The wording of section 6 is, to my mind, not quite clear as to what should be the procedure in the case where one party in the controversy shall have submitted their petition or answer and the second party shall not have agreed to submit and there shall have been a strike or lockout in progress, and the one party who shall have submitted their petition or answer shall have offered to resume their former relations with the second party and the second party shall have refused to resume former relations what shall be the procedure of the tribunal. Lines 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 of page 12 of printed copy of bill may have been meant to apply to such a condition of affairs, but it does not seem quite clear. Gabriel Joseph, secretary Central Labor Union of Philadelphia and vicinity: 1. In the judgment of the Central Labor Union of Philadelphia, the bill in its present form would not be acceptable to organized labor, and for that reason can not receive our indorsement. 2. We believe a bill somewhat on the lines of H. R. 9491, but which for an investigation by a commission on its own volition, without the consent of either party, or on the petition of one of the parties to a controversy, would be of inestimable benefit alike to organized labor and to the legitimate business industries of the country. 3. Any measure of this character should provide for the fullest publicity of the result of such investigations without regard to the wishes of any party to a controversy. 4. If the committee in charge of the bill so desire, the Central Labor Union of Philadelphia and vicinity will submit for the consideration of the committee a draft of a bill which in our judgment would be acceptable and wise. W. H. Conner, secretary Central Trades and Labor Assembly, Taylorville, Ill.: I will say that after talking with various members of the Central Trades and Labor Assembly, and others not of that body, I find it is the concensus of opinion that the bill is most satisfactory and should become a law, but with a few changes, viz: The opinion is very generally expressed that the Commissioner of Commerce and Labor should not be a member of the commission on account of his being a member of the President's political household, and would wield too much influence if he chose to so do, notwithstanding the fact he has no vote. The opinion was also expressed that the commission be composed of five instead of six, and this to leave out the Commissioner. Another idea was that the commission should have power to enforce its finding. Philip Saunders, secretary United Trades and Labor Council, Streator, Ill.: I have taken some pains to have the same read, and I think that it will meet with the approval of most of those interested in this section. It has now been referred to the legislative committee of the Trades Council, and I hope to receive their report in a short time and forward the same to you at once. We usually give matters of this importance prompt attention, but those who are the best qualified to pass upon their merits, and other causes, have caused a delay in this instance. Frank J. Symmes, president Central Trust Company, San Francisco, Cal.: The bill is excellent. Simple as possible. Can not well improve upon it. Nothing to criticise. It would be a source of considerable expense to the Government, but if it would prevent labor disputes, of which we have had so many in the past, the outlay would be cheap. David E. Forgan, vice-president First National Bank, Chicago: It seems to me that it is well conceived, practical, and possible of accomplishment. M. J. Jack, president Streator Bottle and Glass Company, Streator, Ill.: Something along the lines of this bill is an absolute necessity, and inasmuch as your bill, should it become a law, does not interefere with the constitutions of the different states, the same, in fact, being optional with the interested parties, I can see no good reason why it might not turn out to be a great factor in settling disputes. It certainly could have no bad effect in any way, shape, or manner. Edmund J. James, president Northwestern University, Evanston, Ill.: No one can tell, of course, in advance of actual experiment how a social or legal device will work, but I must confess I would like to see this particular scheme tried. E. S. Lacey, president the Bankers' National Bank, Chicago: I am unable to offer any changes which will improve it. Rev. Arthur B. Little, Chicago: The bill has my hearty approval. Benjamin J. Rosenthal, Chicago: I think the bill excellent in every way. I believe there should be some penalty for breaking the contract. William Deering, International Harvester Company, Chicago: I see little to criticise. I especially approve section 6, prohibiting the engaging in strikes during the pendency of arbitration. F. E. Coyne, postmaster, Chicago, Ill.: The bill has my unqualified indorsement. Congressman George Edmund Foss, Illinois: I find bill favorably reported in 1894 providing for voluntary arbitration. It was strongly recommended by President Cleveland, but have not discovered any proposition which has as much merit as this, that of establishing a national board of arbitration which shall be voluntary and at the same time compulsory in effect by the force of public opinion and whose only penalty shall be publicity. The value of the law will depend upon the character of the tribunal. I believe that a tribunal such as this should be placed upon such a high standard as to be out of the reach of political influence, away from the temptations of commercialism, as to inspire at the very outset the faith and confidence of all our people, the lowest as well as the highest. I would hedge about it all the dignity and simplicty of the Supreme Court of the United States. To give it such a character and to make its " 'judgments true and righteous altogether” you must have men, and you can not get men unless you offer inducements that will appeal to them. In the first place, $10,000 per year is none too much. In the second place, they ought to have life tenure. The tribunal should not be an adjunct of any Department of the Government. method of procedure of the tribunal entirely to itself. It is wise to leave the George W. Geary, Illinois Free Employment Office, Chicago: Wants an amendment so that the Secretary of the Department of Commerce can not vote. Bill should have provision making tribunal nonpartisan politically. Thereupon, at 1.10 p. m., the committee adjourned until Wednesday, April 6, 1904, at 10.30 o'clock a. m. WASHINGTON, D. C., Wednesday, April 6, 1904. The subcommittee met at 10.30 o'clock a. m., Hon. Edward B. Vreeland in the chair. Mr. VREELAND. Mr. Foster, do you desire to be heard? Mr. VOLNEY W. FOSTER, of Chicago. I have a few concluding words, which can be made, however, just as well after Bishop Spalding has nade his statement. Mr. SPALDING. I would prefer that you go ahead. STATEMENT OF MR. VOLNEY W. FOSTER, OF CHICAGO, ILL. Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, the matter that I have here is in considerable degree quotations from statements that have been made. Recollecting the statements made at your hearing on March 30, by the president of the Federation of Labor, and by Mr. Davenport, who, I understand, represents an employers' association, I must confess my great surprise in discovering such unanimity on the part of those gentlemen in opposition to the establishment of an arbitration tribunal for the settlement of industrial disputes. It was my recollection that those who had given public utterances as representatives of labor and employer that had won the most attention and exercised the greatest influence had advocated arbitration in some cases coupled with conciliation. Referring to the statement of Mr. Gompers that he opposed arbitration, and that he believed the strike was a "good thing," and that the recent anthracite strike had been a good thing," it may not be inopportune to refer to some of the utterances of this able gentleman and his distinguished associates made on public occasions in connection with the labors of the voluntary organization called the Civic Federation, and to claim that, having been advised of such utterances, that the author of this bill firmly believed that he was largely capitalizing what those leaders had outlined in their statements. At the meeting of the National Civic Federation held in New York in December, 1901, there was present a notable and influential representation of both the labor and employer classes. The utterances of that occasion made excellent literature, and I believe will furnish the text that shall inspire those earnestly laboring for a solution of this great problem. On that occasion Mr. Gompers made a noteworthy and eloquent address, in which he said: We assert that the employer has no right to say to us that there is nothing to arbitrate. In that declaration is embodied all the evil and viciousness of the principle of master and slave. Mr. Horace M. Eaton, general secretary of the boot and shoe union, explained to the conference the method adopted by his organization for arbitration, which explanation was received, it is said, with applause. Mr. John Mitchell said: I have said on many occasions that I was opposed to strikes, opposed to lockouts, opposed to industrial turmoil; that I favored peace, but always with the qualification that it must be an honorable peace. This in answer to Mr. Gompers, who said plainly at your last meeting that he thought the "strike was a good thing. Mr. James Duncan, first vice-president of the American Federation of Labor, said: We find that voluntary arbitration is productive of the greatest amount of good, and I believe that from such deliberations upon disputed points and from the interest in conferences of this kind, a new era has arrived wherein the cause for which we stand will be given fuller consideration than it has had before and will be fraught with better results. Martin Fox, president of the Iron Molders of North America, said: A more intelligent conception of the labor problem convinced the more broad minded element on both sides of the controversy that justice could never be done nor could satisfactory relations ever be established between the employer and the employee of a policy in which either was disposed to push his advantage to the utmost without regard to the interests or welfare of the other. He said, further: It is scarcely necessary to point out that strikes are extremely unprofitable to both interests involved, and that notwithstanding their success or nonsuccess have invariably left behind bitter feelings which augured ill for the future harmony of the working force and the management. Mr. E. E. Clark, grand chief conductor of the Order of Railway Conductors of America, said: I believe the principle of arbitration as a means of settlement of industrial disputes is gaining ground just as surely as the western hemisphere civilization is making progress. Mr. W. O. Reed, president of the Massachusetts State board of mediation and arbitration, said: It is perhaps enough to say that the establishment of some means of amicably settling differences is in the line of human progress, and for that reason alone deserves the best thought of us all. NOTHING IN BILL THAT PREVENTS CONCILIATION. I respectfully submit to you, Mr. Chairman, that there is nothing in the bill under consideration that in any way hinders or prevents conciliation, but on the other hand would further that desired consummation and settlement of contests where either of the parties chose that method rather than to respond to the invitation of the proposed tribunal to submit the matters in controversy to it. It would be a sufficient answer to an invitation from such tribunal that the parties in interest were engaged in a peaceful settlement of their affairs in their own way. RIGHT TO STRIKE AND LOCKOUT. The declaration of Mr. Gompers and Mr. Davenport that they respectively believed in the right of strikes and lockout, and that nothing in the way of legislation or of arbitration tribunals should interfere with it, could not have been made without consideration, first, for the interests of their organizations, and, second, and quite as important, the interests of the general public. These athletic and sometimes fatal "discussions" sadly mar the peace of society. The scene of the conflict is not confined to a 24-foot ring, but jars frequently to its very foundation communities of thousands and sometimes of hundreds of thousands; the conflict sometimes involves the destruction of life, frequently the destruction of property. The conflict always involves the arousing of malice, hatred, and murderous intent. It cools the good impulses of good men engaged in it, and it inflames to wicked action those wickedly inclined. THE STRIKE A GOOD THING? The strike a good thing, Mr. Chairman! Is it possible that Mr. Gompers was earnest at the moment, or was it not in a facetious mood that he made this statement? Strikes and lockouts good things! COST OF STRIKES $468,969,000 FROM 1881 to 1900. The cost of these amusements in this country from 1881 to 1900, so far as record can be made, was $468,969,000. The report of 1901 of the Commissioner of Labor presents valuable statistics. In order that the increase or diminution of strikes during the twenty-year period from January 1, 1881, to December 31, 1900, may be determined, the following table, showing the number of strikes in each year of this period, is presented Strikes, by years, January 1, 1881, to December 31, 1900. a Not including the number in 33 establishments for which these data were not obtainable. The number of strikes for 1880 was reported by Mr. Joseph D. Weeks, special agent for the Tenth Census, as 610. From the above table it is seen that the total number of strikes in the United States during the twenty years beginning January 1, 1881, and ending December 31, 1900, was 22,793. Beginning in 1881 with 471, the number of strikes during 1882, 1883, and 1884 remained under 500. In 1885, however, the number increased to 645, while in 1886 it more than doubled, being 1,432 for that year. The number was practically the same in the succeeding year, but in 1888 a considerable decrease is shown, the number for that year being 906. In 1889 the number of strikes increased to 1,075, while in 1890 the number almost doubled, showing 1,833 strikes for that year-a number greater than that shown for any other year of the entire period. The year 1891 shows a slight decrease in the number of strikes, 1,717, while 1892 shows a considerable decrease, the number for that year being but 1,298. No considerable change occurred during the next three years, the number for 1893 being 1,305, that for 1894 being 1,349, and that for 1895 being 1,215. In 1896, however, a considerable drop is seen, the number for that year being 1,026. The number of strikes remained practically stationary during 1896, 1897, and 1898, showing the smallest number since 1888 and 1889. In 1899, however, the number of strikes increased enormously, the number for that year being 1,797, while in 1900 practically no change in number occurred, the exact figure being 1,779. It is seen from this table that within the last eleven years the greatest number of strikes occurred in 1890 and 1891 and in 1899 and 1900, the two periods of greatest prosperity and industrial activity. The column of percentages immediately following the column in the table showing the number of strikes simply brings out in another form these variations from year to year in the number of strikes. Taking up the columns showing the number of establishments involved in strikes, it is seen that the number in 1881 was 2,928. In 1882 the number dropped to 2,105, |