the proposed bill (H. R. 227), you will see that it is not more drastic than this ordinance. A similar law was passed in Oregon and also in Los Angeles, Calif.

Be it ordained by the people of the City and County of San Francisco, as follows:

SECTION 1. It shall be unlawful for any person, in or upon any public street, sidewalk, alley, or public place in the City and County of San Francisco, to make any loud or unusual noise, or to speak in a loud or unusual tone, or to cry out or proclaim, for the purposes of inducing or influencing, or attempting to induce or influence, any person to refrain from entering any works or factory or any place of business or employment, or for the purpose of inducing or influencing, or attempting to induce or influence, any person to refrain from purchasing or using any goods, wares, merchandise, or other article or articles, or for the purpose of inducing or influencing or attempting to induce or influence any person to refrain from doing or performing any service or labor in any works, factory, place of business or employment, or for the purpose of intimidating, threatening, or coercing or attempting to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person who is performing, seeking, or obtaining service or labor in any works, factory, place of business or employment.

SEC. 2. It shall be unlawful for any person, in or upon any public street, sidewalk, alley, or other public place in the City and County of San Francisco, to loiter in front of, or in the vicinity of, or to picket in front of, or in the vicinity of, or to carry, show, or display any banner, transparency, badge, or sign in front of, or in the vicinity of, any works, or factory, or any place of business or employment, for the purpose of inducing or influencing, or attempting to induce or influence, any person to refrain from entering any such works or factory or place of business, or employment, or for the purpose of inducing or influencing, or attempting to induce or influence, any person to refrain from purchasing or using any goods, wares, merchandise, or other articles, manufactured, made, or kept for sale therein, or for the purpose of inducing or influencing or attempting to induce or influence, any person to refrain from doing or performing any service or labor in any works, factory, place of business or employment, or for the purpose of intimidating, threatening or coercing, or attempting to intimidate, threaten or coerce any person who is performing, seeking or obtaining service or labor in any such works, factory, place of business or employment.

SEC. 3. That any person violating any of the provisions of this ordinance shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine of not more than $100 nor less than $25 or by imprisonment in the city and county jail for a period of not more than 50 days nor less than 12 days or by both such fine and imprisonment.

Mr. SPROUL. I would suggest that we let that go for the present and put the witnesses on the stand who are here now.

Mr. BLANTON. There is just a little documentary evidence I have here and then we will put them on.

Mr. Chairman, without reading it, I have a table compiled by the National Industrial Conference Board showing the condition that existed during the first six months of the war. This has some very valuable information. I do not care to read it and will just ask to incorporate it.

Mr. SPROUL. I would suggest that you hold that a little while and read it after we get through with some of the witnesses.

Mr. BLANTON. I would like for it to go in the record in this connection and I will read it now, if you prefer.

STRIKES IN AMERICAN INDUSTRY IN WAR TIME-APRIL 6 TO OCTOBER 6, 1917.

In order to present the truth as to the extent, causes, and character of strikes in American industry during war time and their retardation of necessary production, the National Industrial Conference Board undertook an investigation of the subject. The investigation covers the first six months of our war period, from April 6 to October 6, 1917.

From information in reliable newspapers and magazines, and with the aid of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, labor and conciliation boards, and private organizations in possession of information relating to strikes, it appeared that during

the six months' period nearly 3,000 strikes had occurred in industrial establishments throughout the country. This total excludes many strikes not recorded in the public press because crowded out by war news, and other missed in the investigation because it was impracticable to make an exhaustive research in all of the thousands of newspapers published.

The serious aspect of the 1,156 strikes included in this report is clearly seen from the fact that

Number of employees made idle..
Number of days of production lost..

CONCERNING THE 1,156 STRIKES.

283, 402

6, 285, 519

TABLE I.-Strikes classified according to industries, Apr. 6, 1917, to Oct. 5, 1917, inclusive. [National Industrial Conference Board.]

Table I lists the industries affected in order of the aggregate number of workdays lost.

It is apparent that the metal trades, shipbuilding, coal mining, and copper mining, four of the industries most essential to the prosecution of the Government's war program, were hardest hit by strikes at the beginning of the war. These four industries contributed 46.1 per cent of all strikes, 61.8 per cent of the workers made idle, and 66.3 per cent of the workdays lost. Then follow the other industries almost in the order of their importance to the needs of the Government. In fairness, however, it should be pointed out that these figures must be interpreted with due regard to the comparative size of the industry to which they refer: as a rule the industries ranking high in respect to lost production also stand high in respect to the number of workers regularly employed.

STRIKES CLASSIFIED ACCORDING TO DEMANDS.

Table II reflects the character of the demands that finally led to strike

Number.

Work days lost.

Per cent.

Demands.

TABLE II.—Strikes classified according to demands, Apr. 6, 1917, to Oct. 5, 1917, inclusive. [National Industrial Conference Board.]

In computing the number of workdays lost, which is perhaps the most important factor and the one that indicates clearly the seriousness of the strikes, all Sundays and holidays were excluded.

The first six months following the entry of the United States into the war was a period of extensive strikes. Even the incomplete returns here summarized indicate 283.400 idle workers and a loss of 6,235,000 workdays.

Strikes were most numerous and most serious in those industries particularly essential to war production.

Demands for increased wages were the most frequent cause of disputes. Strikes for recognition of union or closed-shop conditions were the most bitterly contested.

Mr. BLANTON. Concerning the full-war period, from April 6, 1917, when a state of war was declared, until November 11, 1918, when the armistice was signed, the Department of Labor has certified that there were 6,000 strikes in the United States.

Mr. Chairman, without taking the time to read them, I have the original affidavits-and I will furnish certified copies to the clerkof parties who testified down here in one of the cases of picketing. I will not take the time to read them now, but I would like for them to go in the record and to speak for themselves.

Mr. WHEELER. So long as they apply to the subject of picketing

Mr. BLANTON. Yes; every one of them applies to picketing and they show just what the citizens of the District of Columbia here have witnessed and how they have been subjected to mistreatment through picketing.

Mr. WHEELER. By pickets?

Mr. BLANTON. By pickets; yes, sir.

(The affidavits referred to follow:)

In the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, holding an equity court. Philip Friedlander and George Friedlander, doing business as Friedlander Bros., plaintiffs, v. D. Frank Manning et al., defendants.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 88:

Mary Bentzler, being first duly sworn, says that she resides at 428 Ninth Street NW. and lives in the second story over Friedlander Bros.' store; that during the period from

Number.

Per cent.

June 2, 1917, to June 28, 1917, affiant could hear plainly in all parts of her apartment a man calling out in a loud tone of voice: "Scab store;" Scabby store"; "This store is unfair to organized labor;" "Yes, this is a scab store;" "Don't go in there, that is a scab store." That this kept up all during the day and until about 10 o'clock at night; that the outcries were so loud that affiant could not sleep at night; that it worried and annoyed her and caused her to become very nervous. That affiant is engaged in dressmaking at her said home, and that the continuous outcries all during the day and until about 10 o'clock at night so worried and annoyed affiant that it not only interfered with her rest and sleep but that it interfered with her work, because of the nervousness caused thereby.

That the outcries above described were kept up until 12 o'clock on Saturday nights. MARY BENTZLER.

Sworn to before me and subscribed in my presence this 14th day of July, 1917. C. LARIMORE KEELEY, Notary Public, District of Columbia.

In the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia. Philip Friedlander and George Friedlander, doing business as Friedlander Bros., plaintiffs, v D. Frank Manning et als., defendants.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, to wit:

John F. Sharretts being first duly sworn made oath as follows: That some time during the first part of June, 1917, he met a man whom he had known as Hart near the corner of Ninth and E Streets NW., in the city of Washington; that Hart told affiant that he, Hart, was overseeing the "pickets" doing duty in Washington; that he was being paid by Berberichs; that they had closed Berberichs store at 6 p. m., and that Berberichs was backing the union in the effort to close the other stores; that affiant has seen the said Hart walk up and down the street in front of Friedlander's store, as well as other men to affiant unknown; that said men would cry out in a loud tone of voices "scab store; this store is unfair to all organized labor"; and the said expressions would be reiterated continuously.

JOHN F. SHARRETTS.

Sworn to and subscribed before me this 10th day of July, 1917. [SEAL.]

C. LARIMORE KEELEY, Notary Public District of Columbia.

In the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, holding an equity court. Philip Friedlander and George Friedlander, doing business as Friedlander Bros., plaintiffs, v. D. Frank Manning, et al., defendants.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 88:

Harry F. Fisher, being first duly sworn, says that he is the owner and proprietor of a jewelry store located on the west side of Ninth Street NW., at No. 438 Ninth Street NW.. approximately 200 feet north of the store of Friedlander Bros.; that during the period from June 2, 1917, to June 28, 1917, a man was continuously walking back and forth in front of the store of Friedlander Bros. all during the business hours of the day and until 9 o'clock and after at night, he walked back and forth on the sidewalk and close to the building line, continuously crying out in a loud and rough tone of voice: "This is a scab store," "This is a scabby store,' 'Don't go in there, it is a scab store,' "This store is unfair to organized labor," and other expressions of similar import.

Affiant further says that he could hear at times the above expressions when the affiant was in his store, and in all parts of affiant's store; that the said outcries provoked and annoyed affiant and his customers and caused upon numerous occasions a large number of persons to congregate and assemble on the sidewalk in front of and near afliant's store, watching and listening to the said man in front of Friedlander Bros.' store and listening to arguments and discussions which the said man provoked with not only passers-by, but persons going in and coming out of Friedlander Bros.' store. Affiant further says that some man stationed himself some two or three hundred feet distant, and would watch for the approach for a policeman and upon the approach of a policeman, this man would signal the man in front of Friedlander Bros.' store, and he would at once lower his tone of voice and be more guarded in his expressions

during the presence of the policeman, and while he was nearby, and as soon as the policeman would get out of sight, he would again renew his outcries in a loud tone of voice as theretofore.

Affiant further says that there is little or no business transacted on Ninth Street during the afternoon hours of the day, and that the greater amount of business on Ninth Street is transacted after 6 o'clock p. m.; that the class of trade dealing with merchants on Ninth Street make their purchases after 6 o'clock p. m.

HARRY S. FISHER. Sworn to before me and subscribed in my presence this 7th day of July, 1917. C. LARIMORE KEELEY, Notary Public, District of Columbra

In the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, holding an equity court. Philip Friedlander and George Friedlander, doing business as Friedlander Bros., plaintiffs, v. D. Frank Manning et al., defendants.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 88:

James E. Fitzgerald, being first duly sworn, says that he is a dentist with offices at 433 Ninth Street NW., located on the second floor just opposite the store of Friedlander Bros.; that during the period from June 2, 1917, to June 28, 1917, all during the business hours of the day and until 9 or 10 o'clock at night, a man continuously walked up and down in front of Friedlander Bros,' store, close to the building line constantly calling out: "This is a scab store;" "This store is unfair to organized labor;" Don't go in that scab store; "Yes, this is a scab store;" and other similar expressions. The outcries described above could plainly be heard in affiant's office, and not only worried, annoyed, and distracted affiant, but was a cause of annoyance to his patients who complained about it.

JAS. E. FITZGERALD.

Sworn to before me and subscribed in my presence this 7th day of July, 1917.

C. LARIMORE KEELEY, Notary Public, District of Columbia.

In the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, holding an equity court. Philip Friedlander and George Friedlander, doing business as Friedlander Bros., plaintiffs, v. D. Frank Manning et al., defendants.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 88:

Charles S. Willis, being first duly sworn, says that he is in business at 426 Ninth Street NW., next door to the store of Friedlander Bros.; that during the period from June 2, 1917, to June 28, 1917, a man continuously walked up and down in front of the store of Friedlander Bros., and close to the building line, calling out in a loud tone of voice: "Scab store," "Scabby, scabby store," "This store is unfair to organized labor," "Well, well, well, what do you think of this; a scab store on Ninth Street," and other similar expressions; that his tone of voice was loud and could be heard at times for nearly half a block distant; that he could be heard plainly in all parts of the store of affiant; that this continued all during the business hours of the day; that his outcries could plainly be heard across the street, and that this conduct annoyed both affiant and people in his store.

CHAS. S. WILLIS.

Sworn to before me and subscribed in my presence this 7th day of July, 1917.
C. LARIMORE KEELEY,
Notary Public, District of Columbia.

In the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia holding an equity court. Philip Friedlander and George Friedlander, doing business as Friedlander Bros., plaintiffs, v. D. Frank Manning et al., defendants.

STATE OF NEW YORK,

County of New York, ss:

Harry R. Frank, being first duly sworn, says that he is a citizen of the United States and resident of the city of New York; that upon the 1st. 2d. 3d. 4th and 5th days of

53203-21-8