found in this boy's pocket, and he subsequently confessed. Rauhausen first entered a plea of not guilty. At the trial his plea was retracted and one of guilty entered, apparently in order that evidence might not be used against officers of the molders' union involved. Rauhausen was fined $400, as appears by the records of the court, which was paid by the molders' union attorney of record.

The CHAIRMAN. What case was that?

Mr. MONAGHAN. That occurred in 1904 during operations against the Greenwald's factory by the iron molders' union et al. I will file this compendium with the committee. [See Exhibit F.] The Newport Foundry and Machine Co. litigation in progress at the same time supplies other instances of dynamiting. [See Exhibit G.]

Mr. GOMPERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask the opportunity to be heard at this time for a few moments.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Very well, go ahead.

Mr. GOMPERS. I shall not pretend to say that every man belonging to the organizations of labor is a law-abiding citizen. He is just as strong, just as law-abiding, and just as patriotic, though possessing some of the weaknesses of ordinary mortals. However, the statement of Mr. Monaghan before this committee has taken on such a wide range, and he has presented, unsupported by anything in evidence, an indictment so general against men of organized labor, of the organization with which I am attached, and implicating men whom I know personally as well as officially, that I can not remain. longer silent without having requested this committee to be heard for a moment. The case that Mr. Monaghan has just presented to this committee justified my statement to you in interrupting him to say, as he said, the dropping of a dynamite bomb is not a difficult trick, "no more is the use of an untruth a difficult trick." The very case that he mentioned the press of the country was filled with at the instance of the association of which Mr. Monaghan represents before this committee, charging Mr. Joseph E. Valyntine, the president of the Molders' Union of America, with having done that thing, with having hired that boy, with having had that conference with that boy, and inducing him to do that thing.

The CHAIRMAN. Will you allow me just a brief moment? I do not want to break in on you, but you do not deny the fact that there was such a case of that boy and that he was fined $400 ?

Mr. GOMPERS. If you will permit me to make my statement, very well; otherwise I prefer not to continue.

The CHAIRMAN. Go on and state it in your own way.

Mr. GOMPERS. I say that the president of the International Molders' Union of America, Mr. Joseph F. Valyntine. was pilliored in the newspaper dispatches sent out as if he had done that thing which Mr. Monaghan says he did. The fact of the matter is that he never, never had the slightest connection with that boy's doings. and it was so admitted by everyone who had knowledge, and so admitted in the record. It is the easiest thing in the world to besmirch men's characters. I know nothing of the instance except as it was conveyed to me, and in so far as Mr. Valyntine is concerned, verified absolutely.

The CHAIRMAN. There are two questions I would like to get information on. If you object, you need not answer. Was the boy a mem

ber of the union?

Mr. GOMPERS. No, sir; he was not.

Mr. MONAGHAN. His father was.

Mr. GOMPERS. Perhaps no doubt there are some who are honest workmen, even in your family, who are members of the union.

The CHAIRMAN. There is one other point and I shall not interrupt Was the boy's fine paid by the attorney for the union? you any more. Mr. GOMPERS. I do not know, but I do not believe it.

The CHAIRMAN. That is all. Now you may go ahead.

Mr. GOMPERS. I had no intention of saying a word before the committee, certainly not this morning, but I could not remain silent in hearing a man attack the character of another whom I know to be as: honorable and as straightforward and as patriotic a citizen and highminded a man as there is anywhere in this country, without the exception of anyone. It does not do the very bad cause represented by Mr. Monaghan any good to attempt to bring into disrepute the name and character of Joe Valyntine.

Mr. MONAGHAN. I might say to the committee that it was not my purpose here to foment trouble before this committee; it is rather for the purpose of preventing the possibility of future discord and assault and murder. As to Mr. Valyntine, I do not enjoy his personal acquaintance, and I am merely reading from the record I have presented to the committee. Whether he advised this man personally I do not know, nor can I vouch for it. The fact is found in this record "A policy of lawlessness" [see Exhibit A] with reference to what was done and what this fine was. I can go further and state that affidavits along the line of assault and dynamite are filed in the court records in Cincinnati. In regard to the injunctions that were issued. in the Cincinnati cases, I will furnish to the committee copies of the affidavits filed.

The CHAIRMAN. Will you furnish us the entire record in that case?: Mr. MONAGHAN. I think I can. I will endeavor to do so. but I must, in order to prepare all this matter for the committee, have time: sufficient within which to do it. [See Exhibits D, E, and F.]

Senator SUTHERLAND. As I understand you have read a statement. which you say tends to show that Mr. Valyntine procured this act to be done by the boy. That is the substance of your claim. is it not? Mr. MONAGHAN. Such is the charge made by the interested Cincinnati parties.

Senator SUTHERLAND. Now, if Mr. Valyntine did that he is just as guilty as the boy?

Mr. MONAGHAN. Certainly.

Senator SUTHERLAND. Was he prosecuted?

Mr. MONAGHAN. No.

Senator SUTHERLAND. Why not?

Mr. MONAGHAN. That I can not answer for, though it is my belief that complaint was made, excepting to say this: The conditions in Cincinnati at that time were such as scarcely to invite very strong activity with reference to the punishment of any man. Another illustration happening on October 8, 1904, further fortifies my position. Samuel Weakley, a nonunion molder, working in Greenwald's factory, Cincinnati, was murdered in cold blood by William Friend, alias Patton, a union iron molder. Weakley, a nonunion molder, was approached by Patton and two others on Vine Street, in the city of Cincinnati, which was a fairly well-lighted street at the time this man was shot down. Without further preliminary a question was

68946-12- -5

asked of him by Patton, a member of the union, as to whether or not he was a nonunion molder.

Senator SUTHERLAND. Was he the man who shot him down?

Mr. MONAGHAN. Yes; he had one man with him. I would like to say right now, Mr. Chairman, that I am speaking with knowledge from affidavits. That man ran from the scene leaving a revolver near the man murdered, but the gun was not exploded. The scheme had been to leave a revolver and fire one; he was to fire a shot from both pistols and leave one near the man for the purpose of establishing self-defense. His scheme miscarried, and he fired two shots from one pistol and ran. The man who accompanied him and participated in the assault escaped, but the murderer was caught close to the union headquarters. He was arrested and prosecuted for that murder. The best we could get was a plea of guilty to manslaughter. The CHAIRMAN. He plead guilty to manslaughter?

Mr. MONAGHAN. Plead guilty to manslaughter under arrangement, not with us, but with prosecuting officers, and was sentenced to 20 years in prison. The subsequent history of the event was that within three years, with the union forces in the State of Ohio doing all they could on his behalf and to that end, this man was pardoned. His associate, who participated in the assault and who was just as guilty as the man who fired the shot, was in Cincinnati, and we knew where he was for, approximately, two weeks, but we could not get that man arrested until finally when he left the jurisdiction of the court we caused his arrest on a fugitive warrant and he was brought back again. He pleaded guilty to simple assault and was subjected to a fine.

As applied to this particular section, under these circumstances, the provisions of the bill with reference to service would absolutely deny us the relief which was sought by way of injunction. We might go further to illustrate that subject, from the records that have appeared in court cases and are matters of common knowledge from papers circulating throughout the United States.

The CHAIRMAN. It is nearly 12 o'clock, and we will have to take a recess. We can probably meet at 2 o'clock. Senator Root, the chairman of the committee, has gone to Chicago, and Senators O'Gorman and Chilton are also out of town. There are only the two

of us here, but we can meet again at 2 o'clock.

of

Mr. MONAGHAN. I shall be glad to be here. May I be pardoned one suggestion before the gentlemen leave the room? I understand from the Senate record that a movement is on for the purpose taking this bill from the committee. I can not argue the final paragraph of this bill at this time, because the committee is about to attend the Senate session. However, I want to say to the committee before they retire that the last paragraph of the bill on the fourth page legitimatizes the primary and secondary boycott, and consequently destroys the present common-law doctrine of conspiracy and places us in such a position that we can not prevent unlawful assemblages upon property. "Unlawful assemblage" is defined in the foregoing part of the bill, and what otherwise would be unlawful assemblage is fixed by definition in the bill. Under the fact that we are denied relief in the event of conspiracy by the doing of unlawful things by lawful means the whole doctrine of common-law conspiracy is denied us in labor disputes. Hence I wish to emphasize the im

propriety of depriving us of full hearing upon the measure before the subject reaches the Senate for consideration.

The CHAIRMAN. We will hear from you later on that. I want to say to you gentlemen interested pro and con in this legislation that I have been unable to be present for the reason that I have had so many committee meetings conflicting with this. Day before yesterday I had three meetings, one before the committee on Porto Rico in behalf of a bill I was interested in, and the Public Lands Committee. I also had a conference on the river and harbor bill. I am chairman of the conference committee, and I have been handicapped, and even to-day my own committee, the Committee on Commerce, is sitting and I have left them to be here. That is my reason for being unable to be present. I should have been glad to have been at the hearings from the very beginning to hear everything pro and con, and I want to say to you gentlemen my absence has not been for the purpose of delaying the matter in any state or form.

Mr. GOMPERS. I certainly do not now desire to say anything in regard to the bill before the committee. First I want to say what was left unsaid by Mr. Monaghan. In regard to Mr. Valyntine, the president of the International Molders' Union, whose name was brought into these proceedings, he was completely exonerated or vindicated from any insinuation of the charge in connection with the case mentioned. In regard to the two men Mr. Monahan mentioned and over which he worked himself up into a frenzy in presenting, I will I think there is a union man who has been guilty of some wrong, say some offense, or crime. I do not know that all the members of the legal profession are immune from committing crimes, or those of any other profession or in any other walk of life. Reference has been made to a motion pending before the Senate, and I suppose we are all interested in seeing it disposed of to-day.

The difficulty has been where a move of this character has been made Members of Congress, both in the House and Senate, for years have regarded other species of legislation and other bills of such far transcendant importance over and above a measure of this character that we are at least in desperation required to see whether we can get some direct satisfaction. I am not blaming any particular Senator or Representative. I am simply saying that declarations of the great forces of our people find expression everywhere, in the national conventions of great political parties, in the national conventions of the labor organizations, in the national conventions of great civic bodies, and if they can not find some expression in legislative enactment in due time we are called upon at least to make our position known and felt, and if we can have some effective, concrete expression by the Congress of the United States on these muchmooted questions, it is our duty to do so.

Senator SUTHERLAND. Let me make this statement: The Congress of the United States has other business than this to attend to, and the members of this committee have a great many other things to attend to. I propose to give to this subject the best thought that I am capable of, and I intend before I vote upon the bill to give it as thorough consideration as I can. When I come to vote upon it I am going to vote as I think I ought to vote, and only after very thorough consideration.

So far as I am concerned I am not going to be crowded into failing to give thorough consideration to such a measure as this.

Mr. GOMPERS. I am sure there can be no dissent from that position and opinion.

The CHAIRMAN. I want to call attention to one fact. This morning three members of this committee are absent on account of the pending conventions with which you are familiar, two of our committee looking after the Democratic Convention at Baltimore and another having gone to Chicago. I have told you how I have been handicapped in not being able to appear here. I have not stayed away to delay matters, but I have been handicapped just as I have said.

Mr. GOMPERS. I have before said I have not a word to say in dissent of the attitude of mind of the members of the committee. My complaint is this: The underestimating of the valuable importance of this legislation and the subordination of it to measures that are insignificant in comparison, because this involves human liberty and common justice, and we have been trying to get the ear of our public men, in and out of Congress, to the extent that there was a declaration four years ago in the platforms of both the parties. The CHAIRMAN. We will now take a recess until 2 o'clock Thereupon, at 12.06 p. m., the committee took a recess until 2 o'clock p. m.

AFTER RECESS.

The subcommittee met after recess at 2 o'clock p. m.

The CHAIRMAN. You may proceed, Mr. Monaghan.

p. m.

Mr. MONAGHAN. At the time of the interruption by Mr. Gompers I was discussing section 266b, and I had stated to the committee the fact that the provisions of this act make it practically impossible, or if not impossible at least impracticable, on the part of the courts to obey in all respects the strict construction of that section and satisfy the requisites of justice. It modifies in a very material respect the present procedure in similar matters in courts of equity. I desire to call the committee's attention to section 86 of the rules and practice of Federal courts in equity, which reads as follows:

SEC. 86. In drawing up decrees and orders, neither the bill, nor answer, nor other pleadings, nor any part thereof, nor the report of any master, nor any other prior proceeding, shall be recited or stated in the decree or order; but the decree and order shall begin, in substance, as follows: "This cause came on to be heard (or to be further heard, as the case may be) at this term, and was argued by counsel; and thereupon upon consideration thereof, it was ordered, adjudged, and decreed as follows, viz: [Here insert the decree or order.]"

All that is necessary under the present procedure is to incorporate in the order the things actually enjoined by the court, and reference may be had to the bill of complaint for greater particularity. To incorporate in a decree or order every possible specific act of which a union might be guilty in the court of a labor dispute would, as I have already stated, be practically impossible and would involve complication and prolixity in procedure which should always be avoided.

SEC. 266b. That every order of injunction or restraining order shall set forth the reasons for the issuance of the same, shall be specific in terms and shall describe in reasonable detail, and not by reference to the bill of complaint or other document, the act or acts sought to be restrained; and shall be binding only upon the parties to the suit, their agents, servants, employees, and attorneys or those in active concert with them, and who shall by personal service or otherwise have received actual notice of the same.