on the part of the majority in the Senate to pass this bill during this session of Congress. On Monday, June 4, after consultation, it was decided to ask Senator Allen, of Nebraska, to offer a motion to discharge the Committee on Education and Labor from further consideration of the 8-hour Bill, and to put it on its passage, which he promised to do.

During an interview with Senator Pettigrew we were informed by him that during that day the Senate had taken the following action with reference to bills H. R. 5450, H. R. 6882 and H. R. 10539:

Mr. PETTIGREW. Here is a bill, House bill 5450, that ought to engage the attention of the Senate. It is a bill "to limit the effect of the regulation of interstate commerce between the several States in goods, wares and merchandise, wholly or in part manufactured by convict labor, or in any prison or reformatory." I have received many letters from all over the country with regard to the evil proposed to be corrected by this legislation. This bill ought to be passed before we adjourn, and I am going to insist upon placing it in antagonism to any other unanimous consent that may be asked until we act upon it.

There is another bill, House bill 6882, "limiting the hours of daily services of laborers and mechanics employed upon work done for the United States, or any Territory, or the District of Columbia, thereby securing better products, and for other purposes." This is a bill with regard to labor and it ought also to be considered. There is still another bill, Mr. President, and that is the proposed anti-trust law which was passed by the House of Representatives. The Senate ought to take up that bill and dispose of it at this session of Congress; and there is no special reason why we should adjourn until we do it. As far as I am concerned, I am going to antagonize and oppose every request for unanimous consent that less important subjects may be considered which leaves out these important measures. Page 7015, Cong. Record.

On page 7037, Congressional Record, we find the following record of an endeavor on the part of Senator Allen, of Nebraska, to have the Committee on Education and Labor discharged from further consideration of H. R. 6882 and to place it on the calendar. This colloquy between Senators Allen, of Nebraska, Platt, of Connecticut, and Aldrich, of Rhode Island, is very interesting.

Mr. ALLEN. I desire to enter a motion to discharge the committee having in charge the consideration of House bill 6882, and to place it on the calendar.

Mr. HALE. What bill is that?

Mr. ALLEN. It is what is known as the 8-hour bill. Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. That is not in accordance with the unanimous consent agreement.

Mr. ALLEN. I desire to enter that motion at this time. Mr. ALDRICH. You can not do that.

Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. I object to that.

Mr. ALLEN. Does the Senator from Rhode Island object to it?

Mr. ALDRICH. It is in violation of the unanimous consent agreement.

Mr. ALLEN. Does the Senator from Rhode Island objeet to it?

Mr. ALDRICH. I do object. I object to anything which is contrary to the unanimous consent agreement. Mr. ALLEN. Let it be noted, then, that the Senator from Rhode Island objects.

Mr. ALDRICH. Of course it will be noted.

On page 7039 we find the following:

Mr. PETTIGREW. I ask unanimous consent to have the resolution laid on the table and printed without reading. Mr. ALDRICH. What is it about?

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection? Mr. ALDRICH. I should like to have the resolution read for information.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The resolution will be read.

The Secretary read as follows: "Resolved that the Committee on Education and Labor ”

Mr. ALDRICH. I object to it, anyhow. It is out of the unanimous consent agreement. I object to its reception. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is made.

This was the resolution to discharge the committee from further consideration of H. R. 6882 and H. R. 5450, and to place these bills on the calendar.

As will be seen, it was objected to by Senator Aldrich, of Rhode Island. On the next day, the 5th, it was regularly introduced, and would therefore become the regular order under morning business on the 6th.

After some consultation between your committee and the President and Secretary of the Federation, it was decided that the following letter be sent to all the Senators:

WASHINGTON, D. C., JUNE 5, 1900. Hon. NELSON W. ALDRICH,

United States Senator, Washington, .D. C. DEAR SIR: As you are no doubt aware, there are now pending in Congress two bills, one commonly known as the Eight-Hour Bill (H. R. 6882), and the other the Prison Labor Bill (H. R. 5450). Both of these bills passed the House of Representatives by practically a unanimous vote, and both have been referred to the Senate Committee on Education and Labor.

On May 1, 1900, the Eight-Hour Bill was introduced in the Senate by Hon. Boise Penrose, identically as it subsequently passed the House. Despite the efforts of the friends of the bill, a meeting of the Committee on Education and Labor has not been held for its consideration and report thereon, this, too, in view of the fact that we have every reason to believe that a majority of the Committee favor its passage.

It may not be amiss to call attention to the fact that the Eight-Hour Law of 1892 proved a sad disappointment to those who favored it; for it was found to be ineffective in so far as its scope and operations are concerned, and from that time until the present there have been uninterrupted efforts on the part of the working people, organized and unorganized, to secure its amendment in each subsequent Congress. In the 55th Congress practically the pending bill was introduced, passed the House by unanimous vote, and failed of enactment in the closing hours of the Congress by reason of the then pressing appropriation bills to carry on the war with Spain. Though greatly disappointed at the failure of the passage of the Eight-Hour Bill, we realized the grave situation which confronted our country, and comforted ourselves in the firm conviction that at the earliest opportunity in this Congress the bill would be enacted into law. The bill was introduced in the House and its opponents requested us not to have it introduced in the Senate, and thus abstain from taking an unfair advantage of them by diffusing their efforts. To this we consented. The bill was introduced in the House, referred to the Committee on Labor, and nine hearings were had thereon, covering a period of nearly ten weeks. Eight of these hearings were devoted exclusively to the hearings and arguments of the opposition, and they finally exhausted all their resources to oppose its passage. The Committee of Labor unanimously reported the bill favorably to the House; and, as stated above, it passed by a practically unanimous vote. It should be stated too that these hearings and arguments have been printed as are also the hearings and arguments upon the same bill for the Senate Committee on Education and Labor in the last Congress. Thus opponents have no good ground to claim that further hearings should be had on the bill, and the evidence and arguments have for nearly two months been at the disposal of the Senators and Members of the House.

Nor is it out of place to correct the impression which the opponents have endeavored to create in the minds of some Senators that the bill contains a penalty of im prisonment for violation of its provisions. Even a casual examination of the bill will demonstrate its eminent practicability, and its freedom from any provision against the interests of the people, or the policy and interests of the Government. That the principle involved in this bill for a shorter workday is economically and socially right and just, is not even questioned by its opponents; that the demand for the 8-hour day is universal among the toilers of the United States can not be questioned. In the language of one of the most prominent citizens of our country, "the 8-hour day is as great a shibboleth and principle with the working people of the United States as is the Gospel to the devout Christian and the Declaration of Independence to the patriotic American."

What is true of the 8-hour bill is equally true of the bill to regulate prison labor.

It is said that there is now not sufficient time to pass this bill at the present session of Congress. It is not out

of place to say that there is a grave suspicion in the minds of many working people that unless the bill does pass before this session of Congress adjourns, that their interests have been trifled with and their credulity imposed upon. There can be no question but if there is a real disposition to pass this bill it can be enacted, ample bearings and arguments having been had thereon.

The wage-workers of America who are expecting relief will be unable to understand why it is not granted when the Congress has power to do so. There can be no question but that the failure to grant this relief at this Session of Congress will contribute largely to destroy the belief held by earnest, thinking, conservative workers that when their grievances are intelligently presented to Congress they will be remedied by legislative action.

If this subject-matter and the bill itself had not received ample discussion, I should hesitate to make the suggestion I now do; that is, to favor the proposition now pending in the Senate, and which will be before that body for consideration tomorrow, Wednesday, June 6, 1900, to discharge the Senate Committee on Education and Labor from further consideration of the 8-hour bill and the prison labor bill, and put them on their passage. For the above reasons, and in the name of the workers of our country, both organized and unorganized, I earnestly beseech you to work and vote to secure the passage of these bills.

Very respectfully yours. SAML. GOMPERS, President, A. F. of L. This letter was delivered to the Senators during the night session between the 5th and 6th. In the Congressional Record, pages 7332 and 7333, we find the following:

Mr. PETTIGREW. I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Senate resolution No. 397, which is on the table.

Mr. HAWLEY. I move to lay the motion on the table. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gallinger in the chair). The Senator from South Dakota moves that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Senate Resolution No. 3, and the Senator from Connecticut moves to lay the motion on the table.

Mr. PETTIGREW. On that I ask for the yeas and nays. Mr. CHANDLER. Is a motion to proceed to the consideration of a measure subject to be laid on the table?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. No; the Chair will rule that it is not. The question is on agreeing to the motion of the Senator from South Dakota that the Senate proceed to the consideration of a resolution which will be read. Mr, ALLISON. Is the resolution pending before the Senate?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair so understands. Mr. LODGE. No: it has never been reported.

Mr, ALLISON. The motion of the Senator from South Dakota is to discharge the committee from the further consideration of the bill, and therefore the bill is not before the Senate.

Mr. PETTIGREW. I simply ask to have the resolution considered.

Mr. ALLISON. The resolution to discharge the committee from the further consideration of the bill?

Mr. PETTIGREW. Yes; it comes over from yesterday. Mr. CULLOM. Read the resolution.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Secretary will read the resolution.

The SECRETARY. Senate Resolution No. 397—— Mr. HAWLEY. I want this thing distinctly understood. Does the Chair rule that my motion is not in order?

Mr. CULLOM. What was the motion?

Mr. HAWLEY. To lay on the table.

Mr. LODGE. To lay on the table the motion to proceed to the consideration of the resolution.

Mr. CHANDLER. It is not in order pending the motion to proceed to the consideration of the resolution.

Mr. HAWLEY. I move to lay the motion of the Senator from South Dakota on the table.

Mr. CHANDLER. If the resolution is taken up, it will be in order to move to lay it on the table.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair is constrained to rule against the Senator from Connecticut. A motion to lay on the table is not in order under the rules of the Sonate. The motion being non-debatable, it can not be laid on the table.

Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. When the resolution is once before the Senate, then a motion to lay it on the table will be in order.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Unquestionably. Mr. PETTIGREW. Is not the resolution in order as coming over from yesterday, and therefore before the Senate, and any proper motion is in order?

Mr. PETTIGREW. Let it be read. Mr. HAWLEY. I move to lay the resolution on the table.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Let it be read first. The Secretary read the resolution submitted by Mr. PETTIGREW on the 5th instant, as follows:

Resolved, That the Committee on Education and Labor be discharged from further consideration of H. R. 6882, an act limiting the hours of daily services of laborers and mechanics employed upon work done for the United States or any Territory or the District of Columbia, thereby securing better products, and for other purposes, and that said committee be also discharged from the further consideration of H. R. 5450, an act to limit the effect of the regulation of interstate commerce between the several States in goods, wares, and merchandise wholly or in part manufactured by convict labor or in any prison or reformatory, and that both of said bills be placed upon the Calendar.

Mr. HAWLEY. I move to lay the resolution on the table.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion of the Senator from Connecticut to lay the resolution on the table.

Mr. PETTIGREW and Mr. TELLER called for the yeas and nays, and they were ordered.

The Secretary proceeded to call the roll.

Mr. BUTLER (when his name was called). I have a general pair with the Senator from Maryland [Mr. Wellington], but I transfer it to the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Allen] and will vote. I vote "nay."

Mr. Davis (when his name was called). I have a general pair with the Senator from Texas [Mr. Chilton]. Mr. JONES of Arkansas (when his name was called). I am paired with the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Aldrich]. I should vote "nay" if he were present.

Mr. LODGE (when his name was called). I have a general pair with the junior Senator from Georgia [Mr. Clay]. Not seeing him in the Chamber, I withhold my vote. If he were present, I should vote "yea."

Mr. MORGAN (when his name was called). I am paired with the junior Senator from Iowa [Mr. Gear]. Mr. PETTUS (when his name was called). I have a general pair with the senior Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Hoar].

Mr. BATE (when Mr. Turley's name was called). My colleague is absent. He is paired, however, with the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Spooner]. If my colleague were here, he would vote "nay."

The roll call was concluded.

Mr. LODGE. I announced my pair with the Senator from Georgia [Mr. Clay]. I transfer that pair to the Senator from North Dakota [Mr. McCumber], and will vote. I vote "yea."

Mr. BURROws. I am paired with the senior Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Caffery]. I withhold my vote.

Mr. BACON. My colleague [Mr. Clay] has been unavoidably called to attend to some urgent business in one of the Departments. He left under an arrangement to pair with the junior Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Lodge]. If my colleague were present, he would vote “ này.

The result was announced - yeas 33, nays 28; as follows:

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The present occupant of the chair is not aware of any arrangement or suggestion

Daniel, D.

Butler, P.

Harris, D.

McEnery, D.

Carter, R.

Heitfeld, P.

Mallory, D.

NATIONAL SECRETARIES (MONTHLY REPORTS). Tailors.-General Secretary John B. Lennon reports an increase of 200 members and the formation of four new unions in Telluride, Col. ; Davenport, Ia; Cleveland and Marietta, O. A demand for better treatment has been made in Winnipeg, Man. One strike in Spokane, Wash., has been won, and strikes for increased wages are pending in San Antonio, Tex., and Elmira and Niagara, N. Y. The sum of $250 has been expended on account of four deaths, and $508 has been paid out for strike benefits during the past month.

Hatters.-General Secretary John Phillips, of the United Hatters of North America, reports that the strike declared in September, 1899, to enforce the 55-hour law for 1,200 persons in Orange, N. J., is still pending.

Shoemakers.-General Secretary John F. Tobin, of the Boot and Shoe workers' Union, reports an increase of 744 in membership and the formation of five new unions in San Francisco, Cal.; Denver, Col.; Cincinnati and Portsmouth, O., and Randolph, Mass. A demand for 20 per cent. increase in wages in Auburn, N. Y., has resulted in a lockout. A strike of 38 hands against

Granite Cutters. - General Secretary James Duncan, of the Granite Cutters' National Union, reports a slight increase in membership and the formation of new unions in Wilming ton, Del.; Oneco, Conn.; Portsmouth, Va., and New Orleans, La. A demand for less hours has been made in all of the New England States, New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, the Carolinas, Georgia, Ohio and Michigan. The demand made was for from nine to eight hours and is successful everywhere except in Detroit and New Orleans. Detroit, however, will soon fall into line. Demands for more wages have been made in all the above stated places. The average increase demanded was 20 per cent., and the average demand gained was 16 per cent. Strikes affecting 3,000 persons were won in Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia, Georgia, and South Carolina, having for their object an 8-hour workday. They commenced March 1 and the last concluded on June 12. Strikes affecting 300 persons, consequent on introduction of an 8-hour day have been pending since May 1, in Detroit, Mich., Franklin, North Sullivan and Greenlanding, Me. One strike for an 8-hour day, affecting 12 persons, has been lost in New Orleans, no stand for the same having been made. The sum of $625 has been expended on account of five deaths during the past month.

Painters.-General Secretary W. J. Connelly, of the Brotherhood Painters and Decorators, writes: "Thanks to the American Federation of Labor, we have granted 24 charters in May, and have more than doubled our membership since January 1, 1900."

Coremakers.-General Secretary Edwin J. Wood, of the Coremakers' International Union of America, reports an increase of 60 members. Strikes for a reduction of one hour and 25 cents per day increase in wages are pending in four cities, as follows: Detroit, two weeks, 70 persons; Chicago, seven weeks, 143 persons; St. Louis, nine weeks, 38 persons; Utica, eight months, 42 persons. One hundred dollars has been expended on account of one death.

Boilermakers.-General Secretary William J. Gilthorpe, of the Brotherhood of Boilermakers and Iron Shipbuilders, reports an increase of 513 members and the formation of three new unions in Oakland, Cal.; Oil City, Pa., and Topeka, Kans. Demands have been made in Kewanee, Ill., and St. Louis, Mo., for a reduction of hours from ten to nine per day, with ten hours' pay. Three shops have signed scale in St. Louis, and all others are pending. mands have been made in Susquehanna and Meadville, Pa., and Hornellsville, N. Y., for an increase of 2 cents per hour, which are now pending. Demands for payment for all time worked have been made in Buffalo and Sayre, N. Y. The demand in Buffalo, affecting 72 persons, has been won after four months' contest.

De

Carvers.-General Secretary Frank Detlef, of the International Wood Carvers' Association,

reports a successful demand for a reduction of five hours per week in Brooklyn, N. Y. A strike in Buffalo for reduction of hours has been in progress since January 1. The shops are closed to members, and those affected secured work elsewhere. A strike in Indianapolis has been compromised; the men returning to the piece work system, but under better conditions than formerly. The sum of $200 has been expended on account of two deaths during the past month.

Coopers.-General Secretary J. A. Cable, of the Coopers' International Union, reports an increased membership of about 150 and the formation of new unions in Des Moines, Ia., and Whiting, Ind. The demand for a 9-hour day in New York City, reported last month, has been gained, and 100 coopers have been benefited thereby. Demands for 5 per cent. and 10 per cent. more wages have been made in Dubuque, Ia., and Springfield, Mo., respectively, which was won in the former city and is still pending in the latter. A demand for increased wages has also been gained in St. Paul, Minn. Strikes to control operation of the machine are pending in Detroit, Mich., and Cedar Rapids, Ia.

Textile Workers.-General Secretary Prince Green, of the International Union of Textile Workers, has issued an appeal to the local textile unions for financial aid in support of the strike against the horrible conditions under which the weavers at Jamestown, N. Y., have had their wages forced down to $6 and $8 per week. He says: "We have two unions, No. 200 and No. 164, at Jamestown, N. Y., affiliated with the International Union of Textile Workers, now on strike, brought about by the refusal of the firm of Hall & Co., worsted mills, to grant the just demands of the spinners, drawers, and combers for a small increase in wages. Three hundred members of local union No. 200 went out.

The mill was closed for two weeks, when it attempted to resume operations with scab' spinners, drawers and combers; but Weavers' Union No. 164 decided not to weave 'scab' filling, and called their members out of the mill. A large number of the strikers are women and children, whose wages have been so small that they have been unable to lay aside anything for a rainy day.' All donations should be sent to A. A. Montgomery, Secretary Weavers' Union, No. 164, postoffice box 462, Jamestown, N. Y."

Engineers.-General Secretary S. L. Bennett, of the International Union of Steam Engineers, reports the formation of five new unions in Baltimore, Md.; Omaha, Neb.; Granite City and Alton, Ill., and Seattle, Wash. A reduction of the hours of labor from 12 to eight per day for engineers employed in all Kansas City breweries has been effected.

Railway Trackmen.-Grand Chief John T. Wilson, of the Brotherhood of Railway Trackmen, appeals for help in unionizing the track department employes on all roads. He makes a calculation showing what the result of united efforts on the part of a few trackmen on two roads during the past few weeks may amount to in one year: "The Boston & Maine and B. & O. railways operate about 4,000 miles of

road. They employ about 4,000 track laborers and 800 track foremen. The Boston & Maine has about 1,800 trackmen, who received an increase of five cents a day, or $15 a year each, which will amount to $27,000. They employ about 360 foremen, who received an increase of 20 cents a day, or $60 a year each, which amounts to $21,600. A total increase in the trackmen's wages on the Boston & Maine of $48,600. The B. & O. has in its employ about 2,200 trackmen, who received an increase of 10 cents a day, or $30 a year each, which amounts to $66,000 a year. They have about 440 foremen, who received an increase of $5 a month, or $60 a year each, which amounts to $26,400. A total increase in trackmen's wages on that system of $92,400, or an annual increase on the two roads of $141,000."

Longshoremen.-General Secretary Henry C. Barter, of the International Longshoremen's Association, reports an increase of 500 men and the formation of four new unions in Michigan, Florida, Massachusetts and Maryland during the past month. One strike for a 5 per cent. increase in wages of 150 members was won in Sheboygan, Wis., after a fight of three weeks' duration; and one strike has been pending for ten weeks in Buffalo, N. Y., against contract system.

Hotel Employes.-General Secretary Jere L. Sullivan, of Hotel and Restaurant Employes Association, reports an increase of 261 members during month. Twelve new unions were formed as follows: Lowell and Lynn, Mass., by R. W. Kennedy; Pittsburg, Penna., by Cal Wyatt; Dayton, O., by M. G. Griffin; Covington, Ky., by H. A. Hebener; St. Louis, Mo., by T. J. Bauer; Elmira, N. Y., by J. Clancy, Jr.; Birmingham, Ala., by J. E. Wollenhaupt; Austin, Tex., by C. S. Kellum, and three unions in Cleveland, O., and St. Louis, Mo., by neighboring local unions. One union has lapsed in Springfield, Ill. A demand for less hours has been won in St. Joseph, Mo., and a demand for increase averaging $1 per week was won in 15 houses in Des Moines, Ia., with six houses still to hear from. Six hundred dollars has been expended by the several local unions on account of 12 deaths.

DISTRICT NO. 1.-EASTERN.

Lewiston.-Organizer Jas. A. DeBell reports the formation of a laborers' union in that city which he expects will soon be 100 strong. The blacksmiths' helpers, boilermakers, riggers, cigarmakers and molders have appointed delegates to form a central labor union for Lewiston and a charter has been applied for.

Rockport.-Secretary Jas. C. Armstrong reports that the average wage paid in the lime business in that locality is $1.50 per day of 12 hours, or $10.50 for a week of 84 hours. He (Continued on page 217.)

In recent issues of the AMERICAN FEDERATIONIST we have discussed, among other things, the right of picketing by workmen engaged in trade disputes with employers. We have also criticised injunctions issued by several of our State and Federal courts by which workmen were enjoined from exercising the right of picketing, so called.—that is, the right to walk the streets and public highways for the purpose of advising workmen within lawful and proper limits of the fact that a trade dispute was in progress, and persuading applicants from seeking employment in such places. We have insisted that the workers have a right to do this, and to do other things in defense or in furtherance of their rights and interests which others not

do.

In the last issue of the AMERICAN FEDERATIONIST we took exception to the injunction issued by Judge Freedman, in which the officers and members of the Cigarmakers' International Union (of which we are both an officer and member) from picketing, not only the factories in which the workers struck against injustice, but also from those establishments in which the largest number were locked out; we were all enjoined from paying members the benefits for which many contributed to the union for twenty years, and also prohibiting all from paying to members and others any money for performing the extra duty of picketing.

On the day after the issuance of Judge Freedman's now notorious injunction. when we had the opportunity of learning of its outrageous provisions, we advised the officers of the organization to ignore the terms of the writ, and we proceeded ourselves to ignore it, or, as some have put it, violated or defied it. Be this as it may, we were thoroughly convinced that the principle involved was one of justice and right, and we proposed not to surrender a right already contested for and achieved because of the ignorance, or worse, of Judge Freedman.

Because we were not cowardly enough to surrender those rights and prove false to our convictions, several newspapers and newspaper penny-a-liners let loose their vials of wrath and vituperation on our devoted head. It was in answer to those attacks in a general way that we wrote an article in the June issue, under the caption "Judge Freedman's Notorious Injunction." Since then, however, events have transpired fully justifying the position we took in this matter, and to these we shall refer later herein. At this moment we prefer to refer to an article by that usually virile writer, Ambrose Bierce, in the New York Journal of June 3, 1900. In order that no mistake may be made, we quote in full that part of his article referring to the question under discussion. He says:

"I have not the happiness to understand all this clamor against government by injunc tion.' The argument is that if the law forbids something to be done, and sets a penalty for doing it, that is enough. By forbidding it himself, a judge may make the doing it a crime with a different name and differently punishable. But consider: he can not forbid what was not already forbidden; can not make a crime of what was not already a crime. How,