The labor bills that have been introduced into all of these Congresses have been numerous and cover a great variety of subjects. They may be roughly classed under three heads. First, there is legislation of a general character, not specifically dealing with the wage-earner, but in the estimation of the A. F. L. advantageous to the interests of the wage-earning class, or giving to organized labor a position of strategic advantage. Under this head could be enumerated the constitutional amendments relating to the income tax and the popular election of United States Senators. In the same class would be put the parcels post, the postal savings banks, publicity of campaign contributions and expenses, equal suffrage for women, various Federal investigations (as, for example, the Industrial Relations Commission), the establishment of a Department of Labor, and modifications of parliamentary practice so as to prevent the smothering of labor bills.1

Under the second head should be classed legislation specifically beneficial to wage-earners, whether union or non-union. Here should be put eight-hour laws, laws restricting immigration (especially Oriental immigration), workmen's compensation and employers' liability laws, convict labor laws, child labor laws, and laws regulating dangerous trades.

Finally, legislation is demanded which is distinctly union labor legislation - legislation which frankly accords a position of strategic advantage to organized labor, both as compared with the employer and the non-union competitor. Under this head are to be put the bills which the A. F. L. has pressed with the most

1 House resolution 808 (June 17, 1910) was an important victory for organized labor against the abuse of smothering bills in committees. It provided that any member could make a motion in writing to discharge any committee from further consideration of any specific bill. Motions so made were required to be put to the House for passage by the Speaker in the order received. If the motion prevailed, this brought the bill before the House, where it would be debated and voted on.

intensity of earnestness and insistence: modifications of the Sherman law in such a way as to exempt labor unions from its condemnation, and modification of the judicial processes of injunction and contempt; the end and aim being to secure to organized labor the free and untrammeled use of its weapons of the strike, the picket, and the boycott.

Legislation of the first two types needs little discussion. The mere enumeration of the titles will at once suggest the progress that has been made. On nearly all the matters mentioned some legislation has been secured. In the matter of workmen's compensation, indeed, the two great rival organizations found themselves in approximate agreement. While differing in important matters of detail, both the N. A. M. and the A. F. L. favor the general principle of regulating by law the compensation which shall be paid to workmen injured by accident.

Most significant is the progress made with legislation of the third type. In all of the Congresses to which reference has been made numerous bills relating to the Sherman law and to injunction and contempt have been introduced; but not all of these were approved by the A. F. L. In each Congress, out of the several bills introduced, one or more has been selected upon which the Federation has concentrated its efforts. In the sixtieth Congress the Wilson amendment to the Sherman law and the Pearre anti-injunction bill were the Federation bills. Both measures got no further than the sub-committees to which they were referred. was his refusal to call his sub-committee together on the Wilson amendment that cost Mr. Bannon his seat in Congress. In the sixty-first Congress, the Federation bills were an anti-injunction bill offered by Mr. Wilson and the Hughes amendment to the Sundry Civil Appro

It

priation bill. The anti-injunction bill was introduced as an independent measure, and, fearing that he might not succeed by this method, Mr. Wilson also endeavored to have it incorporated, in part, as an amendment to the codification of the laws relating to the Judiciary when the latter measure was in committee. The amendment having been ruled "not germane in the committee, Mr. Wilson tried it again from the floor of the House. The amendment passed the House but got no further. The Hughes amendment was of the nature of a rider attached to the Sundry Civil Appropriation bill, providing that none of the money appropriated under the act should be used for the prosecution of labor organizations for alleged violations of the Sherman law arising out of labor disputes. This amendment also passed the House, but was lost in the Senate. The bill then went to conference. The Senate conferees insisted on the rejection of the amendment but the House voted not to concur. Finally, however, because of executive pressure from President Taft the bill passed both houses without the amendment.

The parliamentary career of the above bills has been given in some detail as illustrating not only the progress of labor legislation, but also the parliamentary tactics resorted to by both sides and the unremitting vigilence and pressure which were applied to Congress by the great economic rivals. No less interesting was the contest in the next Congress. The Federation bills were the Bartlett-Bacon bill, covering labor's demands with respect to the Sherman law, injunction, and contempt; and, failing in that, two Clayton bills, covering the matters of injunction and contempt, and specifically legalizing" the strike, the picket, and the boycott, but making no reference to the Sherman law. The Bartlett-Bacon bill was referred to the labor committees

in both House and Senate. This was contrary to precedent for such bills, but the Labor committees were thought to be more favorable to organized labor than the Judiciary. This was especially true of the House Labor committee, of which Mr. Wilson was chairman, and which contained several members of the "labor group." Mr. Emery, in behalf of the employers, at once endeavored to have the bills re-referred to the Judiciary committees.1 He was successful in the Senate, but not in the House. The Bartlett bill died on the House calendar. Its twin in the Senate never emerged from the Judiciary committee. Failing in all these bills the Federation made another attempt on the Sherman law by means of a rider to the Sundry Civil Appropriation bill similar to that tried in the preceding Congress, and here it fell short of victory by a very narrow margin. The bill with the amendment passed both houses of Congress and was submitted to President Taft on March 4, 1913, and was promptly returned with

1 "I immediately got in touch with Mr. Clayton, Chairman of the House Judiciary committee," says Mr. Emery in a letter to Mr. Kirby, "and called his attention to the reference, and he expressed surprise, as he realized the bill should go to the Judiciary committee... I thought I would appeal to Mr. Clayton's pride and he gave every evidence of being much displeased at the reference of this bill, and said he would take the matter up on the floor at once."- House Hearings on the Lobby, p. 82.

From another letter touching the same matter: "You know that for the past nine weeks our Democratic members of the Judiciary committee have been between the devil of Gompers and the deep sea of business protest against the legislation which they had voted out of the committee, but could neither frame a report to vindicate, nor gather the courage to report to the House. Becoming impatient our labor friends got a new bill.. Mr. Bartlett of Georgia introduced this bill in the House, and Senator Bacon of the same state in the Senate. Now comes the game. The Bill was referred to the House committee on labor instead of the Judiciary committee at Mr. Bartlett's request. I called your attention to the fact that I aroused Mr. Clayton's ire and he sought to secure a re-reference, to which Mr. Bartlett objected. The bill now goes

to the House calendar and there will be some warm doings. I shall have a bulletin out on this interesting document shortly. It is interesting to observe that the difficult Constitutional questions which scared the Democratic Judiciary committee through the ropes are met with a courage unequalled by a miner, a hat maker, and a structural iron worker whose preliminary education has made them utterly fearless in the presence of any known legal problem! So unionists rush in where lawyers fear to tread. No man is so courageous as he who sits on a powder keg in the firm belief that it is filled with mustard seed." — Ibid., p. 84. The above excerpts throw an interesting side light on the vigilence, the tactics, and the attitude of mind of the contending parties.

his veto, the veto being explicitly given because of the rider. The House passed the bill over the President's veto, but before it could come up in the Senate the sixtysecond Congress had expired.

This brings us down to the sixty-third Congress (1913-1915). The Democrats were now in complete control of the government; and the Democrats had come into power pledged by their party platform to a labor policy which had been pronounced satisfactory by Mr. Gompers. The prospects, therefore, for favorable labor legislation look bright, and these prospects have been realized. To confine ourselves to the particular type of bill last mentioned, tho this is by no means exhaustive, the Sundry Civil Appropriation bill with the Sherman law amendment which had been vetoed by President Taft was reintroduced early in the special session and received President Wilson's signature, June 23, 1913. This was recognized, however, by Mr. Gompers as only a makeshift. The efforts of the labor people have been chiefly concentrated on the Clayton bill, which apparently grants to organized labor its most essential demands. It has at last become law. It passed the House, June 5, 1914; the Senate, September 2; then went to conference; and finally received President Wilson's signature October 15.1 The act is of a composite character and deals with many other matters besides labor. The portions of especial interest in this connection are section 6, and sections 17 to 24 inclusive. Section 6, relating to the Sherman law, is as follows: "The labor of a human being is not a commodity or article of commerce. Nothing contained in the anti-trust laws shall be construed to forbid the existence and operation of labor, agricultural, and

1 The Clayton act is also called the Anti-trust" act; its general provisions are discussed by Professor E. D. Durand in this Journal, November, 1914.