(The letters referred to by the witness are as follows:) Mr. EDGAR PORTER, UNITED STATES FOOD ADMINISTRATION, 3142 O Street NW., Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. PORTER: As the demobilization of the Food Administration causes the gradual breaking up of this office and the consequent release of most of those who have been connected with this organization since the first, I want to express my appreciation of your faithful service as one of the early members of the Messenger and Office Service Section. The quality of your work since your appointment on September 8, 1917, has placed you among those employees whom we are most reli ctant to release, and it is, therefore, with regret that I see your connection with this office severed through a rapid and enforced demobilization at this time. Throughout your association with this office as clerk in charge during alternate weeks on the late shift you have always cheerf lly and energetically applied you rself to the work in hand, regardless of hours and always mindful of the spirit of unselfish service which I have tried to maintain in this office as a part of an emergency war organization. When leaving the employ of the Food Administration I sincerely hope that you may enter upon work which will be as pleasant and successful to all concerned as your association with this office has been, and I trust that you will call upon me if, at any time, I may be of assistance in vouching for your service here. Since I shall consider it a privilege to indorse your application at any time, let me add here my unhesitating recommendation for any work which you may consider yourself qualified to undertake. Very sincerely, yours, FREDERICK P. CHANY, Chief Messenger and Office Service Section. UNITED STATES FOOD ADMINISTRATION, Mr. EDGAR PORTER, 3142 O Street NW., Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. PORTER: The main purpose of the Food Administration has been accomplished. The war has been won. The success of the administration reflects the loyal devotion of each member whose individual effort has contributed to the great result. In bringing yo' r work to a close at a time when the necessity for that work is no longer urgent, you doubtless experience a sense of satisfaction at achievement in a vital case. It is now our earnest desire at the time of your departure to express to you our appreciation of the value and quality of your service with the United States Food Administration. Without such services as yours the accomplishment of our organization could not have been attained. Faithfully, yours, THEO. F. WHETMARSH, Acting for Herbert Hoover, United States Food Administrator. The CHAIRMAN. Are there any others who wish to testify? Is it true, Mr. Draeger, that they will follow the same line of testimony as those that have been heard? Mr. DRAEGER. Yes, sir. I would like to say that on our next meeting of the union we will take this matter up and give it careful consideration. We will discuss it pro and con from every angle, and in the event the majority of the men vote to withdraw their affiliation, I want to ask you gentlemen if you will allow our committee of policemen to present our case before you when the proper time for the hearing comes? Senator JONES. I would say you could do that whether you withdraw or not. The CHAIRMAN. Yes; we will give you proper consideration. I would not put it on that condition. Senator JONES. There should not be any condition. The CHAIRMAN. I would not wish to take the position of coercing you to withdraw at all. I can state to you, speaking for myself, that I would much rather deal with you men, either collectively through your local union, or as individuals, than with any outside organization. If you see fit to appear before this committee, or any one of your officers, you can always get a hearing before this committee, provided your superior officers will permit you to come. I think you ought to consult them, because that is necessary on the police force. But I want to say to you that as far as I am concerned you will get just as favorable action and just as prompt action if you are not affiliated with the American Federation of Labor as if you are, and as far as I am concerned you will get it sooner. I am speaking for myself. I have had considerable experience with the American Federation of Labor, and I have no doubt I know more of their tactics than any of the members of the police force in Washington. There are some excellent men among them, and some men whom I can not say so much for. I would rather deal with you than to deal through the American Federation of Labor. You will get prompt and fair treatment, and I can go further and say that I am in sympathy with increasing your compensation. I would not say to just what figure, because that is a matter that the committee will require further hearing on, but you will get it very promptly, as far as I am concerned. Mr. DRAEGER. If this hearing is to continue until Monday, Tuesday, Mr. Gompers has sent word that he would like to be heard on that day. The CHAIRMAN. Before this committee? Mr. DRAEGER. Yes, sir; he would like to be heard then, if the committee continues that long. The CHAIRMAN. I have heard him a good many times. I would be glad to hear from him again. STATEMENT OF MR. JEREMIAH C. BRODERICK. Mr. BRODERICK. Mr. Chairman, sitting here for the last five or six days listening to the able counsel, we feel, I think, those that are present, that we better understand the status of policemen than those fellows on the outside, after listening to you, we being peace officers. I think if it is thoroughly explained to the men connected with the union in regard to their status as policemen, what their real standing in the community is, we may have a different tale to tell when we come back. I do not think the most of the men would feel so strictly opposed to any law that may show us we have no right to be affiliated with the American Federation of Labor. It is possible we can withdraw from that and still retain our union. I believe a majority of the men would do that. The CHAIRMAN. I can see no objection to your having a local union, as far as anything that has been brought out before the committee is concerned. Mr. BRODERICK. If it is a detriment to us to belong to it, I don't see why the men should hesitate. I believe after consideration when everything is made plain it may have a tendency to relieve the condition that now exists, and we may come together and withdraw affiliation. That is what I understand from yesterday and the day before. STATEMENT OF MR. THEODORE DELAVAGNE. The CHAIRMAN. What is your name? Mr. DELAVAGNE. Theodore Delavagne. I live in Washington and have been on the force 15 years. About September 1 we appointed about nine men on the force, and on the last day of August eight men resigned. That has been about the condition for the past year or so. The men simply will not stick. They can get the money somewhere else. A lot of people don't understand a policeman's duties, what is really expected of him. Very often he is called upon to act as judge and jury. He must use a lot of intelligence and discretion. In addition to the high cost of living, a policeman is supposed to live in a halfway respectable neighborhood. Even his family is under survey by the neighbors, his wife, his children, their conduct and habits. A policeman is supposed to be an example for the community. The ash man that removes the ashes and the garbage gets more wages than that officer. It does not seem just. We have got men here who have large families to support. I have six children, and it is rather hard to do it on my present salary. We are compelled to work on the outside in order to support them. When the men joined the union it was with no thought of going against the Government of the United States or the District government, or to do anything that would not be right. Of course since they joined the union a lot of criticism has arisen about the affiliation of the policemen with the American Federation of Labor, or any other labor organization, and the men have taken it seriously under advisement, because they realize just as well as anybody does that there is quite a line between the two, quite a distinction between a labor union and the police force. The assurances that have emanated from this committee and various other Congressmen and Senators that they would help to get a living wage in Washington, I think, has caused the men very largely to talk the matter over, and I am convinced that the next meeting when this question comes up the men might withdraw from the American Federation of Labor. The sole purpose of joining it was that we might be able, we thought, to better our condition. It is not in Washington alone. Since the American Federation of Labor authorized the issuance of charters to policemen's unions in June, from what I have heard, close on to 40 charters have been issued. And that is only due to the fact, as I have statistics here to show you, that the yearly increases of the policemen in the United States in various places on the average have been about 18 per cent in the past 10 years, and that applies to policemen in Boston, New York, Buffalo, Chicago, and other large cities. It is more so in Washington, because living expenses are much higher here, as is pretty generally known, than anywhere else in the United States, and it is impossible for a police officer to live on less than $1,800 a year here. The men understand the situation, I think, with regard to their duties as policemen, and they see the seriousness of it, and I am sure the police of Washington are not Bolsheviki, and I think on next Thursday, when the matter is taken up in the policemen's union the overwhelming vote will be to withdraw, and have a representative body of our union take the matter of salary increases into consideration and appear before you gentlemen. Not alone that, but also the working conditions. An officer working 365 days a year, with never a day off, should not be. We have now vacancies for about 50 men on the force, and the further we go the harder it is to fill it. We were assured by Commissioner Brownlow and Maj. Pullman that they would take that into considertion, and try to give us a day off in every seven. That is about all I wish to say. Mr. WISE. May I say one word in addition to that. Relative to the filling up of the membership of the force, I do know that the men have been quitting right along, as Mr. Delavagne has said, because they are not getting enough. salary paid them to make it interesting. But I know also that there have been a good many men that have passed the mental and physical tests and were put on the eligible list and just because their complexion did not suit our major and superintendent they were not appointed. We have some other facts that we have been anxious to furnish the subcommittees we understand were appointed, one under the chairmanship of Senator Calder, and one under Mr. Gould in the House, that I think would probably interest the Members of Congress and bring about a decidedely better condition in the District of Columbia. Senator JONES. What did you mean when you said men were not appointed because their complexion did not suit the superintendent? Mr. WISE. My meaning is this: I know one young man personally, and have known him for a good many years, and vouched for him on his application. I know he is the soul of honor, upright, genteel in every respect, and I believe he would make an excellent policeman. I know, and the records will show, that he passed the physical and mental examination. He was called to the major's office on several different occasions, and at last, after the major questioned him as to whether he drank anything or whether he smoked cigarettes, etc., his answers were that he did at times take a glass of beer—that was before our prohibitory law, just about two years ago, about the time the war broke out and at the time he was last called into the office there were 40 vacancies, as near as I can recall, but this young man who was a truck driver in the city of Washington, and having faced all weather, was of rather rosy complexion, and the major told him he though his complexion was a little too red to make a policeman. The CHAIRMAN. Do you think the testimony of any others that are here would be about the same? Mr. DRAEGER. I think that is about all the policeman's union cares to offer. The CHAIRMAN. There was some request made at one time by officers of the Central Labor Union for the privilege of appearing, I understand word has been sent to them during these hearings, and they have not appeared. None of them appeared this morning. For the present, we will conclude the hearing. I wish to thank you, Mr. Draeger, and your associates for your presence. Mr. DRAEGER. We also thank you for your kind attention. Mr. SEXTON (representing the American Federation of Labor). May I inquire whether you intend to hear Mr. Gompers on Wednesday, so we can notify him?" The CHAIRMAN. Yes. If he is in Washington he will be heard. (Thereupon, at 12.15 o'clock p. m., the committee adjourned to meet at 11 o'clock a. m., Wednesday, September 24, 1919.) METROPOLITAN POLICE OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 1919. UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, The committee met pursuant to adjournment at 11 o'clock a. m., in the committee room, Capitol, Senator Lawrence Y. Sherman, presiding. Present: Senators Sherman (chairman), Calder, New, Ball, King, and Dial. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order. Are you ready to proceed, Mr. Gompers ? Mr. GOMPERS. I suppose I am as ready now as I ever shall be. The CHAIRMAN. You have familiarized yourself with the Myer's resolution, have you? Mr. GOMPERS. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. You may proceed, Mr. Gompers. STATEMENT OF MR. SAMUEL GOMPERS, PRESIDENT OF THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR. Mr. GOMPERS. I have asked the opportunity of being heard on the Myer's resolution, S. J. Res. 105, and I desire, if I may, to present some observations in regard to that resolution. In my judgment, the resolution is not only unnecessary, but most unjust and unwise. The resolution proposes to forbid the payment to any member of the police force of the District of Columbia of any sum of money or salary or otherwise if such member of the police force is a member of any organization affiliated with any labor organization, either directly or indirectly. In the District of Columbia they have had organizations of some sort for a long period of years. They have never had what was known as a labor organization or a union of policemen, but there never was a time when the policemen of the District of Columbia could not do in any of the clubs or associations of which they were members unquestioned by anyone as to their right of belonging to such clubs and associations-exactly what they can now do as members of the policemen's union affiliated to the American Federation of Labor. As a matter of fact, the only party which could have a check and an influence upon any untoward act on the part of the policemen would be the American Federation of Labor. There is not in the American Federation of Labor or its officers, directly or indirectly, remotely or immediately, any power, any authority to order or direct the policemen of the District of Columbia or of any other city to strike, to stop work, either individually or collectively; and never 109 |