"Closely allied to the boycott is the blacklist, by which employers of labor sometimes prevent the employment by others of men whom they have discharged. In other words, it is a combination among employers not to employ workmen discharged by any of the members of said combination. This system is as reprehensible and as cruel as the boycott, and should be frowned down by all humane men. Happily there was little evidence of its existence among the operators in the anthracite region, one case only having been distinctly proved, and in that the refusal to employ the tabooed men continued but for a short time. Wherever it is practiced to the extent of being founded upon an agreement or concerted action, it, too, comes within the definition of the crime of conspiracy, and as such should be punished. (The United States and the following-named States have laws which may fairly be construed as prohibiting blacklisting: Georgia, Michigan, New Hampshire, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, and South Dakota.) There is also a civil remedy open to one who suffers from having been blacklisted, in an action against those who are a party to it, to recover damages compensatory of the injury received.

"The commission is fully aware of the difficulties inherent in this subject. It is a psychological matter beyond rules and awards unless the lawmaking power of the community fix a penalty upon boycotting and blacklisting. Even then, the various degrees to which the two can be carried elude the enforcement of a statue. The commission is of opinion, however, that there should be a positive utterance on its part relative to discrimination, interference, boycotting, and blacklisting, and this opinion it has put in the form of an award, as follows:

"It is adjudged and awarded: That no person shall be refused employment, or in any way discriminated against, on account of membership or nonmembership in any labor organization; and that there shall be no discrimination against, or interference with, any employee who is not a member of any labor organization by members of such organization.”

A LIVING WITNESS OF THE SHERMAN LAW'S INTENT.

Mr. Chairman, there is one other phase of the question which I shall add to this group of significant statements. It has been asserted time and again by Mr. Gompers, or his friends in Congress, that Senators Sherman, Hoar, George, and others, all of whom have departed this life, had declared that the Sherman antitrust law was not intended to include labor organizations. The statement which I shall incorporate is that of a living witness, one of the great statesmen of the period referred to, and still one of the active legal minds of the Nation. I refer to former United States Senator George F. Edmunds, of Vermont, who was chairman of the Judiciary Committee which had the Sherman antitrust bill of 1890 in charge, and whose statement, published in the New York Evening Post of June 17, 1914, I have been able to confirm:

"'The old law,' Mr. Edmunds said, 'does not require a particle of change. No phase of business is outside the reach of the law, if we want to have equal rights under the law. As it is, we have gone as far as constitutional rights and justice will permit in the recognition of such things as now are under discussion. All that you hear about "legislation being necessary is a fuss over details which the courts are already able to decide, and have decided.'

"Mr. Edmunds was asked his judgment on the labor amendment exempting fraternal, labor, consumers', agricultural, or horticultural organizations, orders, or associations' from the provisions of the antitrust law. He pointed out first that a substantially identical amendment was proposed to the original bill in the debate of 1890 was thoroughly discussed in the Senate, and was finally dropped on the ground that it was opposed to the entire spirit of the bill.

SENATOR EDMUNDS ON THE EQUALITY OF RIGHTS. "Referring then to the recent unanimous vote of the House of Representatives for the labor amendment,' the ex-Senator

continued:

"When two or three or a half dozen men come to a conclusion on what to them seems expedient, they usually are feverish enough, but when you multiply the number, the more feverish becomes the body and the greater the emotion. What influenced the Members of the House, comprising all parties, to vote in the manner they did, may have been, however, not mere emotion or excitement. The impulse may have come from party tactics or political motives, the House Members entering upon a race to gain advantage with the great bodies of voters. It does not appear to have depended upon reflective judgment or regard for the Constitution. This is not a good way to make laws.

"The seventh section of this act (the labor amendment') is evidently intended to exempt the classes named from the prohibition of the act of 1890, against conspiracies in restraint of interstate trade, and conspiracies to create monopolies, and to authorize the particular classes named to violate the provisions of that act. If these operations are not in restraint of trade they need no special protection. If they are, why should they be permitted when all other classes of the community are subject to the equal law? Equality of right before the law is the fundamental principle and the very foundation stone of republican and democratic government.

A REVERSAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL LIBERTY.

"This question was fully considered and deliberated upon when the act of 1890 was under consideration and upon passage. Labor unions, farmers' unions, and consumers' unions are already, and always have been, perfectly free and proper. It is only when they are guilty of misconduct in their actions that they are liable, like all other classes of the community, to restraint and punishment.

"It will be a singular spectacle in Republican or Democratic legislation to provide that labor unions, for illustration, may combine to stop the work of their employers, while if their employers should combine by the same means to avert such a stoppage they are forbidden to do so and punished if they do; or if the farmers' unions should combine to raise the price of their wheat, while the bakers are forbidden to raise the price of the bread they make from the same wheat.

"Such legislation would be so absolutely unjust and unequal and such a complete reversal of constitutional liberty and equal rights that even discussion of it would seem to be absurd."

о

Federal Trade Commission and Antitrust Legislation.

The problem of the future is how to make our great corporations effective instruments for the equitable distribution of wealth. This must come through regulation and control exercised by a Federal commission, adequately endowed with power and jurisdiction.

SPEECHES

OF

HON. DICK T. MORGAN,

OF OKLAHOMA,

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

Tuesday, May 19, 1914.

The House in Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union had under consideration, the bill (H. R. 15613) to create an interstate trade commission, to define its powers and duties, and for other purposes.

Mr. MORGAN of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, as some of you know, I am somewhat of an enthusiast in favor of the creation of a Federal trade commission. I have the honor of having introduced into this House the first bill to create a Federal commission with jurisdiction and power over our industrial corporations. That bill was introduced on the 25th of January, 1912. Even in the campaign of 1910 I said in many of my speeches that such a commission should be created. I spent a very considerable time in study and investigation in the preparation of that bill. The number of it is House bill 18711, and it was introduced in the Sixty-second Congress. The bill covers the entire subject, giving the commission very extensive power and jurisdiction.

On the 20th of February, 1912, I delivered in this House a carefully prepared speech giving an outline of the provisions of the bill and strongly urging the necessity of such a commission. So far as I have been able to ascertain, that was the first speech delivered in the House of Representatives advocating the creation of a Federal trade commission. This was before any political party had indorsed the proposition. Since that time the Republican and Progressive Parties have specifically indorsed the proposition in platform declarations, and President Wilson, a Democratic President, has by special message recommended the creation of such a commission. I naturally take some pride in the fact that a measure which I was the first to initiate in this House and which I was the first to openly advocate on the floor of this House has now received the approval of the three great political parties and will no doubt soon be crystallized into law. I expect to vote for this bill. My criticism of the bill is not for what it does contain, but for what it does not contain. In other words, the bill does not give the commission sufficient power to make it a regulative body that will accomplish the best results. In 1912, when the Republican convention met at Chicago, it declared in favor of creating a Fed

eral trade commission. This bill does not go so far as the Republican platform would justify, but I am glad that the Republican Party was the first to declare in favor of a Federal trade commission. But I want to congratulate the Democratic Party on adopting this measure, on assuming the responsibility of its enactment into law; and whether we give this commission at this time extensive power and jurisdiction or not, this measure, in my judgment, will be a landmark in the history of national legislation, and as long as your party shall endure you will refer to the creation of this Federal trade commission as one of the masterpieces of legislation for which your party is entitled to credit. [Applause.]

WEALTH OF OUR CORPORATIONS.

Mr. Chairman, Government reports show that our corporations have $92,000,000,000 in stocks and bonds. If the great corporations own $92,000,000,000 worth of stocks and bonds, that must represent half the wealth of this country. The report of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue shows that these corporations upon that $92,000,000,000 have a net profit of nearly 4 per cent annually. So that a large amount of wealth is in the hands of corporations, and it is centered in large corporations, with the wonderful power of drawing something from every home in the land.

The instrumentalities used in commerce and trade have changed, but our laws have not changed. Interstate business is largely under control of the gigantic business concernsgreat corporations-mammoth industrial organizations, wielding incomprehensible power in the business and commercial world. This power under proper control may be used for the glory of our country, or unrestrained it may be used for the exploitation of the public and oppression of the people.

Few people realize to what extent the corporations control the business of this country. Few persons fully comprehend how these great corporations now touch every avenue of trade, commerce, and business, receive tribute from every avocation, calling, and profession of life, and draw support and sustenance from every home and fireside in the land.

The corporations of the country, after deducting all the cost of labor, material, losses, and every other expense, made an annual net profit of $3,213,247,000. Industrial and manufacturing corporations alone make an annual net profit of $1,309,819,000. They employ 7,000,000 persons, and their annual products are worth $21,000,000,000. The corporations of the country, by a conservative estimate, own one-half of the wealth of the Nation. Probably not one-tenth of the people own any interest in these corporations. The corporation is a great business invention which has aided steam and electricity as mighty forces in the production of wealth and in the extension of commerce.

The great problem now before us is to make these corporations better instruments for the equitable distribution of wealth. We have emphasized the problem of producing wealth. The time has come to give greater attention to its proper, fair, and equitable distribution among the great masses of our producers and consumers.

Mr. J. M. C. SMITH. The gentleman is making a very instructive argument, and I would like to inquire of him whether

he can tell us how many corporations there are in the United States with a capital stock of $5,000,000 and over?.

Mr. MORGAN of Oklahoma. I will say to the gentleman that there are something like 268,000 corporations, I believe, in the United States, according to the report made by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. My idea was, as I figured it out, that, measured by their products of $5,000,000, there would be something like 300 corporations placed under my bill. I think the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. COVINGTON] estimated that there would be something like 1,300 corporations brought under the supervision of the commission by this bill and required to make reports.

WEALTH AND POWER OF CORPORATIONS.

In closing let me say that many of our industrial corporations are, in fact, though not in the eye of the law, public agencies, institutions that are impressed with a public use, and are in truth and in reality quasi-public corporations. We must in some way make a distinction between the gigantic corporations possessing large monopolistic power, and controlling the manufacture, sale, and distribution of the necessities of life, and the great majority of the smaller corporations which possess little, if any, monopolistic power, and which are in no way in a position to impose any great burdens upon the people through excessive prices. Out of nearly 300,000 industrial corporations in the United States perhaps 300 to 500 would cover all the industrial corporations which really possess such monopolistic power as to be able to injure any great part of the public through the possession of monopolistic powers. Let us separate the sheep from the goats. Let free competition, untrammeled by governmental control, reign among our lamblike industrial corporations, but let us bring all other corporations under the yoke of governmental control.

The great corporations largely control the productive forces of our country. The wealth produced naturally flows into the corporations. As I have already pointed out, measured by the stocks and bonds they have issued, our corporations own $92,000,000,000 of our national wealth. This is more than double the $41,000,000,000 at which all our farms and farm property is valued. Seventy-two billion dollars of wealth is owned by two classes of our corporations-that is, transportation and communication corporations and manufacturing corporations.

The census of 1910 shows that one-third of our manufacturing establishments employ 90 per cent of the 7,000,000 wage earners in these establishments and produce 95 per cent of all our manufactured products. In round numbers, 10 per cent of our manufacturing establishments employ three-fourths of the labor in such establishments and produce four-fifths of the product.

One per cent of our manufacturing establishments employ one-third of the labor, and produce nearly one-half of our manufactured products.

I do not believe in Government control of private business. I do not believe that would ever be necessary. All progress would cease if we should destroy the incentive for individual initiation, for individual effort and energy. But corporations are artificial persons. When they attain a certain size, and