Page images
PDF
EPUB

The CHAIRMAN. The particular part I want to inquire about is in regard to the list of 14 names given to the colonel. Do you remember any of those?

Mr. EMERY. NO; I do not remember one of them, Mr. Chairman, at this time.

The CHAIRMAN. Who gave him the list; can you say?

Mr. EMERY. I think I can. I talked with Mr. Dwight. I had been in New York and came back here and talked with Mr. Dwight and with Senator Heyburn, because this matter was in conference then, and the contest was on in the House and Senate, and I went to see them and ask them in regard to the condition of the matter. They knew we were deeply interested, and after talking with Mr. Dwight and Senator Heyburn and getting their views of the legislative situation I must have taken the names from the list; I probably saw it in Mr. Dwight's office. I saw the vote that had been taken the last time and possibly talked to him with reference to the particular position-the general position of the Republican Members on the matter. We then sent a large number of telegrams to business men, requesting that they send word to the Members representing their various districts, calling the attention of the members of our associations in those districts to the situation in this fight in the House and urging them to communicate with their Member of the House and ask him to oppose this proposition.

The CHAIRMAN. This list that was given to Mr. Mulhall, I suppose, was not picked out at random; I suppose these names were chosen with particular reference to your ability to reach them.

Mr. EMERY. As I remember the matter, we all undertook to interview Members of Congress, and Col. Mulhall was given a list, and I think I interviewed several Members myself. I am not sure about that now.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you know why he was given just 14 names? Mr. EMERY. I do not know any special reason for that at that time.

The CHAIRMAN. Of course the men you undertook to interview were men concerning whom you had some information about their views?

Mr. EMERY. Yes. I think the names given to him were names of men he was supposed to know specially, because they came from his own district, or men that he knew better than others.

The CHAIRMAN. That is what I was asking.

Mr. EMERY. I do not know whether he selected that list himself or made up that list or whether it was given to him, but it was a list of 14 names that he was assumed to know better than others. The telegraphic request for expressions of opinion from constituents of these various Members was sent out at the same time.

Mr. RUSSELL. The whole 14?

Mr. EMERY. Oh, more than that; I think those telegrams were sent to probably 200 districts.

Mr. STAFFORD. Who paid for those telegrams? The National Council for Industrial Defense?

Mr. EMERY. Yes, sir; they were sent to the associations of the council in these different localities. They all had a bulletin on the subject which detailed the amendment and made the argument for

4858-VOL 4-13- -9

and against it. The labor organizations, as the letter indicates, were carrying on a very active fight to pass the amendment.

(Thereupon, at 10.50 oclock a. m., a recess was taken until 2 o'clock p. m.)

AFTER RECESS.

At the expiration of the recess the committee reassembled.

Mr. EMERY. Mr. Chairman, Judge Cline this morning inquired with regard to parties making legislative reports, to which matter some reference was made. For the purpose of the record I should like to give the information available. The first is found in the American Federationist for May, 1910, page 426, a legislative committee report signed by Arthur E. Holder, legislative committee, American Federation of Labor. They make special reference here to the injunction and contempt bills in which they were interested and which were then pending. The bills in which they are interested are given here-the injunction and contempt bills, and opposition to the Moon bill.

Then in the Federationist for July, 1910, at page 615, is given the second legislative report, under date of June 18, 1910, also signed Arthur E. Holder, legislative committee, American Federation of Labor. It contains that to which your attention was particularly directed this morning, a history of the eight-hour bill, and of the so-called Kendall amendment, to which I should like to call your attention.

EIGHT-HOUR BILL TO COVER GOVERNMENT WORK BY CONTRACTORS AND SUB

CONTRACTORS.

Representative Kendall introduced House resolution No. 706 on May 19, calling for the discharge of the House Committee on Labor from further consideration of the eight-hour bill, H. R. 15441 (indorsed by the American Federation of Labor), and that the bill be immediately considered in the House as though regularly reported by said committee. This resolution was referred to the Committee on Rules, of which Representative Dalzell is chairman. Up to this writing no meeting of the Committee on Rules has been called to consider this resolution.

On June 4 Representative Kendall introduced an amendment to the sundry civil bill providing that the public work included in that appropriation bill for the United States Government by contractors and subcontractors should be performed under eight-hour regulations. The amendment was ruled out of order by Representative Mann, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House, Representative Wilson, of Pennsylvania, immediately appealed from the decision of the Chair, and after a spirited debate the committee divided. The vote stood 99 yeas to 61 nays. The decision of the Chair was sustained. The eight-hour amendment was rejected. Mr. Kendall immediately followed with another eighthour provision to cover new contracts and making an exception to existing contracts. Representative Tawney promptly objected, and the amendment was ruled out on a point of order.

There follows then the history of the remaining effort to attach provisions to the naval appropriation bill, and on page 617 is given the history of the fight over the antitrust amendment to the sundry civil bill, together with the criticism of the Senators who votel against it and a list of the yea-and-nay vote in the Senate, to which special attention is called. I should like to indicate that at page 617. and ask that it be included in the record.

The CHAIRMAN. If there be no objection, that will be inserted.

Mr. EMERY. I am doing that without reading it to save the time of the committee and in order that you may have the information in the record.

(The portion of the article referred to is as follows:)

ANTITRUST AMENDMENT TO SUNDRY CIVIL BILL.

During the consideration of the sundry civil appropriation bill (H. R. 25552) in the House, when the section was reached on June 2 making appropriation for the enforcement of the antitrust laws, Representative Hughes, of New Jersey, offered this amendment: "Provided further, That no part of this money shall be spent in the prosecution of any organization or individual for entering into any combination or agreement having in view the increasing of wages, shortening of hours, or bettering the condition of labor, or for any act done in furtherance thereof not in itself unlawful." This amendment made the creatures of the "system" squirm, and every possible parliamentary motion imaginable was made to prevent it going to a vote, but it finally passed the Committee of the Whole House by a vote of $2 yeas to 52 nays. The sundry civil bill as amended passed the House of Representatives June 4; it was reported out of the Senate Committee on Appropriations to the Senate on June 7, and the antitrust amendment herein referred to was stricken from the bill by the committee. President Gompers promptly dispatched a circular letter to officiais of affiliated organizations urging protests to be sent to the Senators against this proviso being taken from the bill and "insisting that the House provision be maintained." This effort was ably seconded by legislative representatives, Messrs. Roe and Wills, of the railroad organizations, and every possible effort was made with Senators individually to restore this proviso to the bill. In the meantime the employers' associations and the "interests" had been active and they urged Senators to strike the proviso from the bill. The amendment was reached in the Senate on June 9; Senators Bacon, Owen, and Gore ably defended the rights and interests of the workers, while Senators Heyburn. Hale, and Gallinger displayed a most bitter spirit toward the amendment. Heyburn was particularly coarse and vicious, and he vented his evident hatred and contempt for laborers and labor organizations without stint. A yea-and-nay vote was called for by Senator Gore; it was conceded after some sparring, and the United States Senate therein placed itself on record as being opposed to any organization or individual making an organized effort to in crease wages, to shorten hours, or to better the condition of labor without runting the risk of criminal prosecution under the provisions of the antitrust law. No act of Congress, nor any vote ever taken in Congress has shown such a transparent contempt for the workers as this record vote displays for all the world to see. This action on the part of the Senate will throw the Hughes amendment into conference and will afford our friends an opportunity to again make it an issue when reported to the House and the Senate by the conferees. For the information of those who desire to know how their Senators voted upon this question, the roil is here given and explained. Senators voting "yea" wanted the Hughes amendment eliminated. Those voting "nay' wanted it restored.

YEAS-34.

Borah, Bourne, Brandegee, Bristow, Brown, Bulkeley, Burnham, Burrows, Burton. Carter, Clapp. Clark (Wyoming), Crane, Crawford, Cullem, Dick, Dixon, du Pont, Flint, Frye, Gallinger, Gamble, Hale. Heyburn, Kean, McEnery, Nelson, Oliver, Perkins, Smoot, Stephenson, Stone. Warren Wetmore.

NAYS-16.

Bacon, Burkett, Chamberlain, Dolliver, Fletcher. Frazier, Gore, Jones. Martin, Newlands, Owen. Page, Percy, Simmons, Smith (South Carolina), Warner. On June 16. during the consideration in the House of the Porto Rico bill, H. R. 23000, Representative Wilson, of Pennsylvania, succeeded in amending it so that eight hours shall constitute a day's work on behalf of the Government or any municipality," and a 14-year limitation for age of children employed in hazardous or unhealthful occupations. He also secured another

46

*

valuable amendment to the bill guaranteeing the right of action for the workers to recover damages for injuries incurred during employment.

Many other matters have engaged the attention of the legislative committee, but lack of space forbids reference thereto.

ARTHUR E. HOLDER, Legislative Committee, A. F. of L.

Mr. EMERY. In the August, 1910, Federationist, at page 701, there is a legislative committee report, signed by Arthur E. Holder, legislative committee, A. F. of L., giving the further history of the Hughes amendment and those who participated in it. It is stated

that

Great excitement prevailed in the House during the debate, and when the vote was taken the opponents to labor made a desperate effort to muster a large vote, and many Members apparently absented themselves rather than go on record. Constituents should ask their absentee Representatives this pointed question, "Why did you fail to vote upon this important legislation?"

And at the end of the report--this is under date of July 7, 1910— special reference is given to those representatives of labor who assisted in the fight, the committeeman saying:

I can not conclude this report without paying tribute to Representatives Anderson, Cary, Jamieson, Martin, McDermott. Murphy, Nicholls, Sherwood, Wilson, and Hughes, all of whom worked cheerfully, persistently, and loyally for the best interests of their constituents and all the people.

The final report to which I especially direct your attention is found in the April, 1913, Federationist, under the title of Congressional Achievements of Labor: report of A. F. of L. legislative committee. This begins on page 277, under date of March 7, 1913, with a very handsome reference to the comparative value of the Sixty-second over the Sixty-first Congress, and proceeds to discuss the various measures in which they are interested, with special attention to antitrust legislation.

Then, on page 280 is given the roll call on the antitrust section of the sundry civil bill, and on page 281 is given the roll call on the contempt bill, and on page 291 is given the roll call on the Clayton injunction bill.

The CHAIRMAN. You do not want all those roll calls to go in the record?

Mr. EMERY. No, sir; I merely call the attention of the committee to the place where they can be found, and I call your attention to the following on page 279:

The following is the record of the votes cast by the Members of the House of Representatives on March 4, 1913, in favor of and in opposition to the veto of the President, on the antitrust section of the sundry civil appropriation bill, which was under consideration. It also records those who failed to vote. In this instance, those voting "aye" voted for labor and against the President's veto. Those voting "nay" voted for the President's veto and against labor. Those failing to vote signified their indifference to the question.

There is also given, on page 290, the letter which was sent by Messrs. Gompers and Morrison to each Member of the Senate of the United States, asking their support for the injunction bill then pending before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Also in that connection I want to include as a part of the record with reference to the policy pursued by the A. F. of L. in these matters, the following from the statement by Mr. Gompers, president of the American Federation of Labor, November 19, 1912, at the Thirty

second Annual Convention of the American Federation of Labor, Rochester, N. Y., to be found at page 304 of those proceedings:

I have heard it said that we go begging and pleading. Well, if any man would go to the committee of Congress and hear the statements made by the legislative committees, by the representatives of international unions, by the representative of the American Federation of Labor, by myself, he would find there is no pleading and there is no begging; it is the assertion, man fashion, of the rights to which the toilers are entitled and upon which they insist. Indeed. Walter Drew, the attorney of the Erectors' Association, one of the bitterest antagonists of organized labor, said last July before a meeting of the Judiciary Committee that he never heard Mr. Gompers make an address or argue before any committee of Congress unless it was accompanied with a threat. And when the opportunity was offered me I admitted that I did threaten, and propose to continue to threaten, the Members of Congress with the assertion that if I could help to secure the defeat of men who opposed the legislation labor demanded, I would not only repeat but emphasize and endeavor to carry that threat into effect. That statement is in print.

Mr. STAFFORD. Mr. Emery, in your principal examination you made reference to not being up at the Capitol very frequently. Will you state specifically what were your duties for the N. A. M. or the N. C. I. D. so far as congressional legislation was concerned?

Mr. EMERY. I examined all bills bearing on the principles which I have described, and analyzed and compiled statements with respect to them for reference in the office. I was very much in the library of the Supreme Court, where I worked a great deal in keeping up with the industrial decisions and litigation of State and national character. I often made inquiries in committees where legislation was pending as to hearings, if any were to be had, and usually filed formal application for them.

Mr. STAFFORD. You made application to whom?

Mr. EMERY. To the chairman of the committee or whoever happened to be in the room. If it happened to be a clerk, I usually filed a formal application with him and endeavored to ascertain whether or not the committee was likely to have hearings; or if the chairman was not there, I would see a member of the committee and ascertain the probability of their having hearings and request an opportunity to be heard.

In addition to this we were constantly supplying information to all the bodies connected with the council and to such individuals through members of the council or the National Association of Manufacturers as made application for information on practically any question of a public character, whether it was with reference to public information to supply documents bearing on that or bearing on any public activity of government in which a business man would be interested. I suppose there were long periods of time-sometimes months that I was never in the Capitol.

Mr. STAFFORD. Separating the time of preparation that you gave from your other work, how much time did you give actually to appearances before committees or speaking with Members concerning legislation-the real legislative work about the corridors and the committee rooms of the Capitol?

Mr. EMERY. That depended on occasions and circumstances. Mr. Stafford, when these matters were up, but even then I did not very often come in contact with individual Members except when some matter was pending before a committee in which I was interested.

« PreviousContinue »