to select such men as he thought best for him and then look only to them for the management without any personal knowledge of the conditions. He had his representatives on the board of directors, and Mr. L. M. Bowers was said to be his personal representative in the state of Colorado. What did Mr. Rockefeller ever do for the coal miners of Colorado to better their conditions morally or socially? There is no evidence of his inquiring as to the conditions of these men who worked for the company in which he was interested. But what could be expected of one who was only "a long-distance director" in all his dealings with the company? It is true he did spend a large part of his profits coming from the Colorado Industrial Co., a part of the Colorado Fuel & Iron Co., in the bettering of conditions in other parts of the country, but what of that when the money is gained in such way and at such expense to the state and its people?" Although Mr. Rockefeller has extended his business organization to include large charities and foundations for the promotion of knowledge and human welfare, yet he has never understood that men and women want justice, not charity, nor has he included in his welfare system the ideal that the greatest thing in the lives of men is liberty. Now that he has forced upon the miners of Colorado the Rockefeller idea of liberty, he is willing to bestow alms upon the hungry and the suffering. Yet a little while ago that hunger and that suffering moved him not, and he declared he would sacrifice every cent invested before he would permit the miners to replace the Rockefeller ideal of liberty for miners with their own ideal. Will the rich young man never feel the meaning of humanity? The committee's report called attention to the fact that private warfare in mining disputes had been organized a business field by the Baldwin-Felts Detective Agency. The report makes these specific statements: "The Baldwin-Felts Detective Agency was also employed to furnish men to guard the mines, and they swore in a number of men to perform service in the strike region. Some of these men were from coal fields where strikes had formerly existed, notably from West Virginia, where a strike had lately been settled. Some of the machine guns used in the late strike in West Virginia were sent from that state to Colorado. Mr. A. C. Felts testified that the same machine gun which was used in the armored car in West Virginia, and which was given so much publicity at the time, was shipped to Trinidad and was purchased by the mine operators and was used in Colorado. In all, at least 12 machine guns were sent into the coal fields of Colorado." The Colorado mine owners employed mine guards before the strike. The militia was brought in to take charge of the strike. What took place was that mine guards became members of the militia, but still remained in the pay of the coal company employers. These men knew that their employment depended upon the continuation of the industrial war. They were really in private employment, but were clothed with the authority of the state. This condition is one of the most serious problems that has developed out of the operation of mines. It is a condition that has attended miners' strikes in many states. Though industrial despotism may temporarily win in forcing men to work under conditions they do not deem fair, the history of the coal mines of Colorado proves that workers can not be forced to give up their ideals of industrial liberty. Colorado will never be free from such terrible industrial disasters until there industrial freedom and industrial justice are maintained. The coal operators of Colorado must be forced to obey the laws of the state. The miners must be assured industrial freedom which gives opportunity to work out their own welfare. They have learned that the source of their power lies in economic organization. That self-help is the essential to securing justice in Colorado is recognized in this quotation from the miners' official journal: "Where the workers are not organized in numbers to command respect, the law, and every law for that matter, has ever been a dead letter; witness the mining camps of Colorado, in which state a similar law as that of Kansas has long been on the statute books, only to be openly violated, with every other law intended to safeguard the workers." All members of labor organizations and all interested in the labor movement who attend the Panama-Pacific International Exposition at San Francisco, will find the exhibit of the American Federation of Labor in the Palace of Education and Social Economy. The exhibit represents the agencies by which the labor movement accomplishes its work, the progress that has been made, and the dominating, directing ideals of human freedom and opportunity for self-development that have directed the movement. All the individual features represent human progress toward freedom and opportunity for self-development. The primary step for that purpose is represented in reducing the hours of toil and increasing the hours of opportunity for all the other interests of life. The exhibit emphasizes the heart and actuating spirit of the labor movement which are embodied in the great declarations of the Sixty-third Congress of the United States in the Clayton antitrust and Seamen's acts-epoch-making declarations in the history of human liberty. For the information of those who visit the A. F. of L. booth, there will be copies of leaflets, pamphlets, and labor literature for reference and distribution. The official catalogue of the A. F. of L. exhibit in addition to information immediately relating to the exhibit, contains valuable historical data of the trade union movement. A representative of the A. F. of L. will be in charge of the exhibit. The members of organized labor and all visitors will not only be welcomed, but are particularly urged to register in the book that is there for that purpose. Economic organization gives power-power to protect the workers against industrial exploitation and injustice; power to secure for them opportunities for development; power to secure for them things that will make life sane, whole and good; power to bring into their lives something of beauty and pleasure; power to secure political representation for their ideals and recogninition of their demands in legislation. Whatever success Labor has had in establishing its ideals in any field of activity has been due to its numerical strength and solidarity of economic organization. LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE REPORT WASHINGTON, D. C., March 15, 1915. Washington, D. C. R SIR AND BROTHER: The report which is th submitted is a final report on legislation in the interests of the workers have been conduring the whole period of the Sixty-third ess. l 7, 1913, Congress assembled in extraordinary and except for a recess of five weeks has d uninterruptingly. Probably no Congress receded it worked so hard and so diligently as e members of this Congress. It is certain that previous Congress did such a large proportion mbers take such an active part in legislation the Representatives and Senators in the SixtyCongress, and never before in the history of ation was there so much discussion and contion given to the rights and interests of the ers and the fundamentals of human freedom. cause of the fact that full and complete rewere made by the Executive Council to the le and Philadelphia Conventions on legislative ers up to the dates of writing those reports, it is eemed necessary to repeat in detail in this rethe legislative incidents that were contained eir reports. Nevertheless, a complete summary ven herewith of legislation enacted which the . of L. demanded, together with a record of the ation which failed. Intitrust-Injunction Limitation-Contempts he Seattle Convention in November, 1913, rmed the resolution passed by the Rochester vention, in favor of the Bartlett-Bacon bills to edy the injunction abuses and to exempt the nizations of laborers from the antitrust law. ry possible endeavor was made to secure favoraction upon these bills by the Judiciary Comtees of both Houses, but partly owing to the th of Senator Bacon and terrific opposition ch was brought to bear from many influential tile sources against considering those measures their own merits, it was ultimately found to be best method of procedure to include the princi5 of the Bartlett-Bacon bills, the Clayton Inction Limitation bill, and the Clayton Contempt into the proposed composite measure by Repretative Clayton for the purpose of supplementexisting laws against "unlawful restraints and nopolies." This composite measure which conned the principles in the Bartlett-Bacon bills et with the approval of the A. F. of L. The Executive Council stated in its report to the iladelphia Convention, on page 54, that the ClayAntitrust Act was: "The greatest legislative tory that was secured by Labor during the past ar (1914), which secured to the workers of Amera those fundamental principles of industrial erty which are among the chief features of the of Grievances and were the object of the political Miey which the A. F. of L. inaugurated in 1906." The history of this measure having been re ported by the Executive Council to the conventions and by you as editor of the AMERICAN FEDERATIONIST on several occasions, it is not deemed necessary to go into further detail concerning the enactment of the Clayton Antitrust Act, other than to call to the attention of the members of organized labor and the general public a slight reference to the behavior of the agents who represented Big Business, the National Association of Manufacturers, the American Antiboycott Association, the several Chambers of Commerce, and other lesser lights of vested interests, not omitting even former President Taft and former Attorney-General Wickersham. Early in April, 1914, when the Judiciary Committee of the House and other high officials of the government consented to include the antitrust, the injunction limitation and remedial contempt legislation favored by Labor in the Clayton supplementary Antitrust bill, the attorneys, legislative agents, and other spokesmen of the several business interests made vigorous and vehement protests against such procedure; they acted like men that were panic stricken. They prophesied dire consequences. They harried Members of Congress in person, as well as by thousands of letters and telegrams. They did all this while the labor provisos were under consideration by the House Committee and in imperfect form. When the bill was finally reported out they became more alarmed, and when we succeeded in having the bill strengthened and improved while under discussion in the House, they became even more excited. After the bill was made still stronger in regard to Labor's interests, as passed by the Senate and approved by the President, these same gentlemen performed a rapid somersault by exclaiming orally and by pamphlet that the Labor provisos were useless and would not meet the needs that Labor sought. At the time of this writing the attorneys for the Antiboycott Association are circularizing business men to secure subscriptions to their association for the purpose of opposing prospective labor legislation and to embroil labor in litigation. Representatives and Senators are among those who now ask: "Of what value is the legal knowledge of an attorney for the National Association of Manufacturers and the Antiboycott Association when they reverse themselves so completely and so expeditiously?" The Clayton Law contains this fundamental declaration, "the labor of a human being is not a commodity or article of commerce." The reader, the student of the labor problem, should in connection with this report read the report on this subject made to the Philadelphia, 1914, A. F. of L. Convention by the Executive Council, and also the article in the November, 1914, issue of the AMERICAN FEDERATIONIST under the title "The Charter of Industrial Freedom." Antitrust Section in Sundry Civil Bills It will be recalled how difficult it was to secure a proviso in the antitrust section of the Sundry Civil Appropriation Act in 1910, prohibiting the AttorneyGeneral from using funds to prosecute organization of labor and farmers. Former President Taft prevented the passage of that proviso in 1910; he vetoed a similar proviso when it passed Congress in 1912. One of the first acts during the first session of the Sixty-third Congress was to pass the bill which President Taft had vetoed and which was afterwards signed by President Wilson. During the second session of this Congress, the Appropriation Committees of the House and Senate inserted these provisos as committee recommendations. They passed both bodies. In the House the vote was 103 to 6, and there was no division in the Senate. In the third session the provisos were again included by the Appropriation Committees, and passed both Houses without discussion and without opposition. This discloses the fact that this legislation for which Labor had so vigorously contended in previous Congresses was passed three times during the Sixty-third Congress; twice because it was a part of the regular duty of the Congress to pass such appropriation bills, and once-the first timebecause it was necessary to make amends for the veto of former President Taft in the Sixty-second Congress. In order that the record may be preserved these provisos are again reproduced: "Provided, however, That no part of this money shall be spent in the prosecution of any organization or individual for entering into any combination or agreement having in view the increasing of wages, the shortening of hours, or bettering the conditions of labor, or for any act done in furtherance thereof, not in itself unlawful: "Provided further, That no part of this appropriation shall be expended for the prosecution of producers of farm products and associations of farmers who cooperate and organize in an effort to and for the purpose to obtain and maintain a fair and reasonable price for their products." Seamen's Legislation Extended reports were made upon this subject by the Executive Council to the Seattle and Philadelphia Conventions, consequently it is not necessary to go into details here other than to say that the LaFollette bill, S. 4, substituted for S. 136, favored by the Seamen's Union and urged for enactment by the A. F. of L. passed the United States Senate with only one dissenting vote on October 23, 1913. After extended effort the House Committee on Merchant Marine reported the bill to the House in an amended form on June 19, 1914. It was brought up, debated and passed on August 27, 1914. It was then referred back to the Senate Committee on Commerce. On January 4, 1915, the bill was sent to conference and on February 27, 1915, the Senate agreed to the conference report without a dissenting vote. After the Senate had agreed to the conference report Senator Smith of Georgia moved to reconsider the action of the Senate in agreeing to the conference report. He made a vigorous speech in behalf of that motion. Senator LaFollette replied just as vigorously and more effectually in defense of the action of the Senate and in advocacy of the Seamen's bill. He concluded by moving to lay the motion of Senator Smith upon the table which was adopted. The President approved the bill on March 4, 19:5 This measure marks a great forward step in th march of human freedom and progress. It removes the last vestige of involuntary servitude in the laws of the United States. It will have for its effect the same beneficent influence for seamen in other countries of the world. It is one of the measures that the A. F. of L. first urged Congress to enact into law It will improve the working conditions of seamen The field of organization will be extended and the general public who travel on the high seas will be afforded a larger measure of safety provisions. The passage of this wise legislation by the Sixtythird Congress was one of its most creditable d tinctions. The Licensed Officers Bill, H. R. 16392, by Rep resentative Hardy of Texas, for the purpose of im proving the regulations of the service of license officers in the merchant marine and of promoting safety at sea, after passage in the House was take: up in the Senate on March 1, 1915, and passed without change. It was approved by the Preside March 3, 1915. This bill amends sections 4445 ar 4448 of the Revised Statutes and gives protectice to officers reporting defects in their vessels to the inspection officials. The bill also defines and ettends the right of licensed officers to quit the servic of a ship owner at the expiration of their contract All of the former elements of compulsion on the parts of ship owners against licensed officers are removed. This act is a valuable addition to the legislatio protecting the rights of seafaring men. Bureau of Mines The Bureau of Mines bill, H. R. 15869, by Rep resentative Foster of Illinois, for the purpose o extending the safety provisions of the Bureau Mines Act, including the establishment of 10 new mining experiment stations and 7 new mine safet stations. It authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to carry out the purposes of the act. It passed the House on February 1, 1915, and the Senate or March 1, 1915, and was approved by the President on March 3. This is an exceptionally valuable safety measur and it is gratifying to note that during its passage through Congress there was no noticeable oppos. tion to it. Taylor System-Piecework Abolished in Government Service The Deitrick bill, H. R. 17800, introduced for the purpose of abolishing the Taylor system in Govern ment navy yards and arsenals, was favorably reported by the House Committee on Labor Sep tember 30, 1914, but owing to the difficulty of ge: ting it considered in the House on its own ments Mr. Deitrick offered it as an amendment to the Army Appropriation bill. The point of order wa made against it because of the claim that it was new legislation, but by the fidelity, effort and ability Representatives Buchanan, Nolan, Keating ar others of the Labor group, it was proved to th satisfaction of the House that contractual re tions and industrial conditions can be defined · an appropriation bill. The point of order was over ruled and the House unanimously adopted the Deitrick anti-stop watch, anti-speeding up, ant premium system proviso to the bill. The members of all parties in the House vigorously applauded when it passed. The working people who are employed in the government establishments could not have been more pleased than the members of Congress seemed to be when they had scored this victory in behalf of humane working conditions. The Senate Committee on Military Affairs struck the proviso out and when the bill came before the Senate on February 23, 1915, a vigorous debate ensued. Senators Lippitt of Rhode Island; Thomas of Colorado; Warren of Wyoming; Weeks of Massachusetts; Oliver of Pennsylvania, and Root of New York, vigorously supported the Taylor system and the committee in its action. Senators Hughes and Martine of New Jersey emphatically protested and urged the inclusion of the House proviso. After extended debate and three ballots taken, the Senate by a vote of 33 to 27, sustained the committee and struck out the anti-Taylor system proviso. When the Naval Appropriation bill passed the House on February 8, 1915, a similar anti-Taylor system proviso was included in that bill. The Senate Committee on Naval Affairs kept it in the bill, but, when the Naval bill came before the Senate on February 25, 1915, Senators Warren of Wyoming and Oliver of Pennsylvania, raised points of order gainst the anti-Taylor system proviso in the Naval ill. The point of order was sustained by the VicePresident. Both measures then went to conference. Finally on March 2, 1915, when the conferees reported that the House would not recede, the Senate agreed to adopt the anti-Taylor system proviso in the Naval bill. The only protesting votes against it were those of Senators Oliver of Pennsylvania, Lippitt of Rhode Island, and Weeks of Massachu etts. Later, on the same day, the Senate conferees on the Army bill reported that they had agreed with the House conferees to retain the anti-Taylor system in the Army bill. This was agreed to, Senators Oliver of Pennsylvania, and Bristow of Kansas, registering their opposition to the last. Having now succeeded in adding these meritorious provisos to the Naval and Army appropriations alls, it will be a much easier matter to obtain deaite statutory legislation prohibiting the stopwatch, speeding-up, premium, bonus, Taylor sysems in government establishments. During the consideration of the Legislative, Executive and Judicial Appropriation bill on Janary 22,1914 (second session), through the efforts of Representatives Buchanan, Nolan and others, the system of piecework which had been in existence one division of the Post-office Department, Washgton, D. C., was defeated. The system had beme intolerable. Public vs. Private Construction of Naval and Other Vessels The Rochester and Seattle Conventions gave structions to encourage legislation in behalf of blic vs. private construction of navy vessels and or all repairs to government vessels to be made at wernment yards. Continuous efforts have been made along the res of these resolutions. The proportion of repairs government vessels being made in government vy Yards is now much greater than in private yards as a result of our united efforts. In the Naval Appropriation bill for 1914 a new battleship (No. 39) was ordered constructed in the New York Navy Yard. The construction of a supply ship at an estimated cost of $1,171,713 was given to the Charlestown Navy Yard at Boston. The League Island Navy Yard at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, is to construct a transport vessel at a cost of $1,458,305. A submarine is to be built at the Portsmouth, New Hampshire, Navy Yard. For the better equipment of the Philadelphia and Boston yards for new construction work an appropriation of $148,000 was secured for the Boston yard, and $200,000 for the Philadelphia yard. The following valuable clause in the interests of the metal trades was secured in the Naval Appropriation bill: "No part of the sums appropriated by this act shall be used to procure through purchase or contract any vessels, armament, articles or materials which the navy yards, gun factories or other industrial plants operated by the Navy Department are equipped to supply, unless such government plants are operated approximately at their full capacity for not less than one regular shift each working day." Several bills were introduced in Congress for the purpose of public construction and public ownership of a merchant marine. Eight Hours and Hours of Service on Railroads The eight-hour day was secured for working women in the District of Columbia, through the LaFollette bill, S. 1294, which passed the Senate on July 10, 1913, and passed the House without an opposing vote, on February 12, 1914. It was signed by President Wilson February 24, 1914. The full text of this law was published in the March, 1914, issue of the American FederATIONIST. On March 13, in a test case, the law was declared constitutional by Justice McCoy of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia. The passage of this act stimulated interest in behalf of a prospective federal law to prevent the transportation by interstate commerce of products upon which women and children are employed over eight-hours per day. The Telegraphers' eight-hour bill, No. 12102, by Representative Stevens of New Hampshire, was strongly urged before the House Committee on Interstate Commerce, but largely owing to complications arising in that committee over a new bill proposing to extend more powers to the Interstate Commerce Commission, it was impossible to get the Telegraphers' bill advanced. When the Alaska Coal Land bill was up in the House, Representative Lewis of Maryland secured the inclusion of the following eight-hour and other protective features for Labor in that act: "Section 12. Each lease shall contain provisions for the purpose of insuring the exercise of reasonable diligence, skill, and care in the operation of said property, and for the safety and welfare of the miners and for the prevention of undue waste, including a restriction of the workday to not exceeding eight hours in any one day for underground workers except in cases of emergency; provisions securing the |
