Commissioner O'CONNELL. But the fact that the grand jury indicted is not an indication of guilt?

Mr. WOODS. No, sir.

Commissioner O'CONNELL. So the defense has not had its day yet?

Mr. Woods. No, sir.

Commissioner WEINSTOCK. In how far have your investigations warranted this statement that appears following:

"Several of the indictments mention assaults upon members of the union, and in this connection District Attorney Perkins said last night that the reign of lawlessness was caused by union leaders who wished to perpetuate themselves in power, who hired assassins to assault contenders in their own union for their places, and who used their union offices to extort blackmail under threats from employers.

"Seven men are indicted for assault in a riot for control of a union. Four men are indicted for hiring Dopey Benny's band to go to a nonunion factory and rough house' the employees as they left, and 'wreck' the plant. A dozen workers were wounded in that fight.

"Six union men are accused of extortion and assault in using violence to collect a fine of $100 upon an employer. Four others are accused of hiring the Dopey Benny band to shoot up a nonunion factory. Many shots were fired, the factory suffered a damage of $1,000, and several persons were injured. Other indictments mention cases where the band was employed by union leaders to attack nonunion workers, to wreck factories, and even to assault union men who opposed the leaders."

Does your ivestigation substantiate those statements here?

Mr. WOODS. Yes, sir; that is the general line of things that we found. All that sort of thing.

Commissioner WEINSTOCK. So that this is not mere newspaper exaggeration, to your knowledge?

Mr. WOODS. No, sir.

Chairman WALSH. That is all; we thank you very much.

Mr. Seager.

TESTIMONY OF DR. HENRY R. SEAGER.

Chairman WALSH. Please state your name, Doctor.

Dr. SEAGER. Henry R. Seager.

Chairman WALSH. Your residence?

Dr. SEAGER. New York.

Chairman WALSH. Your profession, please?

Dr. SEAGER. Professor of political economy at Columbia University.
Chairman WALSH. How long have you occupied that position?

Dr. SEAGER. Fourteen years.

Chairman WALSH. And I wish you would please tell us, Doctor, the course of your studies and other means of information which you might have, touching upon the question of the disposition of production in industry.

Dr. SEAGER. My special interest, ever since I began to specialize in political economy, has been the labor problem, and of late years, for several years, I have been president of the American Association for Labor Legislation, and in that connection I have not only been interested in the theoretical aspects of the matter, but have been concerned with the practical aspects of the matter, particularly in New York. That experience has impressed me with the truth of statements that have been made before your commission in the last two days, perhaps more than would have been the case if I had been a mere closet student of economics.

To follow the questionnaire that has been prepared as the basis for my remarks, I don't see how any fairminded person can question the fact that our judges have shown a decided bias in favor of employers. I would not be inclined to ascribe this so much to class bias, although I think that is a factor, as to the antecedent training of our judges.

Under our legal system the principal task of the lawyer is to protect property rights, and property rights have come to be concentrated more and more into the hands of corporations, so that the successful lawyer of to-day, in a great majority of cases, is the corporation lawyer. His business is to protect the rights of employers and corporations. It is from the ranks of successful lawyers, for the most part, that our judges are selected, and from that results inevitably a certain angle on the part of a majority of our judges when they

become judges. Personally I have the highest respect for our judges, I believe that they strive to be judicious in connection with cases that come before them; but coming to the bench after having represented employers for such a long time, they are then removed from their class contact with labor struggles, and the bias, usually the unconscious bias, that they bring with them to their judicial position often persists and influences their judicial decisions. I believe that is shown in connection with any one of the different groups of decisions involving labor issues that one might study. Decisions relating to issues that have arisen in connection with labor disputes show it, and decisions in connection with the constitutionality of labor laws show it, and so with reference to other groups of decisions in labor cases. As to the possible remedy for that situation I myself am inclined to be optimistic, because I believe the criticism of this bias that is more and more common in the discussion of labor cases on the part of many students of the matter is having marked influence on the attitude of judges. It has made them more conscious of this danger and more conscientious in trying to overcome such a predisposition in favor of the employer by studying the other side of the labor problem.

It is quite evident in jurisdictions where judges are elected that there is more or less selection against judges whose reputation is based on eminence attained in defending the interests of corporations, and therefore I believe an historical review of decisions would show that the trend of decisions is toward a more and more fair-minded attitude toward both sides. I think that is conspicuously shown in the case of the United States Supreme Court, and it is certainly very markedly shown in the case of our New York Court of Appeals. From a court which until recently has rendered decisions which seem to me to show a clear lack of understanding of the labor side of the problem, we have had within the last few months as broad and liberal decisions as sympathizers with that aspect of the question could desire.

In the State of New York, as the members of this commission doubtless know, we are in process of amending our constitution, and some of us who are impressed with the unsatisfactory results of the decisions in some of these labor cases are urging in our constitutional convention a change which shall free the hands of the legislators in the field of labor legislation, so far as the State constitution is concerned. The argument that we are presenting to the constitutional convention is that under our system of government we now have protection through the due-process clause of the State constitution, and also through the due-process clause of the Federal Constitution. That the result of this is that a State court may hold a labor law unconstitutional, at the same time that the Federal Supreme Court is declaring constitutional the same sort of legislation. Or a labor law may be held constitutional in one jurisdiction by one State court, while a State court in another jurisdiction takes the contrary view and holds it unconstitutional. We submit that the simplest and most logical and most effective way to avoid this conflict of decisions, and at the same time to preserve the right of the courts to pass upon these issues, is to remove the limitation of the State constitution on the right of the State legislature, with reference to labor legislation, so that the only issue before the State court would be does this violate the due-process limitation of the Federal Constitution, an issue which under the changed system resulting from legislation last winter, if decided against the labor law, might be taken to the Supreme Court of the United States, and there passed upon by that tribunal in such a way that the decision would apply uniformly to the whole country. We feel that this plan offers a needed remedy for the evil of conflicting decisions as to what may be done under the police power. To be more concrete, in New York we passed a workmen's compensation law. Our court of appeals unanimously held that that involved violation of the "due-process provision of our State constitution, and that the compensation principle was unconstitutional. A little later Washington passed a law not dissimilar in principle to the New York law, and the Supreme Court of Washington unanimously held it constitutional-that it conformed with the requirements of the "due process of law" provision. We feel that if we could get away from this anomalous situation, if all these issues could finally be brought to the Supreme Court of the United States, and it could lay down the rule as to what "due process” requires for the whole country it would be well. Whether that view will be taken by our constitutional convention remains to be seen; but at any rate the matter is going to be urged upon the consideration of our constitutional convention.

Chairman WALSH. Is it your organization that is doing that? That is, the American Association for Labor Legislation?

Dr. SEAGER. It is a committee organized by the Association for Labor Legislation; but the individuals are from a number of other organizations active in New York, and from labor organization, and in that way representing broadly the interests of labor, of social workers, and of students of the problem.

The next question on the memorandum that was given to me was as to whether the poor man was at a disadvantage under our legal system-whether he enjoys equal rights with the rich man. The poor man is at a disadvantage in almost every direction, and I feel clear that he is at a decided disadvantage as our laws operate. The limitations on his ability to enjoy the equal protection of the laws are so obvious that perhaps it would be a waste of your time to go into them. At the outset he may be accused of an offense in connection with which bail would be accepted. He may not be in a position to provide bail. That means that he must languish in prison. Or the penalty may be a fine or imprisonment. In every jurisdiction, so far as I know, the equivalent in a fine for a day in jail is preposterously low under modern conditions. I noticed the other day in the papers that an offender was given imprisonment for 20 days or $30 fine. The man did not have the $30 and so had to spend the 20 days in jail. Then, in reference to the ability to command the best legal advice the poor man is at an obvious disadvantage.

Then, in connection with litigation involving the wage earner there is, as I have indicated, in my opinion, an unconscious bias on the part of the judgestheir failure to enter into his situation and to feel or see just the limitations under which he labors. In those various ways and others I fear that there is inevitably a handicap on the poor man-a handicap that probably can not be removed except by helping the poor man not to be a poor man any longer.

The next question refers to the basis of the reluctance of labor organizations and individual workers to present their cases for judicial determination. "How far do you consider that the existing attitude is justified? In what way can the existing attitude best be modified?"

I think the existing attitude is justified to a certain extent, as I have indicated. I think, however, that it is exaggerated because of the lack of acquaintance of wage earners with judicial procedure. In my contact with wage earners I am impressed by the fact that many of them do not discriminate between the different kind of actions and are as frightened by a summons to court as they would be by a criminal indictment. That results from an ignorance of just what a particular order of a court may involve. I see no way to correct that situation other than by education, including education that will make our judges more clearly aware of the interests of both sides, and possibly the provision of machinery for looking after the interests of wage earnersa suggestion that I will come back to in a moment.

The last question asks for recommendations that would tend to modify the present situation in the right direction.

Chairman WALSH. Pardon me, before we get to that, Doctor, have you made any particular study of the methods of selecting jurors so as to

Dr. SEAGER (interrupting). No; I have not. I have no knowledge, or even impression, on that.

Chairman WALSH. If there is a feeling on the part of workers and a fear of the court which has been expressed before to us many times, that is the reason we are calling your attention, as well as that of some other citizens, to it. If that is true, might it not result from the method of obtaining jurors? Might not the workingman, when he looks at the jury situation, conclude that possibly its organization has something to do with the fact that he does not get justice from his standpoint?

Dr. SEAGER. I have no knowledge on that point. As a teacher I am exempt from jury duty, and perhaps for that reason I have not given attention to that phase of it.

The recommendations I would like to submit for your consideration are three in number. The first one I have already outlined; that is, a change in our State constitutions that would bring about, as a result, final or authoritative decisions as to the scope of the police power by the Supreme Court of the United States, so that as time went on there should be but one controlling view of what is reasonable labor legislation within the police power, and that the view laid down by the United States Supreme Court. That would have the advantage of simplifying the situation and avoiding the absurd result that in New York a law is unanimously held unconstitutional, while practically the same law, or a law presenting the same principle, out in Washington is held to be constitutional. It would concentrate also the responsibility for deciding

wisely these labor cases on the court in which I think all of us are inclined to have the greatest confidence and would bring about in the course of time such special knowledge of the issues involved in these cases that the decisions, I believe, would be in harmony with the interests of both sides.

The second suggestion relates to a phase of the law that has already been discussed before you this week; that is, the view taken by the courts that legislation making it a misdemeanor for the employer to discharge a worker because of membership in a labor organization is not constitutional. That view has been uniformly taken by the State courts and by the United States Supreme Court, and it would probably be idle to argue against it, because it is now so well established. It seems to me, however, that legislation of this character is required if we are going to have real equality before the law between employers and wage earners. My suggestion is that the justification of this legislation would probably be recognized by the courts if the legislation were enacted in a slightly different form. At it has been enacted it has seemed to impose upon the employer a limitation from which the employee is exempt. It says an employer may not discharge a workman because he is a member of a labor organization, and it says nothing about a reciprocal obligation on the part of an employee. My suggestion is that the law ought also to make it a misdemeanor for the employee to give up his employment on the ground that an employer belongs to an employers' association. Practically, that is innocuous. No one ever heard of an employee giving up his employment because he did not like the employers' association to which the employer belonged. The idea that the employee should concern himself about that aspect of the situation is absurd on the face of it. He is not yet strong enough to exert adequate pressure in connection with wages and hours and things of that sort that concern him more directly and is far from ever thinking of trying to dictate to his employer the sort of association he shall belong to. But if that addition was made to this type of statute, it would then be free from the objection that it does not apply equally to both sides; and I am inclined to think, from the reasoning of the courts, which always makes prominent the view that there ought to be equality before the law, that both sides ought to be treated equally, that this legislation against the employers is class legislation, and so on-I am inclined to think that this simple modification, though it would have little practical effect, because it would make this legislation formally reciprocal, would lead the courts to uphold it as constitutional.

I have no illusions as to the benefits that would result from such legislation, however, even if it were upheld, from the point of view that it would make it easier for workers to get together in labor organizations. Employers almost certainly would be able to urge other reasons for discharging employees than membership in a labor organization, and therefore, perhaps, there would be no definite result in that respect; but I think from the point of view of clear thinking on labor issues a great deal would be accomplished, and it would register the conviction of the community that under our system of free government and in a democratic country it is an unbearable condition that employers can organize associations and pride themselves on the fact that through those associations they can prevent their employees from organizing.

I noticed in one of the newspapers recently a rather satirical article in relation to this commission-in one of the Detroit papers-suggesting that it would be a good thing for this commission to come out to Detroit and see the blessings of the open shop as exemplified there, and going on to say that the Detroit employers are organized into an association that maintains the open shop, and admitting that this is the means in that locality by which they have escaped trouble with labor organizations. In other words, the open shop means practically a situation where the labor organization can not exist. Now, I submit that that is an intolerable situation-that employers should organize to prevent their employees from organizing-and that in that situation a change in our law that would formally protect the right of the employee to organize and making it a misdemeanor for the employer to discharge the employee for organizing, and putting the same obligation on the employee with reference to the employees' association, be a step forward in connection with clear thinking on the issue, and would be a moral advance even if practically it did not amount to a great deal.

My last suggestion is along the line of the suggestion made in such an interesting way by Mr. Gregory. I was very much struck by the similarity of the conclusions which he had come to and the conclusions which I wished to submit as a suggestion.

Formal changes in the law will not, so far as I can see, help the situation very greatly; but that conclusion is one that we have come to, not merely in the field of labor legislation, but in many fields, and, as Mr. Gregory pointed out, the other field, the alternative on which we are coming to place more and more reliance, is the creation of commissions that shall not so much penalize citizens for noncompliance with the law as cooperate with them to develop more just and harmonious relations.

The trade-commission act includes that very significant section penalizing "unfair competition." It delegates to this new body the task of deciding what unfair competition is and of directing employers, if they find them guilty of unfair methods, to desist from those methods and play the game fairly.

I believe that the way out for us in this country with reference to labor problems will be found along the same line; that is, the creation of a permanent commission on industrial relations to take up the work that this commission is performing, on the basis of the reports that this commission will make, and to carry on continuously the efforts to bring about more harmonious relations between employers and employees.

All of us recognize, whether we are employers or employees, the lamentable results of the present situation, the terrible waste, from the point of view of production, of this friction between employers and employees that is so evident on every hand. Unless in some way we can develop more harmonious relations we are bound to suffer all along the line, employees as well as employers. I believe that we shall have a permanent commission on industrial relations which will have as its function the exercise of a certain amount of supervision for the purpose of enforcing publicity on all manufacturers' associations, employers' associations, and labor organizations, and the promotion of collective bargaining and more harmonious relations between the two and preparation for the work of the Board of Mediation and Arbitration that we already have when for any reason it is necessary to resort to some outside agency for maintaining industrial peace.

I believe that a commission of that sort could gradually accomplish, with reference to the relations between employers and employees, what we hope the trade commission may gradually accomplish with reference to the relations between industrial combinations and consumers-bring about fairer conditions and more harmonious relations and an opportunity to enjoy more fully the advantages we have by lessening the frequency of strikes, and lessening what is even more serious, the waste due to the constant friction between employers and employees, which shows itself in so many different ways and which hampers so much industrial enterprises in this country.

Chairman WALSH. At this point, Doctor, we will stand adjourned until 2 o'clock. Some of the commissioners

Dr. SEAGER. I had almost finished.

Chairman WALSH. Some of the commissioners may have some questions to ask you, Doctor, and we will try not to detain you.

(Thereupon, at 12.30 o'clock, Wednesday, May 12, 1915, a recess was taken until 2 o'clock p. m.)

AFTER RECESS-2 P. M.

STATEMENT OF MR. S. C. LONG.

Chairman WALSH. We will be in order. I have been requested by the commission to read publicly into the record two additional letters from Mr. S. C. Long, general manager of the Pennsylvania Railroad Co.

In the letter read the other day, naming four men who were said to have received $300 each under circumstances detailed in that letter, was mentioned Mr. William Park, general chairman of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, and we have these two further communications from Mr. Long:

Hon. F. P. WALSH,

PHILADELPHIA, May 11, 1915.

Chairman United States Commission on Industrial Relations,

Washington, D. C.

DEAR SIR: We desire to make a correction in our letter of May 7, mailed to you after the hearing before the commission closed on that date.

We find after reaching home that the amount given Mr. William Park, general chairman, B. of L. E., Pennsylvania Railroad, was $200 instead of $300.