strike as a means to secure commercial supremacy-what is gained by it? For these reasons we are not in favor of the bill and can only agree to a voluntarily chosen tribunal.

James G. Bacon, of the Hartford Central Labor Union, says:

Your letter of the 11th instant with copy of H. R. 9491 has been received.

By vote of the executive committee of the Hartford Central Labor Union I am instructed to inform you that we believe it is a measure which can prove of no benefit to anybody except the high-salaried members of the tribunal.

Inasmuch as the tribunal has no power to enforce a decree and may keep secret all the information it gathers, the whole scheme develops into a plan which may be used to strengthen the power of a dominant political party at the expense of the whole people without doing a thing to further the objects for which it was created. I am memorializing the members of Congress from Connecticut to oppose the bill if it ever comes up for action.

GENERAL OPPOSITION IS COMPULSORY ARBITRATION, BUT IT CAN NOT BE.

Some of the letters in opposition relate to the salaries and to details, but the general criticism is that it is compulsory arbitration. The bill does not mean compulsory arbitration, because there can be no such thing under our Constitution, and I think these people will

Mr. CONNER. Do these objections on the ground that it is compulsory arbitration come from the laboring people altogether, or do they come from the employers as well?

Mr. WHITNEY. They come from both sides. They say it is compulsory arbitration. They misunderstand the bill. The bill is not compulsory, as you see, and I think that matter will be understood upon serious consideration.

RECOMMENDATION OF COAL-STRIKE COMMISSION.

The anthracite coal commission made certain recommendations along the lines of arbitration. George Gray, Carroll D. Wright, John M. Wilson, John L. Spalding, Edgar E. Clark, Thomas H. Watkins, and Edward W. Parker sat on that commission. They said:

We believe that the awards we have made, and which are herewith submitted, will accomplish, certainly during their life, the high aims contemplated in your letter

That is, the President's letter

Faithful adherence to the terms of the awards can not fail to accomplish this; but in order to secure the public against long-continued controversy, and to make a coal famine or a famine in any other direction practically impossible, we deem it essential that there should be some authority to conduct just such investigations as that you called upon us to make.

There are some who have urged the commission to recommend the adoption of compulsory arbitration, so called, as the means of securing this desired result, but we can not see our way to recommend any such drastic measure. We do not believe that in the United States such a system would meet with general approval or with success. Apart from the apparent lack of constitutional power to enact laws providing for compulsory arbitration, our industries are too vast and too complicated for the practical application of such a system.

We do believe, however, that the State and Federal Governments should provide the machinery for what may be called the compulsory investigation of controversies when they arise. The States can do this, whatever the nature of the controversy. The Federal Government can resort to some such measure when difficulties arise by reason of which the transportation of the United States mails, the operations, civil or military, of the Government of the United States, or the free and regular movement of commerce among the several States and with foreign nations, are interrupted or directly affected, or are threatened with being interrupted or affected.

The Federal Government has already recognized the propriety of action under the circumstances just cited, as evidenced in the acts creating boards of arbitration or commissions for settling controversies and differences between railroad corporations and other common carriers engaged in interstate or Territorial transportation of property or persons and their employes, approved October 1, 1888. Under that act, when such controversies and differences arose, the President was authorized, on the application of either of the contestants, to appoint a commission of three members to investigate the causes surrounding the difficulty. That act was cumbersome in its provisions and was repealed by an act approved June 1, 1898, entitled "An act concerning carriers engaged in interstate commerce and their employees."

Mr. FURUSETH. May I ask a question?

Mr. WHITNEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. FURUSETH. Judge Gray does not seem to take the position there, as you read his opinion, that compulsory arbitration is not possible, does he?

Mr. WHITNEY. Under the Federal Constitution, yes.

Mr. FURUSETH. He speaks of it

Mr. WHITNEY. He says it is obvious, as I recall it.

Mr. FURUSETH. I do not think he says so. I listened very carefully. Mr. FOSTER. Read it again and let us see what he says.

Here is the language:

Apart from the apparent lack of constitutional power to enact laws providing for compulsory arbitration, our industries are too vast and too complicated for the practical application of such a system.

He says it is apparent that we are unable to do so.

The chief benefit to be derived from the suggestion herein made lies in placing the real facts and the responsibility for such condition authoritatively before the people that public opinion may crystallize and make its power felt. Could such a commission as that suggested have been brought into existence in June last we believe that the coal famine might have been averted-certainly the suffering and deprivation might have been greatly mitigated.

PRACTICABILITY OF BILL PROVED BY PRECEDENT IN STRIKE.

Now, as to the practicability of this bill. It has been tried in one State in the Union-in the State of Massachusetts.

There is, in the State of Massachusetts, and has been for nearly thirty years, a board of railroad commissioners. In the history of that board there was one important but now quite forgotten incident, from which a highly suggestive lesson may be drawn. It occurred twenty-five years ago. The Massachusetts railroad commission was organized on the theory that, in adjusting matters of difference between the community and its railroad corporations, the vesting of arbitrary power in such a tribunal was a hindrance to it rather than a help; for the reason that in America force is, in the long run, less effective in producing results than investigation and subsequent well-considered recommendations based thereon.

The appeal was in every case to be made to reason and public opinion, and not to the sheriff or the soldier. Accordingly, in the event of differences between the corporations and their employees, even though resulting in strikes and tie-ups, the commissioners had no executive power. It was their duty, in a general way, to take official cognizance of the fact when the community was sustaining an injury or an inconvenience, and to investigate the causes thereof. Having so investigated, the board was empowered to locate the responsibility for the injury and inconvenience, and to make its recommendations accordingly; but those recommendations had merely a moral force. They could be addressed to the parties concerned, and to public opinion, only. Their effect, greater or less, was measured by the justice and good sense impressed upon them. The commissioners, moreover, disavowed any wish to be clothed with larger powers. They feared the possession of such powers. They were persuaded they could in the end accomplish more satisfactory results without them. This theory was soon put to a test. At 4 o'clock in the afternoon of the 12th of February, 1877, all the locomotive engineers and firemen in the employ of the Boston and Maine Railroad Company stopped work in a body, abandoning their

trains. The move was not altogether unexpected, but the operation of the road was seriously interfered with. The commissioners did not at first intervene, neither party calling upon them. Indeed, both parties were unwilling so to do, for each was apprehensive, apparently, of adverse action. During several days, accordingly, the commissioners preserved an attitude of silent observation. After the lapse of a reasonable period, however, the board concluded that it was plainly time to recognize the fact that the public was suffering serious inconvenience; for then the Boston and Maine Railroad was, as it still is, one of the principal arteries of eastern New England.

cases.

The president and directors of the company, and the employees of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, were accordingly notified that the board proposed to take a hand in the business. This it proceeded to do. An immediate investigation was instituted. Both parties appeared, for, without confessing itself in the wrong, neither party could well help so doing, and professed a perfect willingness to submit their No suggestion of a readiness to abide by any decision that might be given thereon was either asked for or given; but the board proceeded to hear witnesses and to elicit the facts. The inquiry was continued through three days, and on the 21st of February the report of the board was made public, appearing in full in all the newspapers of that date. In it the commissioners, after carefully and judiciously sifting out the essential facts from the evidence submitted, placed the responsibility for the trouble where the weight of evidence showed it belonged, and thereupon proceeded to make such recommendations as in its judgment the exigencies called for. The effect was immediate. An authentic record was before the community, and public opinion, crystallizing, made itself decisively felt.

* * *

Reliance was placed in an enlightened sense of right of all concerned, and an informed public opinion.

M'DERMOTT ARBITRATION BILL.

Now, as I understand, the committee is to take up the other arbitration bill, of Mr. McDermott, which provides for the temporary appointment by the President of an arbitration board. I think that is a good bill, but I do not think it goes far enough.

The CHAIRMAN. You mean a commission appointed by the President for each case?

M'DERMOTT BILL CREATES A POLITICAL BODY.

Mr. WHITNEY. For each case. In the first place, it would make a political body of it, and I know, from my talks with these gentlemen on both sides, that anything they hate is political interference with business conditions. A body appointed by the President who may be of one class or of another class will be prejudiced, but if you have a permanent board sitting for six years, one member going out every two years, making it continuous and infusing new blood, it will be more in the nature of a supreme court where political influence will not have a hold.

The great benefit, I think, from a national arbitration tribunal comes from the fact that you have a body sitting both for the employee and employer, where facts can be presented to it and thus given to the public, which will enforce right and justice in the matter. No strike has ever succeeded in this country without the public one way or the other.

The President would never have appointed the coal commission if the public had not been vitally interested and anxious to take it up one way or the other.

So I think that the permanent tribunal is more effective for the reason that it would prevent strikes, because the people on either side would hesitate to go to that tribunal with a trivial cause. Thus a great

many strikes and lockouts would be prevented. An arbitration tribunal, to be appointed from time to time, would not go into a strike until the strike had actually existed and serious damage had been done.

ARBITRATION IN GREAT BRITAIN.

I have a little to say briefly here on arbitration in Great Britain, quoting the leaders there on both sides, and showing the conditions there. We can draw a good lesson in this country from it, as we have drawn all our common law, etc., from that country. I thank you.

The growth and present status of voluntary conciliation and arbitration in other lands is of importance.

In England years ago the employer and employee recognized the futility of industrial wars and attempted to find ways to avoid trade disputes, and if possible, to arbitrate and settle in peaceful ways.

At present there is hardly a trade center in England which has not organized to bring quiet and contentment, or at least less discontent, and out of the great coal strike of 1893, engineering dispute in 1897, and contests in shoe trade has come widespread belief in the efficacy of conciliation and arbitration in the settlement of trade troubles.

In 1899 Mr. Burt, representative of Northumberland miners in Parliament, said: "Every possible means should be tried of obtaining the workmen's rights without going on strike.”

In England, notwithstanding the statement of the advocates of the New Zealand compulsory arbitration act that investigation shows the worthlessness of voluntary methods, the representatives of English employers and workmen seem to believe that under existing conditions voluntary conciliation and arbitration are by far the best, and in fact the only rational means of avoiding disputes and of settling them. Mr. W. Glenning, assistant secretary of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers, thinks the most direct and ideal method of settling disputes is by the aid of a third man not connected with the trade.

In the engineer trade the conciliation board has saved immense sums of money for the shipbuilding yards, and there is a growing disposition to settle amicably.

In the shoe trade Mr. Cort, the secretary of the union, stated that a better and sounder feeling, which grows steadily, exists between employer and men since the rules for boards of arbitration and conciliation, and he is a strong upholder of the principle of conciliation and arbitration, which he thinks is much to be preferred to anything heretofore tried. He says the men are loyal to arbitration.

A. W. Chamberland, secretary of the employers' board, regards conciliation and arbitration as the only reasonable and satisfactory way to settle differences and disputes between two classes.

The iron and steel industry in England has had since 1869 a board of conciliation and arbitration, which has been most successful in avoiding serious disputes and in settling those that did arise.

Mr. Cox, the present secretary of the Iron and Steel Workers of Great Britain, regards the board as one of the blessings of the north of England and one of the greatest they have had in the trade. If it were not for the existence of this and the Midlands board there would be a tremendous loss in wages and increasing strife and turmoil. The masters would be badly off, for they would suffer by stoppings and consequent loss on contracts. The trade has experienced many changes;

more, perhaps, than any other in existence, for it has gone through a complete revolution from iron to steel, and all the innumerable questions arising from these changes have been settled by the board. The board has the effect of holding in check arbitrary foremen, who sometimes take advantage of the men. At the same time it holds the men in check, for unless they have a good case their appearance before the board is ridiculed by their own colleagues.

Edward Trow, the former secretary, said he had never known a case which could not be dealt with fairly by the arbitration board. Where both sides were acting with a desire to be fair and just to each other the result was always satisfactory. Until pure productive cooperation is secured conciliation and arbitration are the safeguards for the men.

IRON AND STEEL WORKERS.

The rules of the Associated Iron and Steel Workers of Great Britain set out that one of the objects of the association is to—

regulate the relations between workmen and employers and to obtain by arbitration and conciliation, or by other means that are fair and legal, a fair remuneration to the members for their labor.

Len. Fenwick, the men's secretary, regards their method as an excellent way of settling disputes.

The Boiler Makers and Iron and Steel Shipbuilders' Society has been organized sixty years and is one of the wealthiest trade unions in England. Has been no general strike for twenty years. This has been accounted for by the conciliatory features in vogue. Mr. R. Knight, secretary, is on record as favoring conciliation as the best means of settling difficulties between employer and employee, because it leaves no bitterness behind.

SCOTTISH IRON TRADE.

The conciliation and arbitration board in the manufactured-steel trade for the west of Scotland was organized in 1892. During the past five years there has been no strikes to speak of, and where differences have arisen they have been amicably settled.

Mr. John Cronin is the general secretary of the men. He said they have never had any case of repudiation of a decision since the establishment of the board.

Mr. Bishop, secretary of the masters' association, regards the board as a good education, for many differences are due wholly to misunderstandings on the part of the men. It gives times for pause; when in hot blood, it gives room for reflection. The men frequently think capital is against labor, but the board shows that their interests are identical, and will often avoid if not altogether dispense with a strike.

THE COTTON TRADE.

The Northern Counties Amalgamated Association of Weavers has 80,000 members. Mr. W. H. Wilkinson, the secretary, said that the board of conciliation, which was established in 1878 after the big strike of that year, works fairly well. In 1896 the rules were amended and now give better satisfaction. All around the men have held their own in the arbitration. All wage questions have to be settled by this body.