a while and finally a Republican member, Mr. Allen, of Maine, came into the committee room. He came as far as the table where we were all sitting, noticed that there was only one Republican present, and that all the Democrats were there, and turned around and left. I tried to get him to stay and he made some remark about having another committee meeting, which was all he said. He left the

room

The CHAIRMAN. Was that a public meeting?

Mr. RAINEY. Yes, sir; that was a public meeting.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you remember what spectators were there? Mr. RAINEY. No; I do not remember. There were spectators there, but I do not recall who they were.

As soon as he left the room I denounced the chairman, and charged that he was against his own bill, and denounced the Republican members of the Labor Committee and charged that they were killing the bill by having hearings which were cumulative in their character and had been doing that for years and years; that now they were killing the bill by breaking quorums, and said that I proposed on the first opportunity, unless there was a full meeting of the committee, to rise to a question of personal privilege in the House and denounce the whole thing, to charge the chairman with being unfriendly to his own bill, that the Republican Members were all against it and by unfair methods were preventing even a vote on it. Mr. Gardner replied by regretting that Mr. Allen had left, explaining that Mr. Allen had another committee meeting, and promised to try to get the committee together soon, which he did at the next meeting of the committee, which occurred within the next 10 days, as I remember it. All the Republicans were present, and every Democrat was present. On motion of one of the Republican Members-I have forgotten which one-the question of the eighthour bill was referred to a committee of lawyers-three lawyers to be appointed by the chairman of the committee-they to examine into its constitutionality and report back to the committee as to whether or not the bill was constitutional. The chairman appointed the committee of three lawyers and the committee never reported, and that was the last of the eight-hour bill in the Sixty-first Congress. Mr. CLINE. Do you remember who the three were that constituted the committee?

Mr. RAINEY. No; I do not remember. They were three lawyers. Of course, there were two Republicans and, of course, the ranking Democrat, if he was a lawyer-

Mr. STAFFORD. You mean three lawyers members of the committee?

Mr. RAINEY. Three lawyers of the committee. The ranking Democrat, if he was a lawyer, would be a member, and I, being the ranking Democrat and being a lawyer, my recollection is that I was one of the committee. The other two Members I do not remember, except I know they were Republicans. I know I tried to get them to meet and told them I was ready to make up my report as to the constitutionality of the bill, but it was never done, and they never met and there was no further consideration of it, and the bill was killed in that way in the Sixty-first Congress.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Rainey, do you remember of what subcommittee you were a member?

Mr. RAINEY. No; I do not remember. I was a member probably of two or three subcommittees.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you know anything about the appointment of the subcommittees?

Mr. RAINEY. Not a thing, except that they were appointed by the chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you know when they were appointed in the Sixty-first Congress?

Mr. RAINEY. No, sir; I do not remember about that.

The CHAIRMAN. The Sixty-first Congress convened on the 15th of March, 1909, according to my recollection.

Mr. RAINEY. Yes; I think so.

The CHAIRMAN. The committees were not appointed until the latter part of that session, and no legislative work was done except the tariff bill. The committees really did not begin work until the beginning of the regular session in December.

Mr. RAINEY. No committees were appointed at all at that first session of the Sixty-first Congress, except the working committees of the House; and, of course, at that first session of the Sixty-first Congress, inasmuch as the Labor Committee itself was not appointed, there could be no subcommittees appointed.

The CHAIRMAN. They were appointed right at the close of the session-all the committees?

Mr. RAINEY. I think they were; yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. But I suppose they were not organized-the Labor Committee was not organized was it?

Mr. RAINEY. I am quite sure, not until the second session.

The CHAIRMAN. And you do not remember at what time in the regular session the subcommittees were appointed?

Mr. RAINEY. No, sir: I do not.

The CHAIRMAN. Of course, you have no information as to any influences that were exerted in any sort of way in regard to the appointment of the subcommittees. I take it?

Mr. RAINEY. None whatever; no, sir.

Mr. RUSSELL. This special committee was appointed soon after the time that the quorum was broken by Mr. Allen leaving?

Mr. RAINEY. Yes, sir; it was broken at the next meeting of the committee, which was a considerable time before the expiration of the life of that Congress, but the committee never did anything.

Mr. CLINE. Have you any knowledge of what influences, if any. were exerted to keep a quorum from being present?

Mr. RAINEY. No, sir: I do not know anything about that.
Mr. CLINE. Or to keep the bill from being reported out?

Mr. RAINEY. I think we did usually have a quorum present, but it was such a quorum that the Republicans had the majority and there was no chance to get the bill out. And whenever we had a quorum present and a majority of the quorum were Democrats the policy was to break the quorum. At any rate, that is what they did.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Rainey, on the particular occasion you mentioned when the quorum was made by the appearance of Mr. Allen. I think you said-it was made by his appearance and then was broken by his retirement?

Mr. RAINEY. He would not have made a quorum, because my recollection is that five Democrats were present and the only Republican member was the chairman. Mr. Allen by himself would not have completed the quorum. I think it would have taken another Republican.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you remember whether Mr. Covington, of Maryland, was present?

Mr. RAINEY. Yes; Mr. Covington was present.

Mr. CLINE. There has been some evidence before the committee, Mr. Rainey, to the effect that on one or two occasions the discussion of questions or bills before the committee was so manipulated as to occupy all the time, and that the committee did not get to the discussion of the eight-hour bill or labor legislation until about the hour for adjournment. Have you any recollection of anything of that kind?

Mr. RAINEY. That happened in the Fifty-ninth Congress, the only time during the period I was a member of the committee when the Democrats had the majority of a quorum. At that time the Democratic members of the committee were William Randolph Hearst, of New York; Mr. Hunt, of Missouri, a member of the Marble Cutters' Union; Mr. Stanley, of Kentucky; Mr. Davis, of West Virginia; and myself. Judge Payson was present, representing the Newport News Shipbuilding Co. and perhaps also the Pacific railroads. Judge Payson was a former Member of Congress from Illinois, but at that time lived in Washington, and had been living here some time, and was an attorney. We had been having hearings for a long time. I remember at the beginning of the session Mr. Gompers protested against hearings, saying that the evidence being produced was merely cumulative, and insisted that he had no evidence to produce at all, and wanted the committee to pass upon the merits of the bill-either to report it out or not to report it out.

On this particular occasion all the witnesses were gone. They did not have any witnesses to take up the time, but Judge Payson, in order to occupy fully the time until 12 o'clock, commenced to read from the hearings of some years prior to that, and was taking up time reading from those hearings. We did not have a quorum of the committee present, and along about half past 11 o'clock Mr. Stanley, of Kentucky, a Democratic member, came into the room. This gave us five Democrats and three Republicans—a quorum, the Democrats being in the majority.

At

On motion of Mr. Hunt, of Missouri, the committee went into executive session at once to consider the eight-hour bill. I think Mr. Gompers was also in the room, and I do not remember who else. any rate, we put them all out and closed the doors, and as soon as the doors were closed I moved that the bill be reported out with a favorable recommendation. Mr. Hearst strongly supported the motion, and started to speak in favor of it, and I called his attention to the fact that it was approaching the hour of 12, and we did not have permission to sit during sessions of the House. He thereupon quit making his speech, and the chairman of the committee commenced to make his speech.

I moved the previous question, and he spoke until it was nearly 12. I interrupted and demanded that the question be put, and he dis

4858-VOL 4-13- -29

cussed it at some length even after that, opposing the motion to report out the bill. Finally he put the motion and it carried, all the Democrats present voting for it, and the bill was ordered out.

That was five or six weeks before the expiration of that session, which was the last session of the Fifty-ninth Congress. The report, however, was not drafted by the chairman for a considerable length of time, and the bill was not reported out and did not get on the calendar until very near the end of the session. I understood— either the clerk of the committee told me or he told somebody else who did tell me that if we succeeded in forcing the bill to a vote in the House they proposed to insist that the hour of 12 had passed when the vote was taken and therefore the committee having no right to sit when the House was in session the bill was not properly reported out and could not be considered by the House. However, those were days when it was impossible, without the consent of the Speaker, to get anything up, and the bill, of course, never came up and died on the calendar.

Mr. MACDONALD. I should like to ask Mr. Rainey if he knows anything about a niember trying to break a quorum by forcing the door open?

Mr. RAINEY. Oh, no; I never heard of anything of that kind; nothing of the kind ever occurred while I was a member.

Mr. DAVENPORT. Mr. Chairman, will you allow me to ask Mr. Rainey a question?

The CHAIRMAN. What is the question, Judge Davenport?

Mr. DAVENPORT. If this occasion he spoke of was not the day before Decoration Day, on which occasion Mr. Bartholdt had gone to Lake Mohonk; if Mr. Connor, of Iowa, was away also, and a day or two before that action was taken-at the previous hearing-it was understood they would not take any vote that day, but would discuss the question, and when Mr. Payson stood at the foot of the table and Mr. Hearst came in if they did not then proceed to take that action under those circumstances. I do not know whether the Congressman remembers that or not.

The CHAIRMAN. Of course, Judge Davenport, without recognizing your right to make an inquiry, not being formally entered here in any way, I see no objection.

Mr. DAVENPORT. Perhaps the Congressman remembers it and perhaps he does not.

Mr. RAINEY. I remember all about it. I do not think the day was Decoration Day.

Mr. DAVENPORT. The day before Decoration Day.

Mr. RAINEY. I do not think it was the day before Decoration Day. I do not remember anything about Decoration Day in that connection. I do know, however, that Dr. Bartholdt was attending a peace conference at Lake Mohonk, which, I think, met that year later than Decoration Day. I do know that other Republican Members were absent. There was no understanding about a vote being taken or not being taken at all. It was not anticipated-I have not the slightest idea it was anticipated on the part of Dr. Bartholdt or Mr. Connor or anybody else that a vote would be taken. But we considered. inasmuch as the bill was being killed by hearings and had been killed so long by hearings, it was perfectly fair if we ever got a

majority of the Democrats present to force a vote on the bill, which we did. There was no understanding that no vote would be taken. Mr. DAVENPORT. Was not one of the Republicans present-the present Senator from Nebraska, Mr. Norris?

Mr. RAINEY. I do not remember whether he was or not; very likely he was. Judge Norris at that time was a member of the committee, and I know there were at least three Republicans present. The CHAIRMAN. Very well, Mr. Rainey, you may be excused. We thank you for your attendance.

TESTIMONY OF MR. JAMES A. EMERY-Resumed.

Mr. EMERY. Do you wish me to take the stand, Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. If you will, for a moment; I have one or two questions I want to ask you as a witness. The questions that I desire to propound are not so much perhaps questions that go to the merits of this matter as they are designed to get at the history of the National Association of Manufacturers. I understand it was organized in 1895. Is that correct?

Mr. EMERY. I would not be sure, Mr. Chairman, whether it was 1895 or 1897.

The CHAIRMAN. But about that time?

Mr. EMERY. About that time.

Mr. KIRBY. It was 1895.

The CHAIRMAN. And it was then a voluntary association?
Mr. EMERY. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you happen to remember how many members it had?

Mr. EMERY. I do not. It is possible, Mr. Chairman, if you will permit me, Mr. Kirby might be able to give you the information. The CHAIRMAN. I am just wondering whether or not it has been given.

Mr. KIRBY. I think it has.

The CHAIRMAN. We are having to dig through so much of this record that I was anxious, if I could, to get a consistent and consecutive story of it, if possible. Passing that then, if you do not know

Mr. EMERY. I, unfortunately, do not know its history at that period.

The CHAIRMAN. It was not incorporated until 1905?

Mr. EMERY. 1905.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, just when did it first begin to engage in political activities? Do you remember that, historically? Of course, I understand you have no personal knowledge.

Mr. EMERY. No; but I should point out, Mr. Chairman, that by the terms of its charter it expressed its determination and its desire to engage in certain forms of political activity.

The CHAIRMAN. Did it, before that time, to your historical knowledge?

Mr. EMERY. I remember, of course, the letters that have been read in this investigation, and I gather from the correspondence of Mr. Cushing that it did so.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, do you know what committees of this association are in existence at the present time?