Mr. DAVENPORT. The bottom of page 13 and top of page 14.

Mr. WHITNEY. After it acquires jurisdiction by voluntary agreement

it can.

Mr. DAVENPORT. And at the bottom of page 15:

The testimony of any witness may be taken at the instance of a party in any proceeding or investigation pending before the tribunal

Mr. WHITNEY. After it has jurisdiction by voluntary agreement it can. Your position puts it in the position of a regular board of inquisition.

Mr. DAVENPORT. Absolutely, according to my interpretation of the language, that is what is meant?

Mr. HUGHES. As I understand you, Mr. Whitney, there is not any desire on the part of the people who are interested in this legislation that this bill should have the powers attributed to it

Mr. WHITNEY. Absolutely not.

Mr. HUGHES. By Mr. Davenport?

Mr. WHITNEY. Absolutely none.

Mr. HUGHES. And if it had those powers you would suggest that it be amended?

Mr. WHITNEY. Why, the American people would not stand for that a minute.

Mr. HUGHES. You think the power to issue subpoenas and take evidence and investigate the affairs of manufacturer, or employees, can come to the tribunal only after both parties have submitted and they are at issue?

Mr. WHITNEY. Yes, sir; that is what the bill says.

The CHAIRMAN. Section 10 provides it.

Mr. WHITNEY. The gentleman presented an argument which would arouse the country if it went out in that form. That is why I object to his construction.

Mr. DAVENPORT. If the construction which I contend for of this bill is correct, you think it would arouse the people of this country if passed?

Mr. WHITNEY. Why, surely it would.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Davenport, if your view is correct, and it should be amended so that it did not so provide, except in cases where both parties agree, your views would still be the same?

Mr. DAVENPORT. Oh, certainly they would.

The CHAIRMAN. Does the committee desire to sit any longer? It is now 1 o'clock.

Mr. HAYDEN. May I inquire if any further hearings will be given on this bill in the subcommittee?

The CHAIRMAN. I think they will. There are several gentlemen who can not be here at present who have asked for hearings. Judge Gray and Bishop Spalding, and the real author of the bill, Mr. Foster, who is sick and has not been able to get here.

Mr. HAYDEN. I have no doubt that clients of ours will wish to be heard, or will desire to file some matter, at any rate, if there is no objection to it.

The CHAIRMAN. Whom do you represent?

Mr. HAYDEN. The Carnegie Steel Company, almost certainly, at any rate, if not others.

The subcommittee, at 1 o'clock and 5 minutes p. m., adjourned until March 29, 1904, at 10.30 oclock a. m.

NATIONAL ARBITRATION BILL.

H. R. 9491.

WASHINGTON, D. C., Wednesday, March 30, 1904. The subcommittee met at 10.30 o'clock a. m., Hon. Edward B. Vreeland in the chair.

STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE E. FOSS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS.

Mr. Chairman, I desire to introduce Mr. Volney W. Foster, who is a constituent of mine and also a prominent citizen from the city of Chicago.

I may say that I introduced a bill, which is known as H. R. 9491, to create an international arbitration tribunal and to define the duties and powers thereof, at the request of Mr. Foster. Mr. Foster is himself the author of the measure, and appears to-day before this committee to speak concerning it.

I may say of Mr. Foster that he is a practical man of affairs, has large interests, has been a large employer of labor, and yet I do not believe he ever had a strike. He is not only a practical man of affairs, but is a student of questions which are now interesting the public. He has spent a good deal of time in consideration of this great question which is before you, the reconciliation of labor and capital, the two great forces of our industrial system; and I bespeak for him your attention and consideration to what he has to say.

STATEMENT OF MR. VOLNEY W. FOSTER, OF CHICAGO, ILL.

As you are all advised of the bill and no doubt have read it and understand the different elements of it, I shall not unnecessarily take your time to repeat in a general way that which you will probably care to deal with in detail. It might be well for me to say just a word about the method of thought that induced me to endeavor to make application of these principles in a practical way to the solution of the difficulties arising between employer and employees.

It began with an abstract consideration of what is called public opinion, a thing that is thoroughly well recognized and sometimes greatly feared in its spontaneous and ill-directed movements. That it is a force there can be no doubt, and the question was in my mind whether it could be scientifically directed, through reliable and responsible channels, to becone a compelling force to those who were at least in danger by their behavior of disturbing the peace and prosperity of society.

39

FIRM CONVICTION BILL WOULD SOLVE GREAT DIFFICULTIES.

In dealing with this subject, first in an abstract way and later in the attempt to make an application of the principle, there came to me the firm conviction that a bill of the character that is now before you, or one modified perhaps in some particulars to make the intent more clear, or amended perhaps to be more forceful and if possible more equitable, would prove a solution of our greatest difficulties.

There is no doubt that the public weal is the paramount question, and while the individuals engaged in controversies, the employer and employee, suffer greatly, the general public suffers still more, which gives a sufficient reason why an attempt should be made to induce and invite peace between these two great forces. I know of no higher tribunal to deal with these questions than men selected from among those that have the universal respect of their fellow-men, who are known for their wisdom, their patriotic devotion, and for all those attributes that would distinguish them as arbitrators in the affairs and differences that may arise between these two forces.

The law as its exists may compel obedience to its statutory enactments, but in dealing with this great question we have sought for a more comprehensive consideration than is given by the technicalities of the law, the moral obligation of man to man is to be considered in the proposed adjustment of such difficulties.

So I submit to you that this bill is intended to be a bridge, one buttress of which would rest upon the law and the other upon the well-recognized practical moral obligations of man to man that have not yet passed over into law, and on the middle of this bridge that this tribunal of honorable men may stand to combine all these elements as a moral, compelling force, to make peace and to multiply prosperity.

A PRACTICAL QUESTION.

I feel almost like apologizing to you to deal with this subject in this abstract and academic way. To you and to me it is not an academic question; it is a practical question. I have been an employer of labor, but before that I was engaged in every kind of common labor-not skilled, I was not skilled-that any of you or any of your constituents have been engaged in. Therefore I do not speak as one who does not know.

It would probably economize your time if we dealt section by section with the bill, that we may discover those parts that compel your adherence and consent, and other parts that may not be so clearly stated as they should be, and perhaps, also, there may be some suggestions, some amendments, to make more effective the original intent and undertaking in the formulation of the bill.

HOW BILL WAS PREPARED.

I may say to you that the bill was first formulated as a printer's proof, and upon it was left a wide margin, and it was sent to many people. It was sent to employers and representatives of labor. They were asked to make notations upon the margin, to the end that the finished work should be the result of many practical minds. To these communications many answers were received. Some of them were of

practical value; some of them commended the bill outright in rather glowing terms, with no further comment, which was of no particular use; others condemned the bill outright, with no explanation, which did not help very much. But there were others, again, that took the trouble to read carefully and discuss the merits of certain phases and clauses to raise questions, which, being answered, improved the text of the bill.

I will be very glad, if it is your wish, to take the bill up, section by section, declaring in advance that there is no pride of opinion about it. The work we have undertaken is so much larger than any man that he would only diminish himself to nothingness if he showed a special pride that his small name should be connected with so great a movement.

There is no word in the bill that I will not be glad to change to a better word. There is no sentence in the bill that is not at your disposal and with my consent, if we can make it clearer along the humane, the intelligent, and patriotic purpose that lies beneath the undertaking.

Mr. VREELAND. I would suggest, Mr. Foster, that you complete the matter in your own way, whichever way you think would be most effective. It may be that some gentlemen present desire to get your opinion as to the meaning and effect of some of the clauses of the bill.

APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS OF TRIBUNAL.

Mr. FOSTER. The first section of the bill provides for the appointment of the members of the commission, and provides that the Secretary of Commerce and Labor shall be ex officio a member of the tribunal, but without any power to vote. I would be glad to know if there is comment upon this particular section or suggestion for a change. Mr. VREELAND. I think the earlier sections of the bill may be passed over unless some gentlemen have questions to ask about them.

Mr. MADDOX. I think it would be a good idea for Mr. Foster to go on and explain it and give us an idea of it, and then we can ask you such questions as we desire.

Mr. FOSTER. You would like me to speak of the various sections? Mr. VREELAND. Giving so much attention to each one as you think best, and I would suggest that the main part of your time be given to the latter sections of the bill. The machinery of the bill is a matter of detail. It is the purpose and the text of it, I suppose, that we would like to hear you upon.

Mr. FOSTER. The suggestion or the form of the bill in its initial part, including the Secretary of Commerce and Labor as a member, was made after careful consideration. It was believed that the information at the command of the Secretary of Commerce and Labor, that would be by the time of operation of such a bill well equipped, and have had considerable experience, and would be extremely useful to the tribunal in the obtaining of information, and, therefore, it was suggested that the Secretary of Commerce and Labor be ex officio a member. The provision was made that he should not vote.

TENURE OF OFFICE.

You will observe that the period of tenure of the proposed members of the tribunal reaches beyond an administration, and therefore these

would not be called properly administration representatives; but the Secretary of Commerce and Labor would and must be a representative of the administration, and therefore it was thought best that he have not the power to vote.

Mr. DAVENPORT. May I ask a question for information on that first section?

Mr. VREELAND. Yes, sir.

Mr. DAVENPORT. I notice there is no limitation of any kind put upon the qualifications of the members. For instance, in regard to railroad conditions, boards of railroad commissioners, there is always a provision looking to familiarity on the part of the member with the particular kind of business. There is no qualification that I can see required, either political or otherwise, and does not that first clause provide for the establishment of a political tribunal?

Mr. FOSTER. Your last question is: "Does not the first clause provide for a political tribunal?"

Mr. DAVENPORT. Yes; that it may be created as in the judgment of the President, if he sees fit, and without any reference whatsoever to the technical or other qualifications of the members?

Mr. FOSTER. The point that you make was considered. The number of the tribunal to be appointed is small, and when specifications and limitations were considered it appeared to us that it was wiser to leave that matter to the President of the United States.

OPERATION OF BILL INTERSTATE.

Mr. MADDOX. I would like to ask you one question on this section. Is it your idea that this bill shall operate outside of the District of Columbia and the Territories?

Mr. FOSTER. Interstate, yes.

Mr. MADDOX. Do you think you can do that? Has Congress the power to do anything of that sort?

Mr. FOSTER. Interstate business?

Mr. MADDOX. Interstate business, as I was going to say

Mr. FOSTER. State affairs?

Mr. MADDOX. The local business of yours in Illinois, for instance? Mr. FOSTER. The bill was specially drafted to avoid the objection of the constitutional lawyer.

Mr. MADDOX. There is one other suggestion that I would like to make, or, rather, would like to hear you explain, and that is the idea of having the home of this body at Washington City. Located here, would not that often be very inconvenient in arbitrating, for instance, a trouble in the West, or on the Pacific slope, or in the South, or way up in the East?

It is

Mr. FOSTER. It is necessary that the tribunal have a habitat. provided, however, in the bill that meetings may be had at other places.

Mr. MADDOX. Well, does it not cease to be a question of arbitration? In other words, an arbitration when the court is already selected for the parties, does not that take it out of the very idea of arbitration? For instance, we would establish this court and they were to decide on certain principles. Say, for instance, against the manufacturer, or, to reverse it, against the laborers. The next arbitration would come along. These people in all probability would not consent because they