Mr. DAVENPORT. I would like to ask Mr. Foster a question. Last week, when this matter was up for discussion, speaking about the bill, I said that I thought that it provided for compulsory investigation, and Mr. Whitney, who appeared here in support of it, quoted, among other things, the letter of Judge Gray, in which he says:

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.

In the bill as it is drawn it provides that the tribunal may initiate these proceedings, and then in section 9

Mr. FOSTER. Excuse me. You use a general term about initiating proceedings, and that is very specific in the bill. The initiation is simply an invitation to contestants to come in and arbitrate.

Mr. DAVENPORT. Now, in section 9 it says the testimony of any witness may be taken at the instance of a party in any proceeding or investigation pending before the tribunal by depositions at any time after a cause or proceeding is at issue on petition and answer. The next sentence proceeds as follows:

The tribunal may also order testimony to be taken by deposition in any proceeding or investigation pending before it at any stage of such proceeding or investigation. Is it not true that under this bill this tribunal would have a right to send out its commission and take depositions of the laboring people or the other people?

The first sentence provides for a condition that arises after proceedings are at issue. The further sentence is that the tribunal may also order testimony to be taken by deposition at any proceeding or inves tigation pending before it at any stage.

Mr. VREELAND. That is, after issue has been joined by the acceptance of both parties of the tribunal as arbitrators?

Mr. DAVENPORT. That is governed by the first sentence.

Mr. VREELAND. At any stage after that your commission has a right to take evidence and subpoena witnesses and compel attendance.

Mr. DAVENPORT. Not only that, the provision in regard to the initiation of the proceedings says (sec. 5):

That whenever it shall appear to the tribunal that there exists in the United States a controversy concerning wages, etc., and in which controversy there is involved any commerce with foreign nations or among the several States or with the Indian tribes, or when such controversy arises within any of the Territories of the United States, * * it shall be competent and lawful for the tribunal to request both of the said parties to such controversy to submit in writing their respective claims and demands to arbitration.

*

Now, then, follows the provision in regard to compulsory taking of testimony. The first sentence provides it-when it shall. Further on it is provided—

The testimony of any witness may be taken at the instance of any party in any proceeding or investigation pending before the tribunal by deposition at any time after a cause or proceeding is at issue on petition and answer.

Then follows this sentence:

The tribunal may also order testimony to be taken by deposition, in any proceeding or investigation pending before it, at any stage of such proceeding or investigation. Is not the purpose of that to carry out the idea of Judge Gray, that compulsory investigation is the great desideratum?

Mr. FOSTER. No; absolutely not.

NO COMPULSORY INVESTIGATION IN BILL.

Mr. DAVENPORT. Then, ought not that sentence to come out? Mr. FOSTER. It ought if it raises that question in your mind or in the mind of any other man interested.

Mr. DAVENPORT. What other object can there be to put that in when the sentence before that provides for the same thing when it has reached the stage of an issue? What is the significance of it—

The tribunal may also order testimony to be taken by deposition in any proceeding or investigation?

Mr. FOSTER. If that is a repetition of what was in before, it is a defect to be found in most dignified legal documents, that is all. But I would say if it raises that question in your mind it should be stricken out, and I would like to mark it for such change. And I would like to have an interview with you where we could mutually agree upon language that would make it unobjectionable.

Mr. VREELAND. I have to warn you that after you get that fixed, Mr. Davenport will still be unalterably opposed to the bill.

Mr. FOSTER. Oh! Well, I guess I am not so anxious to fix it, then. How much time have we? I do not wish to impose upon you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. VREELAND. The House is now in session, but if you wish to go on for ten or fifteen minutes, we would be glad to hear you.

Mr. FOSTER. I think we arrive at things best by the questions that are raised here, excepting that last one. I guess we did not get anywhere on that.

Mr. FURUSETH. On page 7 of the bill, beginning at section 4, on page 6. (Reading:)

That if said other party, as named and described in the foregoing section, shall make a complete and full sworn answer to the petition therein provided and shall so submit in such manner and form said controversy to the arbitration of the tribunal and shall so agree to accept and abide by the decision of the tribunal as to the matters involved in the said petition and answer, then the tribunal shall without delay proceed in accordance with the provisions of this act and the rules thereunder which it shall hereafter adopt to investigate privately (unless both parties consent to public investigation) the matters and things involved in the said controversy, determine the merits of the same on the basis of right and equity

Does not the whole line of this bring the equity court in?

Mr. FOSTER. I do not think so.

Mr. VREELAND. It does not say equity court.

Mr. FOSTER. I do not think any court has a patent on the word equity.

Mr. FURUSETH. I used to think that, but I have gotten out of it now. Mr. FOSTER. I think you and I are permitted to use the word "equity" without referring to the equity court.

Mr. FURUSETH. I have gotten to be very much afraid of that word. Mr. FOSTER. Equity?

Mr. FURUSETH. Yes; we don't know where it begins and where it ends.

Mr. FOSTER. It is a beautiful word.

Mr. FURUSETH. It has gone to the extent of taking away our rights; our rights away from us, and we are a little afraid of it.

Mr. FOSTER. It is a beautiful word.

Mr. FURUSETH. Now, suppose it does not proceed according to law and equity.

Mr. FOSTER. It does not say according to law.

Mr. FURUSETH. No "right." Suppose it does not proceed according to right and equity. It says "on the basis of right and equity. Suppose it does not; suppose for some reason it does not, would not the whole matter then go into a court of equity?

COURTS DO NOT HAVE JURISDICTION UNDER THIS BILL.

Mr. FOSTER. No; it would be impossible. No court could get jurisdiction as following an action under this bill; it would be impossible. And, as said before, I would be most happy to join with anybody who has discovered any of these extraordinary and dangerous things to fix it, if the English language would do it, so that it would clearly be impossible.

Mr. GOMPERS. Does not public opinion largely determine the question of controversies now? I refer to controversies between employers and employees that are of quite large dimensions.

Mr. FOSTER. I think you are quite right that public opinion has a very great influence in the social world and in the business world. I think there are many of us who behave much better than we would do if we were not a little afraid of our neighbor's opinion.

Mr. GOMPERS. Would a tribunal appointed by the President of the United States, holding office for specific terms, hearing these controversies for which the bill provides, any more clearly define or sway public opinion than it is now defined or swayed by the ordinary process by which public opinion is formed?

PUBLIC OPINION UNDER BILL.

Mr. FOSTER. I think so-a thousandfold more. The one is an undisciplined, uncontrolled, unsystematized sort of a force, that is spontaneous and peculiar, and terrific sometimes, in its manifestations. The other is an attempt-an attempt which may fail-an attempt to utilize that as a power, as a force, to set up here by the aid of the Government a burning glass, the focus of which will be held right on the recalcitrant until he surrenders. One of our leading railroad men of the West said to me recently that he did not believe a railroad could stand thirty days in contempt of the proposed tribunal if this bill became a law.

DIFFICULT FOR PUBLIC OPINION TO GET FACTS.

Mr. VREELAND. Is it not frequently very difficult for public opinion to ascertain accurately the facts upon which to act?

Mr. FOSTER. Precisely.

Mr. VREELAND. For instance, in the coal strike in Pennsylvania, upon one side your hear that the miners had not sufficient pay to provide for their families, that they are merely existing; on the other side you hear it claimed that the miners are earning great sums of money every month and driving to the mines in carriages, and public opinion is greatly in doubt as to what are the facts.

Mr. FOSTER. That is right, and the most powerful part of the public hold in abeyance their judgment, because they have not the information of which you speak; they are in doubt as to the so-called facts.

This is in a way an experiment, you may say. Of course those that have espoused this work, especially myself, and have studied it two years with the idea of making as good a bill as possible, are thoroughly convinced that it is efficient, absolutely efficient, and that it is a way of harnessing that force to this work.

Mr. FURUSETH. Of guiding that force, guiding public opinion? Mr. FOSTER. Well, directing it through this tribunal. Mr. FURUSETH. Of helping to construct it? Mr. FOSTER. Well, making it-no; informing it. meaning that there would be a tribunal of men that would manufacture false public opinion, is that it?

If I get your

Mr. FURUSETH. If the tribunal can manufacture true public opinion, if here is a force like all other forces, it may act both ways, may it not, and so, in as much as it can disseminate true public opinion, so it can disseminate false public opinion; that is, inasmuch as it can influence public opinion for good, so it can influence it for bad.

WOULD NOT MANUFACTURE FALSE PUBLIC OPINION.

Mr. FOSTER. I do not think it is possible that an organization or a tribunal appointed by our President could become an instrument for the manufacture of false public opinion. You can not presume these things. We must leave it with men; we must be governed by men. Our hope lies in the honesty and devotedness and patriotism of men. I am an optomist. I believe that here in this magnificent country of ours we are growing as much in moral as we are in material things; and that the men, the group of men, that stand at the head of a tribunal or commission like this, with the whole American people looking at them, are going to disseminate error?

Excepting unavoidable human error, I say, is impossible.

Mr. FURUSETH. Is not our entire Government a form of government peculiar to the facts based upon the proposition that individuals, no matter what station they occupy, are subject to be swayed and to grave errors?

Mr. FOSTER. No one is perfect.

Mr. FURUSETH. And would not your argument lead to absolutism? Mr. FOSTER. No.

Mr. FURUSETH. Why not?

Mr. FOSTER. Because every to-morrow would modify yesterday where there is free thought.

Mr. GOMPERS. You said a gentleman expressed to you the opinion that no railroad in the country could hold out thirty days against the expressed public opinion.

Mr. FOSTER. The verdict of this tribunal.

Mr. GOMPERS. Rendered by a tribunal of this character as provided in your bill?

Mr. FOSTER. Yes.

Mr. GOMPERS. I presume you know that very frequently the maintenance of an entity among workmen is determined either affirmatively or negatively within thirty days, and the chances are that when the conscience of the railroad company becomes quickened the directing force that holds for the other side of the contention may have become disintegrated, and all that will be left will be the conscience-stricken railroad.

Mr. FOSTER. Well, I discover a sad sort of prophecy in that statement, but I do not believe anything like that could happen.

Mr. GOMPERS. This is particularly so of people who have become unorganized for a long period and then in sheer desperation may want to make a demand for some redress, and failing to get it within some reasonably short time they may disintegrate-lose hope.

Mr. FOSTER. Well, I think there is every reason for hope on the part of workingmen as well as on the part of employers. Mr. GOMPERS. I agree with you.

MOVING TOWARD A BETTER DAY.

Mr. FOSTER. I believe every moment we are moving toward a better day. I believed there is a prosperity now all over the country, that we can almost hear it and see it and smell it, that it is hindered only by these dissensions. I believe that it is coming, and we want to clear the decks if we can. We want some place where we can send these people that are quarreling and quickly, and then go on with the work and utilize the opportunities that are coming to us. They won't come. forever.

MR. GOMPERS SAYS LABOR DISPUTES HAVE NOT IMPEDED DEVELOPMENT.

Mr. GOMPERS. Have we been seriously impeded with the development of our manufactures and the acquirement of foreign trade by labor disputes?

Mr. FOSTER. I would rather take your statement upon that than mine. Do you say it is not so?

Mr. GOMPERS. I assert that it is not so.

Mr. FOSTER. You should know.

Mr. GOMPERS. I do not want to take up Mr. Foster's time

Mr. VREELAND. Still, Mr. Foster invites questions as the best way of expressing his ideas.

EVERY MAN REGRETS STRIFE.

Mr. GOMPERS. While every man regrets strife, employers I think as well as workmen, that arises between them, and while organized labor and employers who are organized and deal with organized labor agree that a greater degree of peace and industrial tranquillity is maintained by these agreements and contracts between them, yet strife exists here and there. The question is whether these strikes or lockouts that occur occasionally, whether they are really hindrances and obstacles to the development of the industries of the country and the commerce of the country. We agree, of course, that for the time being it is a great inconvenience; we are all inconvenienced by them. The question is that in the time of a few weeks or a few months, in the year or in the decade, whether we are really hindered. The history of industry does not bear out the fact that we are.

Mr. FOSTER. The question as you put it involves a philosophy that takes in a cycle of at least ten years. What was the result of a strike or a lockout or a dissension is, of course, a matter for the student to conclude, if he can, from evidence extending over ten years in time. But to look at the conditions we have in our western country where