nor would it have added, any special privilege to laborers' or farmers' organizations. There was no semblance of class legislation in this proposed measure when fairly and honestly analyzed. Its purpose was and is to carry out the premeditated and emphatically expressed intent of the framers of the original Sherman Anti-Trust Law. The mental giants who debated that measure in its course through the United States Senate were better informed in modern economics than to confuse property rights with human rights, and they almost unanimously agreed that no court in the land would ever construe a law designed to curb grad-grinds and moneymongers into a scheme to persecute the wealth producers, the bread winners of the nation.

When the representative government of the United States was demanded by the colonists and established, it had for its basis the government of, by and for the people, they having their respective property and property rights. In its very concept and declaration of independence, it placed first, and recognized, man above the products of man. It had for its purpose the affirmation and maintenance for all time of the rights of living, breathing, liberty-loving man. The decision of the United States Supreme Court has affirmed that in the law as it now stands, there is no distinction between the combinations formed for the manipulation, control, and sale of the products of human labor and the voluntary organizations of the working people formed for the protection and advancement of the physical, material, moral, and social welfare of the masses of the people.

it would seem that the Congress of the United States, the representatives of the people, would have afforded the relief from the onerous conditions brought about by the Supreme Court decision. If the 60th Congress had possessed in the slightest degree the conception of its duties, if it had observed the commonest rules of legislative independence and the simplest methods of self-assertive honesty, it would not have permitted the first session to dally its time away while one man (Mr. Charles E. Littlefield) went through the questionable farce of "subcommittee hearings" on the merits and demerits of the Wilson Bill. When that gentleman became thoroughly saturated with the grim humor of his transparent hold-up scheme, he resigned his seat in the House in the middle of the term without sufficient respect for the Judiciary Committee, which he was presumed to represent, even to make a formal report to it. In the second session of the 60th Congress, Mr. Charles Q. Tirrell, of the Fourth Massachusetts Congressional District, who succeeded Mr. Littlefield as chairman of the subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee, having charge of such measures, played a game of battledore and shuttlecock with Mr. John L. Jenkins, chairman of the full committee. Together they contrived so to shift the responsibility (under the plausible guise of parliamentary courtesy), that they effectively denied your Executive Council and myself an opportunity to make & brief statement in order to have a complete record on the subject in the printed hearings before the committee.

For full details concerning this peculiar parliamentary transaction, I refer you to the Legislative Committee's report on page 375, American Federationist for April, 1909, and I urge every delegate and all others interested to again read it and bring it to the attention of every organization and every citizen of every congressional constituency. In connection therewith should be read the report of Labor's Legislative Committee published in the August, 1908, issue of the American Federationist under the heading "Congress and Labor."

This illustration is a glaring example of how to avoid duty and responsibility, and is merely one instance of the subserviency of Congress to the absolute will of its dictator, Speaker Cannon. He is the potential instrument of every predatory interest that infests the halls of Congress, whose tactics are and whose motto should read: "They shall take who have the power, and they shall keep who can."

In connection with the present status of the Sherman Anti-Trust Law, the Executive Council had an extended conference with the President of the United States and had the opportunity of fully discussing the subject with him. He freely expressed his judgment that the law required change, particularly for definiteness to accomplish the purposes for which the law was enacted, and he suggested that he would be pleased to confer later with any representative of the Executive Council and also with Judge Parker, our attorney. Later, by direction of the Executive Council, I had an extended interview with the President and the subjectmatter was again discussed. Then I had an interview with Judge Parker, and conveyed to him the President's suggestion, to which he gladly assented. The following letter in connection with the matter is of interest: "BLACKPOOL, ENGLAND, July 1, 1909.

To the Honorable WILLIAM H. TAFT,

President of the United States, Washington, D. C., U. §. A,

SIR: When I had the honor of an interview with you in Washington, in June, you suggested that when you had discussed with the members of your Cabinet the subject of the

amendment of the Sherman Anti-Trust Law, and particularly in reference to its present application to the labor organizations, that a conference with the Honorable Alton B. Parker would be agreeable to you.

I left Washington within two days after our interview for New York, and brought the matter to Judge Parker's attention. He expressed himself as in entire accord with the suggestion, and authorized me to say that he would be glad to call upon you at any time and place when so advised by you.

The few days I had in New York prior to my departure for this side of the Atlantic on June 19th were so taken up by a meeting of the Executive Council of the American Federation of Labor, that I could not get to write to you in regard to this matter. Then, again, I was aware that there existed no necessity for immediate haste. I take great pleasure, however, in communicating the above to you at this, my earliest opportunity. I have the honor to remain, Yours very respectfully, SAMUEL GOMPERS, President, American Federation of Labor."

A copy of this letter was sent to Judge Parker. Though the interview has thus far not taken place there is no doubt that it will in the very near future.

INJUNCTIONS.

We asked the 60th Congress for relief from the abuse and misuse of the writ of injunction; we asked for a restoration of the ancient and cherished right of a trial by jury, so that the people may be safeguarded from the absolutism of judicial tyranny; but in spite of all hitherto accepted rules of procedure and of evidence, one man, a judge, presiding in an equity court may disregard all such established methods and absolutely set his own opinion as a finality, in spite of the fact that no written statute in this or any other land grants him such extraordinary authority.

Instead of the beneficent injunction writ being a safeguard of human liberty as it was originally intended, it has been so wilfully perverted that it has been made an instrument of coercion and tyranny and is wielded for the sole purpose of those who not only possess wealth but arrogate power never legally granted or intended in order to hold and keep the men of labor and the masses of the people in awe and subjection.

The American people have fondly nursed the sentiment in their hearts that the government of our Republic was founded upon the inherent principles of justice and right, and that these righteous principles are adhered to by their representatives; but such chicanery as this record shows should arouse every citizen in the land to a sufficient sense of the danger that threatens the very life of a free government that a renewed public energy and vigilance should and must be exerted to correct existing evils.

To do this the American Federation of Labor and all its members should bend their efforts and take the lead. No men are more loyal to the fundamental institutions of our Republic or more jealous of their maintenance than those who are enrolled in the American labor movement; to foster and spread the growth of intelligence, to instill character, to improve and elevate the general standard of life among all our people, to cultivate a sterling manhood and selfreliant spirit, and to establish a recognition of the interdependence of one man with his fellows are some of the praiseworthy purposes of our unions, and we have faith that all liberty-loving, clean-thinking American citizens will not only extend us their sympathy but will in every honorable and lawful way possible, actively assist us in securing these justifiable and commendable results.

The congressional record heretofore given on the Wilson Bill, H. R. 20,584, for the purpose of restoring to the workers the rights which were so summarily taken from them by the United States Supreme Court is so identical to that on the Pearre Anti-Injunction Bill, H. R. 94, that it would be tedious to repeat it, but a word on another phase of the situation is very essential as a warning to many of our zealous members, especially those of our members who are officials in central labor unions, state federations, or national and international organizations.

During the life of the 60th Congress it almost became a fad to introduce a bill, ostensibly to regulate the issuance of injunctions and restraining orders, limiting the meaning of "conspiracy" in certain cases, authorizing the right of trial by jury in contempt cases, direct or indirect, change of venue, etc., etc.

The number of such bills introduced was legion; they became so numerous, in fact, that our legislative committee dubbed them "life savers." They were invariably introduced by members for the purpose of popularity among their constituents, who are members of labor organizations and others whose love of justice is still alive. In a few cases there was a spasmodic effort by the member introducing it to make it appear there was going to be some genuine consideration given it; but in the majority of instances such bills were merely introduced and printed copies franked to constituents at home-for a purpose.

There were other instances where members, usually first-termers, drafted an "antiinjunction bill" and endorsements from the organizations in their district were solicited purely on the strength of the title of the bill and not because of the merits or efficiency of the bill itself.

These tactics are already in evidence preparatory to the regular session of the 61st Con gress, and it is a fact that already some of these spurious drafts of so-called "anti-injunction bills" have been unsuspectingly favored by certain organizations. To all of such I strongly advise that no endorsements be given to any bill "andi-injunction," or other subject affecting vital fundamental rights and principles unless it has been given the approval of the American Federation of Labor, or, in the interim of conventions, the Executive Council. A word to the wise should be sufficient.

Congressman Wilson, of Pennsylvania, has introduced a bill, H. R. 3058, which has been approved by the Executive Council and which clearly covers the issues we are making.

During the last year it has been observed that the agitation against the wilful misuse of injunction orders in labor disputes is bearing fruit.

In August, Judge Baker of the United States Circuit Court in Indiana refused to grant a petition made by the American Sheet and Tin Piate Company against the Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel and Tin Workers. Another Judge in Newcastle, Pa., refused to enjoin picketing and peaceable persuasion on petition of the same company. Even in Judge Alston G. Dayton's United States Circuit Court of West Virginia, there is a tendency to be less sweeping, and he does not draw the line on "inducing or persuading" as on former occasions. In state courts there is a noticeable reluctance to go to the extremes they formerly did. What must be most vigilantly guarded against now is the legalizing of the injunction process in industrial disputes when they would not be issued where no industrial dispute existed. Labor men must now more than ever be alert and ever active and absolutely loyal to their own best interests.

With regard to the other subjects of legislation considered by the Denver Convention, the legislative committee made its report which was duly published in the April issue of the American Federationist. I commend it to your careful consideration. It is advisable, however, to make additional special reference to some of the subjects in which we are particularly interested.

EIGHT HOUR BILL.

Many strenuous efforts have been made to obtain an amendment to the Federal Eight Hour Law so as to extend its beneficent provisions to all government employes and employes of contractors and subcontractors doing work for or on behalf of the government.

This subject was an interminable one in the House Committee on Labor during the first session of the 60th Congress and a bulky volume of the hearings was duly recorded. The responsible members of the party responsibie for legislation or the lack of it again availed themselves of dilatory tactics, and instead of meeting the issue squarely by reporting it favorably or adversely and getting it before the House. they resorted to the much abused question of "constitutionality," and referred the bill with the hearings to a subcommittee of lawyers for their "constitutional opinions," but inasmuch as the 60th Congress expired, the committee can never receive the "opinion" of its defunct subcommittee. The constituents of Mr. Haskins, a member of the subcommittee, regarded his services so highly that they preferred to keep him home, and the world may never know the acumen of this gentleman's insight on the constitutionality of an eight hour law.

Some considerable argument was made by attorneys for the interests against the bill because of its possible "limitation of output." In the examination of the United States Census Statistics I find by a careful analysis that in the year 1870 the average per capita production of wealth in the manufacturing industries of the United States was $1.064 and fifty years later in 1900 it had increased to $2.451 or an increase in production of 130 per cent. In 1850 the average annual wage in the same industries was $247, or an equivalent of 23.21 per cent of the product. Fifty years later in 1900 wages had risen to $137, an increase of only 77 per cent in wages as against 130 per cent increase in production.

No more conclusive argument can be made in behalf of the need of an eight hour day than these cold blooded but eloquent figures, coupled with the astounding fact that in industries like the building trades and others where the eight hour day has prevailed for some years the wages have increased from 25 to 100 per cent.

With the complete specialization of labor and the enormous increase in production, the wage-earner should by every logical reason reap the benefits of labor-saving machines and labor-saving systems so he could participate in the industrial progress and the blessings of

civilization with fewer hours of daily toil and more hours for leisure and opportunities for recuperation, study, and reflection to better fit the workers for the highest thought and activity of citizenship.

We should press the demands for a bill for an eight hour day to cover the field here described and hasten the time when the long, unnecessary and uneconomic 10 hour day will have forever passed in our wonderfully productive work shops, bearing ever in mind that "reducing the hours increases the pay," adds longer and happier years to life, reduces disease, and is a never failing preventative or cure for the great white plague.

EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY AND AUTOMATIC COMPENSATION LAWS.

This important problem is now receiving serious and careful attention. The workers have contended for it for a long period of time, but in the recent past many other thoughtful persons have given this subject a special study, and, from the many sympathetic utterances which now reach me, show an active consideration. I am hopeful that legislation of this character will soon take a uniform and definite character.

The old fallacies like "assumption of risk," "contributory negligence," "fellow servant" responsibility, and recognition by courts of the validity of "waiving rights" in order to obtain employment, are fast becoming obnoxious to right-thinking men, and instead of the wageearner and his family being compelled to endure all the mental and financial, as well as the physical, suffering due to accidents in industry, it is now becoming more acceptable to the minds of those who would conserve the interests of the working forces as the pre-eminent and most logical of all public questions, that the industry should bear the financial burden of acci dents to the human factor, exactly as it does now to the mechanical accidents, or accidents through natural elements.

This view of the subject is becoming so pronounced that the conviction is fast growing that there should be speedily enacted uniform laws by our states for intra-state employments together with a comprehensive federal statute covering all interstate and foreign commerce that will provide for, and guarantee to, those who are injured during employment an automatic compensation for accidents instead of undertaking expensive and wearisome litigation before the courts to recover damages.

This plan has become almost universal in European countries, so much so that the last President felt so keenly on the subject that he practically rebuked Congress because of the inhuman conditions tolerated in the United States and its multiplicity of industries.

It has become an additional source of gratification to have so many inquiries made as to our definite position on this phase of the solution of the problem, and for the purpose of aiding the convention to formulate a plan of action that may be generally supported in the Federal Congress and the various state legislatures, and all of a uniform character, it has been considered advisable to prepare four bills covering the various features of these questions. They are as follows:

No. 1. A bill to amend the law relating to the liability of employers for injuries to their employes within the states.

No. 2. A bill to provide compensation (automatically) for accidents occurring to employes of the United States Government.

(Note: On May 30, 1908, a bill of this nature-though very limited in its provisions-was approved and became a federal law, and this was obtained wholly and solely through the activities, and at the expense of the American Federation of Labor.)

No. 3. A bill to provide compensation (automatically) for accidents in dangerous occupations subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and without the necessity of litigation therefor.

No. 4. A bill to regulate all interstate and foreign commerce in relation to accidents and to provide compensation (automatically) without the necessity of litigation therefor.

In presenting this subject to your thoughtful consideration, it may not be amiss to impress upon all the need of uniformity in the enactment of these laws. It has been the bane of our peculiar form of dual government that state laws differed so widely as well as in some cases almost outrageously, and then again the most of them differed from, and, some in fact almost opposed, federal statutes. It is therefore necessary again to urge, that the legislative committees of city central bodies, state federations, etc., act in harmony and with the advice of the American Federation of Labor in the work of securing labor legislation of an effective character. In enumerating the bills to which reference has just been made it should be stated that the Executive Council gave several days to the discussion of these various measures and the subject in its entirety.

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR.

In my report to the convention of the American Federation of Labor at Boston, in 1903, I said that "a law was enacted creating a new department of government, known as the Department of Commerce and Labor, with a secretary as its chief officer, who is a member of the President's Cabinet. Under the law several departments and bureaus were detached from other departments of the federal service and were placed under its jurisdiction. Among the departments transferred was the Department of Labor, which was independent from any other department and is now designated as a bureau.

The committee having this subject under consideration expressed its regret that the Department of Labor was absorbed in the new Department of Commerce and Labor.

The American Federation of Labor adopted the following:

"Resolved, That the American Federation of Labor, through its Executive Council, devise means and put into execution some plan whereby the incoming national administration and the Congress may be urged to consider the advisability of establishing a department of labor and the merging of the bureaus alleged to be in the interest of American citizens who are, or desire to be, employed as tradesmen, artisans, mechanics, and laborers, and that, if necessary to accomplish this result, a committee, geographically selected, be hereafter appointed by the president to assist in advancing this and other approved measures.

"Resolved, That each general and local organization embraced in the American Federation of Labor be requested to promote the plans agreed upon in this connection, and make appeals to their representatives in Congress to favorably consider and advocate through this means an aid to peace, prosperity, and patriotism."

The committee to which this report was referred made the following recommendation. which was unanimously adopted by the convention:

"We indorse the views of the President upon the desirability of establishing a department of labor, with a secretary having a seat in the President's Cabinet."

This demand for a department of labor, independent of any other department under the government, with a secretary at its head, has been the unanimous declaration of the organized labor movement of our country time and again. It was at the urgent insistance of organized labor that the Department of Labor as it was primarily constituted was created, which was afterwards bereft of its individual function by the law merging it with the Department of Commerce and Labor. The labor forces and labor interests are of so vast and comprehensive a character that a department devoted entirely to the many questions and problems so intimately associated with it, the secretary at the head of that department having an intelligence of and sympathy for the duties involved, a secretary who will be at the council table of the President's Cabinet to give advice and counsel, and to speak the right word at the right time, is one of the growing, important necessities of our great industrial development. I therefore recommend that the convention again express its judgment upon this matter in a resolution properly considered and formulated.

SHIP SUBSIDY BILL.

The special interests and prospective beneficiaries of this vicious and mercenary "special class legislation" are active on this proposition; in fact, they never sleep. When this bill was supposed to be quietly resting in the pigeon holes of the committee room, during the closing days of the 60th Congress, it surprised the members when the "interests" which would be benefited by the enactment of the bill made a vigorous effort to muster strength enough to pass it through the House as the Senate had passed it in the first session, but the opposition which we aided in mustering against it was sufficient to prevent the iniquitous features of this bill, with its odious contemplated conscriptive features from being at this time foisted upon the American people.

It is necessary to be very alert on this subject, because of the adroitness of its advocates. They are now trying to foster public sentiment in favor of a "mail subsidy," in order to have the principle of "subsidy" established. Once a measure reaches that stage it will be less dimcult to amend the original law and saddle upon it all the vicious clauses affecting labor, particularly our seamen.

See that your congressional representatives all understand that you are actively and positively opposed to it, or to any bill of that character which proposes to take public funds for private gain. It is one of the most vicious pieces of "favored class" legislation that is possible to devise.