Cornell University l-ibrary 
 
 HD8057.N3 1920a 
 
 Industrial conference, Hearing(s] before 
 
 3 1924 002 412 348 
 
 HO 
 
 U. S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Educa= 
 
 tion and Lator. 
 
 Industrial conference. Hearing^ s^,,. 
 Senate, Sixty-sixth Congress. .. 1920, 
 
THE LIBRARY 
 
 OF THE 
 
 NEW YORK STATE SCHOOL 
 
 OF 
 
 INDUSTRIAL AND LABOR 
 
 RELATIONS 
 
 AT 
 CORNELL UNIVERSITY 
 
INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE 
 
 HEARING 
 
 BEFORE THE 
 
 COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR 
 
 UNITED STATES SENATE 
 
 SIXTY-SIXTH CONGEESS 
 
 SECOND SESSION 
 ON 
 
 THE REPORT OF THE INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE 
 
 Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and Labor 
 
 WASHINGTON 
 
 GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 
 
 1920 
 
 vJ. D. HACrKElTX. 
 INVESTIGATION C; CCM3ULTAT»ON«. 
 
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOK. 
 
 WILLIAM S. KENYON, Iowa, Chairman. 
 
 WILLIAM B. BORAH, Idaho. HOKE SMITH, Georgia. 
 
 CARROLL S. PAGE, Vermont. ANDRIEUS A. JONES, New Mexico.. 
 
 GEORGE P. McLean, Connecticut. KENNETH D. McKELLAR, Tennessee-. 
 
 THOMAS . STEELING, Soutli Dakota. JOSIAH 0. WOLCOTT, Delaware. 
 
 LAWRENCE C. PHIPPS, Colorado. DAVID I. WALSH, Massachusetts.. 
 
 Roy H. Rankin, Clerk. 
 
HO 
 MS 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Apkil 8, 1020. 
 
 I'age. 
 Statement of Hon. W. X Xauck 5 
 
 May 14, 1920. 
 Statement of Hon. Herbert Hoover 25 
 
 May 31, 1920. 
 Statement of Hon. Henry J. Allen, governor of Kansas 43 
 
 Junk 1, 1920. 
 
 Statement of W. E. Freeman, president Kansas Federation of Labor . 6? 
 
 Statement of Hon. William J. Bryan, former Secretary of State 70 
 
 PROPERTY OF LIBRARY 
 
 NEW YOfiK STATE SCHOOL 
 INDUSIHIAL AND LABOR RELATIONS 
 
 CORNELL UN1VER6ITY 
 
 34093 
 
Cornell University 
 Library 
 
 The original of tiiis bool< is in 
 tine Cornell University Library. 
 
 There are no known copyright restrictions in 
 the United States on the use of the text. 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924002412348 
 
INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 
 
 THUBSDAY, APRIL 8, 1920. 
 
 United States Senate, 
 Committee on Education and Labor, 
 
 Washington, D. 0. 
 
 The Committee on Education and Labor met pursuant to call of 
 the chairman at 11 o'clock a. m. in room 201, Senate Office Build- 
 ing, Senator William S. Kenyon presiding. 
 
 Present: Senators Kenyon (chairman) and Sterling. 
 
 The committee had under consideration the report of the Indus- 
 trial Conference. 
 
 The Chairman. This meeting was called to take up the considera- 
 • tion of the report of the Industrial Conference, to see Avhat legisla- 
 tion could be framed, if any, by criticisms and discussion of that 
 report, to see if we could not get started on some plan that might 
 lead to legislation helpful in the solving of these industrial disputes. 
 I have asked Mr. Lauck, who was on the War Labor Board, and 
 has given great consideration. to this subject, and also to this report, 
 and can analyze it for us and thus perhaps save us some work, to 
 appear this morning and discuss it. Now, Mr. Lavick. while there 
 are only two of us here, others will come in as we go along, and in 
 any event the matter will be printed, and we would like to hear 
 from you. State first your name and what your position is. 
 
 STATEMENT OF ME. W. J. LAUCK. 
 
 Mr. Latjck. My name is W. J. Lauck, and I guess I can best 
 identify myself as secretary of the former War Labor Board. 
 
 The Chairman. And as secretary of that board you gave con- 
 siderable attention to these questions? 
 
 Mr. Lauck. Yes, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. You have written a number of articles, ha^e you 
 not, for the magazines on these industrial questions ? 
 
 Mr. Lauck. Yes, sir. I have been more or less connected with the 
 industrial question for, I guess, 6 or 7 years, or 10 years probably. 
 I first had an interest in it in connection with the old immigration 
 commission under President Eoosevelt, and the Commission on 
 Industrial Relations, and then finally with the War Labor Board. 
 
 Senator Sterling. May I ask what your work was prior to your 
 secretaryship with the War Labor Board ? 
 
 Mr. Lauck. Immediately prior to that I had offices here in Wash- 
 ington representing parties before arbitration boards in the adjust- 
 ment of wage disputes, principally in connection with railway wage 
 disputes. The last official connection I had prior to that was with 
 
" . INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 
 
 the Commission on Industrial Relations, in 1914, and prior to that 
 with the Taft Tariff Board. I made a study of labor costs here and 
 abroad in connection with the cost and production of textiles, and 
 prior to that the instances I have mentioned. 
 
 Senator Sterling. Did you represent parties before the Concilia- 
 tion and Mediation Board? 
 
 Mr. Latjck. Yes, sir ; under the so-called Newlands law. 
 
 Senator Steeling. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Lauck. In connection with railways, I usually represented the 
 railway brotherhoods in the adjustment of wage disputes. 
 
 Senator Sterling. I see. 
 
 Mr. Lauck. Usually in connection with arbitration, when it came 
 to arbitration. I was usually their so-called expert, who presented 
 statistics and results of researches and so on. 
 
 Senator Sterling. In behalf of the employees ? 
 
 Mr. Lauck. Yes, sir. I have been more or less identified with the 
 employees, although I have endeavored to maintain my integrity 
 as an economist. 
 
 Senator Sterling. Were not many of these cases in which you ap- 
 peared really submitted to arbitration? 
 
 Mr. Lauck. Yes, sir. 
 
 Senator Steeling. Where a settlement was not effected through 
 mediation, in a great many of them ? 
 
 Mr. Lauck. The great majority of them. The usual procedure 
 under the old Erdmann law and the Newlands law was that the 
 mediation was more or less of just something that was not taken 
 seriously ; that, is, in the minor disputes they usually mediated them, 
 but in the so-called concerted movements, which would cover a part 
 of the territory of the country, like East and West oi- the whole 
 country, like in the Adamson case, both sides looked on mediation 
 as a sort of necessary evil preliminary to arbitration ; that is, the de- 
 fect there was that both sides in the course of a mediation did not 
 give full and frank cooperation to the mediators, for the reason that 
 they were afraid that they would commit themselves and it would be 
 used against them if they did come to arbitration. That seemed to 
 be the experience under the law. 
 
 I think you have a similar case in connection with the present con- 
 troversy, where I have noticed in the papers this so-called joint 
 board which was to voluntarily meet and settle the pending disputes. 
 They had for a few days mutually agreed to refer it to the Railway 
 Labor Board, upon which representatives of the public would sit, 
 for the reason, I suppose, that the railroads did not wish to take the 
 responsibility of incurring such a large increase in operating cost, 
 simply without the acquiescence of the public, and both sides were 
 probably sparring around to go before the arbitration board. At 
 least, that was the former experience ; I do not know sj)ecifically. 
 
 The Chairman. Before you get into this other question in a gen- 
 eral way, were questions handled satisfactorily by the War Labor 
 Board? 
 
 Mr. Lauck. I think so ; yes, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. Do you know how many cases were adjusted? 
 
 Mr. Lauck. The War Labor Board altogether passed formally 
 upon 1,245 cases, of which 193 were joint submissions, where both 
 parties agreed to submit to the board, and 1,052 were ex parte cases. 
 
INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 7 
 
 ren- 
 
 Ihey were cases that were formally passed upon and decisions ren- 
 dered, and, of course, there were a great many cases adjusted throuo-h 
 mediation, both parties realizing: that if it came before the board 
 that it would be adjusted according to certain principles which .had 
 been pretty well worked out, and as a consequence, toward the close 
 ■of the war, if a case would come up we could almost tell automati- 
 cally how it would be decided, due to the past precedents that had 
 been developed. 
 
 The Chairman. Those decisions were satisfactory to the different 
 parties ? 
 
 Mr. Lauck. I think, as a rule, they were. Neither party would 
 probably agree to that, because there was the usual dissatisfaction on 
 both sides in a case of that kind; that one thought they ought to 
 have gotten more. Perhaps the employer thought he had been too 
 drastically dealt with, but as a rule I think they were satisfied, except 
 probably the employer thought he was getting the worst part of the 
 deal all along, due to the fact, as in all cases of that kind, he was 
 the one that had to make the concessions. 
 
 Senator Steeling. The complaints in these ex parte cases were 
 invariably made by the employees, were they not ? 
 
 Mr. Lauck. Almost invariably, in all cases. We had a series of 
 principles which had been agreed upon as a basis of our procedure, 
 and the employees usually invoked those principles as fundamental 
 rights to which they were entitled, for instance, the right to organize. 
 Take the steel strike, which occurred after the war; if that had 
 occurred during the war, the employees would manifestly have had 
 a right to organize under our principles, and the board would have 
 undoubtedly ordered the steel company to institute a system of col- 
 lective bargaining — not union recognition, but a system of commit- 
 tees through which the employees could deal with the management ; 
 and practically the majority of the cases that we had on the com- 
 plaict of employers were cases — we had another principle which 
 forbade the unions to unionize a shop which had been nonunion prior 
 to the war, or to attempt to coerce the employer into recognition. 
 We had a, number of cases where the employer complained that the 
 unions were using the principles of the board as a basis for propa- 
 ganda or union organization, claiming that the Government put its 
 approval upon the recognition of unionism as a basis of industrial 
 relations during the war, and asking us to stop the union practices 
 in that respect. 
 
 Senator Steeling. What was the decision of the board in regard to 
 that? 
 
 Mr. Laucic. We would always in those cases instruct or decide and 
 order the unions that such practices were unlawful under our prin- 
 ciples and should be desisted from. 
 
 The Chaieman. Now, Mr. Lauck, you have given considerable 
 credit to this report of the industrial conference called by the Presi- 
 dent. 
 
 Mr. Lauck. Yes. sir. 
 
 The Chaieman. Will you go ahead in your own way and discuss 
 
 that? ' ' , -r, 
 
 Mr. Lauck. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, before taking up that 1 have 
 prepared a sort of a general statement as to the industrial problem, 
 which covers about five typewritten pages. 
 
8 
 
 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 
 
 The Chairman. Go ahead and read that. 
 
 Mr. Laucic. Might I be allowed to read that as a sort of a basis 
 for what will follow ? 
 
 The Chairman. Yes; go ahead. 
 
 Mr. Lauck. I think that if I should read tliis, what I should have 
 to say about the pending resolution and the President's conference 
 would be more related to what 1 had in mind, although a lot of it is 
 more or less commonplace to you. 
 
 It is a matter of ordinary observation that the entire world, or at 
 least that part of it which is inhabited by copamerciHl and industrial 
 nations, is in a turmoil of social and industrial unrest. 
 
 I do not wish to take up your time, if it seems too commonplace, 
 but I wanted to get a background for criticism. 
 
 The' Chairman. Oh, go ahead. 
 
 Mr. Lauck. Conditions at times seem to be chaotic. Production 
 is both restricted and unstable. Instead of an acceleration of output 
 from mines, mills, and factories, there are dislocations, stoppage, and 
 industrial warfare. Transportation, mining, and manufacturing 
 in Uussia have been almost prostrated. At times in Great Britain 
 industry has seemed on the verge of collapse. Even in the United 
 States, where maximum production and industrial peace has been 
 practically maintained from the time of our entrance into the Great 
 War until its close, there has been since the war a cessation of work 
 of hundreds of thousands of men in some of the greatest of our 
 basis industries. 
 
 If these present-day industrial phenomena are looked upon in a 
 more or less superficial and detached way, the future seems dark and 
 oftentimes ominous. It is only when they are related to each other 
 and when the underlying tendencies are analyzed carefully and ex- 
 amined in the light of historical retrospect that the true signifi- 
 cance of contemporaneous industrial life becomes apparent. When 
 this is done, misgivings tend to disappear, and although the losses 
 of unnecessary industrial warfare are always to be deplored, the 
 future may be faced without discouragement. 
 
 The period since the termination of the war has been characterized 
 by a remarkable change on the part of wage earners as well as of a 
 considerable section of the general public, both in their conceptions 
 of the fundamental functions of industry and in their attitude to- 
 ward the relations of the public or of the State to capital and labor. 
 The labor movement prior to the war was mainly concerned with 
 the effort to secure improved standards of work and increased com- 
 pensation. It was conducted on the basis of a permanent conflict for 
 shorter hours, higher wages, and better conditions of work for men, 
 women, and children. The war period may be said; however, to have 
 completely changed the emphasis in labor's demands and its ideals 
 as to the future. Stress is still placed, of course, upon the need for 
 a greater degree of participation in the output of industry as well as 
 upon better working standards; but the main object now held for- 
 ward in labor agitation is the demand for a greater measure of con- 
 trol by labor in industry. This movement ranges all the way from 
 the demand for collective bargaining to the agitation for the com- 
 plete control and operation of industry by labor in the interests of 
 labor. 
 
IHTDXJSTEIAL CONFEEENCE. 9 
 
 A new conception of industry has also been formed by labor and 
 Dy a large part of the general public. Prior to the war industry 
 was considered as being primarily conducted for profit, the theory 
 being that by competition and by free play of selfish, economic 
 forces, the greatest advantages to the greatest number— labor, capi- 
 tal, and the public— would be accomplished. On the other hand, in 
 recent years the idea has been gaining ground and growing in force 
 and acceptance that m reality industry is a social institution. In its 
 most conservative form it finds expression in the claim that industry 
 should not be conducted in a spirit of relentless economic self-interest 
 tor profit, but that while the stimulus of profit should be retained and 
 the fundamental rights of capital and labor should be protected and 
 conserved, industrial promotion, expansion, and operation should 
 also be a social service and subordinated at least to democratic in- 
 stitutions and ideals. 
 
 All these new conceptions and changes in point of view and the 
 resultant agitation, whether as to the aims of labor or theoretical 
 social progress, find expression in more or less indefinite and general 
 phrases, such as " industrial democracy," " democratization of indus- 
 try," or " socialization of industry." These terms are, as a rule, used 
 loosely and without any general agreement as to their exact meaning. 
 Careful analysis, however, as to the currents of thought and agita- 
 tion, reveals a common tendency everywhere, which in the absence 
 of a better term may be described as the movement for industrial 
 democracy. 
 
 As the explanation for the underlying movement for industrial 
 democracy, it may be stated that the leading industrial nations seem 
 to have arrived at a consensus of opinion, perhaps more or less un- 
 conscious and uncrystallized at present, that the political democracy 
 which the world has now had for approximately a hundred years is a 
 failure unless it is to be supplemented by measures for the realization 
 of industrial democracy. Through the struggle of years equality in 
 political activity and in personal and civil liberty has been secured. 
 The Great War which has just terminated had for its object the de- 
 struction of autocracy in its last stand against democratic political 
 control. 
 
 Along with the evolution of political democracy, however, has pro- 
 ceeded our wonderful industrial development. Its main characteris- 
 tic has been the growth of large-scale production. By the bringing 
 together of all the elements entering into the manufacture of finished 
 products, and by the utilization of new inventions and mechanical 
 genius, economics have been secured which have made possible the 
 production of commodities in great quantities at low costs. The nec- 
 essary direction of large-scale production has been secured, however^ 
 by the creation of artificial legal personages, or, in other words, indus- 
 trial corporations, in which have gradually becorne centered on a 
 national or international scale the control of basic industries em- 
 ploying thousands of men and women engaged in the production of 
 commodities essential to the public well-being. 
 
 The point has now been reached, it is claimed, at which these indus- 
 trial corporations must be subordinated to democratic political in- 
 stitutions. Unless we can have democracy in industry and democratic 
 control of industry, our political institutions, which have been de- 
 
10 
 
 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 
 
 veloped with so much bloodshed and suffering, will be futile and in- 
 effective. The significance of the present-day unrest and turmoil — 
 whether in industrial warfare or social agitation — may, therefore, 
 be said to arise from the fact that the close of the Great War marks 
 the beginning of a new conception of democracy. 
 
 These changes in the labor movement and in public opinion have 
 been brought about in this country in recent years by the strongly de- 
 veloped tendency of industry to dominate our democratic institutions. 
 A movement toward reform was being inaugurated prior to the out- 
 break of the war. As the result of the military conflict in which we 
 have been engaged a most extraordinary impetus has been given to 
 this movement. The minds of men have been opened to the signifi- 
 cance of the old industrial conditions and they have determined that 
 they ghall not be perpetuated. Out of the war has come the idea, 
 which is widely accepted, that industry must serve the common good. 
 Industry, in other words, must be democratized ; the public or popular 
 interest must be made paramount. 
 
 I think the strongest example of that is the statement of all the 
 churches, without regard; to denomination, Catholic a,^ wjell as 
 Protestant,' which have all issued statements or declarations as to 
 the social significance of industry, and while nothing revolutionary 
 or radical should be done or anything in the way of overturning ex- 
 isting institutions, that the ideal should be that the public interest 
 is paramount, and certain fundamental rights should be guaranteed 
 to those employed in industry, so as to harmonize its democratic 
 ideals and religious ideals. 
 
 Senator Steeling. We have heard a good deal recently of the 
 church world movement. 
 
 Mr. Lauck. Yes, sir. 
 
 Senator Steeling. Is this idea connected with that movement? 
 
 Mr. Laxjck. I think so; verj' directly. The individual churches 
 have issued statements regarding the industrial problem, some of 
 which have been extraordinary and some of them have been very 
 radical, and the interchurch movement in its relation to itj being a 
 combination of all the church forces, I think they, along with their 
 religious propaganda and education of clans, have also developed a 
 department of industrial relations, and you will recall undoubtedly 
 that they attempted to take part in the adjustment of the steel strike, 
 and also prepared reports bearing upon the steel strike. I have never 
 seen anything that they have jDublishecl. 
 
 They held some hearings and investigations, and they foolishly 
 thought that they could mediate the steel strike, I think, but they 
 gave that up. But they have a ^'ery large organization in New York, 
 which is located in the old Hudnut Building. They have a very 
 large and aggressive organization, which is just beginning to take 
 up these matters, and is evidently going to take a very active interest 
 and carry on a very wide propaganda in connection with it. 
 
 The Chairman. You saw, of course, the platform, if you might 
 call it so, which was issued by the Catholic bishops? 
 
 Mr. Lauck. Yes. The National Catholic War Council, and then 
 the Methodist bishops have issued a statement, and the Presbyterian 
 general assembly, the Quakers, and the Canadian Methodists, and 
 all the English churches. I think the only church that has not issued 
 a statement in this country is the Episcopal Church, which has taken 
 
INDUSTRIAL CONFEEBNCE. 11 
 
 time to consider further, and said that it will issue a statement after 
 further deliberation. 
 
 The Chairman. You do not happen to have those statements, do 
 you ? ' 
 
 ^r ^^" !i^^^'^^^.\,^^^' ^i^ = I ^^'''^ them here. I have an epitome of 
 
 q^' n^ illustrate exactly what I was talking about. 
 
 Ihe Chairman. I was wondering if it would not be a good idea to 
 put those statements in the record ? 
 
 Senator Sterling. I will be interested in reading them, I know. 
 
 Mr. LArcK. They are very interesting and very significant, because 
 it looks to me as if the result of it is going to be, if you apply these 
 principles to the church itself, it means almost a cleavage in the 
 church, because when you take the underlying principles of Chris- 
 tianity, or the teachings of Christ, and attempt to practically apply 
 them you come to an impasse. So far as mediating an industrial 
 dispute is concerned, there can not be any compromise. If, say, 
 for instance, the principle of a living wage, you could not mediate 
 or compromise. It must be an actual application or nothing at all. 
 
 The Chairman. You have got to get those principles into the 
 minds of people to reach a satisfactory conclusion, naturally. 
 
 Mr. Lauck. First, there is the social reconstruction pronouncement 
 of the National Catholic War Council. 
 
 The Chairman. You were making a general statement. Now, we 
 have branched off and have interrupted you. If you want to use that 
 as a part of your statement, well and good. We would like to have 
 all of those things go into the record. 
 
 Mr. Lauck. Then I might say, as evidence of the change in public 
 opinion relative to the industrial question and the development of a 
 new conception of industry, some of the pronouncements of the lead- 
 ing churches might be cited. The first of these is the social recon- 
 struction program of the National Catholic War Council. This pro- 
 nouncement was issued in the year 1919 by the administration of the 
 National Catholic War Council and signed by five of the bishops and 
 other ecclesiastical personages in the American Catholic church. It 
 is published as reconstruction pamphlet number by the committee 
 on special war activities of the National Cathalic War Council. It is 
 a very extensive document, and I suppose it would not be worth while 
 taking the time to read from it. 
 
 The Chairman. No. Is it in form so that you could put it into the 
 record ? 
 
 Mr. Lauck. I can supply it for the record. 
 
 The Chairman. If you will supply them we can put all of those 
 in as an appendix. 
 
 Mr. Lauck. All right. Then the interchurch movement had a 
 national industrial conference of Christian representatives in New 
 York, and their findings were made and published as a pamphlet, 
 which I shall also supply for the record, and the pastoral letter by 
 the board of .bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church. 
 Senator Sterling. What date is that? 
 
 Mr. Lauck. That is under date of May 22, 1919. This is typical, 
 in a brief way, of most of these pronouncements, and I might cite, if 
 you are interested, just a few instances. 
 The Chairman. All right. 
 
12 
 
 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 
 
 Mr. Lauck (reading) : 
 
 We favor an equitable wage for laborers, which shall have the right of way 
 over rent, interest, and profits. 
 
 We favor collective bargaining as an instrument for the attainment of in- 
 dustrial justice and for training in democratic procedure. 
 
 And we also favor advance of the workers themselves through proiit sharing, 
 and through positions on boards of directorship. 
 
 And then the following : 
 
 We call for the more thorough-going emphasis on human freedom, which will 
 make democratic progress mean the enlargement and enrichment of the life 
 of the masses of mankind through the self-directive activity of the men 
 themselves. 
 
 In the discussion of all such matters we urge all individuals and groups to 
 hold fast the advantage which comes out of mutual respect, and to keep 
 always in mind that the richest source of sound social idealism is the Gospel 
 of Jesus Christ. 
 
 Next is the ,resolution regarding indlistrial relations, by the 
 Presbyterian General Assembly, in St. Louis, on May 21, 1919, one 
 sentence of which might be cited as representative, which says : 
 
 The object of all reform in this essential matter must be the genuine 
 democratization of industry based upon a full recognition of the rights of 
 those who work, in whatever ranks, to participate in some organic way in 
 every decision which directly affects their welfare or the part they are to play 
 In Industry. 
 
 Then, there is a report of the joint commission on social service 
 of the Episcopal Church, which is really a reprint of all the other 
 church programs. 
 
 Then, there are some others which might be cited, for instance, 
 the reports of the archbishops committee of the Church of England, 
 and the summary of conclusions reached by a group of 20 British 
 Quaker employees; and the reconstruction program of the English 
 Society of Friends; and the pronouncement of the Federal Council 
 of the Churches of Christ in America, on social reconstruction; and 
 the pronouncements of the social-service committee of the northern 
 Baptist convention. 
 
 Senator Sterling. What does that include, the Northern Baptist's 
 convention — ^the Northern Baptist convention for the United States? 
 
 Mr. Laxjck. Yes, sir. It is published by the American Baptist 
 Publication Society. Then the statement as to social unrest, adopted 
 by the general assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Canada on 
 June 12, 1919. 
 
 That is the list as I have them here. I will furnish all those for 
 the record, if you would like to have them. 
 
 The Chairman. We would like to have them ; yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Latjck. Speaking about industrial democracy, in general it 
 may be said that it is aimed to bring about this ideal in two ways. 
 In the first place, the general direction of industry must be made 
 subordinate to the fundamental principles and ideals of democ- 
 racy. This is what may be termed the larger aspect of the labor 
 problem ^nd it is hoped to accomplish it by political action. In a 
 conservative way it contemplatee the proper regulation of the pro- 
 moting and financing of industrial corporations so that their earn- 
 ings may become evident and the public may enjoy an equitable 
 participation in these earnings through lower prices of commodi- 
 ties or higher wages. It aims to abolish all monopoly privileges and 
 
INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 13 
 
 SrlonKni'^' ^/T^' ^f "^^V^ arbitrary prices, and to prevent 
 the conduct of industry along lines opposed to human welfare in 
 
 I tS thTwW' "?^ '' 'Y r^'%^'^^oi women and cSdren 
 •1 aJ^ best demonstration of a tendency of that kind is the 
 railroad bill, which has just been passed by Congress, ™h pro! 
 
 5 contoliSt- ''^^^'?°" "* securit/ issues, Ld th! public sanction 
 of consolidations and reorganizations of railroads which will have 
 he effect of preventing one of the greatest evils which we have S 
 in the past m the regulation of corporations; that is, the absorption 
 ot increased earnings by excess capitalization, and of course the gen- 
 eral control of rates and supervision of the industry under the public 
 it also has another very important section, which is absolutely un- 
 precedented in the development of legislation along the lines of in- 
 dustrial relations, which I wish to cite, because it bears directlv on 
 what It seems to me to be the best procedure to develop in the wav of 
 setthng industrial disputes. -^ 
 
 Under section 304 of the act, the transportation act of 1920 in 
 creating the Labor Board, the plan is adopted there which we have 
 never had in any legislation, either in this country or abroad, with a 
 possible exception of Australia, where they say that this board, in 
 arriving at a decision, shall be governed by certain rules in deter- 
 mining the justice and reasonableness of such wages and salaries or 
 working conditions, and the board shall, so far as applicable, take 
 into consideration, among other relevant circumstances, the scale of 
 wages paid for similar work in other industries, the relations between 
 wages and the cost of living, the hazards of employment, and so on. 
 In other words, there is laid down a constitution for this board, 
 or a series of standards which shall be mandatory upon its delibera- 
 tions or consideration of the facts, and you have a real industrial 
 court created there in the sense of civil courts, whereas most of the 
 industrial courts in the past have been simply bodies that acted on 
 the facts according to any principles that might be placed before the 
 board. There was no development of principles or standards which 
 were mandatory, like you have in the civil courts, the law and the 
 relating of facts to the principles, and it seems to me that this is a 
 tremendous piece of progress that has been made here, and the only 
 other precedent we have is the War Labor Board, which was not a 
 legislative creation, but which grew out of mutual agreement, and 
 which had a fundamental constitution ; that is, all cases were decided 
 on the basis of certain principles which were laid down as the under- 
 lying principles of the board. 
 
 Senator Steeling. The original Cummins bill provided for that. 
 It laid down that constitution and provided that the decisions should 
 take those things into consideration, and yet at the same time it 
 presented facts meanwhile. 
 
 Mr. Latjck. Yes; I think that is the most commendable piece of 
 industrial legislation that I have ever known to be enacted. 
 
 The Chaieman. Is there anything like that in the Kansas law.? 
 Mr. Lattck. No, sir. I was out in Kansas when that law was 
 enacted, and it seems to me that that is the defect of the law. The 
 Kansas law creates this board, but no man has any rights when he 
 comes into court. It is the same as if you developed a civil consti- 
 tution, and you have your courts now, and you say now you adjust 
 your disputes according to judicial process and do not strike or do 
 
14 
 
 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 
 
 not resort to personal violence, but when you go into these courts 
 you do not know how you are going to come out. You can not 
 invoke the rights of free seats for your assembly or taking property 
 without due process of law, and it is the same way in Kansas. 
 
 The Chairman. There is no code ? 
 
 Mr. Lauck. There is no code. There are no fundamental rights 
 which you are entitled to in the courts, and anything can happen to 
 you in the courts. 
 
 The Chairman. Do you think a court like that- would be suc- 
 cessful ? 
 
 Mr. Lauck. I think not. I think it would be successful if they 
 had a code. 
 
 Senator Sterling. You mean a code like this, where certain prin- 
 ciples are laid down to govern the decisions of the board ? 
 
 Mr. Laitck. Exactly. Take Australia ; the reason they have been 
 so successful in compulsory arbitration was that they have had the 
 same thing that Senator Cummins had in mind. They have rendered 
 compulsory arbitration inocuous by setting forth certain principles 
 upon which the arbitration shall proceed; that it is the right of 
 every man to have a living wage, the right to collective bargaining, 
 the right to an eight-hour day, or whatever it may be. 
 
 They have the code underlying the process of the court and you 
 can go into court and you know what your rights are, but under 
 the Kansas law you have no rights, you have no fundamental guar- 
 anties. It would be like you going into court here and you would 
 not have the right of habeas corpus or the right of free speech, or 
 not having your property taken away from you without due process 
 of law. 
 
 Senator Sterling. It all comes back to the question whether or 
 not the court, the labor board, will observe the principles laid down 
 by the law. 
 
 Mr. Lauck. Exactly. 
 
 Senator Sterling. Whether they will take into account whether 
 the employees are receiving living wages or not. 
 
 Mr. Lauck. Exactly. 
 
 Senator Sterling. Or whether their conclusions are just. 
 
 Mr. Lauck. That is the whole thing, and the reason I wanted to 
 develop this was the point that the President's industrial conference 
 was chiefly defective in. Just to make that point at present, they 
 have elaborated a very extensive set of principles and have com- 
 mented on what should be the principles and how delightful it 
 would be to have adequate wages, and they think a 48-hour week 
 would be a good thing, and if you consider those in forms of recom- 
 mendation to the Congress and to the Chief Executive, all right, 
 but they then created machinery which was just machinery, and they 
 did not say that the underlying basis of this machinery should be 
 these principles. 
 
 They did not enunciate any principles which would govern the 
 machinery. Therefore, it seems to me the machinery would be futile 
 and ineffective in the way of any attempt to settle an industrial 
 unrest because it would not have any guaranties under it all, and 
 any legislation that is had, to be effective, should proceed upon the 
 basis of a constitution or an underlying series of principles or stand- 
 ards corresponding with the railroad bill's method of creation, and 
 
INDUSTRIAL CONrERBNCE. 15 
 
 then it seems to me that you would eliminate industrial unrest and 
 eliminate the possibility of strikes and dislocations, because there 
 would be a wide acceptance of it and a readiness to go into court, be- 
 cause you would know what your guaranties were when you went 
 into court. 
 
 The Chairman. You think there must be some fundamental in- 
 dustrial code? 
 
 Mr. Lauck. Exactly ; yes, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. Recognized by employers and employees, before 
 you can have any successful industrial courts ? 
 
 Mr. Lauuk. Yes, sir; before you can have any elements of suc- 
 cess at all. My point of view Avas — that I was going to develop — 
 that now you can not hope for labor and capital to agree upon such 
 a code. Eight after the war there was an era of good feeling, or 
 more an era of good feeling than now ; but events since the war have 
 constantly tended to separate and get them the wider apart; but 
 there has been deA"eloped by precedent and by previous agreement 
 and by the enlightened opinion of the world — of this country and 
 the Avorld, you might say — a series of principles Avhich the public 
 can sanction. They are embodied in the principles of the War Labor 
 Board, the principles of the treaty of peace, whatever may be its 
 fate. These labor principles were agreed upon by the representa- 
 tives of all the civilized nations there, and also you have your re- 
 port of the President's industrial conference and their recommenda- 
 tions as to principles. 
 
 Now, any legislation adopted by Congress or by the public could 
 take these principles, establish a code out of these principles, and 
 say, " Here is a board of adjustment Avhich shall proceed upon- the 
 basis of these principles which have received the sandtion of the 
 public." 
 
 Senator Sterling. Well, after all, you have this difficulty, as it 
 occurs to me, that it will be the difficulty in many cases of apply- 
 ing the principles you have laid down in your code. 
 Mr. LArcK. Oh, undoubtedly. 
 
 Senator Sterling. You have got to depend always upon the judg- 
 ment of men. 
 
 Mr. Lauck. Yes, sir. , . , , • , 
 
 Senator Sterling. And their ability to discern and rightly weigh 
 
 the facts I 
 
 Mr. Lauck. Undoubtedly. 
 
 The Chairman. Just like any other court? 
 
 Mr Lauck. Just like .any other court; and there is where all the 
 trouble has been. For instance, everybody says Why, yes; we 
 agree to collective bargaining." Then they have a conference and 
 airee on it, and one man says, "What do you mean by collective 
 baro-ainino-2 " Mr. Gompers or the trade-unionists would say i 
 mean reco'gnition of trade-unions;" and an employer, representing 
 the other froup, would say, "Oh no; we d;cl no* -«- ^^at^ AA e 
 mean the right of employees to be represented. .^V^t J^^^^^^', * 
 seems to me, to establish a general principle and leave it to the 
 iud-ment of the courts to apply the facts m accordance ^vi*^ <h^ 
 pJecedSnts which have been developed along the lines of those 
 
 principles. 
 
16 
 
 INDUSTRIAL CONFEKENCE. 
 
 I just digressed there. I thought it was a good chance to bring 
 in the point I had in mind. 
 
 In the second place, as a means of realizing industrial democracy, 
 ■which is specifically in point to what we have just been talking 
 about, it is also evident that our political constitution will have to be 
 supplemented by legislative action in establishing an industrial code, 
 just as you brought up the question, Mr. Chairman, or a bill of in- 
 dustrial rights. This means the incorporation into our law of cer- 
 tain standards and guarantees to labor, such as collective bargaining 
 and the living wage. It also contemplates the creation, as a supple- 
 ment to our civil instructions or the necessary changes for the es- 
 tablishment of administrative and judicial agencies in industry to 
 interpret and administer this industrial bill of rights; in other 
 words, the machinery for putting that into effect in the settlement of 
 disputes. These rights and the machinery for their administration 
 will undoubtedly be at first developed through agreements between 
 employers and employees, but eventually they will receive a social 
 and political sanction and be incorporated into our fundamental law. 
 
 What I mean there is that a lot of them have already received a 
 practical agreement in the past. That has been an informal matter 
 and never received legislative sanction, but there has been enough 
 agreement developed and enough evidence of opinion in this country 
 and in the world that certain principles which should be there satis- 
 factory to labor or satisfactory to capital can be used as the basis of 
 legislative action, and it could be used as a starting point for a code 
 which ^70Lild take in the enactment of such a code in which the 
 public would take the point of view, " This would be satisfac- 
 tory to you." They- might say, " We will have collective bargain- 
 ing, but not in the recognition of the unions, and we will have a liv- 
 ing wage." The employer won't like the living wage unless he can 
 define it. The unionist would not like the collective bargaining 
 unless he could define it, but the public will take the attitude that 
 " This is our duty, and we will proceed upon this basis until you all 
 agree and by agreement modify the principles, or something of that 
 kind." 
 
 This is the aspect of industrial democracy with which we have re- 
 cently been practically concerned. It was hoped that as the result 
 of the recent industrial conference called by the President in Wash- 
 ington an agreement could be reached as an immediate basis of pro- 
 cedure. It was thought that a series of principles or a constitution 
 would be adopted which would set forth the fundamental rights and 
 standards of employees in their relations with employers. It was 
 also thought possible to agree upon agencies for the interpretation 
 and administration of these principles so that industrial warfare may 
 be prevented and stability of production maintained. All of these 
 hojjes, however, were nullified by the shortsighted and arbitrary 
 attitude of some of the representatives at the conference. The result 
 has been to make agreement more difficult than before and to create 
 a spirit of conflict rather than of cooperation. 
 
 One danger at present is the pressure of living costs on the in- 
 dustrial population. This intensifies the more fundamental causes 
 of unrest and, unless ameliorated, may cause widespread industrial 
 conflict and dislocation before an agreement can be reached by capital 
 and labor or action taken by the public which will afford a basis of 
 
INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 17 
 
 procedure in order, to stabilize and accelerate production and 
 guarantee industrial peace. 
 
 .u'^¥ ^^,^«ssary preliminary to all other considerations obviously is 
 the development of a spirit of understanding and cooperation' be- 
 tween capital and labor. 
 
 Labor through the centuries, has come to look upon itself as an 
 exploited class C apital, on the other hand, at least in the United 
 btates, even when inclined to be sympathetic, has tended often to 
 look upon the aims and leadership of labor with distrust, because of 
 the tear ot an arbitrary use of power or misguided restriction upon 
 output or costs of production. The war lessened this feehng on both 
 sides to a remarkable extent. Employers came more and more to the 
 realization that the administration of industry Avas to a greater or less 
 degree a public duty, and that industrial workers had certain funda- 
 mental rights and privileges. The employees, on the other hand, 
 also have had it impressed upon them that the attainment of their 
 aspirations as to the economic rights and economic well-being is 
 conditioned upon the proper maintenance and acceleration of pro- 
 duction. But sides undoubtedly came to a greater measure of 
 understanding that the well-being of all depends upon cooperation 
 along the lines of certain principles and standards of all those 
 engaged in industry. 
 
 Unfortunately a conflict between capital and labor has been de- 
 veloped and constantly accentuated since the armistice. 
 
 Senator Steeling. Now, may I ask there — I note what you say 
 now and I noted what you said a while ago with regard to condi- 
 tions growing worse. 
 
 Mr. Lauok. Yes.- 
 ? Senator Steeling. They were 'svorse for a time. For example, 
 the chairman and myself recall very vividly the steel strike. 
 
 Mr. Lauck. Yes, sir. 
 
 Senator Sterling. But now, latterly, taking the country over and 
 industry as it is throughout the United States, have not conditions 
 improved ? 
 
 Mr. Latjck. I think not, for this reason, that we have not had the 
 dislocations and the breaking out of trouble, but on the one hand you 
 have the fear, I think, of the coming into power of the more radical 
 or revolutionary element in the labor group, that has largely di- 
 minished, and the fear on the part of the employers to that extent; 
 but on the other hand, what is prov.oking all the trouble, it seems to 
 me, is the feeling that there is a certain group of employers in the 
 country who are really obstructionists, and they are a group that 
 nullified the effect of the first industrial conference, and have prac- 
 tically nullified the effect of this second one, by the fact that when 
 it comes to an agreement as to principles of procedure, they want 
 such refinements placed upon the principles that it makes the prin- 
 ciples impossible of application, and the feeling has grown— that is, 
 from my contact with the labor group— that these men or this group 
 does not really wish anything, that they are obstructionists, and that 
 thev want to return to prewar conditions. That has caused an in- 
 tensification of unrest, and the average labor leader or representative 
 of labor, when you talk to him, he says that there is no chance of 
 
 9342—20 2 
 
18 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 
 
 agreement ; that the gauntlet has been thrown down and " We have 
 got to fight." 
 
 The only prospect that there ever will be any agreement is when 
 one side or the other is worn out and feels that it could or had 
 better enter into an agreement, but the general feeling in the indus- 
 trial world is now, I think, that the fight is on and that it. is a fight 
 without quarter, on the basis of fundamentals, these very things that 
 we have been talking about, and I think it is stimulated entirely by 
 one small group of people, who have an importance entirely out of 
 keeping with their industrial strength. 
 
 If you consider the first industrial conference that we had in this 
 country, you will find the really representative employers, with the 
 exception of the steel industry and possibly some of the electric 
 industries, you will find men of the type of Eockefeller and Endi- 
 cott, and Mr. Price, of Cleveland, who are really in accord with the 
 representatives of the conservative group of labor, collective bargain- 
 ing, and others of the fundamentals in question, but the other group, 
 which is composed largely of representatives — its organization is 
 composed to a great extent of small manufacturers, and in the 
 aggregate they represent probably a very significant portion of the 
 production of the country, but they are small establishments and 
 small institutions, and do not represent the basic industries, with the 
 possible exception of the steel industry, and it has seemed to me, 
 from the work of that conference, that if these representative em- 
 ployers, always excluding the steel industry, and the conservative 
 leaders of labor have been unable to function together, the conference 
 as called was moi'e or less heterogeneous in its representation, which 
 also militated against it, and it was not called in the proper way; 
 but if those two groups had gotten together there would not have 
 been any industrial conflict, and this smaller group, which is very 
 active and very aggressive, the general feeling is that they do not 
 want anything. They simply want to obstruct and stop, and they do 
 not want any gains to be made by the employees in the way of 
 recognition of collective bargaining, but their idea is to stand pat. 
 
 Senator Steeling. Do you class the steel industry as one of those 
 that is in alliance with the small manufacturers of whom you spoke 
 and whom you characterize as obstructionists? 
 
 Mr. Lauck. I think so ; yes, sir. Of course, my personal opinion, 
 I do not suppose, would be of any interest, but personally I think the 
 attitude of the steel industry is. impossible from the standpoint of 
 present-day thought and present-day conception of industrial rela- 
 tions, and that also it is going to be ruinous to the steel industry. I 
 think the result of it is going to be that the steel industry will find 
 itself in a much worse condition than it was when it started, because 
 it can not recruit is labor supply, unless it recruits it from the Bolshe- 
 viki, which would be much worse than the trade-unions, of course. 
 
 Senator Sterling. So far as I have learned, there is not much 
 difference between the employers and employees in the steel industry 
 now. There may be, but I have not learned of it. 
 
 Mr. Lauck. I do not think there is any possible friction now. 
 There is a temporary stopping of conflict, and I, of course, do not 
 know the status of unionism in the industry, but it has just impressed 
 me on general principles that there is no hope for the attitude of the 
 steel industry, looking at the standpoint of the steel management, 
 
INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 19 
 
 for the reason that formerly there was a hope. Ten years ago the 
 procedure m the steel industry in strikes of that kind was to bring 
 in alien workmen, upon which there was no restriction, which had the 
 effect of inundating the American who was in the industry, deteriorat- 
 ing his standards, and making it impossible for him to organize. 
 But now you have a situation m the steel industry where the union 
 to some extent has strength, and you will find a tendency, I think, for 
 the union man to leave the industry. 
 
 Then you have the alien, which the steel industry has spent five 
 years in developing to a semiskilled or a skilled laborer, now leav- 
 ing the country ; and while I do not know the facts, I would imagine 
 that the steel industry is up against the proposition of recruiting 
 additional labor. Where is it going to get it? If it gets it from 
 immigration it will have to get it from either northern or western 
 Europe, where they are all trade-unionists or Socialists, and if it 
 gets it from southern Europe they are all Bolsheviki, and it seems 
 to me it would have been much better if they had adopted a policy 
 which was more in accord with the liberal spirit of the times and 
 at least extend recognition to its own employees, and certainly I 
 would have thought it would be better to extend it to unionism, not 
 in the sense of extending it to outside unionism but recognizing 
 legitimate unions. 
 
 Senator Sterling. One point of "dispute, I understand, is this, as 
 to whether or not the unions shall have a right practically to exclude 
 men who do not belong to the unions from work in that industry, 
 and the head of the steel industry insists that they shall not have 
 that right; that a man, whether he belongs to a labor union or not, 
 shall have just the same right to work in that industry as a man who 
 belongs to a union. 
 
 Mr. Lauck. Yes, sir; I suppose that is a correct attitude, but I 
 think that it is given an importance that it does not deserve, for the 
 reason that you will find — take the transportation industry; that 
 has an open shop, as you know. 
 
 Senator Stekijng. Certainly. 
 
 Mr. Lauck. A man does not have to belong to a union in order to 
 be employed in the transportation industry. Those things disap- 
 pear when the matter becomes a practical question, and the great 
 concern of the employer for the nonunion man, it seems to me, has 
 been exaggerated. If he would deal Avith the union the nonunion 
 would not tend to be exploited, except possibly in some obnoxious 
 conditions like we have had in the building trades. It seems to me 
 that is more a talking point than it has any significance, 
 
 I was about to bring up the point that it seemed to me that there 
 has been an intensification of this conflict between capital and labor 
 not in the sense of outward dislocations and breakdowns of industry 
 but fundamentally there is this cleavage Mhich has been accentuated 
 since the armistice. The general spirit of good feeling immediately 
 following the war and the hope for a general agreement on a con- 
 structive program for a liberal basis of procedure has been dissi- 
 pated by two factors. First, the fear of the extreme radicalism in 
 the labor movement, like we had in the steel industry. We might 
 cite that as an illustration, which, it seems to me, is tending to lessen 
 now; and, second, by obstructionists, or a small group of irrecon- 
 
20 INDUSTKIAL CONPEKElSrCE. 
 
 cilables among employers who do not Avish any progress made, but 
 a return to prewar conditions. 
 
 Of course, I have in mind specific organizations there. I do not 
 know whether it would be of interest to the committee for me to 
 ■ name them or not. 
 
 The Chairman. Well, just as you please on that. 
 
 Mr. Lauck. I have no hesitancy in naming them if it would be 
 any help. 
 
 The Chaikmax. N^ame a few. 
 
 Mr. Latck. The organization I have in mind is the National In- 
 dustrial Conference Board, which is a federation of about 15 associa- 
 tions of employers, corresponding to the American Federation of 
 Labor, which is the federation of the trade-unions and craft unions. 
 
 Senator Sterling. Since you speak of that, what industries are 
 embraced in that National Industrial Conference Board ? 
 
 Mr. LArcK. They are the federated board which are representa- 
 tive of what is known as the National Erectors' Association, I think 
 the American Cotton Manufacturers' Association, and the National 
 Manufacturers' Association — I can furnish a list of those — I would 
 not like to try to name them as there are about 13 of them. The 
 federated group is very active and has been the most active force 
 from the employer's standpoint, I think, in dealing with the indus- 
 trial problem since the war, and possibly during the war. 
 
 Their head offices are in Boston. I do not recall who is the head 
 man of it, but they were the body which was usually invoked in deal- 
 ing with organized labor in conference, and so on, corresponding to 
 the American Federation of Labor. 
 
 And the second factor in continuing unrest is by obstructionists 
 or a small group of employers, as I have stated, who do not wish 
 any progress made, but a return to prewar conditions, and as a con- 
 sequence we have had the steel strike, the coal strike, and other 
 smaller conflicts, and the practical failure of two industrial confer- 
 ences. 
 
 A conflict has also been precipitated between capital and labor of 
 so much intensity that there is now no prospect for agreement be- 
 tween them. The only hope now is for the public, or, in other words. 
 Congress, to lay down a basis of procedure, or, in other words, to 
 create machinery for the adjustment of industrial disputes and enact 
 a code of principles or give its sanction to principles which shall be 
 mandatory in settling disputes. 
 
 The problem which is before the world surpasses in difficulty our 
 military efforts. A few days ago, after the armistice was signed, it 
 IS reported that Clemenceau said to a group of French senators who 
 approached him with congratulations : 
 
 Our difficult lime is just appvoacliing. It is harder to win peace than to win 
 war. 
 
 The world is now realizing the truth of these words, but the pres- 
 ent situation, as has been declared by Eobert E. Speer, should not 
 be looked upon with pessimism, but rather as a new opportunity. 
 He states : ^^ •' 
 
 Tlie war grew out of the past, but it was not fought for the past; It was 
 fought for the future, to clear the way for a different and better world * * * 
 bo far as the past rested on wrong principles, the time has come for breaking 
 
INDUSTRIAI. CONFERENCE. 21 
 
 from it. * * * The world Wiints a clean and .lust piece of work done now, 
 and done ouce for all. * * * The new order make.s its deniand. The walls 
 must be moved out. There must be room for the spirit of 8,000,000 men who 
 died for a larger world. Tliey bid us to let the'old evils s,'o and to bring in the 
 new good. 
 
 It seems to me that the procedure which shoukl be followed, which 
 we have discussed to a certain extent, the only possible procedure, 
 is not to hope now for an agreement between capital and labor, but 
 for the public to protect itself, and to do that it could very appro- 
 priately be done by taking the principles of the War Labor Board, 
 together with the principles recommended by the President's indus- 
 trial conference, the principles of the peace treaty, and give them a 
 living force by making them the underlying standards for the work 
 of any adjustment board which might be created. 
 
 The Chairman. Will you create industrial courts? 
 
 Mr. Lauck. Yes, sir. I think that machinery that should be cre- 
 ated is a board corresponding to the War Labor Board, or a board 
 which seems to be very proper and adequate would be such a board 
 as set forth in your resohition, in which labor and capital would be 
 represented and in which the public would be interested. 
 
 The Chairman. That resolution wa.s for an industrial congress, 
 to try and formulate a code. 
 
 Mr. Lauck. Yes. 
 
 The Chairman. Well, the procedure as set forth in the report of 
 the industrial conference, the creation of a national industrial board 
 and regional conferences and boards of inquiry, do you believe that 
 if there was an industrial code adopted that those recommendations 
 as to methods could be worked out ? 
 
 Mr. Lauck. Yes, sir. I think that thej^ should underlie the whole 
 system. It seems to me that the President's industrial conference,- in 
 its report, has nullified its entire usefulness by preventing the appli- 
 cation of any principles to industrial disputes. I have a copy of the 
 report and I can very briefly bring that to your attention. At the 
 bottom of page 15, in discussing the National Industrial Board, and 
 at the top of the succeeding page of the President's industrial con- 
 ference, it does not function that this board shall have any original 
 jurisdiction whatsoever, but should only hear cases on appeal from 
 the regional or district boards. 
 
 The Chairman. That is the very theory of it, is it not, the National 
 Industrial Board is a sort of a court of appeals ? 
 
 Mr. Lauck. Yes ; but it has no constitution. 
 
 The Chairman. No. 
 
 Mr. Lauck. And it says that it may act as a board of appeal on 
 all other questions which may come before regional industrial con- 
 ferences which may be voluntarily submitted to it by the parties to 
 the dispute, and in which they have not been able to agree upon in 
 the regional adjustment conference, except questions of policy, such 
 as the closed or open shop. In other Avords, the National Industrial 
 Board has no constitution, according to the President's plan. It is 
 an administrative board and a board of appeal, and it can hear ap- 
 peals only on the question of wages and working conditions, and 
 therefore there is no chance, and it is specially prohibited from hear- 
 ing questions of policy, such as the open or closed shop, and so forth, 
 
22 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 
 
 and there is no guide to be incorporated in its procedure, except 
 such as might in a haphazard way come up from the lower board. 
 
 The Chairman. You might have one regional conference adopting 
 one code of industry and another another, which might be entirely 
 different ? 
 
 Mr. Lauck. It is exactly like our divorce laws. You might have 
 as many principles as you have regional conferences. Therefore, 
 the idea of a regional conference, it seems' to me, is opposed to the 
 best experience on the subject, for the reason that a regional confer- 
 ence or a regional board, geographically speaking, would be to take 
 up matters affecting all industries. It is almost assuming omnis- 
 cience to expect an adjustment board to be able to pass upon questions 
 affecting all industries, for the reason that there are so many tech- 
 nical matters. Each industry, as you know, has its own precedents, 
 and its history and its own technical development, and we found in 
 the war labor board the greatest element of impracticability in that 
 board was the fact of the incompetence of that board, even with 
 20 men representing all stages of industry, to pass on every- 
 thing, from a printers' strike in New York to a harbor strike or a 
 railway question, or things of that kind. Other countries have 
 recognized the futility of that by establishing industrial boards, 
 rather than regional geographical boards. The basic underlying 
 local board should be first the shop committee, and then the district 
 industrial board, that is, for the steel industry in certain towns, for 
 instance, and then'the national board for the steel industry, and then 
 to appeal from the national industrial boards to the national labor 
 board or the national industrial tribunal, which would have under- 
 neath it as its guiding principles this code, and which could only 
 hear appeals on the questions of pure law, or a question of the law, 
 and the industrial boards themselves would settle all wages and 
 working conditions, and the national board would be for the pur- 
 pose of seeing that no infractions were made in the code which 
 would govern them all in their deliberations, and which would cor- 
 respond exactly to the supreme court, which I understand passes 
 entirely upon questions of pure law. 
 
 Senator 'Steeling, They 'speak here in this industrial conference 
 of the national regional board. They are regional boards, and, of 
 course, that relates to the geography of the country ? 
 
 Mr. Lauck. Yes, sir. ] 
 
 Senator Sterling. Why would it not be better, instead of having i 
 regional boards, to have boards based on the nature of the industry? 
 
 Mr. Lauck. Exactly. 
 
 Senator Sterling. Rather than boards whose jurisdiction would 
 extend over certain territory ? i 
 
 Mr. Lauck. That is exactly what should be done. Senator, it seems ' 
 to me. You can not have one board adjusting railway disputes, steel , 
 difficulties, and textile difficulties. As somebody has 'said, it assumes i 
 almost a divine omniscience to think that one board would know all ■ 
 boards. I 
 
 The Chairman. How many boards would you have to have? 
 
 Mr. Lauck. There are only about 15 or 20 basic industries in the 
 country. 
 
 The Chairman. You Avould have one for each of the basic indus- \ 
 tries ? 
 
INDUSTBIAL CONFEEENCE. 23 
 
 Mr. Latjck. Yes ; one for each of the basic industries. Say there 
 are 16 basic industries, and then with the addition of one or two 
 other boards, for instance, take the men who work in all the smaller 
 tool shops or miscellaneous industries; they could have what was 
 developed during the war, a metal trades board, and you would prac- 
 tically cover the whole range of industries. 
 
 The Chairman. Mr. Lauck, if you were called upon, with the 
 study that you have given this question, to formulate a plan which 
 you thought would be satisfactory and bring about more industrial 
 rest and settle these questions, just what would you do? 
 
 Mr. Lauck. I would proceed almost identically as you have in your 
 resolution, Mr. Chairman. I think that meets the situation theoreti- 
 cally and practically ; that is, you would create a board which would 
 accept the principles which have become sanctioned by past usage; 
 that is, the principles of the War Labor Board, and then proceed 
 from that board and establish these industrial boards as the basic 
 underlying unit. You would then, as I interpret the resolution, be 
 in a position so that progress can be made in the future and modi- 
 fications may be or additions to the code if labor and capital would 
 agree, but in the meanwhile we will proceed on the basis of those 
 principles which have received the public sanction. 
 
 The Chairman. Suppose under 3 this industrial congress is called 
 and it is utterly unable to agree on a code ? 
 
 Mr. Lauck. Then I think that you should go ahead, using the code 
 you have established, and saying, " If you do not like it, why, agree 
 to something else," because the principles which you would use have 
 received the sanction, you might say, of public opinion. 
 
 The Chairman. Then have the Congress go ahead and adopt that 
 industrial code? 
 
 Mr. Lauck. Yes. 
 
 The Chairman. And then formulate under some plan or board? 
 
 Mr. Lauck. Yes, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. What would be your idea to do then? 
 
 Mr. Lauck. Go ahead and enact a code based upon the principles 
 which have been developed and which will not be satisfactory to 
 either side, but which represents the public's point of view; then 
 create a national labor board, which will be created for the purpose 
 of interpreting and applying these principles, and hearing com- 
 plaints growing out of the infractions of those principles. 
 
 Senator Sterling. Hearing them originally in the first instance? 
 
 Mr. Lauck. No, sir ; hearing them on appeal. 
 
 Senator Sterling. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Lauck. And that will be your supreme court for our indus- 
 tries, dealing only with pure law or pure principles of law, and 
 establish under its direction industrial boards which Avill pass upon 
 wages and working conditions by industries, and can only appeal to 
 the national board in the event that a complaint is made that there 
 has been an infraction of the fundamental principles in adjusting 
 those disputes. You would not have any wages or working condi- 
 tions coming to them anyhow, coming before this national board at 
 all. It would all be settled by shop committee or district industrial 
 board, or by the national industrial board. They could appeal up 
 that way, but do not let the national board establish wages or work- 
 ing conditions. Let it simply be like the Supreme Court of the 
 
24 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 
 
 United States, legal, hearing complaint from these lower courts or 
 boards upon the basis of infraction of the principles. 
 
 The Chairman. You think it is feasible to work out a plan of 
 that sort? 
 
 Mr. Lauck. I think not only feasible but highly desirable and in 
 the public interest to work that out. 
 
 The Chairman. You have studied o^'e^ this concurrent resolution. 
 The fact that we have had two industrial conferences, and do not 
 seem to have gotten anywhere, would not that rather cast a damper 
 on this proposition of getting really what would be considered an- 
 other conference, though it be a sort of an industrial congress ? 
 
 Mr. Lauck. It might do that; but your industrial congress, for 
 the time being, is the least important part of your resolution. They 
 will say, " We have had two conferences and labor and capital would 
 not act, and now we are going to act, and we will give you the means 
 of calling together your representatives for another conference, if 
 you want to make recommendations to modify the action of Con- 
 gress — there is the opportunity for another congress, and if you can 
 agree on anything else and recommend it to the congress, we will 
 consider it." 
 
 The Chairman. Mr. Lauck, we have had a quorum call. Have 
 you anything else you would like to say, or are you about through? 
 
 Mr. Lauck. I have covered the essentials of all I had in mind. 
 
 The Chairman. All right; then we will stop. 
 
 Senator Sterling. I would suggest, Mr. Chairman — it occurs to 
 me so, anyhoM' — that we might need to hear further from Mr. Lauck. 
 
 The Chairman. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Lauck. I would be glad to come here at any time. I will 
 be glad to devote all the time that you may want to this subject. 
 
 The Chairman. You will furnish us with those letters from the 
 churches ? 
 
 Mr. Lauck. Yes, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. We will have this printed and have it in the hands 
 of a committee, and we will try and get the members to take an 
 interest in it, and will call you back again if we think we should 
 hear further from you. AVe thank you very mucli. 
 
 Whereupon, at 12.10 o'clock p. m"., the committee adjourned. 
 
INDT^STEIAL COXFERENOE. 
 
 FRIDAY, MAY 14, 1920, 
 
 United States Shxate 
 
 Committee on Education and Labor, 
 
 Washington, D. C, 
 
 The committee met at 10 o'clock a. m. 
 
 Present: Senators Kenyon (chairman), Plupps, Page, Sterlingv, 
 Walsh, and Jones. Also present: Herbert Hoover, vice president of 
 the industrial conference. 
 
 Senator Kenyon. Now, IVLr. Hoover, let me make this preliminary 
 statement to you: After the filing of the report of the industrial 
 conference, of which you were vice chairman, the attention of Con- 
 gress was, of course, challenged to that in a way, although it has. 
 never come to Congress from the President, nor has any re<;om- 
 mendation based on that report; but tliere are a good many men 
 in Congress who feel that in time of industrial peace, if we may 
 call it that, this proposition and these industrial problems should 
 be worked out. and may be worked out better than in times of strike. 
 
 I introduced the resolution for an industrial conference, or con- 
 gress, rather, some time ago, but I held it until after the industrial 
 congress had completed its report and had completed its work, and 
 I was in touch with some of the members of the conference, and they 
 though we had better do nothing until they were through. 
 
 But these hearings have sort of grown out of the report of the in- 
 dustrial conference, and this resolution that has been introduced for 
 an industrial congress may also be traceable to that. We have had 
 Mr. Lauck, secretary of the War Labor Board, before us, and we an- 
 ticipate having a number of leaders of thought along those lines to 
 discuss the industrial question before this committee in order that 
 we may find out what Congress can do. 
 
 With that preliminary statement we would be very glad to hin-e 
 your views on the subject relating to the work of the industrial 
 conference and what you believe Congress can do in a practical way 
 to possibly solve the industrial situation. 
 
 STATEMENT OF HON. HERBERT HOOVER, VICE PRESIDENT OF 
 THE INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 
 
 Mr. Hoover. Mr. Chairman, first, as the proposition to assemble 
 some sort of an industrial conference : My impression is that those 
 conferences, made up of representatives of employees on one side and 
 of employers on the other, always contain a considerable percentage of 
 extremists on both sides, and that the difference of views between 
 
 25 
 
26 INDUSTKIAL CONFEBENCE. 
 
 the two extremes is such that there is little practical hope of those 
 assemblies ever arriving at constructive results. 
 
 The attitude of the industrial conference was that the most con- 
 structive development could be had out of. the experience of the 
 more moderate, if you might style it such, employer and the more 
 moderate type of labor leader, and that development would best be 
 brought about by building on the steps already taken in the solution 
 of these matters in the experience that the world has gained in the 
 last 30 or 40 years in dealing with them, and that no revolutionary 
 steps should be adopted, but that the whole problem should be ad- 
 vanced on its next normal line one step further. 
 
 The conference made no attempt at a complete solution. The im- 
 pression that I have long entertained, and which I believe was the 
 impression of the entire conference, is that we have not yet, arrived 
 at any definite, positive settlement of this problem, and that the 
 only thing that can be done legislatively or nationally is to proceed on 
 the experience that we have had and advance one step only. 
 
 Now, there are some 
 
 The Chairman (interrupting). What is that step? 
 
 Mr. Hoover. The step which the industrial conference proposed 
 was to build first on collective bargaining, an instrument of settle- 
 ment of conflict which has reached a very considerable development 
 both as to psychology and technique ; and, second, to bring pressure 
 to bear to secure collective bargaining by instituting effective public 
 investigation, with the enlistment of public opinion as the only 
 pressure. The method by which that is arrived at is perhaps sec- 
 ondary, and I do not think that the industrial conference considered 
 their plan as perfect, but they believed that that was the step that 
 should be taken, and it should not be attempted to go too far in the 
 elaboration of principles. 
 
 Now, there are some things which underlie this whole relationship ; 
 for instance, I do not believe that the relationship can be settled by 
 any form of legal repression, whether it is by injunction or compul- 
 sory arbitration or industrial congress. The reason for that is that 
 all these forms lead ultimately to the use of the jail as the solution 
 for disputes, and these disputes are disputes with regard to the par- 
 ticipation of labor and capital in an industrial profit, and that form 
 of solution proceeds rather swiftly to the borders of what might be 
 styled martyrdom, or compulsory labor, or even compulsory wage. 
 
 There is another factor that underlies all of these considerations, 
 and that is the universal acceptance, a rightful acceptance, of the 
 consolidation of employment in the large entities, because that is 
 justification for the organization of employees similarly in the large 
 entities, in order that they may exert an equality in bargaining 
 power. 
 
 Now such organization appeared to the Congress to possess the 
 right to name its own representatives, and the problem of representa- 
 tion is perhaps the only point of conflict as to the whole question of 
 development of collective bargaining. 
 
 The Chairman. If I understand it, Mr. Hoover, the conference in- 
 dorsed the proposition. of collective bargaining, but left open the 
 question of representation. 
 
 Mr. Hoover. It provided a constructive means of determining the 
 credentials of the representatives. 
 
INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 27 
 
 The Chairman. We had that in rather an acute form in the steel 
 strike investigation. 
 
 Mr. Hoover. Yes. That plan provided by the industrial congress 
 gives a method by which the rightfulness of the representative to 
 speak is determined. 
 
 The Chairman. By secret ballot? 
 
 Mr. Hoover. By secret ballot. 
 
 Senator Sterling. May I ask, Mr. Hoover, in connection with the 
 question ot collective bargaining, was the question of enforcing the 
 collective bargaining considered? 
 
 Mr. Hoover. Yes; I think that the conference deliberated over that 
 for over a month. In order to get some clarity for that position, one 
 has to divide industries into those like public utilities, where there 
 is a constant employment, and general industry, where there is an 
 uncertainty of continuous employment. 
 
 Now, collective bargaining in general industry, with the uncer- 
 tainty of continuous employment, always takes the form, and must 
 take the form, of an agreement as to standards and conditions of 
 living. It is not an agreement for employment on either side. The 
 employer does not agree to give employment to either a definite body 
 of men, neither does he make a contractual relation with any one 
 man to give employment ; likewise, the employees are unable to give 
 an assurance on their side. The consequence is these contracts are 
 not of a nature of enforceable contracts. 
 
 Senator Sterling. But a contract in regard to the wages to be 
 paid 
 
 Mr. Hoover. That is, a contract establishing a standard. I only 
 mention that phase as showing the difficulty of arriving at a method 
 of enforcement, and it was the view of the conference that enforce- 
 ment in the whole industry must be practically based on good will, 
 and the fact that collective bargaining itself could not stand if there 
 was to be constant violation of contracts. 
 
 Senator Phipps. Would not that problem be simplified if the or- 
 ganizations representing the employees were incorporated, so that 
 they would be distinct and separate entities that might be ap- 
 proached ? 
 
 Mr. Hoover. The conference had the advantage of two former 
 attorney generals and two or three other legal minds, and their con- 
 clusion on that point was that the mere act of incorporation did not 
 alter the status legally of these associations as they stand to-day, and 
 it added nothing to the ability for enforcement. 
 
 Senator Phipps. Did any reasons for the refusals to incorporate 
 on the part of the members of labor organizations develop, and was 
 there any explanation of why they declined to become a corporate 
 body? 
 
 Mr. Hoover. Yes. I imagine, from the fact that we had — that 
 one — at least one important difficulty is the fact that all of the trade- 
 union organizations, or a great majority of them, conduct benefit 
 funds aside from the question of militant funds, and their great and 
 predominant fear is the effect on those funds, and the view of the 
 conference was that the incorporation did not either add to or subtract 
 from that situation, because those funds could be, by mere act of 
 incorporation, made free from attack. 
 
28 INDUSTEIAL CONFEKENCE. 
 
 Senator Phipps. Is it not a fact that many labor difficulties have 
 arisen during the period of test for which a definite wage scale or 
 agreement has been entered into between the employers and the em- 
 ployees? 
 
 Mr. Hoover. There is no question that a good deal of violation of 
 agreement has occurred, but on the other hand our view, after going 
 into that question at some length, was it represented an astonish- 
 ingly small proportion of the total number of agreements in cur- 
 rent, and that it really was not so great a problem as appears on the 
 face. We all agreed that the enforcement question is one of the 
 most difficult problems of the whole situation. The report sets out 
 at some length the views of the conference on that. I do not know 
 whether you have had an oportunity to read it or not. 
 
 The Chairman. Have you gone into, the Kansas law at all, Mr. 
 Hoover ? 
 
 Mr. Hoover. Yes; the Kansas law represents practically, is the 
 reproduction of the Australasia act of some 25 years ago. I had 
 opportunity to investigate the operation of those acts on the ground, 
 and I would not want to condemn the Kansas act, in spite of the 
 failure of the Australasia act to effect the results that were antici- 
 pated. The adaptation of any given plan to a new population, arid 
 under new conditions, may bring different results, and I have always 
 held, with regard to the Kansas act, that it was an experiment worth 
 trying on American soil, and it is possible that Kansas might de- 
 velop something of value to the entire country. My own view, both 
 from the point of view of public and economic results, is that the act 
 can not succeed. 
 
 The Chairman. Mr. Hoover, the act is nothing but machinery, 
 is it? 
 
 Mr. Hoover. No; the act is a very 
 
 The Chairman (interrupting). That is to say, there is no basic 
 code of industry under the act, nothing defining the relationship of 
 employer and employee? 
 
 Senator Sterling. And you say it has not succeeded in Australia. 
 
 Mr. Hoover. No. I at one time made some notes on that subject, 
 and if I may be permitted to give them, they cover that Kansas act 
 very fully and I quote 
 
 The Chairman. We will very glad to haA'^e tiiem. 
 
 Mr. Hoover. As I stated, the Kansas plan is, I believe, the first 
 large attempt at judicial settlement of labor disputes in the United 
 States. With the exception of one particular, it is practically iden- 
 tical with the industrial acts of Australasia of 15 or 20 years ago. 
 It comprises the erection of an industrial court, the legal repression 
 of the right to strike and lockout under drastic penalties, the deter- 
 mination of minimum wage, and involves a consideration of a fair 
 profit to the employer. The Kansas machinery goes one step further 
 than any hitherto provided in this particular of more emphasis on 
 fair profits and it also provides for the right of the State to take 
 over and conduct the industry in last resort. Under the enumerated 
 industries in the Kansas law, probably two-thirds of Massachusetts 
 industry would be involved. No man can say that this legislation 
 may not succeed in Kansas or under American conditions. The ex- 
 periment is valuable, and if it should prove a success to both em- 
 
INDUSTRIAL CONFEKENCE. 29 
 
 ployees and employers Kansas will have again taken the initiative in 
 service to her sister States. 
 
 I will not be taken as a carping critic if I point out the difficulties 
 in its progress on the basis of Australasian experience. It may, as 
 did the Australasian acts, have a period of apparent success and the 
 workers benefit by an initial service in planning out the worst injus- 
 tices. So far as I can see to-chiy, there is no reason why it will not 
 run the same course as in Australia, where the amount oif strikes and 
 dislocation was ultimately as great under these laws as in countries 
 without them. In periods of industrial prosperity the advancing 
 wage usually adjudicated by the industrial courts prevent strikes, 
 but in times of industrial depression decisions against the work 
 people give rise to the old form of resistance. 
 
 No one denies the right of the individual to cease work. The ques- 
 tion involved in this form of legislation is the right to combination 
 in common action by strikes. Whatever the right may be, it is a cer- 
 tainty that the working community of the civilized world adheres to 
 this right as an absolute fundamental to their protection. They be- 
 lieve that the aggregation of capital into large units under single 
 control places them at an entire disadvantage if they can not threaten 
 to impose their ultimate weapon of combined cessation of labor. 
 While it may be argued that the State may intervene in such a 
 manner as to substitute the protection of justice for the right of 
 strike and lockout, the belief in the right to strike has become im- 
 bedded in the minds of the laboring community of the world to an 
 extent that will not receive with confidence any alternative in driving 
 their own bargains. 
 
 There are other difficidties in compulsory adjudication of disputes. 
 The workings of such laAv necessarily result in ultimate determina- 
 tion of minimum wage for all crafts and industries. Every different 
 industrial unit will claim a different minimum based upon its local 
 economic surroundings. Otherwise the competitive basis upon which 
 industry is established will be undermined. No court has ever yet 
 adequately solved these differentials, and some dislocation of indus- 
 try results. I would expect' to see develop out of this type of mini- 
 mum wage the same phenomenon that existed in some parts of Aus- 
 tralasia, where cei'tificates of inability to earn the minimum, and 
 therefore permission to undertake employment at less than this wage 
 had to be issued in order that employment might be found for the 
 aged and disabled. The employers will naturally, in face of a mini- 
 mum wage, retain in employment that quality of worker that can 
 give the maximum effort. Another difficulty is the tendency for 
 wages of all worker's, regardless of their ability, to fall to the mini- 
 mum, for the employer naturally reduces the good to average with 
 the poor worker. I would not want to be understood to necessarily 
 oppose the possibilities of a minimum wage for women over large 
 areas, as distinguished from craft minimums for men, because cer- 
 tain social questions enter that problem to an important degree. 
 
 There is another feature of the Kansas act that should be given a 
 great deal of consideration and that is its essential provision that 
 in the determination of wage disputes it shall be based on a fair 
 profit to the employer. This must ultimately lead to a determma- 
 tion as to what a fair profit consists of, just as a minimum wage will 
 need be found for every craft and every establishment. I do not 
 
30 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 
 
 assume that any employer will contend for an unfair profit, but the 
 termination of what may be fair or unfair in respect to the hazards 
 involved in the initiation of a business, in its conduct over a long 
 term of years, its necessary provisions for its replacement and future 
 disasters is a matter that has not yet been satisfactorily determined 
 by either theoretic economics, legislation, or courts. In competitive 
 industry the processes of business determine this matter every day, 
 and owners will only claim such determination by the State when 
 the competitive tide is against them. We have long since recognized 
 the rights of the State to determine maximum profits in case of a 
 monopoly, but the determination of minimum profits (for fair profit 
 is a minimum as well as a maximum) may deliver large burdens 
 to the people. Moreover, I doubt whether labor will ultimately wel- 
 come such determination, for an unsuccessful plant, instead of 
 abandoning its production to its competitors, will claim wage reduc- 
 tions from the courts, and the general level of wages can thus be 
 driven down, and the State, at least morally, becomes a guarantor 
 of profits in overdeveloped industry. This plan in the long run sub- 
 stitutes Government control of industry for competition. 
 
 The Chairman. What is the one point in which the Kansas law 
 differs from the Australasia law? 
 
 Mr. HoovEE. It elaborates to a greater degree the question of a 
 fair profit. The Kansas law, I think, in operation in the long run, 
 will probably determine what the fair profit is as well as the mini- 
 mum wage. 
 
 The Chairman. Is the Australasia law still in force? 
 
 Mr. Hoover. The acts are in force, but they have been amended 
 to such a degree that it is no longer recognizable as the original act. 
 
 The Chairman. And you say that those acts were not successful? 
 
 Mr. Hoover. No; the frequency of strikes in Australia and New 
 Zealand for a period of five years, I think, before the war was about 
 the same ratio of the strike elsewhere in proportion to the employ- 
 ment. 
 
 Senator Sterling. Before they substituted this compulsory arbi- 
 tratioTi — I do not k'low about Australia or New Zealand. 
 
 Mr. Hoover. The plan as noAV developed is one of considerable 
 intricacy, embracing industrial congress, conciliation, the develop- 
 ment of collective bargaining, and in fact have in operation practi- 
 cally all of the different engines for settlement of difliculties that the 
 world has yet devised. 
 
 The Chairman. And they still have strikes. 
 
 Mr. Hoover. And they still have strikes. 
 
 Senator Phipps. Are yon familiar with the provisions of the Colo- 
 rado State laAvs? 
 
 Mr. Hoover. I regret that I have not them very well in mind at 
 the moment. I did look at that four or five months ago. 
 
 Senator Phipps. I am not as familiar with them as I should be 
 myself, the cardinal features, if I might be permitted, begin with an 
 agreement first between the employer and employee on a certain wage 
 scale for a definite period of time, and even for an indefinite term, 
 and employees desiring a change in the rates or conditions must 
 serve 30 days' notice on the employer before leaving the employment, 
 and there are provisions under which controversies as between the 
 employers and employees may go to a board of conciliation, and in 
 
INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 31 
 
 the beginning it appears to be working out fairly well. I think it 
 has been effective m that it has reduced the number of strikes and dis- 
 agreements which would otherwise have occurred. 
 
 Senator Stekling. That was modeled somewhat on the Canadian 
 industrial act. 
 
 Senator Phd'ps. The Canadian industrial act is very similar, as 1 
 understand it. 
 
 Mr. HoovEE. The Canadian act is based essentially on the principle 
 of retardation of strikes ; that pending the revolution of the machin- 
 ery of adjustment there is an inhibition against strikes, and in 
 Canada, where it has had but a limited period for trial, it does not 
 appear to have mitigated the difficulty very materially. 'J"he infor- 
 mation we had from Canada was there was a general feeling that, 
 in that particular at least, it had failed. 
 
 The proposals of the industrial conference M'ere based on the con- 
 ception that if we set up collective bargaining as the foundation 
 upon which to build, the problem then became "one of inducing -the 
 parties to get together and to bring pressure upon them to enter into 
 a bargain, and the pressure perhaps was first a positive investigation 
 with the right of either of the parties to join the board of investiga- 
 tion, upon his undertaking not to cease production and to abide 
 by the results of the machinery of collective bargaining, concilia- 
 tion, and arbitration set up in the statute. If both of the parties 
 would conclude to join the board, it became at once a stage of collec- 
 tive bargaining, because they were both at the table together at that 
 instant. 
 
 The proposal that there should be the admission of one of the 
 parties to the board upon his making that undertaking was based 
 on the idea that it would be a very marked pressure on the one who 
 stayed out to himself enter under the same conditions; that in the 
 event that either of the contestants failed to enter the board of in- 
 vestigation and thus turned into a board of collective bargaining, 
 there would be a report to the public and the actual development of 
 public opinion as to the rights and wrongs of the disputants, and it 
 was the conception of the conference that in the long run if those 
 disputes can be put up to the public the pressure of public opinion 
 will be as great and would be less dangerous than that of legal 
 repression. 
 
 Senator Sterling. That really is the essence of the Canadian indus- 
 trial dispute act ; that is, investigation and publication, to bring pub- 
 lic opinion to bear upon the question ? 
 
 Mr. HoovEE. That is the provision of the Canadian act, except as 
 it contains the legal retardation of strikes, and we liope to obtain the 
 same retardation of strike or lockout by a plan of investigation Avhere 
 either party has the right to enter the board. 
 
 Senator Steeling. Substituting that for the enforcement provided 
 for in the Canadian act ? 
 
 Mr. HoovEE. Yes, sir. In other words, massing the moral pressure 
 under voluntary conditions instead of the great danger of legal 
 procedure. 
 
 The Chairman. In your report, Mr. Hoover, you say : 
 
 The guiding tbouglit- of tlie conference has been that the right relationship 
 between employer and employee can be best promoted by the deliberate organiza- 
 tion of that relationship. 
 
32 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 
 
 Now, have you anything in mind as to just how that relationship 
 can be organized? I want to suggest the thought that runs in my 
 mind about that, and I have studied your report a good deal. Take 
 this very question of collective bargaining, if you had had a certain 
 code of industry agreed on between -smployer and i.jmployee, i)r 
 adopted by Congress, which would be better than to be agreed upon, 
 jDroviding for a living wage, an eight-hour day, the right of collec- 
 tive bargaining, and certain other fundamentals, then when it came 
 to the question of collective bargain an industrial court, based on 
 this industrial code, should define what collective bargaining is, 
 and some people would say that it meant their union and others 
 representation of employers; is that idea feasible, and what do you 
 mean by this deliberate organization of relationship ? 
 
 Mr. Hoover. That reference there was to a voluntary organization 
 in industry itself between each employer and his employees; that 
 the fundamental point of attack must be to develop better relation- 
 ship in the shop as the prevention of conflict rather than its cure, 
 and the report of the conference goes to some extent that question 
 of shop relation entirely apart from the question of the solution of 
 the conflict, and that particular phrase has reference to that. 
 
 As to the question of code, the opinion of the conference was that 
 if we start to establish a code we will enter an area of unanimous 
 contention and conflict, and that many of these things are highly 
 undetermined, and some kind of a structure could be set up, such 
 as is proposed in this report, and that that structure at first would de- 
 velop out of precedent and out of experience and probably be the 
 foundation of an industrial code. In other words, that this develop- 
 ment must take place, as the law has developed, out of experience 
 rather than out of legislation. 
 
 Senator Sterling. Do you mean the industrial conference with 
 your labor board ? I am referring to the bill itself, I guess. 
 
 Mr. HoovEE. I was referring to the conference plan for adjust- 
 ment of disputes, which sets up a series of regional conferences and a 
 national board of appeal. 
 
 The Chairman. You do think, Mr. Hoover, that ultimately for a 
 solution of this matter there must be worked out some industrial 
 code? 
 
 Mr. Hoover. Yes: I think there must be worked out some indus- 
 trial code ; but it is my belief it can only be worked out by experience 
 and precedent. Take the question of the eight-hour day ; with some 
 industries eight hours is obviously too long a day for human endur- 
 ance and in other industries it is probably too short a day. That 
 problem must be determined upon the factors of proper living, 
 proper period for relaxation and for the normal efforts of life, 
 proper periods of leisure, and upon the physical questions involved 
 as to strain, etc., and it is not a matter of universal application. 
 Eight hours is a sort of an approximation, perhaps, of the average 
 of all industries, but it would be almost impossible to legislate for 
 the great variety of conditions of industry as to the proper hours; 
 but, on the other hand, in a period of time it might develop as a 
 matter of precedent from great numbers of cases. 
 
 The Chairman. There would be no difficulty in reaching an agree- 
 ment between the employer and employee for a' living ; but what is 
 a hvmg wage that could be determined by the industrial court? 
 
INDUSTRIAL CONFEEENCE. 33 
 
 Mr. Hooat:r. That itself may have complexities, because a living 
 wage must embrace not only food and clothing and housing, but the 
 workman has the right of education for his family and for saving 
 and other margins over the employment, which becomes rather difii- 
 cult of determination. 
 
 Senator Phipps. Granting all that, and the establishment of stand- 
 ards which would give the employees that along those lines they 
 might contend for, is there not still left the question of whether or 
 not the employee is receiving his just share of the profits of the busi- 
 ness J and does not that raise the question, naturally, as to the proper 
 working out of a method of distribution of what you might term 
 the excess profits of the business? The matter of so-called bonuses 
 to employees is one which, to my mind, is quite important. Now, it 
 appears to be the attitude generally — of, I would not say all labor 
 organizations, but labor leaders — that bonuses to employees should 
 be discouraged rather than encouraged. They argue that the em- 
 ployees should be paid month by month, week by week, or even day 
 by day, that proportion to which he is fairly entitled. In practical 
 business operation, however, it is almost impossible for any employer 
 to determine periodically, at least within a year, what the profits 
 of his business have really been. Many large industrial organizations 
 have adopted plans under which they distribute to their employees a 
 proportionate share of the net profits of the business, after deter- 
 mining at the end of the year, based upon the length of employment, 
 the compensation paid the employee, and perhaps other elements 
 that enter into his service. Did your board— I am not as familiar 
 as I shoulcj be with the report of the industrial board— but I would 
 like to know to what extent the matter of profit sharing, so termed, 
 was considered by your industrial conference ? 
 
 Mr. Hoover. We considered it a great deal and in length, and we 
 took a great deal of information of the actual practical operation of 
 these devices of that order, of which there are a great many in the 
 country, and which fall under two general classes— one the sharing 
 of profits and the other being the sharing of what might be termed 
 the savings— and the profit-sharing devices have worked out success- 
 fully in some cases, but more particularly as applied to the executive 
 staff, sales organizations, and that type of employees, as distinguished 
 from skilled workmen. There is a great difficulty in determining the 
 fair basis of adjustment of profit bonuses, and those devices have 
 been used as a detriment rather than an improvement of the condi- 
 tions of labor in some cases, and it is that occasional misuse that has 
 alarmed organized labor. , , . , j. i t ^ 
 
 Senator Sterling. How was it used to the detriment of laborj 
 Was it under the pretense that they are giving bonuses which would 
 deprive the laborer of the just wage? 
 
 Mr Hoover That is the accusation; and it was also the accusation 
 that these bonuses were given to key men to prevent adequate organi- 
 zation of the staff; that there are many complaints about it; but how 
 far they are justified is difficult to tell. ,^ „.i. 4f 
 
 Senator Steeling. Notwithstanding that, I would like to ask it 
 there is not a growing recognition among the employers of the justice 
 of the sharing of profits with the employees i 
 
 9342—20 3 
 
34 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 
 
 Mr. Hoover. There certainly is, and if the wage could be based— 
 if the profit-sharing could be based on the conception of the wage- 
 on the conception that the wage should be a full wage of the industry 
 and craft, and that the sharing of the profit was an addition, it would 
 be then in its proper form, but not when it is used as a weapon for 
 the reduction, direct or indirect, wage. One great difficulty, of 
 course, is finding a marked distinction. 
 
 Now, the other type of what is termed in this report " gain shar- 
 ing " is a proper participation of the employees in the plant, in the 
 result of economy, and in the examination of materials, and in the 
 labor cost and in all costs. Those plans are in operation in a great 
 many plants, and both the employers and the employees seem to 
 regard them as constructive. 
 
 There can be no doubt as to the broad question that the intangible 
 agitation in industrial life is largely this question of the division 
 of the surplus. It is not so much the demands of the employees to 
 manage the business; he is desirous, genuinely, of cooperating to 
 further the business, but that cooperation should carry some relation- 
 ship and participation in the profits. 
 
 Senator Phipps. Of course, we all know there are periods of time 
 during which even the best organized concern may operate its busi- 
 ness at an actual loss, and consequently there would be no profit 
 which it might share with its employees. There are other periods, 
 and fortunately they are the most general, where the well-managed 
 concern does obtain a surplus of profit over and above what might 
 be termed a fair interest return on its investment, and that could 
 properly be designated as a surplus profit in which the employees 
 of the business could have some participation. 
 
 Mr. Hoover. Those problems are a great deal more difficult to work 
 out in detail than they are in theory, but they have been worked out 
 successfully in a great number of plants. 
 
 The Chairman. But you think, Mr. Hooverj it will tend to allevi- 
 ate the discontent and discontented minds and discontented spirits 
 among the laboring people if the employer will recognize the prin- 
 ciple that you have announced that labor is entitled to a participa- 
 tion in the wealth that it has created. 
 
 Mr. Hoover. I believe so. 
 
 The Chairman. And that we are in a new day, and labor sees that 
 proposition, and what is the use of anybody standing against ? 
 
 Mr. Hoover. That is my belief, and that is one of the things set 
 out in this report. 
 
 Senator Page. In my own experience as an employer of labor I 
 have found that my boys come to look forward to their semiannual 
 dividend of profits as a matter of course, and whenever it has hap- 
 pened that there has been a deficiency or a lack of the usual profit, I 
 have found it to my personal interest to make up out of my assets a 
 fair bonus for the boys, so that they may not have that disappoint- 
 ment. I think that is the sentiment of a number or a great many of 
 the manufacturing concerns; they hate very much to have the dis- 
 appointment come. It will come occasionally from a balance sheet 
 where the balance is in red. 
 
 Mr. Hoover. That is true, but there lies in it the underlying diffi- 
 culty—that is, the employees of the country, take them by and large, 
 
INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 35 
 
 are looking for a position of right As distinguished from a position 
 of consideration. 
 
 The Chairman. What do you mean by that ? 
 
 Mr. Hoover. Well, they do not wish to be placed in a position of 
 benevolence as distinguished from a position of right. 
 
 Senator Sterling. Would not a candid showing as to the results of 
 the business for the year by the employer to the employee have this 
 tendency to alleviate these difficulties ? 
 
 Mr. Hoover. Well, we dealt with that problem in connection with 
 the stimulation of shop council organizations, of which there are 
 many varieties, the object of which is to bring a more intimate and 
 cooperative relationship between employer and his employee, and in 
 which the suggestion lies here that there shall be a disclosure and 
 an enlistment of the interest of the employees in the industry, not 
 only from the point of view of participation but above all things, to 
 try and restimulate the creative instinct in labor ; that with the elab- 
 oration of industry into these large profits there has been a terrible 
 deadening in efforts to create, and there is little hope of redeeming 
 that except to create a new interest, and that interest to be an interest 
 in the business, an interest in its success, and result in cooperation to 
 some extent, even though it may be only in one room in the shop, in 
 the matter of the successful carrying on of the project; in other 
 words, to give some expression in a practical manner, and to organize 
 the wage and conditions of labor. 
 
 Senator Phipps. Is it not a fact that under the present-day 
 methods the necessity for manufacture or carrying on of any line of 
 industry in very large communities the personal touch is practically 
 eliminated? Take for illustration, to go back to my own early ex- 
 perience in my business life, I know that the employees always 
 appreciated a personal visit and a conversation with the proprietor, 
 and the proprietor was looked to to acquaint himself with the actual 
 conditions and to recognize personal merit and advance those who 
 were deserving and all of that. 
 
 Now, in the very large establishments of to-day that has been 
 necessarily eliminated ; it is impossible for the proprietors to have 
 a personal knowledge and acquaintanceship with each individual 
 emptoyee. Something must take its place. If that can be found in 
 a feeling of proprietorship, under which the employee is cGiivinced 
 that his share in the operation of a business is going to have its 
 reward by participation in the profits of the business over and above 
 his fixed wage, is not that a thing that should be worked out and 
 generally developed? 
 
 Mr. Hoover. I think that is one of the large factors. Ot course, 
 it goes through a large social area, and that is the whole question 
 of the division of the social surplus arising out of production. The 
 point of relationship is one of the foundational difficulties, or, under 
 the older conditions, the production where there were small com- 
 munities and intimate relations between the employee and the em- 
 ployer there was a mutual responsibility that has been greatly un- 
 dermined by the enormous elaboration of industry and by the ab- 
 sentee proprietors, and one of the first points of attack is on the 
 reestablishment of that relationship. It can not be restored^in its 
 old form. It must be restored by a definite form of organization 
 that is going on in the country to a very large degree to-day, and it 
 
36 INDXTSTEIAL CON-FEEENCE. 
 
 is a very hopeful aspect. It has, unfortunately, been condemned by 
 some sections of organized labor, because some of these forms have 
 been used to undermine organized labor — wrongfully, I think— but 
 it is possible that time will bring a better recognition of the useful- 
 ness of that form of organization to even organized labor itself. 
 
 Senator Phipps. May I ask if you are basing that statement on the 
 testimony of the representatives of labor organizations, or have you 
 been enabled yourself to inquire into this in a number of particular 
 cases to check up the allegation that the method or device has been 
 used not for the announced purpose, but the detriment of the em- 
 ployee ? 
 
 Mr. HoovEE. Well, I would not want to say that it has been used 
 to the detriment of the employee. The information that came before 
 us shows that at times it has been used against organized labor. I 
 would not want to say that it has been used to the detriment of the 
 employee. I think the most prominent case of that, or the one most 
 complained of, is the Steel Corporation. 
 
 The Chairman. Mr. Hoover, Mr. Lauck was before the commit- 
 tee, and right along this line I want to read you a little something he 
 said. He testified : 
 
 A new conception of industry has also been formecl by labor and by a large 
 part of the general public. Prior to the war industry was considered as being 
 primarily conducted for profit, the theory being that by competition and by free 
 play of selfish, economic forces, the greatest advantage to the greatest num- 
 ber — labor, capital, and the public — would be accom'plished. On the other hand, 
 In recent years the idea has been gaining ground and growing in force and 
 acceptance that iu reality industry Is a social ■ institution. In its most con- 
 servative form it finds expression in the claim that Industry should not be con- 
 ducted in a spirit of relentless economic self-interest for profit, but that while 
 the stimulus of profit should be retained and the fundamental rights of capital 
 and labor should be protected and conserved, industrial promotion, expansion, 
 and operation should also be a social service and subordinated at least to 
 democratic institutions and ideals. 
 
 Mr. Hoover. I think that is a very able and a very strong state- 
 ment. 
 
 The Chairman. Again: 
 
 The significance of the present-day unrest and turmoil — whether in industrial 
 warfare or social agitation — may, therefore, be said to arise from the fact that 
 the close of the Great War marks the beginning of a new conception of 
 democracy. 
 
 Is not it true that the churches of the country, both Protestant and 
 Catholic, have seemed to follow along this line of reasoning, that 
 industry has become a social organization? 
 
 Mr. Hoover. I think there is no question of doubt about that. 
 One always gets into a fairly intangible field in that discussion, be- 
 cause it comes down fundamentally to this, does it not, that how far 
 altruism is replacing self-interest as a stimulus to production and 
 initiative ? 
 
 The Chairman. Some of these returns of the profiteers do not look 
 as though it was getting very far. 
 
 Mr. Hoover. No ; I think it is a thing that varies with time as well 
 as individual industry and individual men, and that certainly during 
 the war we had a period in which altruism was a stimulus to pro- 
 duction and initiative; to-day self-interest predominates to a large 
 degree and the pendulum swings apparently with a good deal of 
 frequency. 
 
INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 37 
 
 Senator Jones. I'd like to inquire if in your judgment the ques- 
 tion of excessive profits has any direct reference to what might be 
 termed labor dissatisfaction? 
 
 Mr. Hoover. I think it has, but it is difficult to state what weight 
 should be given to any one factor of industrial unrest. There is a 
 paragraph in our report that points out a great number of these con- 
 tributing influences, but I do not think anyone would care to say 
 which is the one of doniinating importance. Among others they in- 
 clude the rise in the cost of living, unrestrained speculation, spectacu- 
 lar instances of excessive profits, excessive accumulation and misuse 
 of wealth, inequality in readjustments of wage schedules, release of 
 ideas and emotions by the war, social revolutionary theories imported 
 from Europe, the belief that free speech is restricted, the intermit- 
 tency of eniployment, fear of unemployment, excessive hours of work 
 in certain industries, lack of adequate housing, unnecessarily high 
 infant mortality in industrial centers, loss of personal contact in 
 large industrial units, and the culmination of a growing belief on the 
 part of both employers and employees that a readjustment is neces- 
 sary to a wholesome continuity of their united effort. 
 
 Senator Jones. I have just recently seen a very positive statement, 
 based upon statistics gathered from different authentic sources, to the 
 general effect that the profits of corporations of this country during 
 the war period — that is, during the years 1916, 1917, and 1918— ex- 
 ceeded the profits of the prewar period by threefold ; in other words, 
 the profits during the war period amounted to three times as much as 
 the profits during the prewar period; and that this was the fact' on an 
 average of all corporations in the country earning an income of 
 $1,000,000 or in excess of that sum, and that the proportion of the 
 labor cost, of the increased cost of labor in the production of com- 
 modities, was relatively small compared with this extended profit. 
 
 Mr. Hoover. Well, I think as a generalization that there can be no 
 question of an enormous increase of profit, but what the relative is to 
 be given to that I do not know, but it is a matter that would require 
 careful investigation. There has been an enormous increase in prof- 
 its, and an enormous increase in profits out of proportion to the in- 
 crease in wage costs. As to what the mathematical ratios are I could 
 not say. 
 
 Senator Jones. It seems that this increase of profit has been 
 brought about not through increased production, but primarily 
 through increased price. 
 
 Mr. Hoover. It is necessary, I think, to bear in mind that since we 
 entered the war we have been in a period of shortage of practically 
 every large and great commodity, and there is therefore a natural 
 tendency on the part of commerce to take advantage of it, and the 
 efforts during the war of attempting to curtail it were indeed par- 
 tially successful, but the experience of the world found no very ade- 
 quate solution. 
 
 Senator Jones. And by the way, these figures or statements as to 
 profits apply after the payment of the excess-profit tax ? 
 
 Mr. Hoover. Yes, after the excess-profit tax ; and the excess-profit 
 tax itself in some of the industries was a stimulus to increased profits. 
 
 Senator Jones. I guess there is no doubt about that. They felt it 
 was necessary to get the excess profit back, and then a profit on that. 
 Mr. Hoover. And then some more. 
 
38 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 
 
 Senator Jones. Yes. But it seems to me that the fact of these 
 concerns making such enormous profits would naturally bring about 
 unrest among the men who are actually producing the profits. 
 
 Mr. Hoover. There can be no question that it would have that 
 result. The practical question as to how to deal with problems of 
 that character, without undermining the entire economic system, is 
 a problem of great complexity, and it is probably a problem that, if 
 experience hitherto guides us, must find its own solution when the 
 world has begun to overtake its production. 
 
 Senator Sterling. After all, .is it a very unusual condition that 
 great profits or excessive profits following a war and during the 
 carrying on of a war 
 
 Mj. Hoover (interrupting). Some study that I made on th« ques- 
 tion shows that following the Napolenoic war and the Franco-Prus- 
 sian War and our own Civil War developed the fact that following 
 every war there was a period of large profit and increasing wage 
 because of the shortage in commodities as the result of the war itself. 
 During the period of readjustment and overtaking of short supply 
 all of these more or less malignant forces had a large run. 
 
 The Chairman. Are you familiar with the conference that was 
 held in Britain ? 
 
 Mr. Hoover. The conference out of which the Whitley council 
 developed ? 
 
 The Chairman. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Hoover. I gave it some study. 
 
 The Chairman. Do you think anything of that character or a 
 conference of that character in this country would be advisable? 
 
 Mr. Hoover. I have. looked on that with a great deal of alarm. 
 That contemplates the organization of each industry as a whole, 
 both on the side of labor and of the employers. Take, for instance, 
 the whole electrical industry of the United States and provide a 
 committee of the employers and a committee of the employees to sit 
 upon the question of employer and employee relationship, and with 
 the ability and capacity of our people for combination, it is my 
 instinct, at least, that they would not sit together 24 hours before 
 they would come to conclusions to pass it on to the public, and it 
 would be more dangerous to the public 
 
 The Chairman. Do you know about Mr. Leech's plan ? 
 
 Mr. Hoover. Yes; his plan is one of .the plans of shop organiza- 
 tion — trying to reestablish an intimate relationship directly between 
 the employer and the employee. It is a very elaborate plan and has 
 worked successfully in a number of cases. 
 
 The Chairman. There have been some conspicuous successes of 
 that plan, have there not ? 
 
 Mr. Hoover. Yes ; I think ihere are 20 or 30 varieties of shop- 
 council plans that have been evolved, some of which are more and 
 some less successful. One of the most successful is the one organ- 
 ized in cooperation with the American Federation of Labor at Beth- 
 lehem. 
 
 The Chairman. The American Federation of Labor does not look 
 with favor upon the conference's plan. 
 
 Mr. Hoover. No; they apparently look at it with a good deal of 
 alarm. My feeling is that in the course of time we will find an ad- 
 
INDUSTRIAL, CONFERENCE. 39 
 
 justment between the two forces that will probably be beneficial to 
 both of them. 
 
 The Chairman. I would like to ask this : Take a controversy, and 
 take it through for us the machinery of the industrial conference; 
 suppose Congress established that machinery. Take a controversy 
 at some factory. 
 
 Mr. HoovEK. In the first instance, it would have to be a conflict 
 that had some public interest. 
 
 The Chairman. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Hoover. That public interest may well extend to an industrial 
 plant where the association of production may have an importance 
 to the public, but it must be prima facie in continuous production. 
 
 The Chairman. Take the Steel Corporation and the steel strike. 
 
 Mr. Hoover. In such a case the local chairman would seek to stimu- 
 late a meeting between the employer and the employees. Assuming 
 that you have a hard conflict, that is pot likely of success. He would 
 then at once set up a board of investigation as to the merits of the 
 conflict. That board would be comprised of two employers and two 
 employees of that type of industry, but not of the people in conflict. 
 He would then offer to the parties at conflict that either one or both 
 of them could join this board of investigation, but on the condition of 
 a former agreement not to cease, but to restore production pending 
 all process. If one of them- — say, the employees — joined, the investi- 
 gation would proceed and there would be a public report. If that 
 report would be simply a case of drawing the attention of the public 
 opinion to the processes, it would go no further, unless both sides 
 were prepared to become members of the board of investigation. 
 
 If they became members of the board of investigation, the investi- 
 gation itself ceases, and it becomes at once a conference for collective 
 bargaining. There is likely to arise in acute disputes a question as 
 to the credentials of the employees or the representatives of the em- 
 ployees, and there is a provision that the local chairman may deter- 
 mine those, representatives' rights to represent the employees in the 
 conflict, and if necessary take a secret ballot to determine that 
 Given that they have both joined the original board of investigation 
 and converted it into an industrial conference, into a conference 
 board, it is expected that the presence of the employee and the em- 
 ployer from outside of the industry immediately at conflict, would 
 act as a moderating influence on arriving at the collective bargain- 
 ing. The decisions of that conference board must be unanimous. 
 There is no attempt to compel a bargain by any "vote short of the 
 total number. In other words, it was to maintain a collective bargain 
 and not to set up a board of arbitration. In case of failure of that 
 hoard, there is an appeal to the national board, and in the national 
 board as well, the national board being comprised of the representa- 
 tives of the employers, the public and the employee, there must also 
 be a unanimous decision, and if it can not arrive at a unanimous 
 decision, it makes the report to the public. 
 
 Senator Sterling. How is the national board constituted ? 
 
 Mr. Hoover. It is constituted of nine members, and I would like to 
 mention that the conference has no great insistence on the details of 
 this plan. The National Industrial Board shall have its headquarters 
 in Washington and shall be composed of nine members appointed by 
 
40 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 
 
 the President and confirmed by the Senate. In order to insure ap- 
 pointment upon such board of persons familiar with industrial ques- 
 tions and capable of estimating the effect of the decisions rendered, 
 three shall be chosen from persons representative of industrial affairs, 
 three from persons representative industrial employees, and three 
 from persons representative of general interests, who shall be spe- 
 cially qualified by reason of knowledge or experience with economic 
 and general questions. All shall act for the general welfare and 
 shall be selected without regard to political affiliations. 
 
 The object of maintaining a unanimous conclusion all along the 
 line was to make it easy and acceptable of entrance into the ma- 
 chinery, because the greatest thing to be gained is to stay the con- 
 flict. Entrance to the machinery has only one condition; that is, 
 not to cease production during the operation of the machine, and 
 to set up a machine of such fairness and such security that there 
 would be no resistance to interests, and if one failed to enter, it would 
 itself be a stigma in the minds of the public. The whole thing rests 
 on public opinion. 
 
 The Chairman. And the decrees are enforced by public opinion? 
 
 Mr. HoovEE. Entirely. 
 
 Senator Phipps. The board makes no recommendation or pro- 
 vision for arbitration — — 
 
 Mr. HoovEK. There are points under the plan at which arbitration 
 can intervene with the consent of the parties to the conflict, and 
 there are mediators, arbitrators, and various features of that kind. 
 
 Senator Phipps. But there is no compulsory feature ? 
 
 Mr. Hoover. There is no compulsory feature, and in that as de- 
 veloped it is a distinction from any industrial plan hitherto pro- 
 vided. It avoids the pitfalls of compulsory arbitration and sup- 
 pression of right to strike and all those other great difficulties. 
 
 The Chairman. You believe, do you, that it is the best step and 
 the only step that we can take at this time ? 
 
 Mr. Hoover. My opinion is that it is the best step and the only 
 step that should be taken until this whole problem of employer and 
 employee relationship has had further development. 
 
 The Chairman. Are you familiar with the Cummins Act — the 
 railroad bill? 
 
 Mr. Hoover. Yes, sir. . 
 
 The Chairman. And there are certain provisions laid down in 
 that bill in the way of standards which the Labor Board should 
 take under consideration, a living wage and things of that character? 
 
 Mr. Hoover. Yes, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. Labor has found very great fault with the Cum- 
 mins bill, but it has not found fault with that provision ; isn't it pos- 
 sible — I do not have to hang to that idea too much — but it seems to 
 me that we must get something of that kind iii it. If we could get 
 the standards and follow with your machinery 
 
 Mr. Hoover. Standards as broadly expressed as that do not create 
 any great difficulty. They could be made flexible 
 
 The Chairman. But having a court or board without any stand- 
 ard is a great deal like having a Congress without a constitution. 
 
 Mr. Hoover. The railway plan is practically a compulsory arbi- 
 tration without penalties? 
 
INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 41 
 
 The Chairman. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Hoover. But it differs from the conference plan in that it 
 does not lead up to entrance into the machinery, and entrance is 
 likely to be accompanied with a certain amount of bad will. 
 
 The Chairman. Now, Mr. Hoover, you are a member of this con- 
 ference, and you are interested in this question, and you have given 
 it much study, and you realize that it is one of the greatest questions 
 to be solved. Now, what would you do, as a practical man, if you 
 were a Member of Congress and having your interest in it? 
 
 Mr. Hoover. I would endeavor to work out something on the 
 basis of this plan, as being the first step to which there could be no 
 righteous antagonism in the country. ' I do not believe that even the 
 more thoughtful labor leaders would themselves oppose this plan 
 for adjustment of disputes. 
 
 The Chairman. This plan and the report was presented about 
 March 6, 1 suppose, to the President ? 
 
 Mr. Hoover. Yes, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. And nothing has come to the Congress from the 
 President. Do you know anything as to how he may feel concern- 
 ing this plan ? 
 
 Mr. Hoover. I have not the remotest idea. I will say about this 
 report that the portion which has received criticism from organized 
 labor is the portion that has set out the organization of shop council, 
 all of which is purely a voluntary organization and has no relation- 
 ship to legislation. So far as I know the plan itself, except as to some 
 features as to the adjustment of conflict, has not received any very 
 considerable criticism on either side. 
 
 The Chairman. There was no dissenting report ? 
 
 Mr. Hoover. Well, the report states that there are three classes in 
 the adjustment of the conflict 
 
 The Chairman. What I mean by that is that none of the members 
 dissented from the conclusions of the majority. 
 
 Mr. Hoover. On the question of employees and critical public 
 experience two members of the conference dissented on the question 
 of compulsory retardation of strikes. They wished to insert some 
 clause providing for the retardation of strikes for a little time. 
 
 The Chairman. And the Secretary of Labor was the chairman of 
 that conference, was he not ? 
 
 Mr. Hoover. Yes, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. And you are vice chairman? 
 
 Mr. Hoover. Yes, sir. The conference was after three months 
 absolutely unanimous on the report, except that one point. 
 
 The Chairman. And the conference considered these matters for 
 a period of three months ? 
 
 Mr. Hoover. Yes, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. Is there anything further that you would like to 
 say to us or any questions that the Senators would like to ask Mr. 
 
 Hoover? . , , . , 
 
 Mr Hoover. No ; there is only one further point, that is, perhaps, 
 of a little interest, and that is as to the distinction that should be 
 drawn— perhaps it has no relation to legislation, but should be men- 
 tioned in connection with strikes— that the use of the strike to effect 
 political ends has been resorted to a great deal in Europe, and there 
 
42 
 
 INDUSTEIAL CONrEKENCB. 
 
 seems to be — to my mind there is a good deal of unnecessary alarm 
 on that account in this country, because I think the conclusions of the 
 conference and my own observation over quite a period is that there 
 has been no taint of that order in the use of the strike in the United 
 States. It has been applied solely to organize the hours and condi- 
 tions of labor and not endeavor to override the ballot box, and cer- 
 tainly the leaders in American organized labor have discouraged 
 any such possible use of that character. I only mention that because 
 there seems to be some misapprehension when one is dealing with the 
 question of the right to strike that the strike might develop into a 
 political weapon. So far it certainly has not in the United States. 
 
 Senator Phipps. I wish to thank you, Mr. Hoover. It has been a 
 most interesting hearing to me. I wish to say that I have gotten 
 quite a little information from it. 
 
 Mr. Hoover. I thank you, gentlemen. 
 
 (Thereupon, at 11.30 o'clock, the hearing was adjourned subject 
 to the call of the chairman.) 
 
IN^DUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 
 
 MONDAY, MAY 31, 1920. 
 
 United States Seistate, 
 Committee on Educati©n and Labor, 
 
 Washington, D. 0. 
 
 The committee met, pursuant to call of the chairman, at 11 o'clock 
 am, in room 201, Senate Office Building, Senator William S. 
 Kenyon presiding. 
 
 Present: Senators Kenyon (chairman), Sterling, Walsh, McKel- 
 lar. Hoke Smith, and McLean. 
 
 Also present: Hon. Henry J. Allen, governor of the State of 
 Kansas. 
 
 The Chairman. Now, gentlemen I asked Gov. Allen some time ago 
 when he was in the East to favor us with a discussion of the Kansas 
 law, and he has very kindly come here to-day for that purpose. I 
 will say, Governor, that we are working along rather slowly on this 
 industrial problem. We have discussed the report of the industrial 
 conference and also some resolutions that have been passed, and we 
 would be very glad, indeed, to know about the Kansas law— how it 
 has worked— and any other discussion of the general question to 
 which you have given such a great deal of study. I am sorry that 
 there are not more Senators here. I did not realize that it was 
 Memorial Day, but I will say that the hearings will be printed and 
 you can read them over. 
 
 STATEMENT OF HON. HENRY J. ALLEN, GOVERNOR OF THE STATE 
 
 OF KANSAS. 
 
 Gov. Allen. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I was very glad to 
 accept the invitation extended to me to present to you the features of 
 the Kansas law. The Kansas Court of Industrial Relations in its 
 broad inherent powers maintains the same possibilities of concilia- 
 tion, welfare work, and group discussion that, are provided in the 
 report of the second industrial conference, but when all of these 
 efforts at conciliation have failed the Kansas court takes charge of 
 the controversy and settles it upon terms which give proper recogni- 
 tion to the public, to labor, and to capital. 
 
 I think you are all familiar with the background of the legisla- 
 tion. When the general coal strike came «n last winter, we were 
 peculiarly affected by it, bein^ farther from the thick-vein mines 
 than most of our neighbors. Everybody was out of coal except the 
 operators and the miners. Within two Aveeks there was suffering in 
 Kansas, and schools and public institutions began closing down 
 
 43 
 
44 INDTJSTKIAL CONFERENCE. 
 
 rapidly. The State took over the mines under an order of the 
 supreme court, appointing a receivership. Volunteers were called to 
 operate the mines, for the purpose. of saving the public from the 
 disaster of the coal famine, and within 24 hours after the first call 
 more than 11,000 Kansans volunteered their services. 
 
 From this great offering we selected a sufficient number of men to 
 man the strip mines, taking the personnel very largely from those 
 who had been in the Army service, and within 10 days enough coal 
 was produced to relieve the emergencies in 200 Kansas communities. 
 
 While the State operation was still in progress, a special session of 
 the legislature was called for the purpose of enacting legislation 
 which would make impossible and unnecessary in the future the 
 repetition of a thing so wasteful, so terrifying, and so dangerous. 
 The legislature met with a full attendance, and ample time was 
 given for the most careful and deliberate discussion of the merits 
 of the situation. During a week or more of hearings granted to the 
 representatives of both capital and labor, it was revealed that neither 
 of these two- organized groups favored the bill. The union labor 
 leaders said it was involuntary servitude, and the employing capi- 
 talists said it was State socialism. 
 
 The result, however, after three weeks of careful consideration is, 
 I believe, one of the most carefully-drawn laws upon the statute 
 books in this country. The bill was passed with only five votes 
 against it in the senate and seven votes against it in the house. 
 
 The Kansas laws differs from the Australian act in that the Aus- 
 tralian act is a court of arbitration, passed primarily for the enforce- 
 ment of the agreements of arbitration, at the demand of union labor, 
 for the purpose of encouraging unionization. It differs very much 
 from the Kansas law — so much that the two can hardly be compared. 
 
 The Kansas law has as its first purpose the protection of the public ; 
 the Australian law has. for its first purpose the enforcement of agree- 
 ments of arbitration. 
 
 The Kansas law provides that either capital or labor, organized or 
 unorganized, may come into court upon petition of their officers or 
 their agents, or on the petition of 10 citizens. The court upon its 
 own initiative may open a case touching either of the parties, or both 
 of them, or the attorney general may open it. 
 
 In Australia the only people eligible to the action of the court are 
 those who have formed chartered organizations. No appeal is al- 
 lowed from the decision of their court, except that either of these 
 aggrieved parties may appeal to Parliament' from the procedure 
 of the court, an unfavorable vote from either branch of which ren- 
 ders the decision of the court void. 
 
 In the Kansas court there is an appeal to the supreme court of the 
 State, whose decision is final. 
 
 The orders and awards of the Australian courts are enforced by 
 means of money penalties, which are levied only against registered 
 unions. These fines, ^ich are collected in civil courts, as other 
 money judgments are collected, have had little effect in really penal- 
 izing unions. 
 
 In Kansas the fines and penalties are directly ordered by the court 
 of industrial relations, and, if appealed from, they go to the supreme 
 court. 
 
INDUSTRIAL COBTFEEENCE. 45 
 
 The Chaibman. How many members are there of the Court of In- 
 dustrial Relations ? 
 
 Gov. Allen. There are three members of the court. 
 
 The Chaieman. And are they elected by the people ? 
 
 ^.9 J- A^^^- "^^^y ai'e appointed by the executive, without any 
 qualifications except that the appointments must be confirmed by the 
 senate. 
 
 The Chairman. And what is the term of office? 
 
 Gov. Allen. The term of office is three years, with overlapping 
 terms. 
 
 In Australia the aggrieved person must put up a bond for costs. 
 In Kansas the costs are borne by the State. The Kansas court might 
 be called, as the presiding judge has termed it, " The court of the 
 penniless man," because anyone with a grievance may present it and 
 have the assistance of experts employed by the State. 
 
 Senator Smith. What did you say was the number of the court? 
 
 Gov. Allen. Three. 
 
 Senator Smith. And how are those members appointed ? 
 
 Gov. Allen. They are appointed by the governor of the State and 
 confirmed by the senate. We started out with one, two, and three 
 year terms, so that in the future the terms might overlap and safe- 
 guard the court against a complete change of personnel during the 
 term of any one executive. 
 
 Senator Smith. Are all the members of the court supposed to give 
 their entire time to the work of the court ? 
 
 Gov. Allen. Yes; they give their entire time to the work of the 
 court. 
 
 The Chairman. And they are paid $5,000 a year, are they not? 
 
 Gov. Allen. They are paid $5,000 a year, which is the same as the 
 pay of the supreme court justices up until the last increase. 
 
 Senator Sterling. I understand that some one on behalf of the 
 employer, an officer of the employing corporation, for example, or 
 some one on behalf of la.bor, or some one on behalf of the public may 
 initiate proceedings before this court. 
 
 Gov. Allen. Yes; and in addition thereto, the attorney general 
 may do so, or the members of the court, on their own initiative. 
 
 Senator Sterling. I see. 
 
 The Chairman. Don't you think you had better place in the record 
 a copy of that law ? 
 
 Gov. Allen. I will be very glad to give you a copy of the law. 
 
 The Chairman. All right, thank you, we will be very glad to 
 have it. 
 
 (The law referred to is here printed in the record in full, as fol- 
 lows:) 
 
 THE KANSAS OOUKT OF INDUSTKIAL RELATIONS. 
 
 AN ACT Creating the Court of Industrial Relations, defining Its powers and duties, and 
 relating thereto, abolishing the Public Utilities Commission, repealing all acts and 
 parts of acts in conflict therewith, and providing penalties for the violation of this act. 
 
 Be it enacted hy the Legislature of the State of Kansas: 
 
 Section 1. There is hereby created a tribunal to be known as the Court of 
 Industrial Relations, which shall be coniposed of three judges who shall be 
 appointed by the governer, by and with the advice and consent of the senate. 
 Of such three judges first appointed, one shall be appointed for a term of one 
 year, one for a term of two years, and one for a term of three years, said 
 
46 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 
 
 terms to begin simultaneously upon qualification of the persons appointed there- 
 for. Upon the expiration of the term of the three judges first appointed as 
 aforesaid, each succeeding judge shall be appointed and shall hold his office 
 for a term of three years and until his successor shall have been qualified. In 
 case of a vacancy in the office of judge of said Court of Industrial Relations 
 the governor shall appoint his successor to fill the vacancy for the unexpired 
 term. The salary of each of said judges shall be five thousand dollars per year,, 
 payable monthly. Of the judges first to be appointed, the one appointed for the 
 three-year term shall be the presiding judge, and thereafter the judge whose 
 term of service has been the longest shall be the presiding judge: Provided^ 
 That in case tvsfo or more of said judges shall have served the same length of 
 time, the presiding judge shall be designated by the governor. 
 
 Sec. 2. The jurisdiction conferred by lavy upon the Public Utilities Commis- 
 sion of the State of Kansas is hereby conferred upon the Court of Industrial 
 Relations, and the said Court of Industrial Relations is hereby given full 
 power, authority, and jurisdiction to supervise and control all public utilities 
 and all common carriers as defined in sections 8329 and 8330 of the general 
 statutes of Kansas for 1915, . doing business in the State of Kansas, and is 
 empowered to do all things necessary and convenient for the exercise of such 
 power, authority, and jurisdiction. All laws relating to the powers, authority, 
 jurisdiction, and duties of the public utilities commission of this State are 
 hereby adopted and all. powers, authority, jurisdiction, and duties by said laws 
 imposed and conferred upon the public utilities commission of this State relat- 
 ing to common carriers and public utilities are hereby imposed and conferred 
 upon the Court of Industrial Relations created under the provisions of this 
 act ; and in addition thereto said Court of Industrial Relations shall have such 
 further power, authority, and jurisdiction and shall perform such further duties 
 as are in this act set forth, and said public utilities commission is hereby abol- 
 ished. That all pending actions brought by or against the said public utilities 
 commission of this State shall not be aflfected, but the same may be prosecuted 
 or defended by and in the name of the Court of Industrial Relations. Any in- 
 vestigation, examination, or proceedings had or undertaken, commenced, or 
 instituted by or pending before said public utilities comm'ission at the time of 
 the taking effect of this act are transferred to and shall be continued and heard 
 by the said Court of Industrial Relattions hereby created under the same terms 
 and conditions and with like effect as though said public utilities commission 
 had not been abolished. 
 
 Sec. 3. (a) Th operation of the following-named and indicated employ- 
 ments, industries, public utilities, and common carriers is hereby determined 
 and declared to be affected with a public interest and therefore subject to 
 supervision by the State as herein provided for the purpose of preserving the 
 public peace, protecting the public health, preventing industrial strife, disorder, 
 and waste, and securing regular- and orderly conduct of the businesses directly 
 affecting the living conditions of the people of this State and in the promo- 
 tion of the general welfare, to wit: (1) The manufacture or preparation of 
 food products whereby, in any stage of the process, substances are being con- 
 verted, either partially or wholly, from their natural state to a condition to- 
 be used as food for human beings; (2) the manufacture of clothing and all 
 manner of wearing apparel in common use by the people of this State whereby, 
 in any stage of the process, natural products are being converted, either par- 
 tially or wholly, from their natural state to a condition to be used as such 
 clothing and wearing apparel; (3) the mining or production of any substance- 
 or material in common use as fuel either for domestic, manufacturing, or 
 transportation purposes ; ( 4 ) the transportation of all food products and arti- 
 cles or substances entering into wearing apparel, or fuel, as aforesaid, from the 
 place where produced to the place of manufacture or consumption; (5) all pub- 
 lic utilities as defined by section 8329, and all common carriers as defined by 
 section 8330 of the general statutes of Kansas of 1915. 
 
 (6) Any person, firm, or corporation engaged in any such industry or em- 
 ployment, or in the operation of such public utility or common carrier, within 
 the State of Kansas, either in the capacity of owner, officer, or worker, shall be 
 subject to the provisions of this act, except as limited by the provisions of 
 this act. 
 
 Sec. 4. Said Court of Industrial Relations shall have its office at the capital 
 of said State, in the city of Topeka, and shall keep a record of all its proceed- 
 ings, which shall be a public record and subject to inspection the same as other 
 public records of this State. Said court, in addition to the powers and juris- 
 
INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 47 
 
 diction heretofore conferred upon and exercised by the public utilities commis- 
 sion, is hereby given full power, authority, and jurisdiction to supervise, direct, 
 and. control the operation of the industries, employments, public utilities, and 
 common carriers in all matters herein specified and in the manner provided 
 herein, and to do all things needful for the proper and expeditious enforcement 
 of all the provisions of this act. 
 
 Sec. 5. Said Court of Industrial Relations is hereby granted full power to 
 adopt all reasonable and proper rules and regulations to govern its proceedings, 
 the service of process, to administer oaths, and to regulate the mode and manner 
 of all Its investigations, inspections, and hearings ; Provided, however, That in 
 the. taking of testimony tlie rules of evidence, as recognized by the Supreme 
 Court of the State of Kansas in original proceedings therein, shall be observed 
 by said Court of Industrial Relations ; and testimony so taken shall in all cases 
 be transcribed by the reporter for said Court of Industrial Relations in dupli- 
 cate, one copy of said testimony to be filed among the permanent records of said 
 court and the other to be submitted to said supreme court In case the matter 
 shall be taken to said supreme court under the provisions of this act. 
 
 Sec. 6. It is hereby declared and determined to be necessary for the public 
 peace, healtli, and general welfare of the people of this State that the industries, 
 employments, public utilities, and common carriers herein specified shall be 
 operated with reasonable continuity and efficiency in order that the people of 
 this State may live In peace and security and be supplied with the necessaries 
 of life. No person, firm, corporation, or association of persons shall in any 
 manner or to any extent willfully hinder, delay, limit, or suspend such continu- 
 ous and efficient operation for the purpose of evading the purpose and Intent of 
 the provisions of this act ; nor shall any person, firm, corporation, or association 
 of persons do any act or neglect or refpse to perform any duty herein enjoined 
 with the Intent to hinder, delay, limit, or suspend such continuous and efficient 
 operation as aforesaid, except under the terms and conditions provided by 
 this act. 
 
 Sec. 7. In case of a controversy arising between employers and workers, or 
 between groups or crafts of vvorkers, engaged in any of said Industries, employ- 
 ments, public utilities, or common carriers, if it shall appear to said Court of 
 Industrial Relations that said controversy may endanger the continuity or 
 efficiency of service of any of said industries, employments, public utilities, or 
 common carriers, or affect the production or transportation of the necessaries 
 of life affected or produced by said industries or employments, or produce in- 
 dustrial strife, disorder, or waste, or endanger the orderly operation of such 
 Industries, employments, public utilities, or common carriers, and thereby en- 
 danger the public peace or threaten the public health, full power, authority, and 
 jurisdiction are hereby granted to said Court of Industrial Relations, upon its 
 own initiative, to summon all necessary parties before it and to investigate said 
 controversy, and to make such temporary findings and orders as may be neces- 
 sary to preserve the public peace and welfare and to preserve and protect the 
 status of the parties, property, and public interests involved pending said in- 
 vestigations, and to take evidence and to examine all necessary records, and to 
 investigate conditions surrounding the workers, and to consider the wages paid 
 to labor and the return accruing to capital, and the rights and welfare of the 
 public, and all other matters affecting the conduct of said industries, employ- 
 ments, public utilities, or common carriers, and to settle and adjust all such 
 controversies by such findings and orders as provided in this act. It is further 
 made the duty of said Court of Industrial Relations, upon complaint of either 
 party to such controversy, or upon complaint of any ten citizen taxpayers of 
 the community in which such industries, employments, public utilities, or com- 
 mon carriers are located, or upon the complaint of the attorney general of the 
 State of Kansas, if it shall be made to appear to said court that the parties are 
 unable to agree, and that such controversy may endanger the continuity or 
 efficiency of service of any of said industries, employments, public utilities, or 
 common carriers, or affect the production or transportation of the necessaries 
 of life affected or produced by said industries or employments, or produce indus- 
 trial strife, disorder, or waste, or endanger the orderly operation of such indus- 
 tries, employments, public utilities, or common carriers, and thereby endanger 
 the ptiblic peace or threaten the public health, to proceed and investigate and 
 determine said controversy in the same manner as though upon its own initia- 
 tive After the conclusion of any such hearing and investigation, and as ex- 
 peditiously as possible, said Court of Industrial Relations shall make and serve 
 upon all Interested parties its findings, stating specifically the terms and condi- 
 
48 INDUSTRIAL CONFEKENCE. 
 
 tlons upon which said industry, employment, utility, or common carrier should 
 be thereafter conducted in so far as the matters determined by said court are 
 concerned. 
 
 Sec. 8. The Court of Industrial Relations shall order such changes, if any, as 
 are necessary to be made in and about the conduct of said industry, employ- 
 ment, utility, or common carrier, in the matters of working and living condi- 
 tions, hours, or labor, rules and practices, and a reasonable minimum wage, or 
 standard of wages, to conform to the findings of the court In such matters, as 
 provided in this act, and such orders shall be served at the same tinte and in 
 the same manner as provided for the service of the court's findings in this act : 
 Provided, All such terms, conditions, and wages shall be just and reasonable 
 and such as to enable such industries, employments, utilities, or common car- 
 riers to continue with reasonable efficiency to produce or transport their prod- 
 ucts or continue their operations and thus to promote the general welfare. 
 Service of such order shall be made in the same manner as service of notice of 
 any hearing before said court as provided by this act. Such terms, conditions, 
 rules, practices, wages, or standard of wages, so fixed and determined by said 
 court and stated in said order, shall continue for such reasonable time as may 
 be fixed by said court, or until changed by agreement of the parties with the 
 approval of the court. If eifher party to such controversy shall in good faith 
 comply with any order of said Court of Industrial Relations for a period of 
 sixty days or more, and shall find said order unjust, unreasonable, or imprac- 
 ticable, said party may apply .to said Court of Industrial Relations for a modi- 
 fication thereof and said Court of Industrial Relations shall hear and deter- 
 mine said application and make findings and orders in like manner and with 
 like effect as originally. In such case the evidence taken and submitted in the 
 original hearing may be considered. 
 
 Sec. 9. It is hereby declared necessary for the promotion of the general wel- 
 fare that workers engaged in any of said industries, employments, utilities, or 
 common carriers shall receive at all times a fair wage and have healthful and 
 moral surroundings while engaged in such labor; and that capital invested 
 therein shall receive at all times a fair rate of return to the owners thereof. 
 The right of every person to make his own choice of employment and to make 
 and carry out fair, just, and reasonable contracts and agreements of employ- 
 m'snt is hereby recognized. If, during the continuance of any such employment 
 the terms or conditions of any such contract or agreement hereafter entered 
 into are by said court, in any action or proceeding properly before It under the 
 provisions of this act, found to be unfair, unjust, or unreasonable said Court 
 of Industrial Relations may by proper order so modify the terms and condi- 
 tions thereof so that they will be and remain fair, just, and reasonable, and 
 all such orders shall be enforced as in this act provided. 
 
 Sec. 10. Before any hearing, trial, or investigation shall be held by said 
 court, such notice as the court shall deem necessary shall be given to all parties 
 interested by registered United States mail addressed to said parties to the post 
 office of the usual place of residence or busines of said interested parties when 
 same is known, or by the publication of notice in some newspaper of general 
 circulation in the county in which said industry or employment, or the prin- 
 cipal office of such utility or common carrier is located, and said notice shall 
 fix the time and place of said investigation or hearing. The costs of publication 
 shall be paid by said court out of any funds available therefor. Such notice 
 shall contain the substance of the matter to be investigated, and shall notify 
 all persons interested in said matter to be present at the time and place named 
 to give such testimony or to take such action as they may deem proper. 
 
 Sec. 11. Said Court of Industrial Relations may employ a competent clerk, 
 marshal, shorthand reporter, and such expert accountants, engineers, stenog- 
 raphers, attorneys, and other employees as may be necessary to conduct the 
 business of said court; shall provide itself with a proper seal and shall have 
 the power and authority to issue summons and subpoenas and compel the attend- 
 ance of witnesses and parties and to compel the production of the books, corre- 
 spondence, files, records, and accounts of any Industry, employment, utility, or 
 common carrier, or of any person, corporation, association, or union of em- 
 ployees affected, and to make any and all investigations necessary to ascertain 
 the truth in regard to said controversy. In case any person shall fail or refuse 
 to obey any summons or subpoena issued by said court after due service, then 
 and in that event said court is hereby authorized and empowered- to take proper 
 proceedings in any court of competent jurisdiction to compel obedience to such 
 summons or subpoena. Employees of said court whose salaries are not fixed by 
 
INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 49 
 
 law shall be paid sucli compensation as may be fixed by said court, with the 
 approval of the governor. 
 
 Sec. 12. In case of the failure or refusal of either party to said controversy 
 to obey and be governed by the order of said Court of Industrial Relations, then 
 and in that event said court is hereby authorized to bring proper proceedings in 
 the Supreme Court of the State of Kansas to compel compliance with said 
 ordec ; and in case either party to said controversy should feel aggrieved at any 
 order made and. entered by said Court of Industrial Relations, such party is 
 hereby authorized and empowered within ten days after service of such order 
 upon it to bring proper proceedings in the Supreme Court of the State of Kansas 
 to compel said Court of Industrial Relations to make and enter a .lust, reason- 
 able, and lawful order in the premises. In case of such proceedings in the 
 supreme court by either party, the evidence produced before said Court of 
 Industrial Relations may be considered by said supreme court, but said supreme 
 court. If it deem further evidence necessary to enable it to render a just and 
 proper judgment, may admit such additional evidence in open court or order it 
 taken and transcribed by a master or commissioner. In case any controversv 
 shall be taken by either party to the Supreme Court of the State of Kansas 
 under the provisions of this act, said proceeding shall take precedence over 
 other civil cases before said court, and a hearing and determination of the same 
 shall be by said court expedited as fully as may be possible consistent with a 
 careful and thorough trial and consideration of said matter. 
 
 Sec. 13. No action or proceeding in law or equity shall be brought by any 
 person, firm, or corporation to vacate, set aside, or suspend any order made and 
 served as provided in this act, unless such action or proceeding shall be com- 
 menced within thirty days from the time of the service of such order. 
 
 Sec. 14. Any union or association of workers engaged in the operation of such 
 industries, employments, public utilities, or common carriers, which shall incor- 
 porate under the laws of this State shall be by said Court of Industrial Rela- 
 tions considered and recognized in all its proceedings as a legal entity and may 
 appear before said Court of Industrial Relations through and by its proper 
 officers, attorneys, or other representatives. The right of such corporations 
 and of such unincorporated unions or associations of workers to bargain collec- 
 tively for their members is hereby recognized : Provided, That the individual 
 members of such unincorporated unions or associations who shall desire to avail 
 themselves of such right of collective bargaining shall appoint in writing some 
 officer or officers of such union or association, or some other" person or persons 
 as their agents or trustees with authority to enter into such collective bargains 
 and to represent each and every of said individuals in all matters relating 
 thereto. Such written appointment of agents or trustees shall be made a per- 
 manent record of such union or association. All such collective bargains, con- 
 tracts, or agreements shall be subject to the provisions of section 9 of this act. 
 
 Sec. 15. It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, or corporation to dis- 
 charge any employee or to discriminate in any way against any employee 
 because of the fact that any such employee may testify as a witness before 
 the Court of Industrial Relations, or shall sign any complaint or shall be in 
 any way instrumental in bringing to the attention of the Court of Industrial 
 Relations any matter of controversy between employers and employees as 
 provided herein. It shall also be unlawful for any two or more persons, by 
 conspiring or confederating together, to injure in any manner any other 
 person or persons, or any corporation, in his, their, or Its business, labor, 
 enterprise, or peace and security, by boycott, by discrimination, by picketing, 
 by advertising, by propaganda, or other means, because of any action taken 
 by any such person or persons, or any corporation, under any order of said 
 court, or because of any action or proceeding instituted in said court, 
 or because any such person or persons, or corporation, shall have invoked the 
 jurisdiction of said court in any matter provided for herein. 
 
 Sec. 16. It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, or. corporation engaged 
 in the operation of any such industry, employment, utility, or common car- 
 rier willfully to limit or cease operations for the purpose of limiting produc- 
 tion or transportation or to afEect prices, for the purpose of avoiding any 
 of the provisions of this act ; but any person, firm or corporation so engaged 
 may apply to said Court of Industrial Relations for authority to limit or 
 cease operations, stating the reasons therefor, and said Court of Industrial 
 Relations shall hear said application promptly, and if said application shall 
 be found to be in good faith and meritorious, authority to limit or cease opera- 
 
 9342—20 4 
 
50 INDUSTRIAL CONFEEENCE. 
 
 tions shall be granted by order of said court. In all such industries, em- 
 ployments, utilities, or common carriers in which operation may be ordi- 
 narily affected by changes in season, market conditions, or other reasons or 
 causes inherent in the nature of the business, said Court of Industrial Ke- 
 lations may, upon application and after notice to all interested parties, and 
 investigation, as herein provided, make orders fixing rules, regulations, and 
 practices to govern the operation of such industries, employments, utilities, 
 or common carriers for the purpose of securing the best service to the public 
 consistent with the rights of employers and employees engaged m the opera- 
 tion of such industries, employments, utilities, or common carriers. 
 
 Sec. 17. It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, or corporation, or for 
 any association of persons, to do or perform any act forbidden,, or to fail or 
 refuse to perform any act or duty enjoined by the provisions of this act, or 
 to conspire or confederate with others to do or perform any act forbidden, 
 or to fail or refuse to perform any act or duty enjoined by the provisions 
 of this act, or to induce or intimidate any person, firm, or corporation en- 
 gaged in any of said industries, employments, utilities, or common carriers 
 to do any act forbidden, or to fail or refuse to perform any act or duty en- 
 joined by the provisions of this act, for the purpose or with the intent to 
 hinder, delay, limit, or suspend the operation of any of the industries em- 
 ployments, utilities, or common carriers herein specified or indicated, or to 
 delay, limit, or suspend the production or transportation of the products of 
 such industries, or employments, or the service of such utilities or com- 
 mon carriers : Provided, That nothing in this act shall be construed as restrict- 
 ing the right of any individual employee engaged in the operation of any 
 such industry, employment, public utility, or common carrier to quit his em- 
 ployment at any time, but it shall be unlawful for any such individual 
 employee or other person to conspire with other persons to quit their em- 
 ployment or to induce -other persons to quit their employment for the pur- 
 pose of hindering, delaying, interfering with, or suspending the operation 
 of any of the industries, employments, public utilities, or common carriers' 
 governed by the provisions of this act, or for any person to engage in what 
 is known as " picketing," or to intimidate by threats, abuse, ,or in any other 
 manner, any person or persons with intent to induce such person or persons 
 to quit such employment, or for the purpose of deterring or preventing any 
 other person or persons from accepting employment or from remaining in 
 the employ of any of the industries, employments, public utilities, or common' 
 carriers governed by the provisions of this act. 
 
 Sec. 18. Any person willfully violating the provisions of this act, or any 
 valid order of said Court of Industrial Relations, shall be deemed guilty of 
 a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof in any court of comgietent juris- 
 diction of this State shall be punished by a fine of not to exceed $1,000, or 
 Viy imprisonment in the county jail for a period of not to exceed one year, 
 or by both such fine and imprisonment. 
 
 Sec. 10. Any officer of any corporation engaged in any of the industries, em- 
 ployments, utilities, or common carriers herein named and specified, or any 
 officer of any labor union or association of persons engaged as workers in any 
 such industry, employment, utility, or common carrier, or any employer of 
 labor, coining within the provisions of this act, who shall willfully use the 
 power, authority, or influence incident to his offlcial position, or to his position 
 as an employer of others, and by such means shall intentionally influence, impel, 
 or compel any other person to violate any of the provisions of this act or any 
 valid order of said Court of Industrial Relations, shall be deemed guilty of a 
 felony, and upon conviction thereof in any court of competent jurisdiction shall 
 be punished by a fine, not to exceed $5,000 or by imprisonment in the Stale 
 penitentiary at hard labor for a term not to exceed two years, or by both such 
 fine and imprisonment. 
 
 Sec. 20. In case of the suspension, limitation, or cessation of the operation of 
 any of the industries, employments, public utilities, or common carriers affected 
 by this act, contrary to the provisions hereof, or to the orders of said court 
 made hereunder, if it shall appear to said court that such suspension, limitation, 
 or cessation shall seriously affect the public welfare by endangering the public 
 peace or threatening the public health, then said court is hereby authorized, 
 empowered, and directed to take proper proceedings in any court of competent 
 jurisdiction of this State to take over, control, direct, and operate said industry, 
 employment, public utility, or common carrier during such emergency: Pro- 
 vided, That a fair return and compensation shall be paid to the owners of such 
 
INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 51 
 
 industry, employment, public utility, or foiunion carrier, and also a fair wsige 
 to the workers engaged therein during the time of such operation under the 
 provisions of this section. 
 
 Sec. 21. When any controversy shall arise between eniplover and employee 
 as to wages, hours of employment, or working or living conditions in any in- 
 dustry not hereinbefore specified, the parties to such controversy may, by 
 mutual agreement and with the consent of the court, refer the same to the 
 Court of Industrial Relations for its findings and orders. Such agreement of 
 reference shall be in writing, signed by the parties thereto; whereupon said 
 court shall proceed to investigate, hear, and determine said controversy as in 
 other cases, and in such case the findings and orders of the Court of Industrial 
 Relations as to said controversy shall have the same force and effect as though 
 made in any essential industry as herein provided. 
 
 Sec. 22. Whenever deemed necessary by the Court of Industrial Relations, 
 the court may appoint such person or persons having a technical knowledge of 
 bookkeeping, engineering, or other technical subjects involved in any inquiry in 
 which the court is engaged as a commissioner for the purpose of taking evidence 
 with relation to such subject. Such commissioner when appointed shall take 
 an oath to well and faithfully perform the duties imposed upon him, and shall 
 thereafter have the same power to administer oaths, compel the production of 
 evidence, and the attendance of witnesses as the said court would have if sit- 
 ting in the same matter. Said commissioner shall receive such compensation 
 as may be provided by law or ,by the order of said court, to be approved by the 
 governor. 
 
 Sec. 23. Any order made by said Court of Industrial Relations as to a mini- 
 mum wage or a standard of wages shall be deemed prima facie reasonable and 
 just, and if said minimum wage or standard of wages shall be in excess of 
 the wages theretofore paid in the industry, employment, utility, or common car- 
 rier, then and iii that event the workers affected thereby shall Be entitled to 
 receive said mininmm wage or standard of wages from the date of the service 
 of summons or publication of notice Instituting said investigation, and shall 
 have the right individually, or in case of incorporated unions or associations, 
 or unincorporated unions or associations entitled thereto, collectively, to re- 
 cover in any court of competent jurisdiction the difference between the wages 
 actually paid and said minimum wage or standard of wages so found and 
 determined by said court in such order. It shall be the duty of all employers 
 affected by the provisions of this act. during the pendency of any investigation 
 brought under this act or any litigation resulting therefrom, to keep an accurate 
 account of all wages paid to all workers Interested in said Investigation or pro- 
 ceeding: Provided, That in case said order shall fix a wage or standard of 
 wages which is lower than the wages theretofore paid in the industry, employ- 
 ment, utility, or common carrier affected, then and in that event the employers 
 shall have "the same right to recover in the same manner as provided in this 
 section with reference to the workers. 
 
 Sec. 24. With the consent of the governor, the judges of said Court of In- 
 dustrial Relations are hereby authorized and empowered to make, or cause to 
 be made, within this State or elsewhere, such investigations and inquiries as 
 to industrial conditions and relatons as may be profitable or necessary for the 
 purpose of familiarizing themselves with industrial problems such as may 
 arise under the provisions of this act. All the expenses incurred In the per- 
 formance of their official duties by the individual members of said court and by 
 the employees and officers of said court, shall be paid by the State out of 
 funds appropriated therefor by the legislature, but all warrants covering such 
 expenses shall be approved by the governor of said State. 
 
 Sec 25. The rights and remedies given and provided by this act shall be 
 construed to be cumulative of all other laws in force in said State relating to 
 the same matters, and this act shall not be interpreted as a repeal of any other 
 act now existing in said State with reference to the same matters referred to 
 In this act, except where the same may be inconsistent with the provisions of 
 
 this act. J., -^ J 
 
 Sec 26 The provisions of this act and all grants of power, authority, anfl 
 jurisdiction herein made to said Court of Industrial Relations shall be liberally 
 construed and all incidental powers necessary to carry Into effect the provisions 
 of this act are hereby expressly granted to and conferred upon said Court of 
 Industrial Relations. „ , -j ^ t * 
 
 Sec 27 Annually and on or before .January 1 of each year, said Court of 
 Industrial Relations shall formulate and make a report of all its acts and 
 
52 INDUSTRIAL CONFEEENCE. 
 
 proceedings, including a financial statement of expenses, and shall submit the 
 same to the governor of this State for his information. All expenses incident 
 to the conduct of the business of said Court of Industrial Relations shall be 
 paid by the said court on warrants signed by its presiding judge and clerk, and 
 countersigned by the governor and shall be paid out of funds appropriated 
 therefor by the legislature. The said Court of Industrial Relations shall, on or 
 before the convening of the legislature, make a detailed estimate of the prob- 
 able expenses of conducting its business and proceedings for the ensuing two 
 years, and attach thereto a copy of the reports furnished the governor, all of 
 which shall be submitted to the governor of this State and by him submitted 
 to the legislature. 
 
 Sec. 28. If any section or provision of this act shall be found invalid by any 
 court, it shall be conclusively presumed that this act would have been passed by 
 the legislature without such invalid section or provision, and the act as a whole 
 shall not be declared invalid by reason of the fact that one or more sections 
 or provisions may be found to be invalid by any court. 
 
 Sec. 29. All acts and parts of acts in conflict herewith are hereby repealed. 
 
 Sec. 30. This act shall take effect and be in force from and after its publica- 
 tion in the official State paper. 
 
 Gov. Allen. It might also be well to have printed in the record a 
 copy of the digest of the law which was contained in my message to 
 the legislature and pointed out the need for the enactment of this 
 legislation. 
 
 The Chairman. We will be very glad to have that and to make it 
 a part of the report. It may be printed here. 
 
 (The digest above referred to is here printed in the record in full, 
 as follows:) 
 
 DIGEST OF KANSAS LAW CHEATING THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS. 
 
 1. It declares the operation of the great industries affecting food, clothing, 
 fuel, and transportation to be impressed with a public interest and subject to 
 reasonable regulation by the State. 
 
 2. It creates a strong, dignified tribunal, vested with power, authority, and 
 jurisdiction to hear and determine all controversies which may arise and which 
 threaten to hinder, delay, or suspend the operation of such industries. 
 
 3. It declares it to be the duty of all persons, firms, corporations, and asso- 
 ciations of persons engaged in such industries to operate the same with reason- 
 able continuity, in order that the people of this State may be supplied at all 
 times with the necessaries of life. 
 
 4. It provides that in case of controverisy arising between employers and 
 employees, or between different groups or crafts of workers, which may 
 threaten the continuity or efficiency of such industries and thus the production 
 or transportation of the necessaries of life, or which may produce an industrial 
 strife or endanger the peaceful operation of such industries, it shall be the duty 
 of said tribunal, on its own initiative or on the complaint of either party, or on 
 the complaint of the attorney general, or on complaint of citizens, to investigate 
 and determine the controversy and to make an order prescribing rules and 
 regulations, hours of labor, working conditions, and a reasonable minimum 
 wage, which shall thereafter be observed in the conduct of said industry until 
 such time as the parties may agree. 
 
 5. It provides for the incorporation of unions or associations of workers, 
 recognizing the right of collective bargaining and giving full faith and credit 
 to any and all contracts made in pursuance of said right. 
 
 6. It provides for a speedy determination of the validity of any such order 
 made by said tribunal in the supreme court of this State without the delay 
 which so often hampers the administration of justice in ordinary cases 
 
 7. It declares it unlawful for any person, firm, corporation, or association of 
 persons to delay or suspend the production or transportation of the necessaries 
 of life, except upon application to and order of said tribunal 
 
 8. It declares it unlawful for any person, firm, or corporation to discharge or 
 discriminate against any employee because of the participation of such employee 
 in any proceedings before said tribunal. emyiui-ee 
 
INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 53 
 
 9. It makes it unlawful for any person, firm, or corporation engaged in said 
 lines of industries to cease operations for tlie purpose of limiting production, 
 to affect prices, or to avoid any of the provisions of this act, but also providing 
 a means by wliich proper rules and regulations may be formulated by said 
 tribunal providing for the operation of such industries as may be affected by 
 changes in season, market conditions, or other reasons or causes inherent in the 
 nature of the business. 
 
 10. It declares it unlawful for any person, firm, or corporation, or for any 
 association of persons, to violate any of the provisions of this act, or to conspire 
 or confederate with others to violate any provisions of this act. or to intimidate 
 any person, firm, or corporation engaged in such industries with the. intent to 
 hinder, delay, or suspend the operation of such industries, and thus to hinder, 
 delay, or suspend the production or transportation of the necessaries of life. 
 
 11. It provides penalties by fine or imprisonment, or both, for persons, firms, 
 or corporations, or associations of persons, willfully violating the provisions of 
 this act. 
 
 12. It makes provisions whereby any increase of wages granted to labor by 
 said tribunal shall take effect as of the date of the beginning of the investi- 
 gation. 
 
 Senator Smith. Now, as I understand it, Governor, the court has 
 a right to decide, and provision is made for the enforcement of the 
 decisions of the court. 
 
 Gov. Allen. The aggrieved person brings his case into the court, 
 and the court hears such evidence and makes such expert investiga- 
 tion as may be necessary to develop all the facts in the case. Then 
 the Court of Industrial Relations decides the case and makes its 
 order. The aggrieved person may appeal from the order to the 
 supreme court. By a provision in the lav? cases appealed directly to 
 the supreme court are given priority in that court. 
 
 Senator McLean. But do the facts go to the supreme court ? 
 
 Gov. Allen. The record as made in the Court of Industrial Rela- 
 tions goes to the supreme court, and the supreme court may call for 
 whatever additional testimony it wishes. 
 
 Senator Steeling. And pending a decision, is a lockout or strike 
 permitted ? 
 
 Gov. Allen. No ; the law is conditioned upon the theory that Gov- 
 ernment has a right to protect the public against the economic waste 
 and terror of industrial strife. It declares that industries aifecting 
 food, clothing, fuel, and transportation shall not close down for the 
 purpose either of affecting wages or the cost of the product to the 
 public. Any officer of a corporation found guilty of a conspiracy 
 to shorten the supply of a public necessity in one of the four essen- 
 tial industries mentioned may be punished by a fine of not to exceed 
 $5,000 or by an imprisonment of two years in the State penitentiary, 
 or by both. So far as an individual is concerned, the penalty is 
 $1,P00 for a misdemeanor and a year's imprisonment in the county 
 "jail. If the violation is on the part of an officer of a labor organiza- 
 tion, then the penalties are the same as those which apply to the 
 officials of corporations. 
 
 The Chairman. "Well, Governor, let us say that a strike is on m 
 your coal mines in the coal fields now. Let us say that you have a 
 strike; will you please take that case through the industrial court 
 for us ? 
 
 Gov. Allen. All right. Strikes, as you know, are not voluntary 
 affairs. The men are ordered out. . For instance, Howat, the presi- 
 dent of the district, recently threatened to call a strike in the Kansas 
 mines. He published his intention in the paper. Under the Kansas 
 
54 INDUSTRIAL CONFEKENCE. 
 
 statutes an injunction was granted by the district court of Crawford 
 County restraining him from his declared intention of violating 
 the law. 
 
 Senator Smith. And that injunction was issued by the district 
 court ? 
 
 Gov. Allen. By the district court of Crawford County. 
 
 Senator Sterling. Does the act provide for injunctions? 
 
 Gov. Allen. The Kansas statutes provide for injunctions, and the 
 criminal clauses of the industrial court law are administered by any 
 court of competent jurisdiction. The industrial clauses, which give 
 the court jurisdiction over working conditions, housing conditions, 
 living conditions, and labor disputes, are administered by the indus- 
 trial court, but all the criminal clauses are administered by the courts 
 which administer the other criminal laws of the land. 
 
 Now, in that case the first thing that would be done would be an 
 order by the court for the attorney general to subpoena as witnesses 
 the parties calling the strike, or, if it were a lockout, those threaten- 
 ing the lockout. The court would then make a thorough inviestiga- 
 tion of the case, and would visit in person, if necessary, the field of 
 dispute, or send commissioners to gather the evidence. After the 
 court's order, if there is a violation thereof, it would be punishable 
 by penalties. 
 
 In the meantime any number of men could quit work. The law 
 does not prohibit men from ceasing work, but if they went out upon 
 a conspiracy to close down an industry, then the court would have the 
 freedom under the law to administer such parts of the penalty clauses 
 as would apply. 
 
 The Chaieman. Would there be a jury trial? 
 
 Gov. Allen. That would depend upon the nature of the proceed- 
 ings. Any criminal prosecution would involve a jury trial. We 
 have had something like six decisions, I think, and everyone of them 
 has been 
 
 The Chairman. Are they being printed in report form ? 
 
 Gov. Allen. Yes ; they are being printed as they are made. I will 
 send them to you if you so desire. 
 
 The Chairman. We should like to have them. 
 
 Gov. Allen. The orders of the court have been obeyed in every 
 instance. The only case before the court which is now being con- 
 tested is the case of Alexander Howat, who — let me give you a little 
 history. The court was created on Saturday, and on Monday about 
 400 miners walked out on what they called a protest strike. The 
 attorney general of the State went to the district and prepared for 
 prosecutions under the criminal clauses of the law. He sent for the 
 leaders and explained to them the principles of the law. As soon as' 
 the miners understood the purpose of the law they all went back to 
 work. 
 
 Then this very significant thing occurred. A group of miners 
 having a grievance came voluntarily to the attorney general and 
 asked him that the Court of Industrial Relations take over their 
 grievances. It was very significant for this reason : If they had 
 followed the rule of their by-laws they would have taken their 
 grievance first to the local union officials, the local in turn would 
 have taken it to the district president, and so on ; but, ignoring their 
 own by-laws, they came voluntarily into the court. Then the United 
 
INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 55 
 
 Mine Workers, representing that district, met in a convention and 
 ' made an amendment to their constitution in which tliey declared that 
 any union miner who availed himself of the Kansas Industrial Court 
 for the solution of any of his grievances should be fined $50, and that 
 any local organization or union official availing himself of the court 
 should be fined $5,000. In spite of that there were in the next 10 
 days seven cases brought by miners, one by the shot firers' union, 
 which involved every man in that occupation in the district. 
 
 The Chairman. And was this penalty that you spoke of ever en- 
 forced against them ? 
 
 Gov. Allen. No ; because there was no way they could enforce it 
 save through the check-off system. The court has the power to regu- 
 late the checking off of any part of the miners' wages. When the 
 court went into the district to hear the grievances brought by the 
 miners themselves something over 100 miners came in and gave their 
 testimony in the most cooperative fashion. The president of the 
 district and some of the subordinate officers refused to appear as 
 witnesses upon the order of the district court, wherevipon they were 
 sent to jail. 
 
 Now, here might be an indication of the sentiment in that district. 
 A few days later this man Howat was visited by about 600 of the 
 more radical miners, who surrounded the jail and demanded that he 
 make a speech. The sheriff, being a pretty easy fellow, brought 
 Howat out on the balcony of the jail and allowed him to address the 
 miners and denounce the law. 
 
 The Chairman. And is that customary in Kansas, Governor ? 
 
 Gov. Allen. No, it is not ; but the turbulent element liked it and 
 they said that Howat ought to have a better audience for a speech 
 of this character, so they arranged for a general demonstration. 
 They planned within a few days to provide an audience of four or 
 five thousand, and I believe it was their plan to borrow him from 
 the jail and let him make his speech in a grove. Of course, that 
 could not be allowed, and before the crowd arrived Howat had been 
 removed to another jail, where he would not be disturbed, and the 
 sheriff lost his official position. The crowd came and there was the 
 plOT, but with Hamlet left out. 
 
 Then came the test of the spirit of that district. If the miners 
 were as angry as Howat claimed they would be it meant violence, but 
 they accepted it good-naturedly and regarded it as a sort of ludicrous 
 turn of events. Many of them went back to work and in two or three 
 days Howat appealed for release from jail upon bond, pending the 
 hearing of his case in the supreme court. That will test the consti- 
 tutionality of the law. In the meantime the miners continued to 
 bring their cases into the court 
 
 The Chairman. Excuse me for interrupting you, Governor, but 
 could you tell us what proportion of the cases was brought by the 
 employers and what proportion was brought by the employees ? 
 
 Gov. Allen. All the cases were brought by the employees. 
 
 I think that one of the most interesting cases was the case of the 
 Joplin & Pittsburg Railway Co. Mr. Freeman, who is in the room,, 
 is the president of the Kansas Federation of Labor, and was one 
 of the petitioners in that case— and if I am not right Mr. Freeman 
 can correct me. The case was brought in behalf of the car men, 
 
66 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 
 
 who have within the last three years gone upon two rather expensive . 
 strikes, one lasting 84 days. This road is the main artery of trans- 
 portation in that district, and the strikes were very expensive to 
 the workmen themselves. The case was heard in the court and 
 a decision rendered giving an increase of wages to the men, and, 
 in order that you may get the spirit of the court, I want to point 
 out one thing, 'and that is that in the opinion of the presiding judge, 
 discussing the terms of wages 
 
 Senator Sterling. You say that this is a case in the court? 
 
 Gov. Allen. It is a case against the Joplin & Pittsburg Railway 
 Co., brought by the men, who wanted an increase in wages. 
 
 Senator Steeling. And you say that the court gave them an in- 
 crease in wages? 
 
 Gov. Allen. Yes; the court increased ' their wages. In writing 
 the opinion, the court differentiated between a living wage and a 
 fair wage, and pointed out the factthat the railway company had 
 called attention to the difficulties which beset them in making divi- 
 dends. The court took the position that wages must come before 
 dividends, and that when a corporation reached a point where it 
 could not pay a fair wage, then liquidation was the only solution 
 of the problem. The court declared a fair wage to be that which 
 will enable the workmen to procure for themselves and their fami- 
 lies all the necessaries and a reasonable share of the comforts of 
 life, and also to provide reasonably for sickness and old age. 
 
 The Chairman. Governor, have you any kind of an industrial 
 code, providing, for instance, that there shall be a fair wage? 
 
 Gpv. Allen. No ; we are just building up. These are all the ini- 
 tial steps. 
 
 Then this very fine thing happened, which reflects credit upon 
 both the car men (the employees of that railway company) and the 
 railway company itself. They accepted this adjudication as the basis 
 upon which to adjust the wages of all the other employees of that 
 I'aihvay establishment. 
 
 Senator McKellae. The industrial court, as I understand you, 
 held that a living wage was such that would bring 
 
 GoA^ Allen. The living wage is merely a wage of subsistence. 
 
 Senator McKellae. That is also held that a fair wage 
 
 Gov. Allen. Was subsistence, plus education and a surplus for 
 old age. 
 
 Senator McKellar. And that is in one of the decisions ? 
 
 Gov. Allen. Yes ; it is in one of the decisions. The same distinc- 
 tion was made in the very first case tried by the court, which was 
 the case of the linemen of the Topeka Edison Co. The linemen con- 
 sisted of a small group of men who had been appealing for a better 
 wage for a long time, and it was a decision which would affect many 
 men located in other parts of the State. The decision of that case 
 was accepted in such fine spirit that the company itself, grasping- 
 the new spirit of this adjudication, made the wage increase of the 
 court retroactive to cover the period since the men had first requested 
 an increase. 
 
 Senator Sterling. Are you in a position to tell us what material 
 increases were made in the wages of the men ? 
 
 Gov. Allen. If I remember correctly, the increase in the wages of 
 the electric linemen was 7| cents an hour ; in the railway men, I do 
 
INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 57 
 
 not remember it. Mr. Freeman, will you kindly tell us what the 
 increase was in that case ? 
 
 Mr. W. E. Freeman, president of the Kansas State Federation of 
 Labor. The maximum, as it stands now, granted by the court, is 65 
 cents an hour. 
 
 Gov. Allen. And it had been ? 
 
 Mr. Freeman. Thirty-eight, forty, and forty-two, and the differ- 
 ential still prevails. I am not clear on that differential. 
 
 The Chairman. How many appeals have there been from the de- 
 cision of the industrial court ? 
 
 Gov. Allen. There have been no appeals from any decision. 
 
 Senator Smith. And what is the character of the men that you 
 have placed upon your commission? 
 
 Gov. Allen. We appointed as the president of the court a lawyer 
 who had been for a year at the head of the board of public utilities, 
 the duties of which board were taken over by the new court in order 
 that we might not have a multiplication of commissions in the State. 
 Then there was selected a man who was a country lawyer, who had 
 been tried out in a good many places, especially as to the quality of 
 his heart, because it is a court of human relations. We do not wish 
 to make it a court of dignified procedure, but a court to which any 
 man might come with his grievance in an informal way. This man 
 had been a commanding oiRcer of a machine-gun battalion in the 
 Argonne and had been decorated for his courage. He was the sort 
 of a chap that when he came home from the war, he hunted up the 
 mothers of every boy in his command. The other man appointed 
 was Clyde M. Eeed, known to some of you gentlemen probably, hav- 
 ing been superintendent of the railway service here in Washington 
 and in Omaha. He had made a special study of transportation 
 matters, was a newspaper man, and was chosen because of his broad 
 grasp of the transportation question. 
 
 Senator Smith. Your act did not prescribe the qualifications of 
 the men who are on the commission? 
 
 Gov. Allen. It did not make any qualifications, leaving it entirely 
 to the executive. 
 
 Senator Sterling. The Howat case is still pending, is it, Governor ? 
 
 Gov. Allen. The Howat case is still pending and M'ill come up on 
 the 7th of July before the supreme court. We are hoping that the 
 case is broad enough to try all the issues in the court. It is about the 
 poorest case he could have chosen, because he refused to testify in an 
 investigation, and the right of the State to hold inquisitions is one 
 of the oldest rights. 
 
 Senator McKellae. How does an appeal lie — to what court? 
 
 Gov. Allen. Directly from the industrial court to the supreme 
 court. 
 
 Senator McKellar. And without any intervening court? 
 
 Gov. Allen. And without any intervening court, and with the 
 provision that an action from the industrial court must have priority 
 of consideration. 
 
 Senator McKellar. You said that there were four classes 
 
 Gov. Allen. Yes ; food, fuel, clothing, and transportation. Now, 
 we have had a case of the packers. The law provides that all of these 
 industries must continue with reasonable continuity, and yet, follow- 
 ino- the switchmen's strike, the packers laid off large numbers of men. 
 
58 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 
 
 The matter was brought to the attention of the court, and when the 
 packers wore notified of their mistake in not complying with the 
 terms of the law before laying off these men, they immediately made 
 a proper adjustment of the matter. 
 
 There is another case that is very interesting. We found in an in- 
 formal way in a hearing which was being held by the court in the 
 district that the operators had allowed to grow up a very greedy 
 practice. If a miner wished to collect a part of his wages in advance 
 of pay day (the pay days were every two weeks) , the operator dis- 
 counted his wages 10 per cent — that is, 10 per cent of the wages 
 idvanced. If wages were collected a Aveek in advance of every 
 pay day, then he would be paying interest at the rate of 260 per cent 
 a year. 
 
 Senator Smith. You mean he would be paying 10 per cent for .one 
 week ? 
 
 Gov. Allen. Ten per cent for one week; and if the miner had 
 $§5 coming to him, then he would be paying an interest for one week 
 of $3.50. It was a sordid practice, that had prevailed without any 
 objection on the part of the miners' oiRcials for years, but the court 
 wiped it out in just a few moments. 
 
 The Chairman. Now, in regard to the question of stores in a min- 
 ing district and those stores overcharging the miners, would such a 
 question come to the court? 
 
 Gov. Allen. Such a question would come to the court, and the 
 court is now investigating some such practice. Under the provisions 
 of a law Kansas passed a number of years ago no mining company 
 may maintain a company store and the miners shall not be paid in 
 script. We are confronted with a case where some of the operators 
 hoped to get around this abolishment of the 10 per cent discount 
 by giving orders upon stores with which they may have some con- 
 nection. 
 
 Another case came up in which the miners had quit work because 
 since the decision of the national commission the operators, who were 
 commanded to sell explosives at cost, did not state the price, and the 
 miners were obliged to do their work under uncertainty as to what they 
 would be charged for their powder and dynamite. The court made 
 an order establishing a fixed price for the explosives, which should 
 continue until the 15th of the month following, which would 
 allow time for the operators and mining officials to get together 
 and reach an agreement. They were delayed in that, and on the 
 16th the men quit work. They declared they would not go back 
 until the matter was settled. The court called up the operators and 
 asked them, " How much time do you want to settle this ? " They 
 said, "Two days." "We will give you one," was the answer. At 
 the end of the day it was settled and the miners had all gone back 
 to work. 
 
 Senator Sterling. I was about to ask you. Governor, suppose there 
 is a violation on either side of the orders of the Industrial Relations 
 Court, can contempt proceedings be instituted ? 
 
 Gov. Allen. Yes ; in a proper court. 
 
 Senator Sterling. And in that court? 
 
 Gov. Allen. The Kansas constitution provides that the State may 
 establish such courts as are necessary from time to time for the 
 protection of the welfare of the public. After the Court of Indus- 
 
INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 59 
 
 trial Relations has been held to be constitutional, and we are func- 
 tioning under a firm belief that we are all right, there will be no 
 violation of the order of the court. Every man will take advantage 
 ■of the court, since it costs him nothing. He has the right to appeal 
 to the supreme court, and the refusal to obey the order of the indus- 
 trial court, 'confirmed by a district or the supreme court, is contempt 
 ■of court. 
 
 Senator Steeling. Do you mean to say that it must be confirmed 
 by the supreme court before there is a contempt 
 
 Gov. Allen (interrupting). No; if we made an order, which has 
 not been appealed to the supreme court, and the man disobeyed the 
 ■order, then the attorney general would bring an action under the 
 criminal clauses of the law in courts of competent jurisdiction. 
 
 Senator Steeling. In the district court? 
 
 Gov. Allen. In the district court. You might be interested in 
 Judge Curran's decision in holding the Kansas court constitutional. 
 
 Senator Steeling. I was only wondering whether or not there 
 ■could be punishment for contempt of court, and a trial without jury 
 upon that charge of contempt. 
 
 Gov. Allen. The contempt would have to be the refusal of the 
 man to obey the order of the court. In holding the Kansas industrial 
 court law constitutional, Judge Curran said : 
 
 I am not concerned with the wisdom of the legislature in passing this law. 
 Whether the law is economically wise or unwise is not for the court to say. 
 The one question to be considered by me is whether the law is in conflict 
 with the Bill of Rights or Constitution of the United States or of Kansas. 
 
 A great deal has been said of the divine right to strike, 'the divine right to 
 quit work. In stressing the " divine right to strike," the divine right to work, 
 the right of the man to have employment so he can provide for his wife and 
 children has been sadly overlooked. The divine right to strike, where it affects 
 the health and welfare of the public, must be relegated to the realm where the 
 divine right of kings has been sent. 
 
 A man can not be compelled to work, you say. Certainly not. I do not 
 believe for a moment that any member of the legislature intended to make 
 any man work. The purpose of this act is iu an orderly way to give a .man a 
 chance to work. 
 
 Of course, there are many supreme court decisions and Federal 
 Court decisions and State court decisions which relate to this very 
 principle. It is one of the oldest principles in human law, one of 
 the very first inscribed upon the 12 tablets of the Roman law, " Salus 
 populi suprema lex espo " — " Let the people's safety be the supreme 
 law." That is the purpose of this court. 
 
 Senator Steeling. Then, as I understand you, in the event of a 
 violation of an order of the industrial relations court, the party 
 charged with violation is not punished directly as for contempt of 
 court, but the Attorney General may proceed against him in the dis- 
 trict court of the State for violation of the law. 
 
 Gov. Allen. For the violation of the law, the provisions of which 
 are plainly stated. 
 
 Now, here are some interesting sidelights. Mr. Wendelle, who is 
 a national officer and the head of the State organization of the Sta- 
 tionery Firemen and Oilers, a craft which is classified among the 
 crafts of railway employees and includes many railway shop and 
 roundhouse employees, along in the same grade doubtless with the 
 maintenance of way men, both being underpaid branches of the rail- 
 
60 INDUSTRIAL CONFEBENCE. 
 
 way service, receiving none of the benefits of the Adamson law, filed 
 a case in behalf of Jiis organization. Their national executive com- 
 mittee at St. Louis, having threatened a general strike in this craft,, 
 decided by an almost unanimous vote that in Kansas the action 
 should be determined in the Court of Industrial Relations. So Mr. 
 Wendelle came in with a petition to have their case ttied in the 
 industrial court. That case has had its hearing, a very interesting 
 one, the attitude of the railway attorneys being that since there has. 
 been established a national railway board its jurisdiction should 
 have priority over our jurisdiction. The case has not been decided 
 but it is one of those cases with real merit, because those men are not 
 being paid as fair a wage as other railway crafts. 
 
 The same is true of the maintenance of way men. Local Chairman 
 Martin, of that organization, when ordered to strike by Mr. Barker,, 
 national head of the organization, came to me and showed me the 
 telegram and asked what would happen if he ordered the strike.. 
 After I read to him the provisions of the law he went out and told 
 Barker that in Kansas the maintenance of way men would not strike,, 
 and their case is now in the Kansas industrial court. I understand 
 that Barker has sent back word that Martin is not the head of the 
 organization in Kansas, and he is getting out of it in that way. 
 
 There is growing in Kansas, through all of these industries, a feel- 
 ing that the court is going to be a benefit, and an increasingly large 
 number of cases are coming in all the time. Then, the act provides 
 that upon the joint request of the contending parties, the court may 
 act as an arbitrator for them, and when it passes upon those cases, 
 the decision is as" binding as though it were a case in the essential in- 
 dustries, and two or three of those cases have come in. 
 
 I think this might be a typical instance of the quieting effect which 
 the court has had. The Kansas City, Kans., and the Kansas City,. 
 Mo., bakers belong to the same organization. The Kansas City, Mo.,, 
 bakers decided to go out on a strike, and the Kansas City, Kans.,. 
 bakers read the law and said, " No ; we will not go out." They all 
 talked it over and finally reached an adjudication of their case with 
 their employers. Neither side went on a strike, neither was the case 
 presented to the Kansas court. The presence of the laws on the stat- 
 ute books and the knowledge that they have something that will 
 make a definite decision, has satisfied a great many and they have 
 gotten together and have gone along upon an orderly process. 
 
 Senator SterliSjg. Where there is an agreement upon the facts,, 
 then the court is, in effect, an arbitrator ? 
 
 Gov. Allen. Yes, sir; but it depends upon the adjudication of the 
 court. 
 
 Senator MoKellae. So far as it has gone. Governor, it is your 
 judgment then that it is satisfactory both to the laboring man and 
 to the employer? 
 
 Gov. Allen. So far as we have gone in Kansas, the court is more 
 satisfactory to the employer than the old system was, and it is grow- 
 ing in favor with the employees. For instance, just before T left 
 the State, the stationery engineers of the State called a meeting and 
 passed a resolution indorsing the Kansas law. 
 
 The Chairman. Are they members of the union? 
 
INDUSTRIAL CONFEEEWGE. 61 
 
 Gov. Allen. They have a union of their own. I do not know 
 -whether they are affiliated with the American Federation of Labor 
 •or not. Then the oilers, as I say, brought a case the other day. 
 
 They are all becoming more and more satisfied with the court as 
 ■containing a remedy for the situation, and the court is growing in 
 favor with all the public. The mining districts are divided, as all 
 districts are divided, between what might be termed the progressives 
 and the conservatives. The conservatives are a large force in the 
 mining district, and this is the first time that they have done much 
 talking. Now they are talking considerably, and they are demand- 
 ing that the court be given an opportunity. The radical leaders ap- 
 parently have a feeling that if the law is a success it wipes out the 
 need of an expensive war department in union labor. 
 
 The Chairman. Now, Governor, you have given as much thought 
 to this matter, I suppose, as any other man in this country. Have 
 you followed the recommendations of the last industrial conference? 
 
 Gov. Allen. I have read them very carefully. It is a beautiful 
 book of sermons, reaching as high a point in a discussion of the 
 brotherly relations which ought to exist between capital and labor 
 as has ever been reached. I am very much in favor of that sort of 
 thing. The Kansas law aspires to do all the beneficial things advo- 
 cated by the industrial conference, but when these efforts at con- 
 ciliation have failed it wishes to protect the rights and privileges of 
 the many people. 
 
 The CThaieman. And do you think 
 
 Gov. Allen (interrupting). I think this, Senator Kenyon, that 
 the chief fault of the report of the second industrial conference is 
 that it regards the controversy between employing capital and labor 
 as a private quarrel and excludes the public as a factor in the result- 
 ant decision. Industrial strife is the only species of conflict that 
 government has not taken under control. They have settled all 
 the other quarrels from dueling to fist fighting. 
 
 The Chaieman. And they do not recognize the public interest 
 
 Gov. Allen (interrupting). They do not recognize the public in- 
 terest except to say in effect, " If this does not work, why, we will 
 have to leave it to the public." I am fully convinced, however, that 
 the public has been punished to such a degree with all this sort' 
 of warfare that they have come to the conclusion that it must stop. 
 Kansas has provided the public with a remedy against capital and 
 labor, either of them or both of them, and also for the protection of 
 the one against the other. 
 
 Senator Smith. It is a protection for either of the two parties 
 against the faults of the others ? 
 
 Gov. Allen. Absolutely; and we have founded it for the protec- 
 tion of human society. Senator Smith and the rest of you can prob- 
 ably remember when the State of New York passed the Sullivan law 
 prohibiting the carrying of pistols. There was a day when all that 
 any man asked about a fight was, "Was it a fair fight?" To-day 
 they ask, "Where was the officer of the law?" You in the Senate 
 know of a day when the right to take and keep seemed to be the highest 
 form of sanctifying property rights. Once you dealt with the rebates 
 of the Standard Oil Co., which, because it had the power, not only 
 to secure discrimination in its transportation rates but to receive 
 
62 
 
 IWDUSTKIAL CONFEKBNCB. 
 
 from the railroads the difference between those favorable rates and 
 the rates charged their competitors for similar service, and to take it 
 in cash. That was a robber baron right. To-day no man questions; 
 the justice of your action in that case, any more than any man ques- 
 tions the efficiency, necessity, or integrity of the civil court or of the 
 criminal court. I believe the hour has come when no man will ques- 
 tion the need and justice of an impartial court for the adjudication 
 of labor difficulties in order that the public may be protected. 
 
 Senator Sterling. With power given to it to enforce its orders ? 
 
 Gov. Allen. Absolutely. If we could secure the national enact- 
 ment of a law providing for an impartial tribunal for the protection 
 of the public, it would become the law of the land. It does not invade 
 constitutional rights or the province of existing courts, and it would 
 solve the question. 
 
 The Chairman. I want to ask you this question, Gov. Allen: If 
 you were President of the United States, as according to the news- 
 papers you may be, and if you were to send a message to Congress on 
 this subject, what would you recommend Congress to do? 
 
 Gov. Allen. I would recommend to Congress that the first consid- 
 eration in the industrial quarrel is exactly that which has been the 
 first consideration in every quarrel — the peace and welfare of the 
 public, to which both capital and labor belong. 
 
 The Chairmtan. But that is rather a broad statement, Governor. 
 I would like to know just what you would recommend. Would you 
 recommend industrial courts like your Kansas court ? 
 
 Gov. Allen. I would recommend the form set forth in the second 
 industrial conference report, plus a system of impartial adjudication 
 as provided in the Kansas Industrial Court. This court would have' 
 all the powers of any other court, and would be inferior only to the 
 Supreme Court of the United States. The members thereof would be 
 appointed by the President of the United States, and from it deci- 
 sions would lie to the Supreme Court of the United States. This 
 court would give proper and impartial recognition to the public, to 
 labor, and to capital. 
 
 The Chairman. Then your idea is to have such courts 
 
 Gov. Allen (interrupting). Yes. 
 
 The Chairman. And would you have them as regional courts, or 
 district courts, or circuit courts? 
 
 Gov. Allen. I would have a system of courts and would provide 
 for the growth of a code. 
 
 The Chairman. A code? 
 
 Gov. Allen. Yes, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. I have thought a great deal about this matter, and 
 it seems to me you must get an industrial code as the basis of this 
 court. 
 
 Gov. Allen. Yes; but you must have the court first to begin to 
 hang the code on. 
 
 Senator Smith. You think the court would have to build up the 
 code by decisions, as the common-law principles were built up by 
 decisions ? 
 
 Gov. Allen. Exactly, and as any other court has been built up, 
 starting, of course, with the common law touching the rights of the 
 public. 
 
INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 63 
 
 Senator Smith. And what class is there- 
 
 Goy. Allen (interrupting) . But let me make one distinction here. 
 We are not talking now about a court for the regulation of business, 
 a price-fixing court, or a wage-fixing court. Whatever wages are 
 fixed by the Kansas court is merely incidental to the carrying out of 
 the orders of the court. I am not preaching now a court that should 
 take over the regulation of business, but a court which should have 
 ppwer to regulate industrial controversies, assuming that they can 
 not be regulated through arbitration and conciliation. I believe in 
 conciliation and I believe in arbitration, but all through the growing 
 industrial quarrel it has reached the point where it all falls of its 
 own weight. When you, representing capital, and I, representing 
 labor, have a difiiculty we each select a man of our choice, and these 
 two men, representing utterly opposite interests, select a third man, 
 who is the umpire. He may do one of three things : He may choose 
 your side and get a partisan decision ; he may select my side and get 
 a partisan decision ; or he may dicker back and forth and get a dog 
 fall; but into the considerations of such a controversy there seldom 
 comes any consideration for the rights of the public, which is chiefly 
 interested. 
 
 Senator Smith. And what classes of suits would you bring within 
 the jurisdiction of this court ; that is, the national court ? 
 
 Gov. Allen. I would start out with the essential industries, leav- 
 ing rather large latitude with the court as to what, in the particular 
 case, might be justly determined as an essential industry. 
 
 The Chairman. And an industry that might be engaged in inter- 
 state commerce? 
 
 Gov. Allen. Yes; and it might be to-morrow a truck transport, 
 an automobile transport, or it might be a ship or a train of cars. 
 
 Senator Smith; But you would distinguish between the jurisdic- 
 tion of this national court and the jurisdiction of the State court 
 upon the lines of interstate commerce ? 
 
 Gov. Allen. Yes, sir; I would build it true to the model of the 
 United States jurisprudence. I would merely create a third court 
 in the land — a court the necessity for which has grown through the 
 evolution of the times. 
 
 Senator Smith. How have your employed men in Kansas accepted 
 this? Have they accepted it or have they sought to reject this plan 
 of judicial determination of their rights as a substitute for the strike? 
 
 Gov. Allen. The employed men, outside of the miners, who are 
 divided, and part of the railroad men have accepted it and brought 
 their grievances into court. I have here a list of the cases brought 
 before the court taken from a labor paper. I quoted you from it in 
 the beginning that out of 11 cases all but 1 were brought by union 
 labor. Charles W. Fear, the editor of the Missouri Trades Unionist, 
 is demanding that the Kansas Industrial Court be given a fair trial. 
 He says that he believes it marks the beginning of the best day for 
 labor that labor has known, and is also warning us that labor leaders, 
 such as Alexander Howat, are not representative of the real spirit ot 
 the workingmen. . 
 
 Senator Smith. How long has this law been m effect ( 
 
 Gov. Allen. It went into effect in February. Let me give you 
 some figures to show you how it worked out under a radical leader 
 
64 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 
 
 like Howat, who thinks that the great purpose of an industrial law 
 is to keep something going on all the way 
 
 Senator Smith (interrupting) . Keeping up a disturbance. 
 
 Gov. Allen. Keeping up a disturbance. In the last three years, 
 ending with the beginning of the Kansas court, there were in the 
 Kansas district 364 separate and distinct strikes. These 364 strikes 
 gained the miners in money less than $800 and cost them in loss of 
 wages more than $1,600,000. In addition thereto it cost the miners, 
 out of their pockets, to maintain their war department last year 
 alone $157,000. 
 
 Senator Sterling. By " war department " you mean the leaders 
 
 Gov. Allen. By " war department " I mean the leaders who keep a 
 staff for the purpose of arranging for the fight. I have seen an in- 
 dustrial war in my district ; I have seen these aggrieved people sitting 
 around the table and glaring at each other. There has never been a 
 moment when there has been any feeling of harmony. The operator 
 begins to demean the union leader, and the union labor leader begins 
 to say things about the operator, and through the whole process of 
 getting together the consideration has been how can this side sting 
 that side. There has never been a feeling of that brotherhood the 
 principles of which are so beautifully set forth in the report of the 
 second industrial conference. 
 
 The Chairman. Have you any further suggestions to make. Gov- 
 ernor ? 
 
 Gov. Allen. I do not remember all of the ground I have covered. 
 Have I clarified it for you? 
 
 Senator Stisrling. I think you have. 
 
 Senator Smith. These decisions that have been rendered, will you 
 please send them to lis '( Are they set up in pamphlet form 1 
 
 Gov. Allen. Well, I could give to the stenographer a long line 
 of them. There is the decision of 
 
 Senator Smith. Some of us would be very glad to read the deci- 
 sions. 
 
 The Chairman. Can you not have them sent to us ? 
 
 Senator Smith. As long as they are published could you not send 
 a copy to the chairman ? 
 
 Gov. Allen. There is the decision of the Buck Stove Range Co. 
 V. Gompers, and some other New York decisions, and the Pennsyl- 
 vania decision 
 
 Senator Smith. No ; I was referring to the decisions of your court. 
 
 Gov. Allen. I beg your pardon. I shall be very glad to send them 
 to you. 
 
 Senator Smith. I am quite desirous of reading the opinions of that 
 court. 
 
 Gov. Allen. Oh, I thought you wanted the decisions. Do you 
 wish any statistics touching upon the number of strikes in this coun- 
 try ? I presume you have gone into that rather fully yourselves. 
 
 The Chairman. We had expected to get that from other sources, 
 but if you have it we will be very glad to have them. 
 
 Gov. Allen. I have discussed it a great deal and have- here the 
 statistics for the past year, which was altogether the worst strike year 
 in the history of the country, showing loss to wage earners of $750,- 
 000,000 and more than three times that much to capital. I have 
 some very interesting statistics y> hich I can get rid of in a sentence 
 
INDUSTRIAL CONrEEENGB. 65 
 
 or two touching the situation during the war. I do not .want it to 
 be thought that I am stating that labor was not patriotic during the 
 war. So far as the splendid men who went forth from the ranks of 
 labor to join with the farmers' sons, the merchants' sons, and with 
 the men from college ; so far as the man who did his part in the fight- 
 ing is concerned I am filled with admiration for him. But there are- 
 in the records some very astonishing things touching the manner in 
 which, it seems to me, the radical leaders of labor took advantage of 
 the situation because of the necessities of the war. The most aston- 
 ishing fact is that while everybody was placing his shoulder to the 
 wheel there were in this country 6,000 strikes from the 6th day of 
 April, 1917, to the 11th day of November, 1918. There were in one 
 month in the United States in 1917 400 per cent more strikes than 
 occurred in Germany any one year during the war. So I think in 
 consideration of the gravity of the situation, which demands a process 
 for the determination of industrial affairs, consideration should be 
 given to what has been going on in our most critical periods. 
 
 The Chairman. We thank you very much. Gov. Allen. 
 
 Senator Smith. If the governor could furnish us with these deci- 
 sions and these statistics and give them to the reporter they could be 
 ' published in the record. 
 ' The Chairman. Can you get them for us? 
 
 Gov. Allen. I shall try to. 
 
 (The decisions of the industrial court referred to is here printed 
 in full in the record, as follows :) 
 
 There has been filed before the industrial court 12 cases involv- 
 ing industrial matters, in addition to the 3 cases in which formal 
 C']3inions have been handed down by the court. Most of these cases 
 have been filed ^'ery recently. In some of them the respondents 
 have asked for time' in which to make settlements directly with the 
 men. Such settlements, of course, are always encouraged by the 
 court, which is always glad to give an extension of time for that 
 purpose when asked for. 
 
 The complaints filed have all come from labor, and in each case 
 from underpaid labor. 
 
 Six decisions and important orders have been handed down by 
 the court. All the industrial cases now pending will be finished dur- 
 ing July. 
 
 I will speak first of the three important orders handed down by 
 the court, not in the nature of formal decisions : ^ ^ , j 
 
 The court investigated the coal-mining industry in Crawford and 
 Cherokee Counties. As a result of this investigation it was dis-- 
 covered that a large percentage of the miners were drawing their 
 wages between pay days, amounting to practically once every week. 
 For many years the mine operators had charged 10 per "cent dis- 
 count from' every miner who drew wages bet\veen pay days. Ihis 
 ; 10 per cent referred to would amount to 10 per cent a week, or 520 
 per cent per annum. The court ordered this ]>ractice stopped and 
 fixed a minimum charge of 25 cents to cover extra bookkeeping 
 expenses, with a maximum of 2 per cert for larger amounts. 
 
 The price of powder and other explosives purdiased by the min- 
 ' ers from the operators was also investigated. The operators had 
 
 9342—20 5 
 
66 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 
 
 advanced the price, causing many of the mines to close down, the 
 men refusing to buy at that price. The court ordered the oper- 
 ators to furnish these materials at the old price until a reasonable 
 time had elapsed for meetings of the committees, etc., to determine 
 the matter amicably, if possible ; if not, to submit it to the court. 
 
 In this investigation the court went into the check-off system, 
 which had been used to collect large sums of money by the way of 
 fines and other assessments for the purpose of maiiltaining the war 
 department of the organization. The evidence showed that $10,000 
 of the miners' money had been handed over to a Socialist paper in 
 Oklahoma, although many miners were Republicans and Demo- 
 crats and only a part were members of the Socialist Party. The 
 court discovered that the unions had imposed a fine of $50 upon 
 any miner who appealed to the court and $5,0000 against any local 
 union officer who might do likewise. The court ordered the operators 
 to use the check-off system only for the purpose of collecting union 
 dues and sick and death benefits, and such nominal fines as might 
 be imposed for disciplinary purposes. The operators are obeying 
 this order. 
 
 In addition to the above informal orders of the court, which were 
 the result of investigations on the court's own initiative, the fol- 
 lowing three decisions were handed down in formal orders: 
 
 In the Topeka Edison Co. controversy, involving a wage contro- 
 versy, the court ordered an increase of 7^ cents per hour on the 
 basis of an eight-hour day, allowing time and one-half for over- 
 time and double time for Sunday. 
 
 In the case brought by the members of the Amalgamated Asso- 
 ciation of Street and Electric Railway Employees of America against 
 the Joplin & Pittsburg Railway Co., the court allowed a scale in- 
 creasing the maximum pay of motormen and conductors from 42 
 to 55 cents per hour; blacksmiths, from 49^ to 55 cents per hour; 
 machinists, 61^ to 55 cents; motormen, 42 to 55 cents; armature 
 winders, 51^ to 60 cents; headlight, tail light, and telephone men, 
 from $126 to $135 per month. Helpers and other minor employees 
 were given corresponding increases. 
 
 In the case brought bythe International Brotherhood of Station- 
 ary Firemen and Oilers against the various railroads of the State, 
 the court ordered an increase in the minimum wage from 35 to 45 
 cents per hour, and in maximum wage from 43 to 55 cents. 
 
 The case brought by Alexander McAllister et al. against the South- 
 western Interstate Coal Operators' Association was dismissed June 
 15 because the Southwestern Interstate Coal Operators' Association 
 had met the demands as set forth in the application to the court. 
 
 (The hearing then adjourned, subject to the call of the chairman.) 
 
INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 
 
 TUESDAY, JUNE 1, 1920. 
 
 United States Senate, 
 Committee on Education and Labor, ' 
 
 Washington, D. G. 
 The committee met at 10.30 o'clock a. m. 
 
 Present: Senators Kenyon (chairman). Sterling, Walsh, McKellar, 
 Smith, and McLean. Also present : Hon. William Jennings Bryan, 
 former Secretary of State ; and Mr. W. E. Freeman, president State 
 Federation of Labor, Pittsburg, Kans. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. W. E. FREEMAN, OF THE STATE FEDERATION 
 OF LABOR OF KANSAS. 
 
 The Chairman. What is your name, please? 
 
 Mr. Freeman. W. E. Freeman. 
 
 The Chairman. What is your business? 
 
 Mr. Freeman. I am president of the Kansas State Federation of 
 Labor. 
 
 The Chairman. You were present yesterday when Gov. Allen 
 spoke to us concerning the Kansas law ? 
 
 Mr. Freeman. I was. 
 
 The Chairman. What have you to say as to the law, Mr. Freeman ? 
 
 Mr. Freeman. I would first like to say that I am unprepared to 
 make a statement to this committee such as I would like to make, or 
 such as I had hoped to make, owing to the fact that I arrived in the 
 city a day or two ago and with no idea of appearing before the com- 
 mittee, and the data which I have gathered on this subject I have not 
 with me, and I am unprepared to go into the proposition extensively ; 
 but so far as the statement made before you yesterday by Gov. Allen, 
 I would like to say that he is mistaken to some extent on some of 
 the propositions. First 
 
 The Chairman. We can not spend very much time on this to-day 
 and do not think you would care to take very long, do you ? If you 
 do, we will take your statement at some other time. 
 
 Mr. Freeman. No; just a few minutes is all. 
 
 Now, Gov. Allen stated that the shop buyers' union had made ap- 
 peals to the court. I wish to correct that statement by saying that 
 there is no shop buyers' union ; they are embraced in the United Mine 
 Workers. 
 
 Now, the union of the stationary engineers which he mentioned as 
 a labor organization is not a labor union. It is an organization 
 that is organized for the purpose of learning the business of running 
 a stationary engine and firing boilers ; in other words, it is an edu- 
 
 67 
 
68 INDUSTRIAL CONFEKENCE. 
 
 cational organization and is in no way connected with a labor 
 union. 
 
 He stated that that was a labor union that had indorsed the in- 
 dustrial court. Now, the Missouri Trade Unionist, a paper which 
 he has cited, was a labor paper, and indorsed the court, but it is 
 not a labor paper. While it is printed under the name of the Mis- 
 souri Trade Unionist it was not a labor paper at that time, but some 
 few years ago it was, but it varied from the principles of organized 
 labor and had gotten in bad with the labor movement in the city 
 of Joplin, Mo., and since that time it is connected in no way with 
 the bona fide organizations. 
 
 The electrical company which he mentioned yesterday as having 
 difficulties before the court was brought into the court by the em- 
 ployees, as he said. I might say, in connection with that, that' 
 there were only three employees concerned, and that the court estab- 
 lished a wage of 65^ cents, or 7-J cents increase. I might also, 
 state that since that time two of those men have been discharged for 
 reasons which I do not know. 
 
 And speaking of -the street railway employees, I would like ta 
 make this statement because of the fact that possibly he left the 
 impression that I was for the industrial court, that in a way I had 
 possibly indorsed the industrial court — which I had not — because 
 of the fact that I happened to be one of the representatives of that 
 organization before the court. Now, it will take a little explana- 
 tion on that question. The Amalgamated Association of Street Eail- 
 way Employees is an organization that believes very strongly in 
 arbitration, and the national office is in the habit of enforcing the 
 constitution along that line. They came to a point in their negotia- 
 tions with the company when it was either necessary to cease opera- 
 tions and strike or to arbitrate the case. They, naturally, believing: 
 in arbitration, concluded that there was a court and arbitration board 
 already established that was the law of the State, and naturally they 
 went to that court, and being a member of that organization and 
 president of the State federation of labor, the members of the coun- 
 cil naturally selected me as one of their representatives along with 
 a committee of five others. 
 
 The Chairman. Tlien you are opposed to this court? That is, the 
 American Federation of Labor? 
 
 Mr. Freeman. I am; yes, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. Why are you opposed to it ? 
 
 Mr. Freeman. I am opposed to the court because in the- first place, 
 it will prohibit the members of a labor organization from discuss- 
 ing controversies, or to the extent that they may consider the possibil- 
 ity of strike— ceasing operation. If I understand the industrial 
 court, and I believe i do, the very minute the employees of any 
 company or corporation discuss or mention to each other in argu- 
 ment or statement the possibility of ceasing operation, just at that 
 time the law considers that they are entering into a conspiracy and 
 they can be handled 
 
 Ihe Chairman (interrupting). Before they go out on strike? 
 
 Mr. Freeman. Before they go out on strike, as I understand the 
 law, because it does not prevent a strike so far as the individual is 
 concerned, but when I s-iy to one of my fellow workers that this 
 condition is not right and we are unable to get a remedy, when we 
 
INDUSTRIAL CONFEKENCE. 69 
 
 do that, then the very minute that we consider the strike we are 
 entering into the conspiracy and are subject to the provisions of the 
 law. 
 
 Senator McKellae. Do you remember just what section of the law 
 that is? 
 
 Mr. Freeman. No; I do not. 
 
 The Chairman. I think that it is section 9, Senator. 
 
 Mr. Feeeiman. It is not, as I understand it, a question of being 
 punished for striking — I believe that the governor admitted yes- 
 terday that we have the right to strike — but it is a conspiracy which 
 you enter into with your fellow men in bringing about the strike. 
 
 The Chairman. And what are your other objections to the law? 
 
 Mr. Freeman. One other objection to the law is that it regulates 
 the income of labor; the man who labors for a wage naturally has 
 no other income, and his income is regulated by this law and it does 
 not regulate in any way whatsoever the expenditures of the em- 
 ployees. In other words his income is classed by the court, abso- 
 lutely, and the avenue of expenditure is left wide open, or in other 
 words 
 
 Senator Smith (interrupting) . And if that fixes the amount that 
 must be paid to the employee, would not that be the distribution of 
 the income, too ? 
 
 Mr. Feeemam. It regulates the distribution of the income as far 
 tis the amount he may have to spend, but it does not regulate the 
 cost of living ; it does not regulate the price of the commodities which 
 he must pay for in order to live, but it does regulate the amount of 
 money he may have to live on. 
 
 Senator Smith. It takes into consideration the fair amount of 
 ■compensation to be paid by the employer to the employee. 
 
 Mr. Freeman. Yes ; that is the intent of the law. 
 
 The Chairman. Could not you write out your objections to the 
 law, these matters touched upon by Gov. Allen and make it a part 
 ■of this report ? 
 
 Mr. Feeeman. I think so. 
 
 The Chaieman. Would that satisfy you just as well? 
 
 Mr. Freeman. It would. 
 
 The Chaieman. The committee is in session and we want to hear 
 from Mr. Bryan, and do not want to curtail your argument at all. 
 
 Senator McKellar. Also give us the quotation of the law that you 
 object to. 
 
 The Chairman. And that will be printed following Gov. Allen's 
 ■statement. 
 
 Mr. Freeman. Well, of course it will take me sometime before I 
 •can get it. 
 
 The Chaieman. When do you think you can have it? 
 
 Mr. Feeeman. Possibly within the next two weeks. 
 
 The Chaieman. That will be sufficient time. 
 
 Mr. Freeman. If there is any question that you would like to ask, 
 I would like to hear the question, because it might be the means of 
 bringing out something that I would care to answer in the statement. 
 
 Senator Smith. The bill is intended to prevent strikes and to 
 restrain the use of the strikes as a means for forcing the adjustment 
 of differences. 
 
70 INDUSTRIAL CONFEKENCE. 
 
 STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM JENNINGS BRYAN, FORMER 
 SECRETARY OF STATE. 
 
 The Chairman. Mr. Bryan, we have been asking a number of 
 gentlemen to appear here and discuss for our benefit the industrial 
 situation, especially with a view toward remedies that we are con- 
 cerned with. Mr. Hoover has been here and Gov. Allen, of Kansas, 
 and Mr. Lauck, and others are expected to come. I regret very much 
 that there are not more Senators here to hear you. Those who are 
 here will be very much obliged to you if you will give us your views. 
 
 Mr. Bryan. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I ap- 
 preciate very much the compliment you pay me in inviting me to 
 appear before you on this subject. It is one of the most important 
 subjects which we have before us to-day. There seems to be a^great 
 antagonism between two classes, and the classes seem to be solidifying 
 in their opposition to each other. It is of the very greatest moment 
 that this situation should be so dealt with as to bring these two 
 necessary elements of production into harmonious cooperation. 
 
 The worker, to give the maximum of service, must be a willing 
 worker. It is impossible that a man who feels that he is suffering 
 from injustice shall furnish the best work of which he is capable, 
 and nothing less than the best work ought to be the end in view and 
 the thing to work for. At the same time, the employee has a position 
 which must be considered, and only the satisfied employer is going 
 to deal properly with the employee. Therefore, what we are looking 
 for, I take it, is a basis of cooperation which will be satisfactory to 
 both sides, and, of course, that means a basis of justice. It is not to 
 be expected that any basis of justice will be immediately acceptable 
 to all, or even ultimately accepted by all. There are biases and 
 points of view ; there are differences that are due to environment, to 
 education, and to interests that tend to prevent the consideration of 
 any question of this kind on its merits. 
 
 1 desire to present some things that have occurred to nie, and 
 then I am ready to answer any questions that any of you may see 
 fit to ask. If you ask questions that I can not answer, I will say so ; 
 if there are questions that 1 think I can answer, I will attempt to 
 do so. If I can contribute anything toward the solution of this very 
 serious problem-, I consider it a patriotic duty to do so. 
 
 First I will call your attention to a proposition made by Mr. 
 Frank P. Walsh. Has anybody presented this proposition to the 
 committee ? 
 
 The Chairman. No; not as yet. We expect to have Mr. Walsh 
 here before the hearings are concluded. 
 
 Mr. Bryan. I do not know that it is fair to anticipate him, but as 
 this has been printed I am sure he would not object to it. 
 
 The Chairman. I do not see how he could. 
 
 Mr. Bryan. Mr. Walsh has held an official position that identifies 
 him with the problem, and I think he is regarded as sympathetic 
 with the side of labor, although I have no doubt that he -desires to 
 present a proposition that is not one-sided, but equitable. 
 
 Let me read what he says, and then I will comment on it. He pre- 
 sents what he calls an "Industrial constitution." Let me go back 
 just a paragraph : 
 
INDtrSTEIAL CONFERENCE. 71 
 
 If the President or Congress would proclaim that the following principles 
 should be mandatory upon all boards and Government bodies dealing with the 
 adjustment of Industrial disputes, a definite mode of procedure would be 
 secured ; labor would feel that its rights were protected, and the employers of 
 the country— with a few outstanding exceptions, which would be readily recog- 
 nized as notorious exploiters of labor— would gladly accept it as a mighty good 
 realization of the great desideratum of " maximum production," of which the 
 world is so sorely in neeed and of which our country should be the exemplar. 
 
 That is the purpose that he has in view. 
 And here is the " Industrial constitution " : 
 
 BIGHTS OF EMPLOYEKS AND EMPLOYEES. 
 
 The right of workers to organize in trade-unions and to bargain collectively 
 through their chosen representatives is recognized and afhrmed. This right 
 shall not be denied, abridged, or interfered with by employers in any manner 
 whatsoever. 
 
 The right of emplo.\ers to organize in associations or groups and to bargain 
 collfctively through chosen representatives is recognized and affirmed. This 
 right shall not be denied, abridged, or interfered with by the workers in any 
 manner whatsoever. 
 
 You ^vill notice that he uses exactly the same language in setting 
 forth the rights of the two sides upon this proposition. Next he 
 says: 
 
 Employers shall not discharge workers for membership in trade-unions, nor 
 for legitimate union activities. 
 
 The workers in the exercise of their right to organize shall not use coercive 
 measures of any kind to induce persons to join their organization, nor to induce 
 employers to bargain or deal therewith. 
 
 You will notice that here again he uses the same language in de- 
 fining the rights of both sides. 
 
 WOMEN IN INDUSTBY. 
 
 Women on work ordinarily performed by men nmst be allowed equal pay for 
 equal work and must not be allotted tasks disproportionate to their strength. 
 
 1. The right of all workers, including common laborers, to a living wage is 
 hereby declared. 
 
 2. Fixing wages, minimum rates of pay shall be established which will insure 
 the subsistence of the worker and his family in health and reasonable comfort. 
 
 What I am giving you now is the constitution divided into para- 
 graphs 1, 2, and 3, etc., and I have read you the first two. 
 
 3. Differentials above basic living wages shall be established and maintained 
 for skilled craftsmen and salaried workers, based upon the following: 
 
 (a) Quantity and value of production. 
 
 (6) Education and training required for occupation. 
 
 (c) Hazards of employment. 
 
 (d) Increases in the cost of living. 
 
 Those are the things to be taken into consideration in fixing the 
 differentials above the basic minimum wage. • 
 
 CONTINUOUS PKODUCTION. 
 
 All wage schedules should be construed so as to secure the continuity of pro- 
 duction for the employer and uninterrupted employment for the worker. 
 
72 INDUSTKIAL CONFEKENCE. 
 
 The main points of the workers' companies out of which grows ill feeling and 
 finally Industi'ial strife are the following : 
 
 (a) Denial of the right to organize and bargain collectively. 
 
 (h) Unjust distribution of the product of industry, as expressed in wages 
 and salaries. 
 
 (c) Excessive hours of labor. 
 
 And then he adds : 
 
 The principle of the living wage was proclaimed by the President in his war 
 proclamation of April 8, 1918, as one of the principles which should govern the 
 industries of the Nation during the war. and it received the indorsement of 
 emplovers, employees, and the general public. A few weeks ago it was accepted 
 and proclaimed by the President'.s bituminous coal commission as the basis of 
 its award. 
 
 In Septeuiljer, 1916, the President declared that organized society was insist- 
 ent in its demand for an eight-hour day. The vast majority of workers and 
 skilled trades have already attained it by their own efforts. Every labor 
 organization in the country insists upon it as a matter of right. Thousands of 
 representative employers throughout the country approve and accept it. The 
 highest authorities, practical and academic, insist that a higher production can 
 be attained in eight hours than in a longer period, based upon exhaustive 
 studies in the shops of countless industries. The eight-hour day was approved 
 by the international labor conference, which grew out of the labor provisions of 
 the League of Nations. 
 
 I think that is all I need to read here. 
 
 Now, as it seems to me that this covers the situation so far as 
 dealings between the employer and employee are concerned, and I 
 think Mr. Walsh very fairly states the companion proposition, so to 
 speak, because he uses practically the same language in defining the 
 rights of the employer and employee, and it looks as if that might 
 be a basis of agreement, so far as it goes; but my criticism of it 
 would be that it does not take the public into consideration, and I 
 can not but believe that the public, the third party, is a very impor- 
 tant party, and that neither side of the controversy has been suffi- 
 ciently considerate of this party. My efforts for years has been to 
 find a way in which the third party could have its rights protected. 
 
 Mr. Walsh's plan affords a means by which the employers and 
 employees can get together on most occasions, but if they fail to do it 
 there is no remedy, and the punishment for the failure falls not 
 entirely upon the employer and employee, but upon the public as 
 well. 
 
 For instance, take the coal strike. It came just at the beginning 
 of the winter, and for a while we were threatened with lack of fuel 
 in cold weather, lack of fuel in the homes, and lack of fuel in the 
 factories. The number of persons connected Avith the strike directly 
 was small. I saw it stated, for instance, that 600,000 workmen were 
 employed in the mines. The number of persons who were stock- 
 holders could not be more than one or two hundred thousand; it 
 would be safe, I think, to say not more than 1,000,000 of men were 
 directly interested on both sides, either as stockholders or employees. 
 If we count five to a family that would mean that out of 100,000,000 
 of people not more than 5,000,000 had a direct interest either as 
 persons connected with the ownership of the mines or as persons con- 
 nected with the Avorking of the mines. That is, 5 per cent of the 
 whole population had a direct interest, and yet because the 5 per cent 
 could not get together the 95 per cent would suffer. 
 
 It is to the 95 per cent that I want to call attention ; their interest 
 should be protected by some peaceful means of adjusting disputes. 
 
INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 73 
 
 It has been now something like 16 or 17 years since I began to urge 
 what seems to me to be a remedy, and I have been disappointed that 
 the remedy has not been more favorably received and cordially sup- 
 ported by both sides. In fact, I have not found a great deal of sup- 
 port for it from either side, and yet it seems to me to be a very simple 
 proposition. It is the same proposition which has been embodied in 
 our 30 peace treaties, and has since become the cornerstone of the 
 League of Nations. It is the idea of investigation of every dispute at 
 the request of either side or on the initiative of the permanent tri- 
 bunal — investigation, not arbitration — investigation with the right of 
 the parties to independent action when the investigation is com- 
 pleted. 
 
 The Chair^fan. But no strike should occur during the investiga- 
 tion ; is that your idea ? 
 
 Mr. Brtan. Yes ; I will come to that in a moment. No strike dur- 
 ing the investigation, but a limit of the time to be employed in in- 
 vestigating. 
 
 Senator McKeli^r. Have you ever figured on the limit of the 
 time? 
 
 Mr. Bryax. Let me first present the plan and I will be glad to 
 answer questions. I urged this idea for labor disputes before I 
 ever suggested it for international disputes. After developing it 
 as a plan applicable to labor disputes I was led to propose it for 
 international disputes at the time of the war between Japan and 
 Eussia. I first presented it as an international proposition in Febru- 
 ary, 1905, in an editorial in my paper, and followed it up with an- 
 other editorial during the same month. Then, as it impressed me 
 more and more, I made a speech in favor of it in Tokyo, Japan, in 
 the fall of 1905 and then presented it to a peace conference in 
 London in June, 1906. There were, I think, 26 nations represented — 
 all of the leading nations — and it was unanimously indorsed. 
 
 Now, before that — I will not carry the history of the peace plan 
 any further — I had suggested the plan for settling labor disputes. 
 If you will examine our treaties, you will find that there are cer- 
 tain propositions which will be found in all of them. The first is 
 that all disputes of every kind and character shall be investigated; 
 that nations shall not go to war without first submitting matters in 
 dispute to an international tribunal for investigation and report. 
 The treaties fix one year as the time for the investigation, and spe- 
 cifically declare that at the end of that time the parties can act 
 independently. 
 
 Arbitration is not always possible in international affairs, because 
 nations are not willing to submit all questions to arbitration. We 
 have 26 treaties of arbitration, but each one of the 26 says that arbi- 
 tration shall not apply to four classes, namely, questions of honor, 
 vital questions of interest, and the interests of third parties. When- 
 ever nations get mad at each other the issue immediately becomes a 
 vital one; a nation can go to war over any question by declaring it 
 vital; if it calls it vital, it can refuse to submit it to arbitration. 
 That was the difficulty I tried to remedy by the treaties. My propo- 
 sition was that no dispute of any kind or character should beconie a 
 cause of war without an investigation. The investigation gives time 
 to separate questions of honor from questions of fact. It gives time 
 for passions to subside ; it gives time for the peace forces to operate. 
 
74 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 
 
 I believe it is practically impossible for two nations to go to war 
 after they have taken a year's time to investigate the matter in dis- 
 pute. After the war began in Europe one of the ambassadors from 
 a European nation told me that if they had two weeks in which to 
 investigate this war would have been prevented, but instead of that 
 the ultimatum gave only 48 hours. 
 
 One advantage of having a tribunal for investigation is that if 
 you have peaceful means of settling disputes you do not arouse the 
 anger and you do not resort to the denunciation that you do if you 
 have no peaceful way of settling such disputes. And so, in applying 
 this plan to the industrial disputes — I do not believe that compul- 
 sory arbitration is consistent with our ideas in this country. I have 
 never felt that we could compel an employer to carry on his business 
 at a loss, or that we could compel an employee to work for wages that 
 he regards as insufficient. I have no confidence in our being able to 
 establish any court that can settle these questions by arbitration 
 methods. That is what a court does; it decides and the decision is 
 binding. Therefore, I believe that in industrial matters as well as 
 in international disputes what we need is a plan that will cover all 
 questions. Arbitration will not cover all questions. Where it is 
 agreed to it is all right, but I desire a plan that will make a strike 
 or lockout as impossible as war, without an investigation preced- 
 ing it. 
 
 The result of this investigation is not to be binding upon either 
 party ; it merely directs public attention to the facts. I do not mean 
 to say that it will absolutely prevent strikes and lockouts, but I be- 
 lieve it will prevent a very large percentage of them. If we can 
 find something that will go three-quarters of the way, or nine-tenths 
 of the way, it is worth trying until we find something that will go 
 all of the way. 
 
 The plan I would propose is this, that there shall be a perma- 
 nent tribunal that would be invoked by either side at any time, and 
 that it shall have the power to act upon its own initiative and insti- 
 tute an investigation without either side demanding it. 
 
 That is the plan provided in the peace treaties — a permanent tri- 
 bunal. I tried to arrange that permanent tribunal upon exactly 
 the same principles- 
 
 The Chairman (interrupting). And there is no power in this 
 court, of course, to enforce an order. 
 
 Mr. Bryan. None whatever. There is none in our treaties. 
 
 The Chairman. And you would depend upon public opinion to en- 
 force it? 
 
 Mr. Bryan. Upon public opinion. In the treaties we provide that 
 each nation shall select one of its own citizens, and a citizen from 
 another country, and that the nations shall agree upon the fifth man, 
 the purpose being to make it certain that each nation will be rep- 
 resented on that board, first by its own member ; and, second, by one 
 selected by itself from another nation, and that the fifth member 
 shall be just as impartial as possible. 
 
 Now, applying this to labor, I would have a permanent board of, 
 say, three, and I would have the law direct that one of these shall be 
 selected from the classes supposed to be sympathetic with the em- 
 ployer and one from the classes supposed to be sympathetic with the 
 employee— now, this is a permanent board— with a third man to be 
 
INDUSTRIAL CONFEKENCB. 75 
 
 selected as free from bias as possible. I say " as possible," because 
 I have not the slightest idea that any man big enough to be on such 
 a board would be entireljr without bias, but he could be selected from 
 a class or occupation which would not connect him in a personal or 
 pecuniary way with either side. 
 
 The Chairman. Mr. Bryan, would you have a system of courts, a 
 regional court, and an appellate court, and so on? 
 
 Mr. Bryan. No ; not at all. 
 
 The Chairman. You would have just the-one court? 
 
 Mr. Bryan. I will get to that in a moment. Whenever a contro- 
 versy arose and the board was invoked, I would have the board au- 
 thorized and directed to select two additional members, one of them 
 designated by one side and one designated by the other side, so that 
 you would not only have two men appointed by the appointing 
 power, one presumed to be sympathetic with each side, but you would 
 also have two additional members to serve during the investigation 
 with equal power with the other three and with equal compensation , 
 pro rata, who would be known to be sympathetic with each side 
 because selected by the sides themselves. 
 
 My purpose is to make each side feel sure that nothing would be 
 done by that board without the knowledge of that side, and to make 
 certain also that, if there was not an agreement, there would be a 
 minority report so that the public would get both sides of the con- 
 troversy and know the facts as brought out by the investigation. 
 
 The Chairman. And would you make it impossible for a strike 
 or lockout during that period ? 
 
 Mr. Bryan. I would provide for a certain period of time during 
 which there should be neither strike or lockout, but I would make 
 that time limited. In our international treaties we make it a year, 
 and in the League of Nations it is limited to nine months. 
 
 Senator Smith. Yes; three months after the investigation closes 
 either side can go to war. 
 
 Mr. Bryan. Now, during that time you suspend temporarily the 
 right of either side to resort to force in the case of our international 
 treaties, and to a strike or a lockout, which is the nearest approach 
 we have to war in industry. That is a temporary period and I 
 would not attempt to fix the time at this time. I am only stating 
 the proposition and I have no desire whatever to bind any fixed time 
 upon those who as legislators put the plan into statutory form. 
 There might be a difference of opinion as to how long should be 
 allowed, but if it is a temporary restraint, 'and if there must be a 
 decision within a certain time, we can justify the suspension of both 
 the right to strike and the right to lockout with this prospect of the 
 prevention of either the strike or the lockout. The two sides can 
 afford to surrender, for a short time, the right to resort to either the 
 strike or a lockout, just as nations surrender for a time the right to 
 go to war. • . 
 
 The Chairman. And if you have anything m the nature ot an in- 
 dustrial code as the basis of this plan and of this body. 
 
 Mr.' Bryan. I have no objection to an industrial code. lor in- 
 stance, here are certain propositions laid down by Mr. Walsh. They 
 could be accepted or they could be modified. They could be added 
 to, and there would be no objection whatever to a statement of a sys- 
 tem of principles that would guide; but what I am anxious for is 
 
76 INDUSTKIAl, CONFEEENCE. 
 
 something that will bring industrial peace, and if we have an ade- 
 quate plan I think it is going to entirely change the disposition ot 
 both sides. 
 
 If there is no plan by which you can reach a peaceful settlement 
 of a controversy, the natural, if not the inevitable, tendency is for 
 each side to carry on a propaganda work to support it when it finally 
 takes its action in favor of a strike or lockout, and that propaganda 
 work on one side calls out propaganda work on the other side. The 
 result is that if we have to look forward to a strike or lockout as 
 the only settlement, antagonisms are aroused that prevent harmo- 
 nious cooperation ; but if we have a system like this and both sides 
 expect to resort to this system, if occasion requires, then you will get 
 rid of the agitation and the exciting of public sentiment in support 
 of an anticipated action. That in itself will have the same educa- 
 tional influence in producing good feeling and harmonious relation- 
 ship in industry that the peace plan, adopted by this country for 
 the settlement of difficulties by investigation, has upon the public 
 mind as between nations. 
 
 Just as long as war is the only means known for the settlement of 
 international disputes there will be agitation, for things necessary 
 for war, and with that will come a certain propaganda that will cul- 
 tivate the ill-feelings that finally produce war. So it is, if you have 
 no means of settling these disputes, there will be no discussion, there 
 will be no recrimination, and after a while you will have a feeling 
 that in itself goes a long way toward producing the strike or the 
 lockout. 
 
 Now, I have very briefly 
 
 Senator Smith. Let me ask, Mr. Bryan, is not the Canadian rail- 
 road law very much built upon the line of that which you suggest? 
 As I understand it, as between the employers and employees on rail- 
 roads there can be no strike or lockout until there is a submission of 
 the dispute to the tribunal, and that tribunal must act within six 
 months, and after they have acted and announced their conclusions 
 neither of the opposing parties, the railroad company nor the em- 
 ployees, can conduct a strike or lockout for three months. 
 
 Mr. Bryan. I have not examined that plan with sufficient care to 
 lae able to discuss it. I have heard it referred to when I have talked 
 about this, but unless I could go over it and examine the details I 
 would not care to discuss it. 
 
 Senator Smith. The general plan is very much in line with the 
 suggestions that you have made. 
 
 Mr. Bryan. But the general plan might be vitiated by the de- 
 tails. For instance, six months might be regarded as too long 
 a time for investigation and three months might be regarded as too 
 long a time after the decision. A great many things in the way of 
 details come in. I am simply presenting a plan, and this plan fits 
 itself to a nation, to a State, and to a community. There is no 
 reason why we should not have a national board like this 
 
 The Chairman. How large a board would you have, Mr. Bryan? 
 
 Mr. Bryan. A board of three permanently, with two additional 
 members during an investigation. 
 
 Senator Smith. And tliey should call in the others, is your sug- 
 gestion ? 
 
 Mr. Bryan. My idea is a body of three, say, in number. 
 
INDUSTEIAL CONFERENCE. 77 
 
 Senator Smith. And the three should represent neither side and 
 they should call in one on each side 
 
 Mr. Bryan. Yes. Neither side, directly. 
 ! Senator McKellae. And how would you select the two who were 
 called in? 
 
 Mr. Bryan. I would let the particular industry that has the dis- 
 pute attend to that. For instance, if the dispute affected the steel 
 industry, I would let the steel companies select one man and the 
 employees another. Those called in would be chosen by the people 
 involved in the dispute, and I would ha^'e two of the permanent 
 board selected with the understanding that one sympathized with 
 one side and the other with the other side. A man's decision may 
 not always follow his sympathy ; he would not carry his sympathies 
 to the point of indorsing a thing which he thought probably unjust, 
 but I would want the man to have his sympathies assumed to be with 
 one side or the other instead of being tempted to conceal his 
 sympathies. 
 
 We would have to take a chance on the last man. I would simply 
 examine his environment with all care possible, in order to avoid 
 any sympathy that could be discovered. Let him be as impartial 
 and as fair as possible. 
 
 You could have this a national board, and everj' State could have 
 a board to deal with purely local affairs, and, if you wanted to, you 
 could have a community board. The plan fits into a national sys- 
 tem, a State system, or a local one. 
 
 Senator McKellae. I think that the question of time is very im- 
 portant. Has your mind run along, that question any, to ascertain 
 what is the proper time? 
 
 Mr. Bryan. I would say this, that the larger the area the longer 
 the time. 
 
 Senator McKellae. And who would fix the length of it, the board 
 itself? 
 
 Mr. Bryan. No; I think the length of time ought to be fixed by 
 law. 
 
 Senator McKellae. And you would make it, if it were a local 
 situation, a shorter time than if it were a State situation or a na- 
 tional situation? 
 
 Mr. Bryan. Of course, the Federal Government could only fix it 
 for the Federal board, and the State could take the same plan 
 and adjust it to State needs and fix the time, but I think it is very 
 important that the time should be fixed in the law, otherwise either 
 side might be fearful that the time' might be drawn out until it 
 would amount to a continual thing. 
 
 Senator Smith. That could easily be true. 
 
 Mr. Bryan. Yes; and if anything of that kind can be done, it 
 should be guarded against, because people might assume that what 
 can be done will be done, without waiting for the evidence. 
 
 Now, Mr. Chairman, that is the plan that has been in my heart 
 for many years ; my purpose is to find a peaceful way of adjusting 
 the differences between labor and capital, so that the employer will 
 not resort to the lockout and the employee will not resort to the 
 strike. 
 
78 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCK. 
 
 The Chairman. You would not go as far as the Kansas law do( 
 
 Mr. Betan. I am not fully informed as to the Kansas law. 
 have a knowledge of some of the features of it as I have read tht 
 but I would not discuss it, except as I have heard two things 
 regard to it : One is tliat there is a " first " court, and then the coi 
 of- the State, and that the finding of the court of the State is bu 
 ing and enforceable. That is not investigation; that is arbit 
 tion, and I do not regard any arbitration as consistent with c 
 ideas. I do not think it would be satisfactory to this country 
 compel either side, because in an arbitration it is a good deal o: 
 gamble. Yoii take your chances upon the persons who decide; 
 you miss your guess, you are gone. 
 
 We had an occason of that kind in 1876, when he had an electo 
 commission. It was understood that the Senate would appoint f 
 members and the House five members, and that five senior siajwe 
 judges would complete the commission.. At the time the Dec 
 crats consented to it. They thought we had three of the five jud^ 
 but before the commission was appointed one of our men (Juc 
 Davis) was elected to the United States Senate, and that gave i 
 Eepublicans a majority. They got the fifth man, and their 
 cision stood 7 to 8, each one of the learned Senators and Memb 
 and judges voting just as he would have voted if he had gone ii 
 a booth with a lead pencil and marked his ballot for his part 
 candidate. 
 
 The bias of men must always be considered ; you may be deceiv 
 When you agree to arbitration you may agree to a man you thi 
 is on your side, but he may be on the other side ; you may think 
 is absolutely impartial, and you find that he is not. That is just 
 true of a court as it is of any other body, and I would not be in f a^ 
 of it providing for a final decision by anybody and make it bind: 
 upon all parties. 
 
 Then, too, as I understand it, there is no time fixed in that bill 
 the rendering ol the decision. I think that the law provides t 
 these questions shall be given priority 
 
 Senator Smith. When it goes to the Supreme Court. 
 
 Mr. Betan. Yes. 
 
 Senator Smith. When it is appealed from the industrial court. 
 
 Mr. Bkyan. Yes, sir. While that sounds good 
 
 Senator Smith. It might be slow. 
 
 Mr. Betan. It might be slow if there is no time limit fixed. T 
 excuses for delay are infinite. The danger is that the delay mi; 
 go on until there would be a suspicion that it was not a bona i 
 delay. It would be very unfortunate to have the law enforced 
 such a way as to lose the confidence of the people on either side, 
 would insist upon a time being fixed, and in the case of a labor < 
 pute it seems to me that it ought to be very much less than in 
 case of an international dispute. For instance, I can not see y 
 three months should not be the outside limit. 
 
 The Chaieman. For adjudication? 
 
 Mr. Betan. For investigation, and then a short time for the 
 ceptance of the finding, because each side will know all about wha 
 going on. 
 
INDUSTRIAL CONFKEENCE. 79 
 
 Senator Smith. The reason for that delay is that it gives ample 
 time for a cooling off and an opportunity for adjustment that both 
 sides will become satisfied and public sentiment will help in the 
 adjustment. 
 
 Mr. Bryan. While that is true, I think we have to be very careful 
 not to allow too long a time. This is merely a temporary suspension 
 of an acknowledged right, and it ought not to be so long as to lose 
 the appearance of being temporary. The shorter it is the more 
 readily it will be accepted. It is along the line of Jefferson's argu- 
 ment in favor of frequent elections, namely, that if the people can 
 correct a mistake in a short time they submit to it more gracefully 
 than if a long time must expire before they can correct it. 
 
 Now, that much on that feature. Are there any questions that 
 you would like to ask? 
 
 The Chairman. Now, Mr. Bryan, you travel around the country a 
 good deal, and I would like to ask if you feel that there is a necessity 
 for Congress doing something in times of industrial peace to get 
 ready for times of industrial Avar? 
 
 Mr. Brtan. I think this need has existed for a long time. 
 
 Senator McLean. And does your plan apply to all industry ? 
 
 Mr. Bkyan. Yes. 
 
 Senator McLean. No matter whether the people are engaged in 
 interstate commerce or not? 
 
 Mr. Bryan. The national commission could only deal with an 
 industry extending beyond the State. 
 
 Senator McLean. There might be cases where a strike or lockout 
 would occur during this cooling-off time, and you would have to 
 impose a penalty 
 
 Mr. Bryan. If you will make that a short time, you will have no 
 diiRculty, I think. People will submit to a thing for a short time, 
 whatever their views are, and I think it would be all right if the time 
 was not long. 
 
 Senator McLean. There might be times when they would not do 
 that, and a strike would occur, and the jurisdiction, of course, would 
 be limited 
 
 Mr. Bryan. I think it would be entirely proper to provide, as we 
 provide in our treaties, that there shall be no resort to force during 
 this time. Of course, in the case of the peace treaties there is no 
 power to enforce the law, but a nation that does that certainly breaks 
 its ti'eaty and commits an act of war. 
 
 The Chairman. We could investigate even in the State, even where 
 the industry is not engaged in interstate commerce, and make a report 
 upon it. 
 
 Senator McKellar. I do not know about that. 
 
 Mr. Bryan. At least I would say this, that if it were not an in- 
 dustry engaged in interstate commerce it would be so insignificant 
 that it could not affect the general public at large. 
 
 The Chairman. The child-labor law has crippled us a good deal in 
 these matters in getting into the States for anything. 
 
 Mr. Bryan. Let me say, for this is a very large subject, there is a 
 good deal of discussion in regard to organized and unorganized labor. 
 I would like to submit a suggestion. My acquaintance with public 
 affairs dates back now something over 30 years. It has been 30 
 
80 INDUSTRIAL CONFEKKNC'K. 
 
 years since I entered national politics, and for several years before^ 
 that I was interested in these questions. 
 
 My observation is that organized labor has rendered very material 
 assistance in the securing of every important economic reform that 
 we have secured during this period. I remember that the Australian, 
 ballot was being discussed just about the time I entered politics. I 
 regard the secret ballot as a very important step in advance ; we now 
 have it everywhere and nobody talks of going back to the old method. 
 I know that organized labor was very active in favor of the secret 
 ballot. It has helped very much. The labor organizations .have 
 aided in securing the popular election of Senators, the income tax, 
 and woman's suffrage. They supported the Federal reserve bank, 
 the farm loan bank, and the child labor law. They have always 
 been on the side of peace and against militarism and corruption in 
 politics. 
 
 Take the initiative and the referendum ; organized labor has been 
 a very potent factor in support of that proposition. I regard it as 
 the next great economic, reform and as very essential to us, because 
 it puts the Government in the hands of the people. It does not 
 destroy representative government. It protects representative gov- 
 ernment ; it reserves to the people who select representatives the 
 power to control them. For instance, with the initiative and refer- 
 endum you have your legislators just the same; but if your legis- 
 lature does not pass a desired law, you can submit the question by a 
 petition and vote upon it and pass it. The fact that you can makes 
 the resort to the initiative and referendum less necessary, bec^,use 
 when the legislators . know that you are independent of them they 
 will pass laws that they might refuse to pass, if by refusing they 
 could prevent their passage altogether. 
 
 It is the same way with laws that have been passed; if you have 
 the referendum, the fact that you have it will prevent the passage 
 of laws that might be passed if you did not have it. It strips the 
 lobbyist largely of his power, because, when he approaches the legis- 
 lator and asks him to vote against a measure that the people want,, 
 the legislator says, " Well, if I do it, the people can get it by petition,, 
 and I would only ruin myself and I would not help you." If the 
 lobbyist tries to pass a law that the people do not want,'tlie legislator 
 replies, " It is no use, for by the referendum they would hold it up. 
 By voting for it I would hurt myself without helping you." 
 
 The initiative and referendum' are a protection in many ways. 
 Aside from what I have said, they answer the argument now too- 
 often made that the mass of the people can not be heard. When you 
 put your Government into the hands of the people and any man 
 .suggests revolution or violence, you have an answer. They can 
 secure anything they want by the ballot. 
 
 I do not mean to say that organized labor never makes any mis- 
 takes ; they are human, but they are no more likely to make mistakes 
 than organized capital, and so far thev ha^■e not been able to use 
 their powers for their own advantage as successfully as organized 
 capital has. 
 
 More than that, organized labor helps unorganized labor. There 
 seems to be an antagonism between organized labor and unorganized 
 
INDUSTBIAX, CONFEEENCB. 81 
 
 labor, but, as a matter of fact, every advance that organized labor 
 secures for labor is secured largely by unorganized labor as well. 
 
 I had this brought to my attention by a man who served on an 
 arbitration board in Chicago when there was a street' railway sti ike. 
 He said they settled everything except the question of the unionizing 
 the road. I think they had agreed to a 10 per cent raise. The union 
 men made a proposition as to the right of the railroads to employ 
 nonunion men. They said, " You have now given us a 10 per cent 
 increase because of our strike, and we are willing for you to employ 
 unorganized labor if you will pay unorganized labor what you used 
 to pay us and pay us the 10 per cent advance." The company said, 
 " Why, we could not get anyone to work for the old price if we were 
 to pay you the new price." Then 'the laboring mep^said, "If we 
 make the fight and endure, sacrifice, and secure the increase, why 
 should these people who are not willing to help or to make the 
 sacrifice have the benefit of it ? " There is apparent justice in the 
 claim of the union men ; the only answer to that, I think, is that the 
 few always sacrifice for the many. All good is brought for the 
 many by the few. 
 
 Eecently I have had occasion to use the story of the, , 10 lepers as 
 this basis of an address. Ten lepers were cleansed, and of the 10 
 but 1 came. back, and falling upon his face at the Master's feet poured 
 forth his heart in thanks. The nine went on enjoying, but making 
 no return. That led me to consider a very important if somewhat 
 discouraging fact in the working out of reforms; that is, that the 
 actual labor done, is by the few ; that the actual sacrifices are made 
 by the few, while all enjoy the benefits. I have used this illustra- 
 tion in the case ,of the prohibition amendment. The fight. went on 
 for nearly 50 years. It is nearly that long since the Women's Chris- 
 tian Temperance Union was organized. It has reached a member- 
 ship of 500,000, and during all these years these women have attended 
 the meetings in good weather and bad weather ; they have paid their 
 dues; they have contributed money; without them we would not 
 have national prohibition. Assuming that the number of women 
 in this country of voting age is something more than 26,000,000, 
 there has never been a time when as many as 1 in 50 belonged to the 
 organization, and never has 1 in 25 belonged to any organization 
 formed for the purpose of securing prohibition, and yet all enjoy 
 the benefits of it. The woman who never joined the association and 
 never contributed a dollar has her home just as much safeguarded 
 as those who did the work and made the sacrifices. And so with 
 the Antis.aloon League. It has been organized for 27 years; without 
 it we could not have had this prohibition amendment. Its organiz- 
 ing power has been necessary, and, yet never have as many as 1 in 
 25 of the adults of the country contributed to the organization, 
 while everybody enjoys the benefits. 
 
 I believe that organized labor has been of tremendoji^^va,lue to the 
 laboring people of this country. If there were nq prganiz4tipns,t() 
 give voice to labor's interest and to work for labor's beriefit, the con- 
 dition of the laboring men in this country wojild be very much worse 
 than it is now. If you could conceiy^j of, such, a thing as the qrgap; 
 ization among laboring men being abjinfiqned,, apd, the, ivs-ge earner^ 
 
 9342—20- 6 
 
82 INDUSTRIAL, faoSri?6R£NCE. 
 
 being left to individual action against the powerful organization of 
 the corporations, it would be very discouraging to look forward to 
 what the condition of labor would be, because we must consider that 
 each person has within him the instinct of self-preserv^-tion exag- 
 gerated and manifested in the form of selfishness. No class is ht to 
 govern another class. My contention is that a democracy is not a 
 government by any class but a government by all of the people, in ■ 
 which each individual of each class has the same right as any other 
 individual Of any other class. Without the 6rganiz,ation Of labor 
 the laboring classes, in my judgment, have very little chance of secur- 
 ing their rights. 
 
 Let me repeat that" you must, not expect the laboring man to be 
 perfect any more than anybody else, but remember that he is under 
 certain restrictions that do not apply to the capitalists. If a man 
 has a large amount of money he may be able to withdraw that money 
 from his business ; the man does not starve ; but a laboring man can 
 not withhold his labor for any great length of time. The pressure 
 of necessity upon the laboring man fixes the limitations more arbi- 
 trary than any law. When you say to the laboring nian, as sug- 
 gested in this statement of Mr. Walsh, " You can persuade, you can 
 argue with people ; you can bring every influence to bear upon them 
 that will affect their judgment or influence their will, but you may 
 not resort to force ; you have drawn the line in the right place." Jiist 
 as long as an organization does not advocatie or resort to fotce I 
 believe it ought to be allowed to protect itself by. presenting its side 
 to the public, but the . line should be drawn against the advocacy 
 of exercise of force. If you peririit any class, whether it be made 
 up of employers or employees, to use force, you transfer the Gbvern- 
 ment into the hands of that class. Force is a thing that only the 
 Government can use. The Government acts for all the peOple and 
 not for any class. 
 
 I have tried to inake clear two things ; first, I think that the organi- 
 zation of labor is necessary ; second, that As far as persiiasion goeS, it 
 should be perniitted to increase its ranks and add to itsjnfluehce, but 
 that it can not be permitted to exercise the power to* force anybody 
 into its ranks. If it finds that the people outside enjoy the benefits 
 that have been brought up by the efforts made by organized labor, 
 it must find its satisfaction, as everybodj'^ else does, in the conscious- 
 ness of rendering altruistic service. That is the way the World moves. 
 
 Now, unless you have some question, 1 have one other thoiigM 
 that I would like to present. 
 
 The Chairman. T am very sorry, Mr. Bryan, but we have got to gO 
 to the Senate vfery soon. 
 
 Mr. Bryan. I am sorry to have kept you so long, but I hope I have 
 convinced you that I am very much interested in "this subject. How- 
 ever, there is something tha,t no law can furnish ; there is something 
 that no peace plan can provide ; there is something that no regulation 
 can insure, harifiely, the spirit that will bring these people together. 
 I have been distressed at What seems tO me to be an antagonistic 
 spirit between labor and capital, and disappointed that the churches, 
 which to my mind represent the true spirit, have failed to live up tO 
 their opportunities and responsibilities in this resp6ct. My disap- 
 
Opposite Page 
 Damaged 
 
 Best Image 
 Available 
 
INDUSTRIAL COlilFEEENCE. §3 
 
 pointnient is that the church has not been the harmonizing influence 
 that it might be expected to be. 
 
 The Chairman. Is not the whole situation a good deal of a chal- 
 lenge to the church? 
 
 Mr. Betan. If I undersknd the Christian religion, the creed of 
 Christ is not only sufficient to solve this question, but to solve eve^ 
 question. I know of no other creed that so completely fits into evSry 
 human need. It has distressed me, as a member of one of the 
 branches of the Christ^ian church, that the church has not tak^n hold 
 of this problem and,^sed its mighty influence to bring the employer 
 and employee toapdEher in harmonious and successful cooperation. 
 
 If there is a ^d, He created both the employer and the errfployee ; 
 If there is a Cl||kt, He died for ^oth the employer and the .employee ; 
 if there is to be esTd-blished an universal brotherhood, it must include 
 both the employer and the employee. Ifthese propositions be true, 
 and the church will not deny them, then it seems to me that the 
 church to-day can have no greater call upon it than to address itself 
 to these questions and not be satisfied until it has spoken peace in the 
 industrial world, as it ought not to be satisfied until it has spoken 
 peace in the world at large. 
 
 The Chairman. Have you seen the program of the Catholic bishop, 
 Mr. Bryan ? 
 
 Mr. Bryan. No ; I have not. 
 
 The Chairman. I would advise you to look at it. 
 
 Mr. Brtan. I shall be pleased to do so. The Presbyterian Church 
 has just adjourned its general assembly at Philadelphia. It passed 
 ■resolutions that covered a great deal of ground. I think the Metho- 
 dist Church did the same thing the other day in Des Moines. The 
 tendency to do this is growing. 
 
 The Chairman. And the Baptists have also done it. 
 
 Mr. Bryan. Yes. I have no doubt that ultimately it will be done 
 by all the churches, but the more quickly it is done the better. Until 
 we have some means of bringing them together and getting the 
 facts by investigation, public opinion will have nothing to guide it. 
 
 The Chairman. Why is it that you do not find many men who 
 toil and slave in labor in the churches ? 
 
 Mr. Bryan. Well, I would not say that. 
 ' The Chairman. Possibly that is too strong a statement. 
 
 Mr. Bryan. I think you will find it depends a good deal on the 
 locality. 
 
 The Chairman. But the churches do not seem to be going after 
 them. 
 
 Mr. Bryan. Not as much as I would like, but we have some in the 
 industrial communities that are doing a grand work, and I think we 
 ought to have more. I heard the other night a presentation of home 
 mission work by the representatives of the different branches, and I 
 was very deeply impressed by it. I did not mean any reflection upon 
 the Senate and the House when I said, after hearing the reports, that 
 there had been more truth spoken in regard to great public neces- 
 sities at that meeting than had been spoken in the Senate and House 
 in a long while. The subject was of vital importance" and the in- 
 terest was tremendous. 
 
84 
 
 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 
 
 , The Chaieman. The interest may have been tremendous and th»J 
 speeches may have been good, and all that; that is one kind of in|^ 
 terest, but when it comes to going out in the highways and byways | 
 they do not seem to be there. . ■ 
 
 Mr. Betan. Yes; " the cares of this world and the deceitfulness of 
 riches choke the truth." ' 
 
 The Chaieman. Mr. Bryan, we are very much obliged to you, and 
 let me say that your suggestions have been very, very helpful. 
 
 Mr. Betan. 1 am greatly obliged to you,- gentlemen, for allowing- 
 me to unbosom myself. ^ '"v 
 
 (Thereupon at 12 o'clock noon the hearing ad]OT(jned subject to- 
 the call of the chairman.) 
 
 ate Due 
 
 ^^^^^-^ 
 
 '^i^r 
 
 PRINTED IN U. S. A. 
 
Cornell University Library 
 HD 8057.N3 1920a 
 
 Industrial conference.Hearing[s] before 
 
 3 1924 002 412 348