After this hearing on the Myers resolution had been called I telegraphed to the President and asked him if he had any objection to my stating to the committee that we had taken this action with his knowledge. He replied very briefly that he had no objection, and then on yesterday I received this telegram from the President:

Hon. LOUIS BROWNLOW,

Commissioner of the District of Washington.

Dunsmuir, Calif..

I hope that you understood my brief telegram of the other day. I am quite willing that you should tell the Senate committee that my position in my conversations with you was exactly the same as I have expressed recently in speeches here in the West, and of course I am desirous, as you are, of dealing with the police force in the most just and generous way, but that I think that any association of the police force of the Capital City or of any great city whose object is to bring pressure upon the public or the community such as will endanger the public peace or embarrass the maintenance of order should in no case be countenanced or permitted.

WOODROW WILSON.

Now, the procedure of the commissioners, after we had met with these gentlemen, the members of this committee, Mr. Draeger and his associates, and had read their constitution, was that we told them at that time we could not consent to any affiliation with any outside labor body. The conversation at that time was had with the three commissioners. They were all present. The discussion was general, and I told the men then that there was no objection to their continuing their organization; that they could withdraw from their affiliation with the American Federation of Labor and could continue their organization; and they said they would consider it.

On that afternoon the commissioners prepared and the next day issued to the public, through the press, and sent a copy to the chairmen of the District Committees of the Senate and House, a statement of policy. I presume you are all familiar with that. I shall read it, however, if you like.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well.

Commissioner BROWNLOW (reading):

The commissioners after careful consideration of the whole question of the organization of a policemen's union affiliated with any other labor organization have reached the conclusion that they must take the necessary steps to assure entire and complete independence of the police department.

They approve heartily of the principle of collective bargaining, and they welcome the organization of members of the police force for purposes of collective representation, mutual support, and organized effort to increase their salaries or improve their working conditions.

They must, however, withhold their consent from any project to connect such an organization of members of the police department with any other labor organization. The fact that the policemen's union is bound by a "no-strike" provision is an earnest of the intention of its members not to resort to a strike as a weapon of compelling its demands. But if it be affiliated with other organizations which do contemplate the use of the strike in an emergency, every member of the police force who is a member of the union would be liable to the charge, however falsely made, of favoritism in the performance of duty in the event of industrial trouble involving the organization with which it is affiliated.

Authority, especially here in the National Capital, at all times must be represented by a police force that has no connection with any organization but the constituted agencies of the Government.

This decision must not be interpreted to mean that the commissioners are opposed to labor organizations, nor must it be taken to mean that they are unwilling to meet representatives of any organization of policemen. It is only what it purports to bea statement of the decision of the commissioners that the organization of policemen, a body of men sworn to enforce the law impartially under all circumstances, must be an organization of policemen and nothing more; that it must not be connected with other labor organizations.

That was issued and published on the 22d of August. Some time thereafter I was informed there was a meeting of the policemen's union. I may say that the committee which said that they would take the matter under consideration has not since that time called upon the commissioners, nor have they communicated with me in any way.

The CHAIRMAN. They were given that document you just read? Was it read to their representatives at that time?

Commissioner BROWNLOW. Not at that time. It was not prepared. We told them that that was our policy, and after they left we prepared that statement. The next day it was given to the press, and then it was printed in the police bulletin, which is given to every member of the police force.

The CHAIRMAN. So that it came to the notice of all of the individual members, as well as the officers of the local police union? Commissioner BROWNLOW. It must have done so, unless some of then were on leave or vacation or out of the city. It went to every member of the police force, and I have no doubt they all got it. But we had communicated the substance of it in this prior conference, and they said they would consider the matter; but since that time they have not returned to see the commissioners and discuss the question.

After waiting for some time, and after a meeting of the union had been held, and no action was taken upon the request of the commissioners, so far as I was able to discover, a committee of the union did come to Inspector Gessford, acting superintendent of police, and asked permission to get off to attend a meeting or to seek an interview with the executive council of the American Federation of Labor. That request was denied. Of course, there was no objection to their going at times when they were not on duty, but the official sanction at the particular time was not given.

Then I heard several members of the union had said that they ought to withdraw, ought to break their affiliation; others were very strong for continuing, and there was a question. But it seemed that at that meeting no action was taken. Then I heard the question of withdrawal would have to be submitted at a meeting that was held two weeks hence, and then it would have to be held over another two weeks, under the constitution, for another meeting, and that would involve four weeks' delay. I did not believe that the commissioners could countenance any policy of theirs being stopped by any constitution of a policemen's union or any organization or association for a month, during which time the policemen would consider whether or not their organization would meet with the request of the commissioners, which request was that they voluntarily sever their connection with any other labor organization.

Then, believing that plenty of time had elapsed in which the men could give consideration to the matter, the commissioners on the 2d of September issued the following:

Pursuant to their statement of policy adopted on August 22, 1919, the Commissioners of the District of Columbia hereby make and adopt the following rules and regulations for the government of the Metropolitan police department of the District of Columbia: 1. No member of the Metropolitan police department shall join or become a member of any organization of policemen which is affiliated directly or indirectly with any other labor organization; nor shall any member of the Metropolitan police department retain membership in any organization of policemen which is affiliated directly or indirectly with any other labor organization after September 7, 1919.

2. Every member of the Metropolitan police department shall make a statement in writing on a form prepared for the purpose and shall file the same with the commanding officer of the precinct, division, or bureau to which he is assigned not later than 12 o'clock midnight, September 7, 1919, such statement to contain a categorical answer to the following inquiry: Are you a member of any organization of policemen which is affiliated directly or indirectly with any other labor organization?

3. Each and every such statement as filed with the several commanding officers shall at once be sent to the major and superintendent of the Metropolitan police department.

4. Any member of the Metropolitan police department who joins or becomes a member of any organization of policemen which is affiliated directly or indirectly with any other labor organization, or who retains membership in the same after September 7, 1919, or who fails, refuses, or neglects to make and file the written statement hereinbefore required, shall be deemed guilty of willful noncompliance with the rules and regulations adopted by the board of commissioners for the government of the Metropolitan police department, and upon conviction thereof, shall be removed from the said Metropolitan police department.

As the Senators undoubtedly know, on application of the union to the judge of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, a restraining order was granted on September 4, I believe, and served on me on September 5, and a hearing was to be held on that on September 11. On the 10th of September, the day before the hearing, I received a telegram from Dickinson, N. D., from Mr. Tumulty which reads:

President suggests the great advisability of postponing any issue regarding the police situation until after the forthcoming industrial conference at Washington, and hopes that the postponement can be effected.

J. P. TUMULTY.

I have no direct advices from the President, but I believe that that telegram-which was sent at the same time that the telegram was sent to Mr. Gompers, urging him to use his influence with the steel men not to precipitate the issue in that matter until after this industrial conference-I believe that the President had decided that this question, arising as it did in Boston and other cities, had become a national question, and that he wished to deal with it in a national way; and that he thought the precipitation of the issue might well be postponed until after this opportunity presented itself in the conference.

Senator PHELAN. Under what allegations made did the court issue the injunction?

Commissioner BROWNLOW. I haven't the order.

Senator PHELAN. How did the court take jurisdiction?

Commissioner BROWNLOW. I haven't the bill here. I have the restraining order. Mr. Lambert is the counsel for the union who filed the bill, and he perhaps could answer your question, Senator Phelan.

Senator PHELAN. Yes, I would like to know how the court took jurisdiction in a matter of this kind.

Mr. LAMBERT. Do you want that explained now, or would you rather have the bill itself in the record?

Senator PHELAN. I thought you might explain in a few words. Mr. LAMBERT. I can explain; but, of course, the bill itself will speak more completely. If you will notice the wording of the commissioners' order issued on the 2d of September, it was that these men would in effect be deprived of their positions if they continued after midnight on the 7th of September to be affiliated with the union, which in turn was already affiliated with the American Federation

of Labor. Therefore the question arose as to their being deprived of their property rights and their positions, and that being set forth in the bill, the emergency being shown from the fact that it was only four days given the men before they would be called on to answer these questions, and the other further legal question being involved whether under the organizing act of the police department the commissioners have authority to require an answer to questions such as they had propounded in their letter, the emergency was presented which might result, and probably would result, and we assumed that the commissioners were going to carry out the order in the verbiage in which they had made it, a result would have arisen which would have been irreparable in its injury to the individual policemen.

Senator PHELAN. What was the character of the tenure of the police?

Mr. LAMBERT. Under the organization act of 1904, no policeman can be dismissed from the police force without he be given an opportunity to meet the charges made against him, be given a trial by a police trial board which is provided for in that act, and which provides, I believe, that the corporation counsel or one of his assistants shall act as chairman.

Commissioner BROWNLOW. First, the order of the commissioners contemplated a trial, because it says "upon conviction."

Mr. LAMBERT. The order of the commissioners contemplated a trial but it also contemplated a suspension.

"

Commissioner BROWNLOW. It did not contemplate it in that order. Mr. LAMBERT. They said that they must answer these questions by midnight of the 7th day of September, which was Sunday night. It was common knowledge in the department that the answer "yes to the inquiries would bring about the announced intention of dismissal, and the supplementary proceeding of suspension. It was also a fact that under the reorganization act a serious question exists as to whether or not the commissioners could undertake to issue an order, for the violation of which the punishment must necessarily be removal from the force, in that particular way. Some years ago, when Mr. Brownlow's predecessor was in office, under a prior reorganization act, there was an instance where the trial board had found the question of the guilt of the accused and fixed the penalty, because that is up to the trial board to fix, under the law, and the commissioners had undertaken to fix that penalty employed by the trial board to dismissal, the trial board had made the penalty only a fine.

That has caused in the last reorganization act a section to be inserted that the findings of the trial board so far as the fixing of penalty is concerned, should be final as to the maximum. The commissioners could reduce, could order a new trial, but could not undertake to impose a greater penalty. The legal question is raised here as to whether they are not undertaking to fix a penalty for an offense which is beyond their jurisdiction.

Senator PHELAN. There were several legal points.

Mr. LAMBERT. There were several legal points.

Commissioner BROWNLOW. After this telegram suggesting delay of the issue until after the industrial conference was held, the very next morning the case came up in court, and the corporation counsel

146207-19- -3

of the District read the telegram to the court, and the court postponed the hearing on the injunction matter until November 7. On the night of the 11th, in a speech at Helena, Mont., the President referred to this subject, and in the telegram to me of yesterday he referred specifically to that statement, so i would like to read it in this record:

The men who want to cure the wrongs of government by destroying governments are going to be destroyed themselves; destroyed, I mean, by the chaos that they have created, because, remove the organization of society and even if you are strong enough to take anything that you want, you are not smart enough to keep it.

The next stronger fellow will take it away from you, the most audacious group amongst you will make slaves and tools of you. That is the truth.

And I hope you will not think it inappropriate if I stop here to express my shame as an American citizen at the race riots that have occurred in some places in this country where men have forgotton humanity and justice and ordered society and have run amuck. That constitutes a man not only the enemy of society, but his own enemy and the enemy of justice.

I want to say this too, that a strike of the policemen of a great city, leaving that city at the mercy of an army of thugs, is a crime against civilization.

In my judgement the obligation of a policeman is as sacred and direct as the obligation of a soldier, not a private employee, and the whole honor and safety of the community is in his hands. He has no right to prefer any private advantage to the public safety. I hope that that lesson will be burned in so that it will never again be forgotten, because the pride of America is that it can exercise self-control. That is what a selfgoverning nation is, not merely a nation that elects people to do its jobs for it, but a nation that can keep its head, concert its purposes, and find out how its purposes can be executed.

Now the restraining order, of course, was continued until this hearing on the 7th of November. This restraining order specifically restrained the commissioners from receiving answers to the question as to whether the members of the force would withdraw from their intended affiliation with any other labor organization, and section 2 of the resolution now under consideration makes it the duty of the board of commissioners to "notify and keep informed all necessary auditing and disbursing officials of the District of Columbia and of the United States, from time to time, of the names of all such members, officers, policemen and patrolmen of such police department or such police force as may be members of any such organization as is herein described and prescribed." That is merely an observation i submit for the information of the committee. The restraining order might go in the record. I presume it is not necessary to read it. The CHAIRMAN. No, just put it in the record.

(The restraining order referred to is here printed in full, as follows:)

Filed September 4, 1919, J. R. Young, clerk.

In the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, holding an Equity Court.

City Policemen's Union No. 16718; L. E. Draeger, president, and C. H. Warder, secretary, and C. C. Wise, plaintiffs, v. Louis Brownlow, W. Gwynn Gardiner, and Charles W. Kutz, Commissioners of the District of Columbia, defendants. In Equity, No. 37142.

Upon consideration of the bill of complaint under oath filed in the above-entitled cause, and it appearing to the court that the defendants, Louis Brownlow, W. Gwynn Gardiner, and Charles W. Kutz, Commissioners of the District of Columbia, have threatened the plaintiffs and all privates of the Metropolitan police who are members of the City Policemen's Union No. 16718 with dismissal should they fail to answer the question whether or not they are a member of any organization of policemen which is affiliated directly or indirectly with any other labor organization not later than 12 o'clock midnight September 7, 1919, or should they answer said question in the affirmative as more fully appears in the copy of the rules and regulations promulgated by said commissioners on, to-wit, the 3d day of September, A. D. 1919, in the said bill