say parenthetically that I bear no man ill will, but Mr. Parry 3an not live alwaj^s — even Mr. Parry and his associates will come to jome agreement with us some daj'', for in the natural course of events ;hey with us — with me — will join the great majority. But the organ- sations of labor will live and grow, and then we will have either Parry & Company or, if the firm name does not change after the present lead dies, perhaps we will have Parry & Company as an organized shop, with organized labor. As I said a while ago, what I said some time ago was interpreted to nean something hostile toward Mr. Pariy; but I said what 1 did then n the same spirit as I have said what I have just said here — that is, ;hat Mr. Parry can not escape us; we are going to be in agreement ivith him sometime, or with his house, and with all employers. I look for industrial peace, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, coming )ut of the undesirable strike — if you please, out of these strikes, and rat of the discord; not the hatred or the bitterness or the murderous ntent that Mr. Foster suggested to the committee as resulting from ill these strikes. I agree that too often bitter feeling finds its vent in strikes and lockouts; but after nearly every one of these contests, when igreement is reached between the employers and the organizations of abor, the feelings of cordiality and mutuality between the employers md the workingmen have grown, the desire to be helpful to each other s greater, and you have -not implanted in the hearts of the workmen 144 NATIONAL A KBlTKAliUIN ■Bij mcri the idea — the notion — that they have been deprived of their lawful, their constitutional, or their natural inherent rights. Now, I want for a few moments to say something in regard to strikes that I think is justified by some of the statements that have been made here before this committee, and by a misunderstanding as to what I had in mind when I stated that the right to strike ought not to be interfered with, and when I said that there was a philosophy in strikes not generally understood. And now I want for a few moments to read to j'ou a part of the report which I had the honor to make as the president of the American Federation of Labor to the Boston conven- tion upon that subject. (Reading:) STRIKES, AND FUXDS AS A PHEVENTATIVE. During the year a considerable number of strikes occurred. From reports made to our office, compiled and enumerated in the secretary's report, it will be observed that the gains achieved in the interests of our fellow-workers were considerable — advances in wages, reductions in hours of labor, and improvements in other respects — and that but comparatively few of the strikes inaugurated were defeated in the objects sought. Much of the expenditures reported because of strikes were made during last year. It will be observed, too, by reference to the table that many organizations have gained large advantages while they have expended intinitesimally small amounts. These are particularly attributable to the organizations referred to having accumulated funds and systems of beneficial features which have given them such stability and resourcefulness that employers were more willing to concede reason- able and fair demands rather than at the outset risk losses which they know result from long drawn-out contests. Then further on: More strikes are avoided and averted by thorough organization and preparation for them than by any other known means. There is a most erroneous impression prevalent regarding losses occasioned by strikes, to which attention is invited. Of course it is true that a strike involves the loss of work and wages for the time being, but there has not oiie strike occurred but it has been followed by greater activity in the trade. In other words, the time for the performance of the work and the payment of the wages has been deferred — that is, that the stoppage in the trade has been made to suit the convenience and the pur- pose of the workmen, rather than the convenience and purpose of the employer. A strike involving wages, hours, and other conditions of employment, even if tem- porarily defeated in the attainment of the immediate purpose, has always checked greater invasion on the part of the employers, or has paved the way for the ultimate achievement of the object sought by the workmen. Now, here I want to call the attention of the committee to this par- ticular point that I make: Taking the strike as an economic or social factor, it has never been lost. For men contending against deterioration or for improvement, if, say, they lose the strike, what occurs? Those occupying a higher material condition do not displace those engaged in the contest. If they are displaced at all it is by those whose conditions are poorer or are unemployed, and taking the worst view of the situation, it has been merely a change of personnel of those occupying the relative positions. But the truth is, and the entire history of industry has demonstrated it to be a fact, that the workers who have intelligence and manhood enough in their makeup to contend against the imposition of poorer or to strike for better conditions never go down in the economic scale. In other words, though the workmen may be defeated in the immediate contest, their character, perseverance, and ability always make for the next highest rung in the industrial ladder. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that the thought to which I have given expression in that I'eport is not generally understood nor accepted, but I commend it to the consideration of men who are studying the indus- NATIONAL ARBITRATION BILL. 145 trial and economic and social conditions and development of our country. Mr. Chairman, as 1 said a moment ago, it is not so much this bill alone as it is the whole species of attempts of this character, of which we are apprehensive, and justifiably apprehensive; for we have the history of industry and the suflering and the sacrifices before us, which men have had to bear on account of these interferences, or attempted interferences, in the relations as to wages and hours and differences and disputes and disagreements between workmen and their employers. There is one other matter that 1 wanted to read from a case. No. 334, of the October term, 1896, in the Supreme Court of the United States, Robert Robertson et al., appellants, v. Barry Baldwin, being an appeal from the district court for the northern district of Califor- nia. Mr. Justice Brown, delivering the opinion of the court, said, in his opinion: 2. The question whether sections 4598 and 4599 conflict with the thirteenth amend- ment, forbidding slavery and involuntary servitude, depends upon the construction to be given to the term " involuntary servitude." Does the epithet "involuntary" attach to the word "servitude" continuously and make illegal any service which becomes involuntary at any time during its existence; or does it attach only at the inception of the servitude and characterize it as unlawful because unlawfully entered into? If the former be the true construction, then no one, not even a soldier, sailor, or apprentice can surrender his liberty, even for a day; and the soldier may desert his regiment on the eve of battle, or the sailor intermediate port or landing, or even in a storm at sea provided only he can find means of esca,ping to another vessel. If the latter, then an individual may, for a valuable consideration, contract for the sur- render of his personal liberty for a definite time and for a recognized purpose and subordinate his going and coming to the will of another during the continuance of the contract — not that all such contracts would be lawful, but that a servitude which was knowingly and willingly entered into could not be termed involuntarj'. Thus if one should agree for a yearly wage to serve another in a particular capacity during his life and never to leave his estate without his consent, the contract might not be enforcible for the want of a legal remedy or might be void upon grounds of pub- lic policy, but the servitude could not be properly termed involuntarj'. Such agree- ments for a limited personal servitude at one time were very common in England, and by statute of June 17, 182.3 (Geo. IV, ch. 34, sec. 3), it was enacted that if any servant in husbandry, or any artificer, calico printer, handcraftsman, miner, collier, keelman, pitman, glassman, potter, laborer, or other person should contract to serve another for a definite time and should desert such service during the term of the contract he w-as made liable to a criminal punishment. The breach of a contract for personal service has not, however, been recognized in this country as involving a liability to criminal punishment, except in the cases of soldiers, sailors, and possibly some others, nor would public opinion tolerate a statute to that effect. And in the dissenting opinion, delivered by Mr. Justice Harlan, he says: In considering this case it is our duty to look at the consequences of any decision that may be rendered. We can not avoid this duty by saying that it will be time enough to consider supposed cases when they arise. When such supposed cases do arise, those who seek judicial support for extraordinary remedies that encroach upon the liberty of freemen will, of course, refer to the principles announced in previous adjudications, and demand their application to the particular case in hand. It is therefore entirely appropriate to inquire as to the necessary results of the sanction given by this court to the statute here in question. If Congress, under its power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several States, can authorize the arrest of a seaman who engaged to serve upon a private vessel, and compel him by force to return to the vessel and remain during the term for which he engaged, a similar rule may be prescribed as to employees upon railroads and steamboats engaged in commerce among the States. Even if it were conceded — a concession to be made only for argument's sake — that it could be made a criminal offense, punishable by fine or imprisonment or both, for N A B— 04 10 146 'NATtONAL ARBITRATION BILL. such employees to quit their employment before the expiration of the term for which they agreed to serve, it would not follow that they could be compelled, against their will and in advance of trial and conviction, to continue in such service. But the decision to-day logically leads to the conclusion that such a power exists in Congress. Again, as the legislatures of the States have all legislative powernot prohibited to them, while Congress can only exercise certain enumerated powers for accomplishing specified objects, why may not the States, under the principles this day announced, compel all employees of railroads engaged in domestic commerce, and all domestic servants, and all employees in private establishments, within their respective limits, to remain with their employers during the terms for which they were severally engaged, under the penalty of being arrested by some sheriff or constable and forcibly returned to the service of their employers? The mere statement of these matters is sufficient to indicate the scope of the decision this day rendered. I thank you, gentlemen, for your attention. ADDITIONAL STATEMENT OF MR. E. F. DUBETJL. Mr. DuBRUL. If I may have just a moment, I want to correct the record in one particular, and I want also to call attention to some of the editing that has been done on some of these hearings. On page 13 of these hearings there is a headline that says, "International Busi- ness League favors the bill." On that Mr. Whitnej' says, "Here is a letter from the National Business League, which is a national business organization, and has a membership of the largest merchants of every State in the Union. There is a list of them on the back of the letter. This letter is from the secretary." Now, I think it ought to be known that those are expressions of personal opinion only, except where these unions have put themselves on record either for or against the bill. Otherwise it is simply the mere personal opinions of the writers of these letters, and I do not think it is quite fair to put in a headline of that sort, which catches the eye, and is not exactly in accordance with the truth. The Chairman. Is there any desire to have any further hearing on the part of anyone ? Mr. Davenport. Of course I have already called the attention of the committee to some of the provisions of this bill; but there are cer- tain general ideas underlying the whole subject which I would like an opportunity, either orally — I would much prefer orally — or if not, in writing, to submit. My idea of this bill, of course, is that it is an attempt to morally coerce the employers and the employees in indus- trial matters; that liberty which is essential to the life of all business is to be interfered with by the public. And that being the case I think it would be proper to present to the committee the injurious effects of any such device. Will the committee be in session to morrow? The Chairman. I suppose not; there is no meeting called for to- morrow. Mr. Davenport. Will you have a regular meeting again? The Chairman. I do not know whether it is the intention to have a meeting of the full committee again. Mr. Davenport. Then I would like to have the privilege of sub- mitting to the committee some observations in writing on this subject. The Chairman. W^e shall have a meeting of this subcommittee next Wednesdaj'. Mr. Davenport. The subcommittee is the committee that I referred to. NATIONAL ARBITRATION BILL. 147 The_ Chairman. Oh, yes, we will have further meetings of the sub- committee. Mr. Davenport. I would like an opportunity at that time of pre- senting those views; and if it is impossible for me to be here at that time, might 1 then submit them in writing? The Chairman. Certainly. Mr. Foster. Mr. Chairman, in order that I may economize your time, 1 would ask both for myself and for Bishop Spaulding, who is unavoidably detained to-day, the privilege of submitting some argu- ments and comments, in writing, to become a part of the committee's record. The Chairman. There is no objection to that, I think, Mr. Foster. Mrs. Smith. Mr. Chairman, I desire to file a paper with regard to woman as an industrial factor and strikes as they affect women. The Chairman. Under this bill ? Mrs. Smith. Yes. The Chairman. Very well. (Thereupon the committee adjourned.) NATIONAL ARBITRATION TRIBUNAL. Committee ox Education and Labor, UxiTED States Senate, Washington, D. (7., April 7, 190 If.. The committee met at 10.30 o'clock a. m. Present: Senators McComas (chairman), Dolliver, Burnliam, and Newlands. Also, Mr. Volnej- W. Foster, Bishop John L. Spalding, and others. The bill under consideration is as follows: [S. 3259, Fifty-eighth Congress, second session.] A BILL to create a National Arbitration Tribunal and to define the duties and powers thereof. Be it enacted l)y the Senate and House of Hepresentatives of the United States of America in Congress assemMed, That there shall be created a National Arbitration Tribunal, to consist of six members, one of whom as member ex officio shall be the Secretar}^ of Commerce and Labor, and the other members thereof shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. The members of the Tribunal first appointed under this Act shall continue in office for the terms of two, three, four, five, and six years, respec- tively, from the first day of July, anno Domini nineteen hundred and four, the term of each to be designated by the President; but their successors shall be appointed for terms '^f six years, except that any person chosen to fill a vacancy shall be appointed bj^ the President only for the unexpired term of the member whom he shall' succeed. Any member of the Tribunal may be removed by the President for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office. No vacanc.y in the Tribunal shall impair the right of the remaining members thereof to exercise all the powers of the Tribunal as conferred by this Act: Provided^ That at least three of the appointive members of said Tri- bunal shall constitute a quorum necessarj^ for the transaction of busi- ness. The Secretar}^ of Commerce and Labor, who shall be a member ex officio of the Tribunal, shall have the same powers and perform the same duties as the other members of the Tribunal, but shall not have the power to cast a vote. Each member of the Tribunal, other than the Secretarj^ of Com- merce and Labor, appointed in accordance with the provisions of this Act, shall receive an annual salary of eight thout^and dollars. Sec. 2. That the Tribunal shall without delay, after the appointment of its members, organize by electing a president and a vice-president from among its members. Said Tribunal shall employ a secretary, at a salary of four thousand dollars per annum, and such clerks and other 2 NATIONAL ARBITRATION TRIBUNAL. employees for both temporary and permanent service as may be nec- essary, and such secretary, clerks, and employees shall perform such duties as said Tribunal shall direct; and said Tribunal shall have the power to discharge such persons so employed as it may deem expe- dient. Each of the members of the Tribunal and its secretary shall take an oath, before a justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, to support the Constitution of the United States, and to honestly, fairl3', and faithfuUj' perform his duties as such officer. No member of the Tribunal and no employee or agent of said Tri- bunal shall accept, in addition to his salary, any perquisite or gratuity of any kind whatsoever from any corporation, association, partner- ship, or individual in any way interested in any matter or thing pend- ing or about to be brought before the Tribunal in accordance with the provisions of this Act. The accepting of such perquisite or gratuity by any of the persons mentioned from any corporation, association, partnership, or individual shall be deemed a misdemeanor, and the person guilty of such accepting shall be punished by a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, or by imprisonment for not more than two years, or both, in the disci'etion of the court having jurisdiction of the offense: Provided, hoirevei\ That no member of said Tribunal shall take part in the consideration or determination of any controversy or petition in which he has any direct or indirect pecuniary interest, or when he has any such interest in either of the parties thereto. And in case that any member of the Tribunal shall be so disqualified in any particular case, the President of the United States shall appoint some disinterested person to take the place of such member for the partic- idar case in question, and such temporary appointee shall be paid at the same rate during his term of service as are the members of the Tribunal, and his expenses shall be similarl}' paid. The Tribunal shall prepare and adopt an official seal, which, when approved by the President of the United States, shall be the seal of the Tribunal. The regular and permanent place of meeting of the Tribunal shall be the city of Washington, in the District of Columbia; but the Tri- bunal may hold its meetings elsewhere in the United States, tempo- rarily, when it maj^ deem it expedient so to do. There shall be assigned to the Tribunal by the Secretary of Com- merce and Labor suitable rooms, vaults, furniture and fixtures, with the necessary fuel, lights, and other proper conveniences for the trans- action of the business of the Tribunal. Seo. 3. That whenever there shall arise a controversy^ within the United States concerning wages, hours of labor, or conditions of employment between employer or employers, being an individual, partnership, association, corporation, or other combination, and his, their, or its employees, or any association or combination of such employees, in which controversy a strike or lockout is threatened or exists, and in which controversy there is involved any commerce with foreign nations, or among the several States, or with the Indian tribes, or when such controversy arises within any of the Territories of the United States, or the District of Columbia, it shall be competent and lawful for either party to such controversy to present to the Tribunal a petition setting forth plainly and fully the claims and demands of said party in the particular case in question, which petition shall be made on a blank form in accordance with rules which shall be made in NATIONAL ARBITRATION TRIBUNAL. 3 pui'suance of this Act by said Tribunal, which forms shall, on applica- tion being made therefor by either party, be furnished to the same, without expense, by the Tribunal; and such petition shall be duly sworn to by the party complaining, in accordance with the rules made in pursuance of this Act. The petition, in addition to setting forth plamly and fully its said claims and demands, shall in substance be a request to the Tribunal to investigate all matters involved therein, and to render a decision on the merits of the said claims and demands, in accordance with the provisions of this Act; and said petition shall express also a full agreement, in such form as shall be prescribed by said rules, on the part of the parties to said agreement to accept and abide by the decision of said Tribunal as to the matters involved in said petition, and to accept said decision as a final and binding award upon the parties thereto, and to accept and submit to all the powers and authority of said Tribunal as expressed in this Act, and to all the rules and regulations made in pursuance thereof. And the Tribunal may require that the terms of submission to such arbitration shall include an agreement as to the length of time for which the award of the Tribunal shall remain in force: And provided. That the Tribunal, in its discretion, deems the petition and subject- matter involved therein to be such as to warrant the exercise of its functions in relation thereto, it shall then be the duty of the Tribunal, within a reasonable time after it shall have received the petition, to transmit, in such manner as may be prescribed by the rules of the Tribunal, a true copy of the same to the other party to the contro- versy, requesting said other party to make a sworn answer thereto within a number of days, to be determined by the rules of the Tribu- nal, and if said other party shall neglect or refuse to make said answer within such number of days and to submit the matters in controversy to the arbitration of the said Tribunal in the form and manner above described, and to agree in such form and manner to accept and abide by the decision of the Tribunal as to the matters involved in the said petition, the petition shall be made known to the public by the Tribu- nal as provided hereinafter: Provided, however, That said Tribunal shall have the power to correct said petition in such manner as to secure a clear and definite presentation of the case involved without, however, changing the substance of said petition. Sec. 4. That if said other party, as named and described in the fore- going section, shall make a complete and full sworn answer to the petition therein provided for and shall so submit in such manner and form said controversj' to the arbitration of the Tribunal and shall so agree to accept and abide by the decision of the Tribunal as to the "matters involved in the said petition and answer, then the Tribunal shall without delay proceed in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules thereunder which it shall hereafter adopt to investi- gate privately (unless both parties consent to a public investigation) the matters and things involved in the said controversj', determine the merits of the same on the basis of right and equitj% and render its decision thereon, which decision shall be definitely and distinctively an affirmative or negative decision on each of the claims of both par- ties to the controversy, respectively: Provided, however, That said Tribunal, of its own motion, may also make additional findings and recommendations for the purpose of adjusting such controversy. And if the parties to the controversy shall accept the decision of 4 NATIONAL ARBITRATION TRIBUNAL. the Tribunal thereon rendered, and act in accordance therewith, then the petition, the answer, the testimony, and the entire record of the Tribunal in relation to the controversy shall be held and kept private forever and shall not be made public by the Tribunal without the con- sent of both parties to the arbitration; and such consent shall be expressed to the Tribunal in accordance with the rules which it shall hereafter adopt. If such consent is so expressed, then the petition, the answer, and so much of the testimony and of the record of the proceedings of the Tribunal in relation to the controversy as the Tri bunal shall deem best shall be made public as hereinafter provided. If one of the parties to the controversy, having agreed to accept the decision of the Tribunal and to act in accordance therewith, neglects or refuses so to act, the petition, the answer, and so much of the testi- mony and of the record of the proceedings of the Tribunal in relation to tlie controversj' as the Tribunal shall deem best shall be made pub- lic as provided hereinafter: Provided^ however. That the approval of the consenting party to such publication shall be expressed to the Tri- bunal in accordance with the rules which it shall hereafter adopt: And provided also, That such consenting partj^ acts in accordance with the decision, or in good faith endeavors or offers so to do. If both of the parties to the controversy, having agreed to accept the decision of the Tribunal and act in accordance therewith, neglect or refuse so to act, the petition, the answer, and so much of the testimony of and of the record of the proceedings of the Tribunal in relation to the con- troversy as the Tribunal shall deem best shall be made public as pro- vided hereinafter. Each of the parties to the controvers}' shall have the right, at any time while the Tribunal is investigating the matters and things involved in the same and before its decision is finalh' announced, to modif j' or othei'wise amend (subject to the rules of said Tribunal) any of its claims theretofore presented to the Tribunal; and thereupon such proceedings shall be had as may be provided for by the rules of the Tribunal. Sec. 5. That whenever it shall appear to the Tribunal that there exists in the United States a controvers}^ concerning wages, hours of labor, or conditions of employment between an emploj^er or employ- ers, being an individual, partnership, association, corporation, or other combination, and his or their employees or any association or combi- nation of his or their employees, in which controversy a strike or lock- out is threatened or exists, and in which controversy there is involved any commerce with foreign nations or among the several States or with the Indian tribes, or when such controversj' arises within any of the Territories of the United States or the District of Columbia, it shall be competent and lawful for the Tribunal to request both of the said parties to such controversj' to submit in writing their respective claims and demands to arbitration and accept and abide by the decision of the Tribunal as to the matters involved in the said conti'oversy in accord- ance with the foregoing provisions of. this Act and with the rules made thereunder, which decision shall be detinitely and distinctly an affirma- tive or negative decision on each of the claims of both parties to the controversy, respectively: Provided, howevei% That said Tribunal, of its own action, may also make additional findings and i-ecommendations for the purpose of adjusting such controversy. The said Tribunal shall keep a record of all requests so made, and in the event of neither of the said parties replying and acceding to a request so made, a rec- NATIONAL ARBITRATION TRIBUNAL. 5 ord of such fact shall be made and kept and published in the manner provided in section seven of this Act. In the event of but one of the said parties replying.- and acceding to a request so made, the same action shall be taken by said Tribunal as is provided for similar cases in sections three and four of this Act: Provided, hoioever, That in all cases under this Act if any partj'^ against whom a petition is brought or to whom such request of the Tribunal as provided in this section is made believes that the controversy is one which is not within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, or one which for any reason the Tribunal should not take cognizance of, such party may lirst present a prelim- inary answer setting forth such belief and the facts upon which it is based, which preliminary answer shall be considered by the Tribunal, and said Tribunal shall then take such further action in view thereof and under the provisions of this Act as to the dismissal of further con- sideration of the case as the Tribunal shall deem just and equitable. Sec. 6. That during the pendency before the Tribunal of any peti- tion and answer thereto or claims and demands submitted in accord- ance with the provisions of section five of this Act the parties having made such petition and answer, respectively, or having so submitted such claims and demands, shall refrain from ordering or participating in any strike or lockout, and shall resume and continue their former relations with each other as though no controversy existed between the said parties. If at any time during the pendency before the Tri- bunal of an^r petition, and answer thereto or claims and demands sub- mitted in accordance with the provisions of section five of this Act, one of the said parties shall refuse or neglect to refrain from ordering or participating in any strike or lockout, and shall refuse or neglect to resume such former relations with the other party as though no con- troversy existed between the said parties, then the proceedings of the Tribunal in relation to the controversy shall be terminated, and there- upon the petition, the answer, and as much of the testimony and of the record of the proceedings of the Tribunal in relation to the con- troversy as the Tribunal shall deem best, shall be made public as pro- vided hereinafter: Provided, however. That the approval of the con- senting party to their being so made public shall be expressed to the Tribunal in accordance with the rules which it shall hereafter adopt: And provided further, That if, in the opinion of the Tribunal, either partj' shall use any of the provisions of this section for the purpose of unjustly maintaining a given condition of affairs through delajr, the said Tribunal may, in its discretion, exempt the other party to said controversy from the operations of this section. If at any time dur- ing the pendency before the Tribunal of any petition and answer thereto, or of claims and demands submitted in accordance with the provisions of section live of this Act, both of said parties shall so refuse or neglect to refrain from ordering, commencing, or participating in any such strike or lockout, all the proceedings of the Tribunal in rela- tion to the controversy shall be terminated; and thereupon the peti- tion, the answer, and so much of the testimony and of the record of the proceedings of the Tribunal in relation to the controversy as the Tribunal shall deem best, shall be made public as provided hereinafter. Sec. 7. That the Tribunal shall pi'epare and publish periodically, as it may determine, a bulletin for public circulation, in which shall appear the record of all its decisions as made from time to time and all sworn petitions hereinbefore provided for and duly presented to the 6 NATIONAL ARBITRATION TRIBUNAL. Tribunal to which no answers shall have been made in accordance with the provisions of this Act, and such communications, written corre- spondence, papers and documents relating to the subject-matter of said last-named petitions, as the Tribunal in its discretion shall determine, and all requests made by the Tribunal in accordance with the provisions of section five of this Act, and also the petitions, answers, and so much of the testimony and of the records of proceedings as the Tribunal shall deem best, and the publication of which is authorized under the provisions of sections four and five of this Act. Sec. 8. That the parties to a controversj^ shall be entitled to be rep- resented before the Tribunal in such manner as shall hereafter be determined bj^ the Tribunal in such rules of procedure as it maj' adopt. The decision of the Tribunal on anj^ controversy shall relate to the controversy as it existed on the date of the filing of the petitions, and shall be operative as of that date: Provided^ That if said Tribunal shall find that the conditions involved in the controversy have materi- ally changed subsequent to the filing of the petition, said Tribunal may modify its decision so that said decision, when rendered shall, in equity and justice, be in accordance with such change in conditions. Sec. 9. That the Tribunal, or any one member thereof, shall have power to administer oaths and afiirmations, and to sign subpoenas, and for the purposes of this Act said Tribunal shall have power to require by subpoena the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the produc- tion of all books, papers, tarifts, contracts, agreements, and documents relating to any matter under investigation. Such attendance of wit- nesses, and the production of such documentar}- evidence, as maj^ be required fi'ora any place in the United States at any designated place of hearing. And in case of disobedience to the subpoena the Tribunal may invoke the aid of any court of the United States in requiring such attendance and testimony of witnesses, and such production of books, papers, tarifl's, contracts, and agreements. Any circuit court of the United States within the jurisdiction of which such inquiry is carried on may, in case of contumacy or refusal to obey a subpoena issued subject to the provisions of this Act to any person, issue an order requiring such person to appear before said Tribunal, and produce books and papers if so ordered, and give evidence touch- ing the matter in question, and any failure to obey such order of the court maj' be punished by such court as a contempt thereof. No per- sons shall be excused from attending and testifying or from producing books, papers, tariffs, contracts, agreements, and documents before the Tribunal or in obedience to the subpoena of the same, whether such subpoena be signed or issued by one or more members of the Tribunal, on the ground or for the reason that the testimonjr or evidence, docu- mentary or othei'wise, required of him, may tend to ci'iniinate him or subject him to a penalty or forfeiture. But no person shall be prose- cuted or subjected to any penalty or forfeiture for or on account of any transaction, matter, or thing concerning which he may testify, or produce evidence, documentary or otherwise, before said Tribunal or in obedience to its subpoena or the subpoena of any one of the members thereof, or in any case or proceeding: Provided^ further^ That no per- son so testifying shall be exempt from prosecution and punishment for the perjury committed in so testifjdng. The witnesses summoned before the Tribunal shall be paid the same fees and mileage as are paid to witnesses in the courts of the United States. NATIONAL ARBITRATION TRIBUNAL. ( Upon the request of the Tribunal it shall be the dut.v of any district attorne\- of the United States to whom said Tribunal may apply to institute in the proper court and to prosecute, under the direction of the Attorney-General of the United States, all necessary proceedings for the enforcement of the provisions of this section, and for the pun- ishment of all violations thereof, and the costs and expenses of such prosecutions shall be paid out of the appropriations for the expenses of the courts of the United States. The testimony- of any witness maj' be taken, at the instance of a party in any proceeding or investigation pending before the Tribunal, by deposition at an}' time after a cause or proceeding is at issue on petition and answer. The Tribunal may also order testiujon^^ to be taken by deposition in any proceeding or investigation pending before it at any stage of such proceeding or investigation. Such depositions may be taken before any judge of any court of the United States, or any commissioner of a circuit or any clerk of a district or circuit court, or any chancellor, justice, or judge of a supreme or superior court, ma3'or or chief magistrate of a citj', judge of a county court or court of common pleas of any of the United States, or an}' notary public, not being of counsel or attorne}' to either of the parties nor interested in the event of the proceeding or investigation. Reason- able notice must first be given in writing by the party or his attorney of record, which notice shall state the name of the witness and the time and place of the taking of his deposition. Any person may be compelled to appear and depose and to produce documentary evidence in the same manner as witnesses may be compelled to appear and tes- tify and produce documentary evidence before the Tribunal as herein- before provided. Ever}' person deposing as herein provided shall be cautioned and sworn (or affirm, if he so request) to testify the whole truth, and shall be carefully examined. His testimony shall be reduced to writing by the officer taking the deposition, or under his direction, and shall, after it has been reduced to writing, be subscribed by the deponent. If a witness whose testimony may be desired to be taken l)y deposi- tion be in a foreigii country, the deposition may be taken before an officer or person designated by the Tribunal, or agreed upon by the parties by stipulation in writing to be filed with the Tribunal. All depositions must be promptly filed with the president. Witnesses whose depositions are taken pursuant to this Act, and the magistrate or other officer taking the same, shall severally be entitled to the same fees as are paid for like ser\'ices in the courts of the United States. Sec. 10. That the Tribunal, or its duly appointed agents, may, whenever it deems it expedient, after an agreement for arbitration between the parties to the controversy has been made, enter and inspect any institution, establishment, factory, workshop, or mine belonging to either party, and may employ competent experts to examine the accounts, books, and official reports of either party, and to examine and report on any matter material to the investigation, but shall not disclose such reports or the results of said inspection or examination under this section without the consent of both the parties to the controvei'sy. except as provided in section four of this Act. Sec. 11. That the Tribunal may, from time to time, make such rules and orders not inconsistent with this Act as mav be deemed proper for O NATIONAL AKBITEATION TRIBUNAL. the regulating and conducting of its investigations and proceedings, and for the providing of blank forms for petitions and all other neces- sary blank forms, and for making petitions and answers, and for the prescribing of the method of serving copies of petitions, notices, and all other papers upon the parties, or a party, to any controversy of which it shall take cognizance under the provisions of this Act, and from time to time may make such other rules as may be necessary for the proper enforcement of this Act. Sec. 12. That the Tribunal shall make an annual report to Congress at the commencement of its regular session. Sec. 13. That all expenses of the Tribunal, including all necessary expenses for transportation incurred by the members thereof, or by its employees under its orders, in making investigations under this Act, or upon official business in any other places than the city of Washington, salaries of employees and agents, and fees and mileage of witnesses shall be allowed and paid upon the presentation of item- ized vouchers therefor, approved by the president of the Tribunal. Sec. 14. That a decision by a majority of the voting members of the Tribunal engaged in the consideration of a case shall constitute a decision of the Tribunal. In cases where either of the parties has in a previous controversy failed or refused to abide by the award of the Tribunal, and in such other cases as the Tribunal shall deem to be exceptional in their nature, the Tribunal may, in its discretion, require that both parties to the controvers}^ hie with the Tribunal a proper bond conditioned for the performance of the award of the Tribunal, made pa}rable each party to the other party in the sum fixed bj^ the Tribunal, and in case the conditions of said bond be broken by either party, the penalty shall be forfeited to the other party and shall be recoverable in an action at law in any court of the United States in the district where the plaintiff resides, and an order of the Tribunal declaratory of such forfeiture shall be taken and held as prima facie evidence thereof. No new petition between the same parties and upon the same subject of controversy shall be received or acted upon within less than one year after the rendering of a decision by said Tribunal as between such parties and on such subject-matter except with the concurrence of both of such parties. Sec. 15. That whenever a controversy of such special character or difficulty arises as to call for such action as hereinafter set forth, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, in his discre- tion, and it shall be his duty when so requested by the Tribunal, in its discretion, to appoint, without confirmation by the Senate, two addi- tional persons as members of said Tribunal for the purposes of such particular controversy. The Tribunal so enlarged shall have, for all the purposes of said controversj^ all the powers and duties hereinbe- fore set forth, except the power of further enlargement and except that four appointive members shall then constitute the necessary quo- rum for the transaction of business. The two additional members shall be paid at the same rate as the other members for the time of their service until final award and decision, and their expenses as such membei's shall be similarly paid. In an_v controversy of minor importance the Tribunal, in its discre- tion, may delegate to any member thereof the power and duty of hear- ing and considering the same and of making an award thereon, subject, NATIONAL ARBITRATION TRIBUNAL. 9 however, to a right of appeal, under such rules as the Tribunal may prescribe, in favor of either party, to the full Tribunal, and such appeal may relate to and include the award or the facts upon which it is based or both. Sec. 16. That this Act shall take effect upon its passage. The Chairman. We will be glad to hear you, Mr. Foster, in regard to this bill. STATEMENT OF VOLNEY W. FOSTER. The Chairman. You have a copj^ of the bill before you, Mr. Foster? Mr. Foster. Yes. The Chairman. You may proceed. Mr. Foster. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, as you are advised, hearings have been had on this bill before the House com- mittee, and if I am permitted I will file the reports of such meetings. The Chairman. You will file your remarks before that committee. Mr. Foster. There was a hearing, and it would involve not only the filing of my remarks but the T'emai-ks of others. I do not know what the proceeding is here or whether that will be permitted in making the record. Senator Dolliver. That will not be necessary, because the House heai'ing is accessible to the Senate, and if it were not it could be reprinted as a Senate document. Mr. Foster. My only object in that suggestion was to economize your time, and to get out of the way as soon as possible for Bishop Spalding. Bishop Spalding. I think, gentlemen, it would be more important to hear Mr. Foster than me. He is far more identified with the bill, of course, and knows more about it. The Chairman. You had better explain the bill in j'our own waj', Mr. Foster, and you can incorporate anything of 3'our own before the other committee. Mr. Foster. The undertaking to formulate this bill grew out of the consideration of the power of public opinion as manifested on many occasions in our countiy. The question that was raised (and probably by no means a new one) was whether this great dominating force might not be harnessed and directed for the service of societv- To invite, and perhaps to compel by moral force, peace between warring factions of our industrial activities. After contemplation of this for some time, and after interviews with wiser men, and after the suggestion of the outline of what such a bill might be, I received such encouragement as induced me to endeavor to formulate it in language. I then had it printed with a wide margin. 1 called it "a printers' proof," and sent it to many of our people engaged in various activities, asking for comment and criticism. Answers came and comments were made, many of them of value, and the whole has resulted in the bill that was introduced in the Senate and is now before you. It is believed bj' the author of the bill that it can in many respects be improved in the language used, but it is hoped that the real anatomy of the bill can be saved. That there is a necessity for some method of inviting and inducing 10 TSIATIONAL ARBITRATION TRIBUNAL. peace between these two great factors of our country there can be no question. The meager data that we have concerning strilses and lock- outs in our Government reports, brought down to 1900, shows us nearly $500,000,000 of loss in the twenty years preceding that date, and all directly chargeable to these contests and differences. Unfor- tunately for this argument the statistician has not recorded the num- ber of deaths and the violences ending in a wounding of individuals that were incident to strikes and lockouts. In the arbitrations sometimes occurring between employer and labor it has been frequently found that the differences were small — that it was little things and not great things that were inflaming — and agree- ments have been reached. A notable incident, told by Commissioner Wright, touching arbitration was the appointment of two arbitrators representing violently opposed interests in France, with the expecta- tion that the}' should appoint a third man, who would, in fact, be the deciding judge, and the finding that these men, both called radicals, were able to agree on the differences between the two elements with- out calling in the third man. It is believed that a tribunal organized as proposed would invite and hold the confidence of all our people. It might be (as it would be a new arm of the Government) that contestants would come to use it a little slowly and perhaps with some suspicion, such as alwaj's exists between those who have been in bitter opposition; but it is also believed, inasmuch as it would become one of the most dignified bodies in the world, that it would be a place where the rich and poor would stand alike, where the law's delays, which frequently hinder and impede justice, could not prevail, where in fact a moral obligation would have all the force of a legal standing, that it would be unique and useful to everj^ good purpose of society. That there is need for a better condition than now prevails there can be no doubt. I will not endeavor to make an inventory of the terrors that have accompanied these industrial struggles in various pai'ts of our country. They are, of course, known to j'ou. The paper j^ou took up yesterdaj' and the one you had this morning and the one j'ou will read to-morrow will note much of disorder and perhaps of tragic event traceable to these differences. It is, I believe, a fact that the moral and ethical teacher is in the vanguard of those who are ultimatel}' to make for us statutor}' laws. That which is the well-recognized moral obligation of man to man at this time differs very much from the technical legal obligation that can be enforced under the law. The attempt in this tribunal is not to undertake the chimerical, but to recognize the moral as well as the legal obligation of man to man. To my judgment, in well-defined law lies the foundation of our Government. These disturbances and this turmoil could not prevail excepting for the moral obligation that men recognize, and that the community recognizes, and that creates a public opinion that prevents a police enforcement of the law in such cases which, being unhindered by this sentiment, would compel peace, even the peace that seizes upon the breast when the spirit has departed. If we are right that a tribunal organized in this manner, selected, as it would be, from the best men of our country, would invite and hold the confidence of warring factions, would compel to a verj' considerable degree industrial peace, then there is no more profitable undertaking NATIONAL ARBITRATION TRIBUNAL. 11 than its earh' and complete establishment. It has been said that it might be used as a political instrument, that politics might control the appointment of these men. I am glad that I do not believe it. Standing in the clear light and under the close observation of all parts of our society, and, better than that, in the light of the world, in undertaking; to solve the most diffi- cult of all problems, the best that lies in a President in making his selections and the best that could lie in men in the exercise of their duties would prevail. To say that men may err is to make no argu- ment, for we must be dependent upon men for the execution of laws and for the dispensation of justice, and under men we must live and prosper or perish. Therefore 1 do not think that the suspicion or the suggestion that such a tribunal might fall into the hands of wicked men and be used for wicked purposes need be considered. Before that has come to pass anarchy will have already seized upon us. I do not believe that every disorder is anarchy. Some disorders are wholesome and point the political doctor to the place of the disease and to the moral doctor in our society the place of the need of his services. But considering the tremendous losses — financial losses — and, worse than that, the losses of moral character, where factions are inflamed against each other, where little children taunt the children of others, where homes are terrorized or where in the heart of the emploj'er the good impulses that might have been have been driven out and the ardor toward his fellow-man has been cooled. Those effects of these contests are even more damaging to society than the loss that may be measui'ed in money. It was thought desirable that we might utilize all the organized information that existed or would exist in the magnificent Department of Commerce and Labor, and that the Secretary of the Department might become a very useful factor as an ex officio member of the tri- bunal. In order that the Administration might not be directly respon- sible for the verdict of the tribunal, it was provided that the Secretary of Commerce and Labor might not vote. I have had some few criticisms saying the proposed salaries were too large, which I thought were too small. We want the ablest men that can be had in the United States for this service, and we would like, of course, being a commercial nation, to get them just as cheaply as we can, but I think the price named is as small as will command such service. Senator Dolliver. What salary do you name? Mr. Foster. Eight thousand dollars. I will hastily go through the bill, if you will permit me. I will be glad to take it up, in response to interrogatories, section by section. You will observe that one of the conditions prescribed after the tribu- nal is organized is that they shall furnish blank forms on which com- plaints to it may be made. It has been my experience many times that when an indefinite complaint had been reduced to form and ready for signature and affidavit the complaint had answered itself. Extraneous matter would not be allowed in such an application or complaint, and it is believed that many of the difficulties would be solved when the complaint had been put upon paper. Careless statements would not look well to the prudent mind that would probably somewhere along the line have a chance to review them before they were recorded. It is provided, first, that there shall be a permanent tribunal. It 12 NATIONAL ARBITRATION TRIBUNAL. has been suggested, by bills and by monographs other than bills, that a special tribunal would meet the needs of these emergencies. It is, however, believed that a permanent tribunal would have access to accmnulated information. They would have acquired knowledge that can only be obtained by dealing with these questions. Conditions do not differ so much from each other as is sometimes thought. Business propositions do not differ so very much from each other. The extraor- dinary mystery of certain kinds of business has been urged by some, and how fatal it would be to have the inexperienced undertake to say what was right and equitable in a certain kind of business. 1 would urge as against that, having had some experience in business of several kinds, that there are not more than three or four or five great principles lying beneath business and the relations of men to men where a tribu- nal is simply seeking to equitably administer the case that is before them. Therefore I say that those possessing extraordinary technical knowl- edge on particular subjects might be embarrassed by it in dealing with the rights and equities of complainants and defendants. In regard to the special commission we have in a way compromised with that idea by providing for a permanent tribunal, and also pro- viding that the President may, of his own motion, appoint two special members on any occasion where he thinks it proper, and that he shall appoint such special members on the request of the other members of the tribunal. You will also observe that the author of the bill has been careful not to prescribe too many small rules for the government of the proposed tribunal, but it is left for the most part to make rules and regulations for itself. You will observe also that the bill has been carefully drawn to avoid the criticisms of the constitutional lawyer, although we have used a pretty large and what is becoming almost a general term, "Interstate business." The Chairman. Mr. Foster, if it does not divert you, permit me to make an observation just there. You provide that in the case of a controversy concerning wages and hours of labor that if in that con- troversy a strike is threatened, and in it there is involved commerce between the States or foreign nations, that then it shall be competent and lawful for either party to the controversy to present to the tri- bunal a petition asking for the application of this machinery to settle the dispute. Mr. Foster. Yes. The Chairman. That is, a petitioner alleges that the dispute is in respect of a matter which is at the time a subject of interstate com- merce. Of course you do that in order to make it applicable in the States as well as in the Territories. Congress might, in the District of Columbia and in the Territories, establish tribunals which it could not make operative in the States. The mei'e allegation which seeks to give jurisdiction does not give it. If it should develop that the subject-matter was not interstate com- merce, then this bill, if a law, I apprehend, would cease to apply. It has been said in the Sugar Trust case that commerce begins after manufacture ends, and in the Knight case it was held that the manu- facture of sugar, with a purpose to control the output and price and distribution throughout the United States, was not within the scope of the antitrust law; that the manufacture of sugar — which was the NATIONAL ARBITRATION TRIBUNAL. 13 matter which was there assailed — for the purpose of distribution throughout the United States, was a subject with which Congress could not interfere. Now, nearly all of these strikes and controversies which j^ou endeav- ored to assuage or terminate would seem likelv to arise in manu facturing or mining. Is not that so? Mr. Foster. Many; but many also in transportation. The Chairman. There would be manj^ in transportation. In Canada a bill recently passed the Canadian parliament, introduced by the Hon. Sir William Mulock, minister of labor, providing for compul- sory arbitration in transportation. In Canada they nave no such constitutional restrictions as hinder your very admirable purpose; but here we have them. Senator Dolliver. Does that Canadian statute apph' to anj^ contro- versies except those arising in transportation? The Chairman. I intended to say, if I did not, that is a bill for the settlement of railway labor disputes and a compulsory settlement of disputes in matters of transportation. You, I see by your bill, readily appreciate that we could not have a compulsory arbitration here. Mr. Foster. It would not be desirable. The Chairman. You intend to have what has in England so greatlj' helped to terminate or to forestall strikes and lockouts, boards of con- ciliation, I apprehend? Mr. Foster. Yes. The Chairman. You really want a board of conciliation? Mr. Foster. Yes. The Chairman. You do not here provide, and j^ou wisety omit to provide, any compulsory features or to add an}' punishment even after parties have agreed to submit their matters to arbitration. Senator Dolliver. How do you get the opposite part}' into court '. The Chairman. I was just coming to that. When one party comes in by petition and alleges a matter of interstate commerce and the other party denies it is interstate commerce, your tribunal can then try to determine whether it be interstate commerce? Mr. Foster. Yes. It is especially provided in the bill that the defendant or the party answering maj' make a brief on the line that the case is not within the scope of the tribunal. The Chairman. Now, if it be mining or manufacturing, would you then be content that the matter should there drop? Mr. Foster. I will confess to you, Mr. Chairman, that I have not endeavored to go deeply into where State business stops and interstate business begins. 1 have not attempted that. Senator Dolliver. What I want to inquire is how you get the opposite party before this tribunal ( Mr. Foster. Under the bill a party may complain of conditions in such form as shall be prescribed by the tribunal. Such a complaint would be a decorous one, and there would be no extraneous matter and no inflaming language in it. The tribunal would then communi- cate a copy of this complaint to the other party, requesting that such party come before the tribunal for the adjustment of these differences. Then, after passing through all of the machinery provided for by the bill, we come to the penalty. Your question is, Suppose he does not appear? Then it is provided that the tribunal shall publish the sworn complaint in their bulletin — 14 NATIOKAL ARBITRATION TRIBUNAL. which shall be their own organ — together with such correspondence as may have passed between the tribunal and the party, ending in a refusal to submit to arbitration. The complaint shall be published in full and the fact that the other party would not respond and would not arbitrate. To those who believe there is no force in public opin- ion and that this moral penalty is not a compelling one this bill would have no value whatever, but there are those who believe that it is stronger than an armed force and more to be feared than serried ranks or police clubs. Senator Dollivee. Suppose there is a labor controversy between a man who desires to work and has entered into an agreement with his employer relative to the terms upon which he shall work, who finds himself driven from his occupation by others claiming the exclusive right to furnish the auspices under which labor under that employer shall be employed. Is there any provision for a case of that kind? Mr. Foster. The language of the bill, referring to those who may avail themselves of its provisions, is "organization, combination, association, or individual." It is broad enough to take in a union or to take in an individual. Senator Doi.liver. 1 have heard employers speak here who claimed that it is their right to employ a man who is satisfactory to them and who has the right to work on terms that are satisfactory to him. Is that a question which, under our institutions, he should be held to answer a controversy about ? Suppose there was a controversj^ between an employer who takes the position that he has the right to employ labor and that the laborer has the right to answer his emploj'ment. Would a controversy like that be cognizable before this tribunal? Mr. Foster. As I understand your inquir}' it is whether this tribu- nal would undertake to settle the power of a particular organization to insist that all of the employees in an^' establishment should belong to the same organization. Senator Dolliver. That seems to be the most difficult point of con- tact between labor and capital just now. Mr. Foster. It is pi'ovided in this bill that the tribunal maj' reject anj' case if, in its judgment, it is one that might not properl}' or profit- ably come before it. I have not thought about the question whether they would take up a matter of that kind or not. The Chairman. I would like to suggest that for sevei'al hundred 3'ears such questions have been dealt with by the criminal law as by imprisonment, or pecuniary penalties have been imposed by the com- mon law in actions for damages, and the equity courts have restrained one individual from interfering with the personal liberty and property rights of another. I apprehend that you do not mean that this commission would be a panacea for all evils; but that what you intend is to limit it mainly to strikes and lockouts by associations of employers and employees and other like matters. You certainlv do not intend that this tribunal, a voluntary one, shall be established alongside of the compulsory pro- cesses of the judicial system of our countr\'? Mr. Foster. Certainly not. The Chairman. I submit that the courts would have to deal with such propositions as the Senator from Iowa has just indicated, and they alone could do so. That would not be interstate. Senator Dolliver. My opinion is that the most difficult misunder- NATIONAL ARBITRATION TRIBUNAL. 1 standing between emploj-ers and employees does not arise out of th rights of labor which is emplo3'ed, but does arise out of certain clain: of right made by people who are seeking employment outside of th organizations of labor. That is the basis of the most protracted an bloody labor controversy we have had in the western portion of on country within the last few years. It seemed to a great many peopl in cities like Omaha that civilization would be greatly weakened if thf was deemed to be a debatable question. Mr. Foster. The remarks of the chairman touching such disordei would seem to indicate that such matters are already provided for b the courts. Senator Dolliver. The men employed in the Union Pacific Railroa shops in Omaha quit work because of the appearance in the shop c certain persons who were not connected with their union. They struc and for over a year maintained practically a state of war against th Union Pacific Railroad Company on the question of throwing out c the shops the persons who are not connected with the union. Mr. 1 OSTER. In what form such a case as that could come before th: tribunal I do not know. They certainly would not undertake to con pound what has been described as a crime. Senator Dolliver. It is not crime for a union to quit work. Mr. Foster. Certainly not. Senator Dolliver. In that case the only disagreement with th company appeared to be on the question of unionizing the shops of th road. It would seem that there are several parties to that controvers besides the employer and the union. Mr. Foster. I do not conceive that this tribunal would be orgar ized directly for the purpose of unionizing labor; but I do believe thf in the peaceful conditions which would prevail under such a bill unior izing would go on much easier than it has done, and whollj' dissoc ated from its unfortunate disorders and wasteful methods. I do nc think it would be a function of this board to declare on the question c unionizing labor, because it is not so provided. The union would hav to stand as an organization just as any other organization would, a the bill reads. It really comes to the question as to whether this principle is a ust ful one in the settlement of differences that exist and will exist; the is, whether the moral force of the community is a compelling forct A prominent railroad man from the West said to me that he did nc think any railroad organization in this country could stand for thirt days without serious embarrassment in contempt of the verdict c this court. An organization which goes before the court does so a an organization. It does so with a particular name, title, or numbei The complaint that is made is sworn to by a responsible oflicer of th organization. Evidence may be furnished of the membership of that organizatior Every item in the bill is sworn to. An organization, be it union o nonunion, is incorporated, morally, when such a document is made an the membership disclosed. Whether they have a little money in th treasury or not is a matter of little consequence. To stand in cor tempt of the decision of such a tribunal would, in m\' judgment, nc only embarrass the corporation, but would embarrass any organizatior and they would go out of business under that particular name or nun ber and their oflicers would be discredited. 16 NATIONAL ARBITRATION TRIBUNAL. Senator Dollivee. Have you noticed the change in the attitude of public opinion toward the arbitration tribunal in New Zealand since bhe country passed from a prosperous condition to a somewhat depressed financial strait? Mr. FosTEK. I have; but they are compulsory arbitration tribunals, ind they ought to go out of existence. I do not believe in them. They ire un-American and could not prevail here. I am more than anxious, Mr. Chairman, to stop as soon as 1 have 3aid what may be of some value to you. Standing for the bill as I do, especially for its errors, I decline to disclose the author of its best feature. I therefore am standing for the bill. By a Divine Providence I was afflicted this winter in such a way as made it necessar}^ for me to go iway. I say by a Divine Providence because it resulted in an associa- tion and an acquaintance with Bishop Spalding, who is already well known to you and to our country. 1 then had time between groans to discuss the merits and demerits of this bill and carefull}^ analyze it, as El busy Senator might not be able to do unless he also had an attack of gout. I was more than encouraged. At times I got a little shakj^ after 1 had written to one or two of my friends and they said that if there was no opposition to the bill at all they thought it could pass, and things like that. But just about that time I got into communica- tion with Bishop Spalding, and he said the bill was all right, and I took new courage. Senator Dollivee. Is there anj^ place in the world where this scheme has ever been tried? The Chaieman. The English boards of conciliation ai'e somewhere near it. ^ — -"""^ Mr. Foster. No; I do not think so. The Chairman. There is a difference in machinery, but it has the same scope. Senator Dolliver. How does it compare with the arbitration tribu- nals in Massachusetts? Mr. Foster. It is something like their arbitration tribunals, except that those tribunals insist upon making an investigation of affairs without the consent of anybody. They do not wait for consent. Senator Dolliver. When a matter becomes acute, and public interest becomes paramount, thej^ move of their own motion? Mr. Foster. Yes. Senator Dolliver. Do you regard that as a bad feature? Mr. Foster. Perhaps not; but I was trying to make this a very voluntary bill and a very dignified tribunal and a very effective arm of the Government. Of course it takes some imagination to conceive of the merit in the operation of this bill. Senator Dolliver. What would you do in a case where the two antagonists mutually agreed to fight their battle out? Mr. Foster. I think the suggestions made by the chairman would take care of a condition of that kind, when it became acute and dis- turbed the peace of the community. Bishop Spalding. It is hardly conceivable that one or the' other of the parties would not appl}' to the tribunal in the presence of an out- raged public sentiment. Senator Dolliver. I did not notice anj^ voluntary movement toward arbitration in the anthracite coal strike. NATIONAL ARBITKATION TRIBUNAL. 17 Bishop Spalding. Mr. Mitchell certainly volunteered to arbitrate. It is sufficient if one partj' applies for arbitration, and it is then for the other part}' who refuses it to substantiate his refusal by giving reasons which .seem .sufficient. All that is published, so that the pub- lic has the authentic facts as soon as they can be gotten at, and public opinion is brought to bear upon the situation. The Chairman. The coal strike became so veiy acute that the law could not reach so large a proposition, and public sentiment seemed to be so nearly unanimous that somebody should do something. Everj'- body seemed anxious that the President of the United States, as a volunteer, should suggest that something be done. It seems to me that public opinion, up to the time it was submitted to the commission appointed by the President, was quite with the proposition that some- thing must be done by some one. But after it was over and decided a great manj^ people convenient^' forgot that they had ever any desire that this ver}' thing should be done and began to criticise the President for doing a real service to all communities which wanted heat from coal in winter time. Bishop Spalding. I suppose you express the general feeling that really exists, that President Roosevelt did render a real service to the country. Mr. Foster. Before I conclude I would like to read to the com- mittee extracts from a number of communications that have been written in regard to the matter. E. E. Clark, grand chief conductor Order Railway Conductors, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, saj's: A great deal is to be expected from provisions for publicity in these matters. Shall watch with great interest. W. S. Stone, Grand International Brotherhood of Locomotive Engi- neers, Cleveland, Ohio, says: The plan (or a national arbitration tribunal is very good. It should provide for a practical railroad man being a member of the board. Here is one from Alexander H. Revell, of Chicago, one of the largest merchants in the West: I approve. Believe the matter will appeal to the laboring, financial, business, and manufacturing industries of the nation. Because there is plenty there should be peace. There should be a better and higher brotherhood, and if sucli parties, each needing the othei', should each disagree, then let a third party of highest possible dignity and honor come in and say which is the best and right way. Here is a communication from Frank Dufiy, general secretary oi the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America: To begin with, I have always been in favor of arbitration for the settlement oi industrial disputes, but not of compulsory arbitration. There can not be arbitration where there is compulsion. Whatever means may be adopted in the future to bring about peace, harmony, and tranquillity in the industrial field should be voluntary in order to be effective and lasting. The United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, an organization consisting of 175,000 skilled men in the art of carpentry, believe in voluntary arbi- tration. Many other national and international organizations of labor do likewise, and even go so far as to have provisions to that effect in their general laws. The success of any form of arbitration depends to a large extent on the willingness of the parties involved to submit their case to an impartial tribunal for adjudication and to accept the award when rendered in a spirit of fairness, without prejudice or ill feeling, and abide by its provisions. Now that the employers of, labor are combining, organizing, and federating then should be very little diificulty experienced in bringing about a feasible plan of arlai- V > T— 04 2 18 NATIONAL ARBITRATION TRIBUNAL. iration, so that the strikes, lockouts, boycotts, and the consequent hardships and privations they entail may be a thing of the past, never to come to the surface again. If this can be done by the proposed bill, known as H. E. 9491, you will be accom- plishing greater good for the well-being and protection of the American working people than that which was accomplished by our forefathers in days gone by in ;hrowing off the yoke of England and proclaiming freedom and liberty to all who Dwed allegiance to the Stars and Stripes. I hope your bill will be so framed, altered, or amended that it may fully meet the 3nds for which it was intended — a fair, square deal to all. Mr. W. H. Clock, secretarj^-treasurer of the International Shingle Weavers' Union of America, says: I aQi in favor of such a measure, as anything that tends toward industrial peace is greatly needed. Anyone that would refuse to arbitrate before a tribunal that had been appointed by an unbiased President should have their affairs given the fullest publicity. I am under the impression, though, that the salaries fixed for the mem- bers of the board ai-e out of reason. Brains may come high, but I can cite you several of the most profound thinkers in the world that are not drawing half that salary. Walter A. Clarke, secretary-treasurer of the Rhode Island Federa- tion of Labor, says: I am heartily in favor of same and shall bring it before the executive board of the R. I. F. of L., etc. Here is a letter from Mr. William Launer, secretary of the Glass Bottle Blowers' Association of the United States and Canada: I am thoroughly convinced this is a good bill and, if passed and it becomes a law, r am sure that if the provisions of the bill were carried out, as no doubt it is intended thej' should be, a good deal of the trouble between labor and capital could be adjusted. Here is a letter from Mr. James H. Morris, president of the Peoria Local Union of Retail Clerks; I find that it is a bill that if passed without any alterations or amendments would create worlds of good to either capital or labor, or for any purposes the tribunal is appointed. Mr. G. A. Hunter, secretarj' of the Trades and Labor Council, of Lasalle, 111., says: Would say that after a careful consideration of the bill to create a national arbitra- tion tribunal, our body indorses the same and would earnestly recommend its passage. Here is one from J. H. Strief , secretary-treasurer of the Iowa State Federation of Labor: I have read the provisions in the bill pretty thoroughly and assure you I do not hesitate in approving such a policy to be adopted as part of the functions of our National Government. I am for peace in all matters wherever possible, and I always advocate strongly the avoidance of a strike wherever possible in the settlement of labor troubles. All well-regulated trades union organizations always stand ready to arbitrate any difficulties that may arise; but sometimes the opposition will not arbitrate, contend- ing that there is nothing at issue to be arbitrated. With a national arbitration tribunal, as outlined in this bill, both sides to a controversy would be duty bound to arbitrate in case an adjustment can not be reached in a different manner. I suppose it is the intention, should this bill become a law, in selecting the mem- bers of this tribunal to have some members thereon that are reasonably well versed in labor conditions throughout the jurisdiction; composed somewhat, I should say, as was the tribunal selected by President Roosevelt in the anthracite miners' trouble of recent date. I have often thought that a tribunal as outlined in this bill was one of the press- ing needs of this country, and the more I have thought of it the more I am convinced that it would be a good thing. The amount of strife it would do away with and the enormous saving it would make to both employer and employee in the settlement of questions without strikes is hard to estimate, but judging from past experiences the amount would be very large. NATIONAL ARBITRATION TRIBUNAL. 19 Here is one from the National Business League, which is a national organization and has a committee of the largest merchants in every State in the Union: I beg to state that the bill in question has my hearty approval. It is clearly evident that the best interests of employer and employee are so iden- tical in all the various activities of industries and commerce that the one, either individually or through the agency of organized bodies, can not ignore, oppress, or in any way hamper the other except to the detriment of both and to the serious injury of all the people. It is clearly manifest also that drastic measures for the settlement of labor disputes never win. Adjustment of differences under such procedure are but apparent, not real. The sting of compulsion remains to smolder awhile, then breaks out afresh with renewed power. Therefore a cordial welcome to the Foster bill, which would eliminate from all industrial dissensions the imperious commands "You shall" or "You must," and frankly invites tbe employer and emploj'ee — coworkers to a com- mon end — to submit their differences to a tribunal of their unprejudiced fellowmen, appointed and proffered by the National Government to make such fair and peaceful settlement of industrial disputes as will conserve the best interests, preserve the self- respect, and insure the uninterrupted prosperity and happiness of all concerned. I wish 1 could call the committee's attention to the members of the advisory committee of this National Business League. They are the largest employers and merchants in the United States. National Advisory Committee, National Business League. C. G. Ab.ercrombie, president The Montgomery Brewery, Montgomery, Ala. Alexander Rice, wholesale and retail clothier, Montgomery, Ala. W. F. Vandiver & Co., wholesale grocers, Montgomery, Ala. Morris M. Cohn, ex-president Board of Trade, Little Rock, Ark. F. B. T. Hollenberg, president Hollenberg Music Company, Little Rock, Ark. George R. Brown, secretary Little Rock Board of Trade, Little Rock, Ark. M. J. Keller, M. J. Keller Company, men's furnishing goods, Oakland, Cal. Gen. Harrison G. Otis, president The Times-Mirror Company, Los Angeles, Cal. Hugh Craig, president The Chamber of Commerce, San Francisco, Cal. P. ^. Lilienthal, manager Anglo-Californian Bank, San Francisco, Cal. I. J. Truman, president Columbian Banking Company, San Francisco, Cal. Hon. Daniel N. Morgan, ex-Treasurer United States, Bridgeport, Conn. C. S. Mersick, president The Merchants' National Bank, New Haven, Conn. Max Adler, Strouse, Adler & Co., importers and manufacturers. New Haven, Conn. John Trice, president The Citizens' Bank and Trust Company, Tampa, Fla. I. S. Giddens, I. S. Giddens & Co., wholesale grocers, Tampa, Fla. Robert J. Lowry, president The Lowry National Bank, Atlanta, Ga. Hon. William J. Northen, ex-governor of Georgia, Atlanta, Ga. James P. Verdery, president Enterprise Manufacturing Company, cotton goods, Augusta, Ga. J. W. Cabaniss, president The Exchange Bank, Macon, Ga. I. B. English, English, Johnston & Co., cotton factors, Macon, Ga. W. E. McCaw, president ^McCaw Manufacturing Company, cotton-seed products, Macon, Ga. D. G. Purse, president Savannah Board of Trade, Savannah, Ga. Horace A. Crane, vice-president Southern Bank, Savannah, Ga. Edgar D. Harber, president Harber Brothers Company, wholesale farm machin- ery, Bloomington, 111. b. S. Bailey, Bourland & Bailey, Peoria, 111. A. S. Oakford, Oakford & Fahnestock, wholesale grocers, Peoria, 111. B. Warren, jr., Warren & Co., grain, Peoria, 111. Edward J. Parker, cashier State Savings, Loan, and Trust Company, Quincy, 111. Chauncey H. Castle, Comstock-Castle Stove Company, Quincy, 111. C. H. Williamson, president Chamber of Commerce, Quincy, "ill. J. D. Waterman, president Forest City National Bank, Rocktord, 111. 0. S. Brantingham, secretary and treasurer Emerson Manufacturing Company, agricultural works, Rockford, 111. E. H. Keeler, secretary Rockford Lumber and Fuel Company, Rockford, 111. R. F. Herndon, R. F. Herndon & Co., dry goods, Springfield, 111. August Brentano, president Southern Stove Works, Evansville, Ind. 20 NATIONAL ARBITRATION TRIBUNAL. Philip C. Decker, president German Bank, Evansville, Ind. A. C. Kosencranz, president The Vulcan Plow Company, Evansville, Ind. M. B. Wilson, president The Capital National Bank, Indianapolis, Ind. Horace E. Kinney, president Board of Trade, Indianapolis, Ind. John H. Barker, president Haskell & Barker Car Company, ]\]ichigan City, Ind. John T. Remey, president National State Bank, Burlington, Iowa. J. G. Rounds, president Citizens' National Bank, Des Moines, Iowa. M. M. A\'alker, president M. M. "Walker Company, commission and grain, Dubuque Iowa. W. H. Day, president Standard Lumber Company, Dubuque, Iowa. F. S. Kretsinger, president The Iowa Farming Tool Company, Fort Madison, Iowa. C. Hood, president Emporia National Bank, Emporia, Kans. E. M'. Snyder, president Manufacturers' National Bank, Leavenworth, Kans. W. N. Todd, The Bittmann-Todd Grocer Company, Leavenworth, Kans. Hon. James A. Troutman, Troutman & Stone, Topeka, Kans. W. H. Davis, Parkhurst-Davis Mercantile Company, Topeka, Kans. Henry Watterson, Louisville Courier-Journal, Louisville, Ky. F. E. Boothby, president ilerchants' Exchange and Board of Trade, Portland, Me. Hon. Wm. G. Davis, president National Traders Bank, Portland, Me. Wallace F. Robinson, president Chamber of Commerce, Boston, JMass. Thos. Strahan, the National "Wall Paper Company, Chelsea, JMass. Chas. H. Conant, president Lowell Board of Trade, Lowell, Mass. Hon. Chas. S. Ashley, mayor. New Bedford, Mass. Francke W. Dickinson, ex-president Board of Trade, Springfield, Mass. Wilder D. Stevens, Foster, Stevens & Co., iron hardware, etc., Grand Rapids, ilich. W. H. Anderson, ]iresident Board of Trade, Grand Rapids, i\Iich. Harvey J. Hollister, cashier Old National Bank, Grand Rapids, Mich. W. H. Withington, president Withington & Cooley Manufacturing Company, Jack- son, Mich. C. C. Billinghunst, cashier The National J^umberman's Bank, Muskegon, Mich. Thos. Hume, Hackley & Hume, lumber, Muskegon, Mich. H. M. Peyton, president American Exchange Bank, Duluth, Minn. W. S. Moore, Spencer, Moore & Co., grain commission, Duluth, Minn. A. M. Marshall, president Marshall- VVells Hardware Company, Duluth, Minn. S. A. Harris, president National Bank of Commerce, Minneapolis, Minn. F. G. Winston, Winston, Farmington & Co., wholesale grocers, Minneapolis, Minn. H. M. Kinney, manager Winona Wagon Company, Winona, jlinn. Louis Botto, president Natchez Cotton and Merchants' Exchange, Natchez, iliss. Andrew G. Campbell, president The First Natchez Bank, Natchez, Miss. S. H. Lowenburg, I. Lowenburg & Co., grocers, cotton factors, Natchez, Miss. A. D. Brown, Hamilton-Brown Shoe Company, St. Louis, Mo. Walker Hill, president American Exchange Bank, St. Louis, Mo. Hon. E. O. Stanard, president E. 0. Stanard Milling Company, St. Louis, Mo. S. H. Burnham, president American Exchange National Bank, Lincoln, Nebr. J. C. Harpham, president Union Commercial Club, Lincoln, Nebr. A. T. Richardson, secretary Argo Manufacturing Company, starch, Nebraska City, Nebr. Charles T. Page, treasurer Page Belting Company, Concord, N. H. Jos. W. Congdon, vice-president Phoenix Silk Manufacturing Company, Pater- son, N. J. Peter Quackenbush, Quackenbush & Co., dry goods, Paterson, N. J. Edward T. Bell, president First National Bank, Paterson, N. J. John Scudder, president The First National Bank, Trenton, N. J. Hon. Gorton W. Allen, Henry & Allen, Auburn, N. Y. G. H. Nye, president Cayuga County National Bank, Auburn, N. Y. Edwin D. Metcalf, general manager D. M. Osborne & Co., harvesting machinery. Auburn, N. Y. C. P. Mosher, Barker, Griswold & Co., clothiers. Auburn, N. Y. AVm. F. Wendt, president Buffalo Forge Company, Buffalo, N. Y. Seymour Dexter, president Second National Bank, Elmira, N. Y. Alexander E. Orr, president Produce Exchange, New York City, N. Y. Gustav H. Schwab, Oelrichs & Co., New York City. R. A. Downey, R. Downey & Co., shipping and commission, Oswego, N. Y. Hon. John D. Higgina, mayor, Oswego, N. Y. John T. Mott, president First National Bank, Oswego, N. Y. John Marsellus, jiresident John Marsellus Manufacturing Company, Syracuse, N. Y. Salem Hyde, Neal & Hyde, wholesale dry goods, Syracuse, N. Y". NATIONAL ARBITRATION TRIBUNAL. 21 E. K. .Alartin, president Board of Trade, Yonkers, N. Y. Wm. H. Doty, president The First National Bank of Yonkers, Yonkers, X. Y. Jolin S. Armstrong, president Tlie National Bank of Wilmington, Wilmington, X. C. Jas. H. Chadbourn, jr., president The Wilmington Chamber of Connnerce, Wil- mington, N. C. F. W. Kerchner, ex-president Cliamber of Commerce, Wilmington, X. C Geo. W. Crouse, president Aultman, Miller & Co., harvesters, Akron, Ohio. Michael O'Xeil, president and manager The M.O'Neil&Co., dry goods, Akron, Ohio. W. W. Clark, president the City National Bank of Canton, Canton, Ohio. J. J. Clark, president the Canton Board of Trade, Canton, Ohio. Wm. Chi.'^holm, manager Chisholm Steel Shovel Works, Cleveland, Ohio. Sylvester T. F-verett, vice-president The Cleveland Terminal and Valley Railroad Company, Cleveland, Ohio. Harry A. Garfield, Garfield, Garfield & Howe, Cleveland, Ohio. H. R. Groff, Childs-Groff Shoe Company, Cleveland, Ohio. A. E. Adams, secretary the Dollar Savings and Trust Company, Youngstown, Ohio. Henry Wick, president the Ohio Steel Company, Youngstown, Ohio. Geo. L. Fordyce, Geo. L. Fordyce & Co., dry goods, Youngstown, Ohio. W. A. (iraham, president the First National Bank, Zanesville, Ohio. John Hoge, Schultz & Co., soaps, Zanesville, Ohio. A. H. Devers, Closset & Devers, manufacturers and importers, Portland, Oreg. H. Wittenberg, vice-president Portland Cracker Company, Portland, Oreg. Robert E. Wright, president Allentown National Bank, Allentown, I'a. J. Frank Black, president Chester National Bank, Chester, Pa. S. Greenwood, real estate, insurance, Chester, Pa. Wm. Spencer, president the First National Bank, Erie, Pa. Edward Bailey, president Harrishurg National Bank, Harrisburg, Pa. Chas. A. Disbrow, president and manager Harrisburg Boot and Shoe Manufactur- ing Company, Harrisburg, Pa. Richard it. Reilly, president Board of Trade, Lancaster, Pa. E. C. Felton, president the Pennsylvania Steel Company, Philadelphia, Pa. J. H. Michener, president the Bank of North America, Philadelphia, Pa. William T. Rolph, manager R. G. Dun & Co., Philadelphia, Pa. H. J. Heinz, president H. J. Heinz Company, Pittsburg, Pa. Asher Miner, vice-president Miner-Hillard Milling Company, Wilkesbarre, Pa. John B. Coryell, president Lycoming National Bank, Williamsport, Pa. S. T. Foresman, president Bowman-Foresman Company, lumber, Williamsport, Pa. J. B. Duble, president Williamsport Board of Trade, tA'illiamsport, Pa. Henry B. Metcalf, manufacturer and banker, Pawtucket, R. I. W. A. Clark, president the Carolina National Bank, Columbia, S. C. W. B. Lowrance, Lorick & Lowrance, general merchants, Columbia, S. C. D. B Loveman, D. B. Loveman Company, dry goods, etc., Chattanooga, Tenn. C. V. Brown, president Chamber of Commerce, Chattanooga, Tenn. H. L. Armstrong, cashier Continental National Bank, Memphis, Tenn. F. W. Erode, president F. W. Brode & Co., Memphis, Tenn. A. G. Ryley, president H. Wetter Manufacturing Company, Jlemphis, Tenn. C. W. Schulte, president the First National Bank, Memphis, Tenn. A. J. Harris, president Chamber of Commerce, Nashville, Tenn. Ira H. Evans, president the New York and Texas Land Company, Austin, Tex. E. P. Wilmot, president Austin National Bank, Austin, Tex. Walter Tips, hardware, Austin, Tex. Albert P. Tenison, president Tenison Brothers Saddlery Company, Dallas, Tex. Wm. M. Robinson, manager Parlin & Orendorff Co., Dallas, Tex. James .Moore, president Board of Tra