on the ground that the exemption is class legislation; and they seem to assume that if it is class legislation it ought not to pass.

I have no hesitation in meeting this issue squarely, and in stating without equivocation that this is class legislation; and I propose to show, if I can, that that is no objection whatever. There is no provision against class legislation in the Constitution. There is no general provision of law against it. There is no general public policy which it will violate. We are constantly discriminating against certain classes and in favor of others. Our laws are full of them. For example, the tariff bill which will presently come before us is a bill which gives favors to certain classes to the detriment of the rest of the people. The income-tax provision in that bill distinguishes in favor of that class which has an income not over $4,000 and against the class which is fortunate enough to have an income of more than $4,000.

The ordinary labor laws do not apply in many cases to farmers and to household servants. The laws which limit the hours of labor apply frequently to women and children only. and to mills and factories only. The man who is fortunate enough to ride in an automobile has to observe certain rules and regulations which do not apply to men who travel in horsedrawn vehicles. Vendors of milk, vendors of spirituous liquors, vendors of gunpowder frequently have to comply with regulations that do not apply to other vendors. So we might go all

down the line and find that there is class legislation in abundance, and its constitutionality is never questioned. The very statute of 1908, the Federal employees' liability law, applies only

The VICE PRESIDENT. Will the Senator from New Hamp shire suspend for a moment? The morning hour having expired. the Chair lays before the Senate the unfinished business, which will be stated.

The SECRETARY. Order of Business 10. Senate resolution 37, authorizing the appointment of a committee to make an investigation of conditions in the Paint Creek district, West Virginia.

Mr. KERN. I ask that the unfinished business be temporarily laid aside.

The VICE PRESIDENT. Is there objection? The Chair hears none. The Senator from New Hampshire will proceed. Mr. HOLLIS. As I was about to say, Mr. President, the Federal employees' liability law of 1908 applies only to that class of citizens who are engaged in interstate commerce by railroad. The only constitutional provision applicable to this case is the one that all members of a class shall be treated alike. We find, then, that this is class legislation, and that the mere fact that it is class legislation is no argument against it. But I hope if Members on this side have any doubts about that they will satisfy them before they fail to vote for the passage of this law, as it is proposed, on that account.

Now, then, we come to the question, Is this an expedient law to pass? I wish to thank the distinguished Senator from Iowa [Mr. CUMMINS] for his very handsome admission yesterday, that it was not intended to have the Sherman antitrust law apply to associations of farmers and laborers, and for his assurance that the labor men were properly justified in under

standing that it did not so apply. I was not of voting age when this matter was discussed originally, but I do remember that it came with a great shock to the country when the courts decided that the Sherman antitrust law should be applied to labor unions. None but those ingenious and able trust lawyers, who had been able to save their clients from the bona fide purpose of this act, would have been able to conceive and push forward to fruition any such idea. The action of the courts in that regard falls within that class of court-made amend ments that the Senator from Colorado [Mr. THOMAS] denounced so brilliantly a few days since.

My only care is to get at it as quickly as we possibly can under the rules of the Senate. The thing that I am most careful about is promptness. If I am going somewhere in an automobile and the machine will not start I will not wait a long while, but I will get out and walk; and if I get started and the machine will not work I am willing to take a horse and be towed to my destination instead of waiting all day for an expert to come and repair the machine.

I should much prefer that this wrong should be righted by direct amendment. I think that would be better; but I am going to take relief just as soon as the opportunity arises by passing the law as it stands. I say we should give to the law department our policy in this regard. They will understand our purpose to repeal this court-made amendment as soon as we can properly do so under the rules. We shall notify the law department that we are not in favor of enforcing the antitrust law even if it may technically be applied to associations of farmers and laborers. We shall let them know that they are to point their activities at the real objects which were intended when the law was passed.

It seems to me that the point raised by Senators yesterday was more acute than important. It is just that sort of conservatism that is found commonly among lawyers that has brought so many of them into disrepute with the majority of the voters of this country. It was just the opposite quality in the leader of the third party in the last campaign-his desire to go forward to his object-that commended him to so many voters who otherwise would not have supported him.

Now we come to the point that has been criticized, which is embraced in the phrase "not in itself unlawful." Every lawyer in the Senate knows and well knows that certain acts which are not unlawful in themselves become unlawful when committed in combination with others, and that the Sherman antitrust law is directed against combinations and conspiracies in restraint of interstate commerce.

A man may get the better of his competitors in a great many lawful ways by restraining the trade if he can, so long as he acts alone, but under the Sherman antitrust law these lawful acts when exercised in combination with others become unlawful, not immoral, not unlawful according to the common law, but unlawful under the terms of the antitrust act.

Take the Lawrence cases, which were referred to yesterday. Mr. Ettor and Mr. Giovannitti were indicted for bringing about the death of a woman. I believe the fatal shot was fired by some ole at a striker, and an innocent bystander was killed. Mr. Ettor and Mr. Giovannitti were indicted for inciting to nurder on the theory that they had advised and urged acts of

violence, and that they were therefore liable for the consequences that might properly flow from those acts.

But take the case of Mr. William M. Wood, president of the American Woolen Co., one of the chief beneficiaries under the Payne-Aldric tariff law. Mr. Wood was indicted by a Massachusetts jury for conspiring with Mr. Atteaux and Mr. Collins in taking dynamite to Lawrence in order to plant it in the residences of the strikers, so that it might be found there and they might be brought into disrepute or perhaps be punished for Laving it on their premises.

The prosecution, which will begin May 19, I believe, in Massachusetts against Mr. Wood is under the Massachusetts statute, and, as I understand it, if Mr. Wood had transported the dynamite to Lawrence himself instead of having somebody else to do it, then it would not have been a crime. So, under the Sherman Act it is not a crime to do many things by one's self. but when done in combination those things become unlawful.

Now, under this act the law department is left perfectly free to punish all crimes when they are crimes in and of themselves. Crimes like assault, crimes like manslaughter, if committed where they will give the Federal Government jurisdiction, will be prosecuted, and this money may be spent under the terms of this act for that purpose. But it is fair to say that very few common-law crimes do come under the jurisdiction of the Federal authorities.

One reason why I favor this law is brought out by the cases of Ettor and Giovannitti. They were arrested and imprisoned without bail until they were acquitted by a jury of their peers. The evidence was published in the newspapers. We all read it, It was flimsy in the extreme. I have no hesitation in charging that their arrest and imprisonment was brought about by the mill owners, not with any expectation of securing a conviction, but in the hope that their arrest would cow the other strikers and that their absence would break the backbone of the strike. It is because capital has succeeded in using the police, the militia. legal process, and the courts for their own benefit that I believe the Congress should even matters so far as possible by legislation like this. It is because beneficiaries of the tariff law like Mr. Wood have undertaken to circumvent their employees by tricks and by unjust imprisonment and prosecution; it is because capital has such immense resources and such a tremendous pull or influence over public authorities that I favor laws for them which shall not apply to farmers and wage earners. They have set themselves apart as a class of giltedged beneficiaries, and I believe it is just to have class legislation against them as much as to have class legislation for their benefit.

I believe, as I said at the outset, that I was sent to the United States Senate by the State of New Hampshire because I hold these views on this subject, and I should fail in my duty if I did not state what I believe to be the true attitude of New Hampshire on this question.

91684-11992

О

TRUSTS AND THE TOILERS

Legislation dealing with trusts which control the products of the labor can not be justly applied to the association of workers for their own betterment and improvement. One deals with material, the other with men; one with mines, the other with miners; one with machines, the other with machinists; one with farms, the other with farmers; one with buildings, the other with builders; one with factories, the other with factory workers; one with tools, the other with tollers; one with property, the other with persons. You can not classify them together, for they are essentially different.

SPEECH

OF

HON. M. CLYDE KELLY

OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 22, 1914

WASHINGTON
1914