67TH CONGRESS,1 1ST SESSION. H. R. 227. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. APRIL 11, 1921. Mr. BLANTON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the District of Columbia and ordered to be printed. A BILL To prevent breaches of the public peace in the District of Columbia by picketing. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That it shall be unlawful for any person, in or upon any public street, sidewalk, alley, or public place in the District of Columbia, 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. That is shall be unlawful for any person, in or upon any public street, sidewalk, alley, or other public place in the District of Columbia 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, 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 whoever shall violate any provision of this Act shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine of not more than $100 nor less than $20, or by imprisonment for not more than thirty days or not less than five days, or by both such fine and imprisonment. SEC. 4. That any person or persons who shall employ directly or through another any other person or persons for the purpose of violating any section of this Act shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine of not more than $200, or not less than $50, or by imprisonment for a period of not more than sixty days, or not less than ten days, or by both such fine and imprisonment. Mr. BLANTON. This bill, Mr. Chairman, was also introduced in the last Congress by me. I introduced it to protect the constitutional rights of all business men of this Nation as well as those of the general public. In the late war, our Government had the authority, and exercised it, to go into every home and every business office and to take every able-bodied man between certain ages from his daily occupation and draft him into the Army and into the Navy in the defense of our country. The reason that the Government has the right to do that is because of certain obligations that its citizens owe and of certain dual obligations that the Government owes to the people. If the Government owed no obligation to the people, the people would owe none to the Government. The Constitution protects every citizen of this country in his life, liberty, property, and his right to follow the pursuit of happiness, so long as that does not interfere with the equal rights of other people. The Constitution affords to every citizen protection to his property rights, just the same as to his individual personal rights. If a man were insecure in his property or business, it would not do him any good to be secure in his person, and it is the security of his personal and his property rights that makes Government worth while. Now, if I am permitted to form an organization that is allowed at will to coerce and force any particular business of others to be conducted according to my way of thinking, or according to the way of thinking of my organization, then the owners of that particular business are insecure in their rights as guaranteed by the Constitution. Picketing by unions is wrongful coercion and control of another's business by force, and should be made unlawful. With these few preliminary remarks, and I offer them as the reason for the introduction of this bill, let us now consider some evidence that I will offer. Here in Washington there is a baker and confectioner named Reeves, who does business down on F Street. Do you remember his number, Mr. Gude? Mr. GUDE. No; 1209, I think, is the number. Mr. BLANTON. It is 1209 F Street. Mr. Reeves has about 125 people on his pay roll, and it is a pretty good-sized business. It is a business that he has built up through years of hard work, and it has grown from a small establishment into one of the largest of its kind in Washington. It is well patronized. Mr. SPROUL. Does he work union or nonunion men? Mr. BLANTON. I am coming to that. He does not ask anybody who applies for work anything about his affiliations. Mr. Wallace, here, who is the representative of the American Federation of Labor to attend this hearing, can go down there to-day, and if he were qualified to fill one of Mr. Reeves's positions, and if there were a vacancy he would be employed by Mr. Reeves without question as to his affiliation with unions. He asks no questions whether the applicant is union or nonunion. The only thing that he wants to know is whether the applicant is honest and is qualified to do the work. To show you the kind of man Mr. Reeves is with regard to the treatment of his employees, the first baker who ever began work with Mr. Reeves 27 years ago is still working for him. He has had continuous service there for 27 long years. Now, last October the employees of Mr. Reeves were perfectly satisfied, and, in that connection, I want to state from the thorough investigation I made of the case that Mr. Reeves paid his employees who could be affected by any union action more wages than they would have gotten under the union scale. As I have said, they were perfectly satisfied, but representatives of unions here came to Mr. Reeves and demanded that he unionize his business, and by that is meant what we commonly term "maintain a closed shop," wherein nobody could work except the union man or union woman wearing the union collar, with membership in some union affiliated with the American Federation of Labor. That meant that he should require the men and women alike in his employ to join the union. The union stood ready to take them all in without asking questions. Now, what does that mean? That means that they must assume the responsibilities and liabilities that go with membership in a union organization. Now, what are some of those liabilities? I have a letter here from a person whom I do not know; he gives his name and address here in Washington, and claims to be an employee in the Government Printing Office and a union man. The letter may or may not be authentic as to contents. He says that until recently union employees in the Government Printing Office have been assessed 5 per cent out of their salaries as an assessment to the union; that they are now threatened by the union with an extra 10 per cent assessment, which would make a total assessment of 15 per cent from their salaries, and he wants to know from me whether or not if they refuse to pay they will be secure in their jobs. It appears that some of them are tired of paying these assessments, because such a big charge is onerous and burdensome to them. He states that they want to quit, and he wanted to know whether or not if they did refuse to pay the assessment, and if the union put them out, they would be secure in their Government jobs. Mr. SPROUL. Will the gentleman yield for a question there? Mr. SPROUL. Does not every organization, whether composed of employers or laborers, at times have to make assessments upon the members in order to keep the organization going? Mr. BLANTON. Is the gentleman from Illinois antagonizing this proposition, or is he Mr. SPROUL (interposing). No; I am just asking a question. Mr. SPROUL. Is that not a fact that is, that every organization must at times make assessments? Mr. BLANTON. In that connection, I will say that I used to be a pretty good boxer with the gloves in my younger days. A sheriff in my old home county once challenged me to put on the gloves with him. He was a newly elected sheriff, and I had never seen him perform, so I foolishly put on the gloves with him. Sheriff Biggs knocked me down twice before I knew what had happened to me, and afterwards in trying to find out the reason for it I found that his reach was about 4 or 5 inches longer than mine. I suffered for failing to size up his reach beforehand. Therefore, I have asked the gentleman from Illinois the question whether he "is for me or against me." I want to find out what is the reach of the gentleman, if he is against the bill. Mr. SPROUL. I notice in that letter to which you referred, or in the document you got from this man, he finds fault with the fact that he is assessed by his organization, and, of course, no organization can live without getting some money to live on. Mr. BLANTON. Let me answer the gentleman by asking him a question. It is all right for the gentleman to join an organization if he wants to do so, if he desires to do it, but suppose the gentleman is forced into an organization against his will, and he is assessed 15 per cent of his salary against his will? Suppose we should compel him to come into the organization and pay his 15 per cent assessment, and in the event he refused to come in, we should offer a resolution kicking him out of Congress-what would be the gentleman's position on that kind of a situation? Mr. SPROUL. I would think that you were wrong in doing it. Mr. BLANTON. And that is exactly what I think about unions forcing any man or woman into their organization against their will. Mr. WHEELER. Of course, I do not know what bearing that has on the bill. I believe the proponent of the bill should be given the privilege of making such statements as he desires in regard to it, but the statement in regard to the assessment might go far to raise a probable doubt. Mr. BLANTON. Of course, I do not know whether this employee from the Government. Printing Office is correct about this extra 10 per cent assessment. I do not know about that, but I am giving his statement for whatever it is worth. Mr. WHEELER. You stated that you did not know whether it was true, or not. Mr. SPROUL. I know that such things are done, and they have to levy assessments. Mr. WALLACE. May I ask the gentleman Mr. BLANTON (interposing). I want to state to the representative of the American Federation of Labor who is present that I am always fair, and, although I am a Member of Congress, I am not too big to be interrogated by the gentleman, and I will let him ask me questions when I get through. I will be prepared to answer any questions he asks me. That is fair, I believe. Mr. WHEELER. Absolutely. Mr. BLANTON. Now, getting back to the subject of picketing, the unions came to Mr. Reeves and demanded that he unionize his shop and make it a closed shop, and he refused. The wage schedules that were proposed were even lower than the wages that he was then paying some of his employees, so I was reliably informed. They began to picket his place on October 5, 1920, and during October, November, December, January, and up to February 6, 1921, they had two sets of pickets there most of the time. One set would come on at certain hours and go off when others would take their places. They would walk back and forth in front of that store. They would walk back and forth there, and every man and woman who would go into that store would be told "this is an unfair store," "this is a scab store," "don't patronize this store unfair to union labor," and similiar admonitions. Mr. WHEELER. May I ask you a question there?" Mr. BLANTON. Certainly. Mr. WHEELER. They kept on walking? Mr. BLANTON. Yes; for the length of the store front. Mr. WHEELER. I want to ask you another question for information. Did the Supreme Court of the United States render a decision to the effect that if they kept on walking back and forth they were within their rights? Mr. BLANTON. No, sir; on the contrary, the Supreme Court in every reference to the subject has indicated that it is absolutely unauthorized by law. But I will let others discuss the decisions later. In that connection, I want to call the committee's attention to the fact that in Fort Worth, Tex., in my home State, Fort Worth not being an open-shop town, although Dallas is, the waiters there struck and began to picket certain establishments by walking back and forth, as they did here Mr. WHEELER. Peaceable picketing? Mr. BLANTON. That is what the American Federation of Labor would call peaceable picketing, but that is what we Texans, at least, call interference with our legal rights, and we stop it down there. Mr. WHEELER. What I am getting at is this: Nobody was injured there? Mr. BLANTON. I do not know that any force was used, but the point I am making is that they walked back and forth in front of the place admonishing patrons that it was unfair, and that was interfering with the business of that establishment. One proprietor appealed to the court and obtained an injunction to restrain that conduct, and the case went up to our appellate court, and week before last, I think, the appellate court handed down a decision holding that such conduct is unlawful in view of the constitutional right that a man has to conduct his business without interference. Mr. WHEELER. You referred to the Supreme Court of the United States. Has the United States Supreme Court rendered a decision upon that question? Mr. BLANTON. Many times, but I hope before this hearing is concluded to be able to induce Judge Wright and Judge Emery, two of the best posted lawyers on the subject in Washington, to discuss in detail some of the leading decisions. Now what does picketing accomplish? Unless you are a millionaire, or unless you have some very strong backing, this organization which this gentleman (Mr. Wallace) represents can break any business man in the United States. They could break him by picketing. With such an organization I could put people in front of any store to say that it is unfair or a scab joint, or say to its patrons: "Do not go in that store if you are decent," or "you are not decent if you go in there," as was done in the Raleigh Hotel strike, and I could ruin the business |