ther enlargement and except that four appointive members shall then constitute the necessary quorum for the transaction of business. The two additional members shall be paid at the same rate as the other members for the time of their service until final award and decision, and their expenses as such members shall be similarly paid. In any controversy of minor importance the tribunal, in its discretion, may delegate to any member thereof the power and duty of hearing and considering the same and of making an award thereon, subject, however, to a right of appeal, under such rules as the tribunal may prescribe, in favor of either party, to the full tribunal, and such appeal may relate to and include the award or the facts upon which it is based, or both.

SEC. 16. That this act shall take effect upon its passage.

Mr. CONNOR. Is that the bill introduced by Mr. Foss?

Mr. WHITNEY. Yes.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I wish to make a few remarks in relation to this subject. The coal arbitration commission recommended some form of arbitration for these troubles, and Mr. Volney W. Foster, of Evanston, in Mr. Foss's district, took up the subject and consulted with a great number of people. This bill is the result of conferences and communications with several hundred leading labor men, unionists, bankers, industrial leaders, Congressmen, and Senators.

The CHAIRMAN. Whom do you represent, Mr. Whitney, I will ask, in order that it may be put down?

Mr. WHITNEY. I represent myself.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you not had a good deal of correspondence with many

Mr. WHITNEY. I am a graduate of the Williams College and also the Northwestern University. I have always taken a great deal of interest in economics and sociological studies. Mr. Foss had the bill to introduce, and I did considerable work on it and got interested. The bill came down here and went to sleep, as I know things often do in committees, being a committee clerk myself, and I went to work and wrote to some people to see what interest there was in the subject. I found such a lively interest in the matter that I came here, and when I heard you were to have a hearing I asked to be present. Mr. FURUSETH. May I ask the gentleman a question?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. FURUSETH. Mr. Whitney, do you mind mentioning some of the labor men

Mr. WHITNEY. I will, presently; quite a number of them.

FOUR CLASSES INTERESTED IN ARBITRATION.

Mr. Chairman, I divide the people who are interested in this matter into four classes. First come those, both the laboring and capital classes, that desire no interference, and prefer to settle their troubles by strikes and lockouts and boycotts and blacklisting, etc. I do not wish to talk on that subject at all. Second, those who desire compulsory arbitration on both sides. Third, those who desire voluntary arbitration on both sides; and, fourth, those who wish to go along under the existing conditions.

COMPULSORY ARBITRATION IMPOSSIBLE UNDER CONSTITUTION.

On the subject of compulsory arbitration I do not think it is useful to speak very long, because it is an impossible thing under the Federal Constitution. I have here the views of Patrick Lally, secretary of the

Bricklayers and Masons' International Union of Massachusetts; that is, the State board.

Mr. CONNOR. That is the name of my partner.

Mr. WHITNEY. He believes in compulsory arbitration, and this is a resolution that I believe he introduced at Trenton. I think the position of those of the labor unionists that believe in compulsory arbitration is clearly set forth in this document, which I will present to you. He says:

LABOR UNIONIST VIEWS AND SIXTEEN REASONS FOR COMPULSORY ARBITRATION.

First. The very important fact has been demonstrated that wherever compulsory arbitration is in force the great mass of people are satisfied, particularly the trade

unionists.

Second. The brutal strike and more brutal lockout is abolished.

Third. Wages, hours, and general conditions are so fixed that manufacturers can make contracts ahead without fear, thereby insuring more uniform conditions than at present.

Fourth. When workingmen are sure that they can not be cut down in their wages it gives them more courage and independence, under which circumstance they will be more likely to marry, settle down, build houses, etc., thereby civilizing instead of brutalizing.

Fifth. When a dispute arises new terms are fixed, the industry going on just the

same.

Sixth. The awards of arbitration courts are generally accepted and followed by other courts, thus making our members partners in the most advanced court in the country, thereby raising us correspondingly in the eyes of the great mass of people. Seventh. Compulsion in the background makes conciliation a great deal easier. This very important fact should not be overlooked.

Eighth. Compulsory arbitration gives the public, who are the real arbitrators, the true facts of every dispute.

Ninth. Peaceful settlements of disputes could not be blocked or thwarted for the purpose of breaking up the union, thereby abolishing the strike breaker and professional scab.

Tenth. D. M. Parry, for instance, would be compelled to appear before a board constituted equally of union men and employers, and there show all the records of his transactions, and, further, he would be compelled to recognize the findings of the board.

Eleventh. Labor and capital would find their true relationship instead of being mobs and monopolists.

Twelfth. Humane business men can save themselves from destruction by forcing sweatshops to recognize fair living rules or go out of business.

Thirteenth. The distribution of wealth will be determined along the lines of reason, justice, and the greatest need instead of brute force, injustice, and the greatest greed.

Fourteenth. It is the only cheap, speedy, effective, and practical way of receiving justice.

Fifteenth. It will compel all the workingmen and women who do not want to remain at the mercy of the employers to form unions, as it is only through such that they can have any standing before the adjudication board. This fact should be particularly borne in mind when discussing this question.

Sixteenth. By having a certain number of our own members sitting on a board a better understanding of our rights and a more tolerant disposition toward us will immediately follow, and instead of being looked upon as strike advocates and disturbers in general we will be looked upon as the representatives of a powerful organization, thereby breaking down the framework of centuries of oppression, prejudice, bigotry, and falsehood that has been persistently raised up against us through various channels.

The word compulsion is taken advantage of to frighten people away from the merits of this question. We should never allow ourselves to be thrown into spasms of delight on the one hand or fear on the other at the mention of a name. What we should and must do is to clear our minds and look carefully, straight and true at this question and its possible consequences. The history of trade unionism proves

conclusively that we are gradually evolving from the individual to the group. As the individual could accomplish nothing the union has taken his place, securing just and reciprocal agreements as such. Therefore it would be manifestly unfair for us to refuse to submit our disputes to a fair court.

The CHAIRMAN. Whose synopsis of opinion is that?

Mr. WHITNEY. It is the opinion of Patrick Lally, State secretary of the Bricklayers and Masons' International Union, of the State of Massachusetts.

He believes and he practically says that his organization is in advance of this movement, and that he believes in compulsory arbitration. But as that is impossible under the Federal Constitution, I will not dwell on that longer, but will take up the voluntary arbitration feature which is set forth in the bill H. R. 9491.

Mr. FURUSETH. May I be permitted to disturb you for one second? Mr. WHITNEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. FURUSETH. You say that under the Federal Constitution compulsory arbitration would be impossible?

Mr. WHITNEY. Impossible; yes, sir.

Mr. FURUSETH. I suggest to you the reading with care of the Supreme Court decision in the case of Robert Robertson et al. v. Baldwin, rendered in 1896, I think. That is the only decision in which there has been any construction given to the thirteenth amendment to the Constitution.

Mr. WHITNEY. Mr. Chairman, I have here the views of a great many labor people, who are, of course, vitally interested in this matter.

SOME VIEWS OF LABOR UNION LEADERS FOR ARBITRATION.

E. E. Clark, grand chief conductor, Order Railway Conductors, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, says:

A great deal is to be expected from provisions for publicity in these matters. Shall watch with great interest.

W. S. Stone, Grand International Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, Cleveland, Ohio, says:

The plan for a national arbitration tribunal is very good. It should provide for a practical railroad man being a member of the board.

Here is one from Alexander H. Revell, of Chicago, one of the largest merchants in the West:

I approve. Believe the matter will appeal to the laboring, financial, business, and manufacturing industries of the nation. Because there is plenty there should be peace. There should be a better and higher brotherhood, and if such parties, each needing the other, should each disagree, then let a third party of highest possible dignity and honor come in and say which is the best and right way.

Here is a communication from Frank Duffy, general secretary of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America:

To begin with, I have always been in favor of arbitration for the settlement of industrial disputes, but not of compulsory arbitration. There can not be arbitration where there is compulsion. Whatever means may be adopted in the future to bring about peace, harmony, and tranquillity in the industrial field should be voluntary in order to be effective and lasting

The United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, an organization consisting of 175,000 skilled men in the art of carpentry, believe in voluntary arbitration. Many other national and international organizations of labor do likewise, and even go so far as to have provisions to that effect in their general laws.

The success of any form of arbitration depends to a large extent on the willingness

of the parties involved to submit their case to an impartial tribunal for adjudication and to accept the award when rendered in a spirit of fairness, without prejudice or ill feeling, and abide by its provisions.

Now, that the employers of labor are combining, organizing, and federating there should be very little difficulty experienced in bringing about a feasible plan of arbitration, so that the strikes, lockouts, boycotts, and the consequent hardships and privations they entail may be a thing of the past, never to come to the surface again. If this can be done by the proposed bill, known as H. R. 9491, you will be accomplishing greater good for the well-being and protection of the American working people than that which was accomplished by our forefathers in days gone by in throwing off the yoke of England and proclaiming freedom and liberty to all who owed allegiance to the Stars and Stripes.

I hope your bill will be so framed, altered, or amended that it may fully meet the ends for which it was intended-a fair, square deal to all.

Mr. W. H. Clock, secretary-treasurer of the International Shingle Weavers' Union of America, says:

I am in favor of such a measure, as anything that tends toward industrial peace is greatly needed. Anyone that would refuse to arbitrate before a tribunal that had been appointed by an unbiased President should have their affairs given the fullest publicity. I am under the impression, though, that the salaries fixed for the members of the board are out of reason. Brains may come high, but I can cite you several of the most profound thinkers in the world that are not drawing half that salary.

Walter A. Clarke, secretary-treasurer of the Rhode Island Federation of Labor, says:

I am heartily in favor of same and shall bring it before the executive board of the R. I. F. of L., etc.

Here is a letter from Mr. William Launer, secretary of the Glass Bottle Blowers' Association of the United States and Canada:

I am thoroughly convinced this is a good bill and, if passed and it becomes a law, I am sure that if the provisions of the bill were carried out, as no doubt it is intended they should be, a good deal of the trouble between labor and capital could be adjusted. He thinks, as does Mr. Clock, that the salaries are too large.

Here is a letter from Mr. James H. Morris, president of the Peoria Local Union of Retail Clerks:

I find that it is a bill that if passed without any alterations or amendments would create worlds of good to either capital or labor, or for any purposes the tribunal is appointed.

Mr. G. A. Hunter, secretary of the Trades and Labor Council, of Lasalle, Ill., says:

Would say that after a careful consideration of the bill to create a national arbitration tribunal, our body indorses the same and would earnestly recommend its passage. Here is one from J. H. Strief, secretary-treasurer of the Iowa State Federation of Labor:

I have read the provisions in the bill pretty thoroughly and assure you I do not hesitate in approving such a policy to be adopted as part of the functions of our National Government. I am for peace in all matters wherever possible, and I always advocate strongly the avoidance of a strike wherever possible in the settlement of labor troubles.

All well-regulated trades union organizations always stand ready to arbitrate any difficulties that may arise; but sometimes the opposition will not arbitrate, contending that there is nothing at issue to be arbitrated. With a national arbitration tribunal, as outlined in this bill, both sides to a controversy would be duty bound to arbitrate in case an adjustment can not be reached in a different manner.

I suppose it is the intention, should this bill become a law, in selecting the members of this tribunal to have some members thereon that are reasonably well versed in labor conditions throughout the jurisdiction; composed somewhat, I should say,

as was the tribunal selected by President Roosevelt in the anthracite miners' trouble of recent date.

I have often thought that a tribunal as outlined in this bill was one of the pressing needs of this country, and the more I have thought of it the more I am convinced that it would be a good thing. The amount of strife it would do away with and the enormous saving it would make to both employer and employee in the settlement of questions without strikes is hard to estimate, but judging from past experiences the amount would be very large.

I have several more of these letters that I will file, all of them being in the same line.

NATIONAL BUSINESS LEAGUE FAVORS BILL.

Here is one from the National Business League, which is a national organization and has a committee of the largest merchants in every State in the Union. There is a list of them on the back of the letter. This letter is from the secretary, Austin A. Burnham.

The CHAIRMAN. Are they employers or employees?

Mr. WHITNEY. Those other letters I have been quoting from were from labor unions favoring bill. These, now, are from the employers. Mr. Burnham states:

I beg to state that the bill in question has my hearty approval.

It is clearly evident that the best interests of employer and employee are so identical in all the various activities of industries and commerce that the one, either individually or through the agency of organized bodies, can not ignore, oppress, or in any way hamper the other except to the detriment of both and to the serious injury of all the people.

It is clearly manifest also that drastic measures for the settlement of labor disputes never win. Adjustment of differences under such procedure are but apparent, not real. The sting of compulsion remains to smolder awhile, then breaks out afresh with renewed power. Therefore a cordial welcome to the Foster bill, which would eliminate from all industrial dissensions the imperious commands "You shall" or "You must," and frankly invites the employer and employee-coworkers to a common end-to submit their differences to a tribunal of their unprejudiced fellowmen, appointed and proffered by the National Government to make such fair and peaceful settlement of industrial disputes as will conserve the best interests, preserve the selfrespect, and insure the uninterrupted prosperity and happiness of all concerned.

I wish I could call the committee's attention to the members of the advisory committee of this National Business League. They are the largest employers and merchants in the United States.

National Advisory Committee, National Business League.

C. G. Abercrombie, president, The Montgomery Brewery, Montgomery, Ala.
Alexander Rice, wholesale and retail clothier, Montgomery, Ala.

W. F. Vandiver, W. F. Vandiver & Co., wholesale grocers, Montgomery, Ala.
Morris M. Cohn, ex-president Board of Trade, Little Rock, Ark.

F. B. T. Hollenberg, president Hollenberg Music Company, Little Rock, Ark.
George R. Brown, secretary Little Rock Board of Trade, Little Rock, Ark.
M. J. Keller, M. J. Keller Company, men's furnishing goods, Oakland, Cal.
Gen. Harrison G. Otis, president The Times-Mirror Company, Los Angeles, Cal.
Hugh Craig, president The Chamber of Commerce, San Francisco, Cal.
P. N. Lilienthal, manager Anglo-Californian Bank, San Francisco, Cal.
I. J. Truman, president Columbian Banking Company, San Francisco, Cal.
Hon. Daniel N. Morgan, ex-Treasurer, United States, Bridgeport, Conn.
C. S. Mersick, president The Merchants' National Bank, New Haven, Conn.
Max Adler, Strouse, Adler & Co., importers and manufacturers, New Haven, Conn.
John Trice, president The Citizens' Bank and Trust Company, Tampa, Fla.

I. S. Giddens, I. S. Giddens & Co., wholesale grocers, Tampa, Fla.
Robert J. Lowry, president The Lowry National Bank, Atlanta, Ga.
Hon. William J. Northen, ex-governor of Georgia, Atlanta, Ga.

James P. Verdery, president Enterprise Manufacturing Company, cotton goods, Augusta, Ga.