call them that. It is offensive to call them lobbyists, as in other cases, but their agents are here representing the American Federation of Labor. They approach Members of Congress and solicit their support in behalf of any undertaking they wish to put through. Would you expect those agents to do that for your organization here?

Mr. DRAEGER. Why, yes, sir; if it is legal.

The CHAIRMAN. Would you expect them to threaten political reprisals upon Members of Congress, in the event they refused to listen to their suggestions?

Mr. DRAEGER. We would not want them to make any threats.
The CHAIRMAN. You would not want them to go that far?
Mr. DRAEGER. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Are you aware that this American Federation of Labor, or the agents of the American Federation of Labor, do constantly make threats against Members of Congress, both on primary and elections in November, when they refuse to vote as they wish them to? Did you know that?

Mr. DRAEGER. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. You were not informed of that?

Mr. DRAEGER. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Would you favor, if you knew that, their employing such methods in your behalf, or your organization?

Mr. DRAEGER. Why, I don't think we would want them to go to that extreme.

The CHAIRMAN. I will say this for your information, that the American Federation of Labor, with which you have affiliated and which you hold a charter from, constantly employs those tactics. I have personal knowledge of this. I have been boycotted myself four times by the American Federation of Labor because I did not take orders. You would not want them to do that, providing I did not take your view of it, would you?

Mr. DRAEGER. I don't think we would want them to do that in

our case.

The CHAIRMAN. So that there has probably arisen some hostility, because all Members of Congress in either body represent the entire number of people in their district or State, or the people of the United States, and in arriving at a decision they have to arrive at what they think is a just conclusion, not what the American Federation of Labor might tell them to do. What benefit would you get out of the affiliation of the American Federation of Labor? Just peaceful, moral suasion?

Mr. DRAEGER. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Apart from any political threats?

Mr. DRAEGER. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. You do not think that ought to be employed?
Mr. DRAEGER. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, that would reduce it to a very harmless organization, if they would follow your suggestion. Are you acquainted with any of the officers of the American Federation of Labor?

Mr. DRAEGER. No, sir; I am not. I know Mr. Gompers when I see him, but I have never spoken a word to him in my life.

The CHAIRMAN. Are you familiar with their industrial practices in different parts of the United States?

Mr. DRAEGER. No, sir; I am not.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you usually go into organizations, when you are not familiar either with the officers or their practices, as you have done in this case? Have you done that in other cases?

Mr. DRAEGER. I never have before.

The CHAIRMAN. You have gone into this unseen, without knowledge, simply for this moral suasion that might come from large numbers, supposing there are between three and five million people affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, including the railroad men? That is the only view you have?

Mr. DRAEGER. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. You have no personal knowledge of their officers, nor of their practices, and I believe you said the other day you have not read their charter and are not familiar with their by-laws and constitution?

Mr. DRAEGER. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. All right. That is all. Is there anything further? Now, Mr. Brownlow, if there are no objections, you may proceed.

STATEMENT OF HON. LOUIS BROWNLOW, PRESIDENT, BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

Commissioner BROWNLOW. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, in discussing this Senate joint resolution 105, the resolution introduced by Senator Myers, which forbids the payment of any money or compensation to members of any police organization affiliated with any other or outside labor organization, I think perhaps it would be well to review briefly the history of the action of the Commissioners of the District of Columbia, with respect to the policemen affiliating with the American Federation of Labor.

I am informed that this charter was granted on the 14th of July. I do not remember exactly when I first heard of it. It must have been a little while after that. At the time I first heard that the policemen were forming a union I was not informed that the American Federation of Labor, at its meeting at Atlantic City in June, had decided to issue charters to policemen's unions. I was familiar with the fact that for many years the American Federation of Labor had declined to issue charters to or permit affiliations of organizations of policemen. I had not at that time, and have not now, and so far as I have any reason to know I shall never have, as Commissioner of the District of Columbia, and as Commissioner in direct charge of the Police Department, any objection to any organization of policemen for their mutual benefit, or for the advantage of collective representation. I think that is all right, and believe that the constitution of that body should be a matter of a free election on the part of the men, the members of the Police Department.

When it did come to my attention that this association was affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, I began to consider the matter very carefully in many of its aspects. I had some conversations very early, about the time I first heard of the affiliation, with Senator Calder. Í had conversations with other men in Congress and had conversations with representatives of the city governments of

other cities, notably Boston, Buffalo, New York, and Detroit, and through these conversations and through the newspaper reports that appeared in these cities I realized that it was a national question, and that whatever action was taken in the National Capital might have a national influence.

I also desired to know what was the exact constitution of this policemen's union, especially with reference to whether or not it contained a no-strike provision. After some delay a committee of the union called on me, and there was a discussion. This committee called on me in my office, and none of the other commissioners was present. Maj. Pullman, the Superintendent of Police, was present. In that conference the whole question was taken up, and I told them I could not give them a definite statement as to my attitude until after I had seen their constitution and by-laws. There was some conversation there as to the failure of the old policemen's association, and some of the men present, as I remember, said they attributed that in part to the fact that officers of the police department were admitted to that association. Maj. Pullman entered into the conversation, and wanted to know why they were not willing to take in the sergeants and the lieutenants and captains, as does the firemen's union, and as had the old association.

There was a general talk, in which I expressed a lively sympathy in the matter of compensation, because I do not believe that the policemen are paid a sufficient amount at the present time.

The CHAIRMAN. Was that after you had appeared before the Senate Committee of the District in the matter of compensation?

Commissioner BROWNLOW. Yes, sir, I had been before the Senate Committee and before the House Committee in support of the measure which was sent up by the commissioners, providing for an increase in compensation.

The CHAIRMAN. On that occasion Maj. Pullman was also present? Commissioner BROWNLOW. On that occasion Maj. Pullman was also present, both here and in the House.

Senator CALDER. At the time you were before the committee you had no knowledge of the organization of the union?

Commissioner BROWNLOW. At the time I was here I knew a union was being organized, but at that time I did not know of the change of policy on the part of the American Federation of Labor. I did not know it was an affiliated union. I found out afterwards that other people knew at that time, but I did not know about that at that time. One reason was I was familiar with the fact that the American Federation of Labor always had refused to permit such organizations to affiliate. So when I heard a policemen's union was being formed I did not know about that. It possibly was printed in the newspapers, but I did not see it until afterwards. I think the first time. I knew of the change in policy of the American Federation of Labor was when I was told it by Mayor Couzens of Detroit.

Now, it has been rather my practice in the four and a half years or a little better that I have occupied this position, whenever a problem presented itself, a decision on which might have an effect on a national situation, to consult the President of the United States, the Commissioners of the District of Columbia being appointed by the President, and the President having, of course, national responsibility. I had two conversations with the President, one about half

an hour and the other about forty-five minutes, on this subject. One was before I saw the committee of the men the first time. I told him that I was not fully informed, did not know what was the situation, did not know what was their attitude on the strike question; but I got the impression from these gentlemen who called on me the first time that there was a no-strike provision in their constitution similar to that in the firemen's constitution and the Federal employees' constitution.

The CHAIRMAN. The constitution of the American Federation of Labor?

I

Commissioner BROWNLOW. No, Senator, the local organization. got that impression. I am confident from what these men said to me later that there was a misunderstanding. I don't think there was any intent to deceive me at all. But when they did come back and brought a copy of the constitution and the framed charter which is now in this room, I read the constitution over and I said," Why, there is no no-strike provision in it." One of them said, "No." I said, "I understood you to say it was in it." He said, "No, it is not in here, but the rules or regulatioms or by-laws, whatever it is, in the American of Labor which permits affiliations of policemen's unions, does contain a no-strike provision." I had told the President the constitution did contain a no-strike provision. I afterwards discovered I was in error. The particular portion of the rules and regulations or whatever it may be called of the American Federation of Labor which contains a no-strike provision I never have seen. I have been told by the members of the committee who are now present that such exists.

But in studying the question over in all its aspects, and indeed, in what I said to the President, I did not consider the absence or the presence of a no-strike provision as being the principal question. What I feared and what I still fear is, that the affiliation of the members of the police force as a body with any other organization includes the question of a dual allegiance, and tends, so far as it tends to do anything, to destroy the confidence of the people in the neutrality of the officers of the law. Now, I believe above all that a policeman's duty is to his oath of office as a peace officer, and that he ought not to have any allegiance of any character whatever in his capacity as a policeman, except to the constituted authorities; and that at all times it is his duty to enforce the law without fear and without favor. Now, there are not enough policemen, and there have never been enough policemen, just as there are not enough soldiers, and never have been enough soldiers, to control the entire populace. It is the presence of the policemen in the city as officers of the law, and the confidence of the people, that is the thing that keeps the peace, because there are so few of them in proportion to the whole number, that if the whole population or a majority of the population should rise, in any general riot and mob, it is always necessary to call in additional help. If we are to have peace and order maintained, we must have the confidence of the people in the integrity of the police force, that the policemen will surely and without favor enforce the law.

That has occurred to me as one of the gravest dangers if we are to maintain order and safety, when a policemen's organization affiliates with the American Federation of Labor, or any other labor organization.

And, by the way, I may explain parenthetically that when the commissioners, in the statement of policy which was subsequently issued, used the words or the phrase "any labor organization" did not have in mind the I. W. W. We were not thinking of even the possibility of the men who composed our force, at least affiliating themselves with any revolutionary body. We did not have in mind anything of that kind. We did have in mind, however, specifically the City Employees Association, which is an organization of employees of the District of Columbia and is not affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, and is regarded, I believe, by the American Federation of Labor and by the Central Labor Union as a sort of an outlaw organization. We did not want our policemen affiliated with that as a body or with any other organization. I bring that up to show there was certainly no intent upon the part of the commissioners to cast any stigma whatever upon organized labor, as represented by the American Federation of Labor.

But this question of confidence might arise in many ways. At the very outset of industrial trouble, at the very beginning of notice in the newspapers and by word of mouth of danger of a strike on the part of a large number of men belonging to a union affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, a certain other great proportion of the people might say, "Well, there is going to be a strike. The policemen belong to the American Federation of Labor. This organization that is going to strike belongs to the American Federation of Labor. We can not depend upon the neutrality of the police. Therefore we will take steps to defend our own property, ourselves, and will deal with the situation ourselves."

Now, such steps taken in that extra legal way, however good may be the motive of the persons taking them, leads directly to mob rule, and from that to that very loss of confidence on the part of the public generally that I have just referred to.

I spoke to the President that in my view there could be no objection to the men organizing, but I did not think they ought to be permitted to affiliate with another body. The President very heartily agreed with me, and the steps that were taken by the commissioners-I do not mean the detailed steps, but the policy outlined by the commissioners met with his approval.

The CHAIRMAN. Did you outline to the President the reasons that influenced the commissioners in adopting this course.

Commissioner BROWNLOW. I did, and in talking with him emphasized more than anything else the very question I had been talking about, about the necessity of maintaining the neutrality of the police force, not looking forward to the time when the police force might go on strike, not looking forward to the time when some other labor union struck and the police would actively cooperate with them, taking at their words the statements of these men who had gone into this union that they would abide by their oath; but I was looking at the broad question of the confidence of the people and the necessity of preserving that.

The CHAIRMAN. And the moral effect on the general public. Commissioner BROWNLOW. And the moral effect on the general public. That was the feature which I stressed more in speaking to the President.