law that has been for thirty-five or forty years under the Constitution of the United States, the law that has governed since the beginning of the United States as a nation, if that law has been sufficient to carry on business and to protect and conserve the citizenship of this country, then it seems to me it ought to be sufficient in this twentieth century. They have urged no particular reason why this bill should be passed. There are no great interests whose rights are being infringed that are demanding the passage of this bill. It applies to everybody alike, and, gentlemen of the committee, that is the kind of law we need. We want a law that will protect the rights of the individual with the same intensity as it will protect the rights of all others. We want State laws so framed, we want the courts so constituted, we want the governing power of the United States Government to be so managed that the rights and privileges of our citizens, rich and poor, great and small, will be preserved even to the end. Now, that is the condition of affairs. Judge Bond pointed out conclusively to you, gentlemen, that this bill if it became a law would infringe upon the Sherman antitrust act. There is no question about that. But let me go further with that particular phase of it, Mr. Chairman, and let me read from section 5508 of the United States Revised Statutes of 1901, volume 3:

If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any citizen in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, they shall be guilty,

and so on. Now, what do you say by this bill?

This is what you say:

Nothing in this act shall exempt from punishment, otherwise than as herein excepted, any persons guilty of conspiracy for which punishment is now provided by any act of Congress, but such act of Congress shall

That means all the acts of Congress

as to the agreements, combinations, and contracts herein before referred to, be construed as if this act were therein contained.

Now, you would have to read the statute I have just read in a different way; you would have to go on and say about that, "If two or more persons conspire to injure, threaten, oppress, or intimidate, except in controversies between employers and employees, in the free exercise of their rights." Don't you see you would have to read that into all these statutes?

There is page after page here of conspiracy laws passed by the Congress of the United States prohibiting combinations, defining the law of conspiracy, and yet in every one of these you would have to read in this provision, that as to this particular class of business the law does not apply. Why do so? Why is there any necessity of reading into that statute, which guarantees individual rights from oppression, and intimidation, and coercion; why must you read into that "except in disputes between employer and employee?" There is no necessity for it, gentlemen.

Now, I want to conclude. You gentlemen know your duty; it is not for me to say, and I believe that you will do your duty. But let me add in conclusion that the eyes of the people are on you and they are looking to see that you stand by the Government and the principles of the Constitution of the United States and that you do not depart from the traditions of our fathers. I thank you.

Mr. GILLETT, of California. Mr. Furuseth asks this question:

In relation to your argument on the boycott, was it un-American to refuse to buy tea and request others to refuse to buy it in 1774.

Mr. WALTZ. No; but it is not an analogous case, gentlemen.

That

was a controversy between the United States and a foreign nation. In this case the law governs everybody alike.

Mr. FURUSETH. Was England a foreign nation at that time?

Mr. WALTZ. We say those laws must not be infringed upon by the boycott or in any other way.

Mr. GILLETT, of California. Mr. Furuseth wants to know whether at the time that was done England was a foreign nation.

Mr. WALTZ. It was in the nature of a foreign nation because of the controversy that was going on between England and the colonies in regard to the rights of the colonies.

Mr. GILLETT, of California. That was an offense against the King? Mr. WALTZ. Yes.

Mr. GILLETT, of California. This is the second question presented by Mr. Furuseth:

Do you claim that injunctions should be used for any other purpose than to protect vested rights?

Mr. WALTZ. Vested rights, and to preserve law and order.

Mr. GILLETT, of California. Here is another:

Do you claim that they should be used to enforce law?

Mr. WALTZ. Yes, sir; I do.

Mr. GILLETT, of California (reading another question): Do you claim that the employer has a vested right and sufficient power to conduct the business in which he is engaged?

Mr. WALTZ. I do not understand.

Mr. GILLETT, of California. Do you claim that the employer has a vested right and sufficient power to conduct the business in which he is engaged?

Mr. WALTZ. I most certainly do. I think he has the right to employ as many men as he deems sufficient, or as many or different kinds of men to manage his business in the way he deems just as he pleases, so long as he does not interfere with the rights of others in doing it and does not break the law in so doing.

The CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen, the committee wants to conclude this hearing at half past 5. I make this statement so you will know how long you have.

(The pamphlet referred to and quoted from by Mr Waltz, entitled "Law of the Federal and State Courts on Question of Injunctions Against Striking Workmen" will be found printed in these hearings following the oral statements.)

Mr. PARSONS. Mr. Hough, of Washington, D. C., of the Master Builders' Association, will now address the committee.

STATEMENT OF MR. GEORGE C. HOUGH, REPRESENTING THE MASTER BUILDERS' ASSOCIATION, OF WASHINGTON, D. C.

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I have been listening for the last three days with very much profit to the discussion on this subject before you, and that which I had in my mind to say has been repeatedly said, so that I would hardly be justified in speaking along the lines I had in mind.

I might reiterate a great deal that has been said if I chose to take

the time and you had the patience to listen, but I will not weary you in going over matters that have already been so thoroughly and ably covered by the gentlemen who have preceded me.

I heartily indorse all that has been said, and, as I represent the Master Builders' Association of the District of Columbia, I am sure that I voice their sentiment in saying that they indorse what has been said. I have been selected as chairman of a committee to present our protest against the passage of this bill in its present form, for reasons which are set forth in a brief protest which has been written and which I will read and leave with the committee.

It would be, perhaps, not out of place to say that at one time in my history I was the secretary of a labor organization. For five consecutive years I held that place, and to my certain knowledge our average attendance was never more than 10 per cent of the membership, and all the legislation, which at one time created a strike which continued for a period of thirteen weeks, and in which I suffered a considerable pecuniary loss, was enacted, was promulgated, and sustained by not more than 20 per cent of the entire membership of the organization of which I was a member. I was also a member of the executive committee that sat daily to hear complaints during that strike. So I believe that these agitations that are brought before this committee are not properly brought before the labor organizations as a mass.

I took it upon myself in the last two or three days to consult 20 members of organized labor, and not one single man in the whole number that I consulted knew anything whatever about this proposed legislation, and I venture the assertion here, and desire to go on record as saying, that if the entire membership were brought before this committee individually there would not be 25 per cent that would understand the legislation or desire it if it was properly presented before them.

It was only this morning that I consulted one of the most intelligent labor men in the city of Washington, although he was not a leader. He told me that it seemed to him that it was giving them certain liberties which they did not want, and he is an intelligent man. I would not be at liberty to give his name without his consent, but I am very sure his consent could be obtained. He told me that he desired me to protest in the name of him and other men who have considered this bill against the passage of any such legislation.

He said he does not desire this because it gives him the privilege of doing something he does not desire to do. He does not desire the responsibility thrust upon him that this bill would impose. So I claim that there is no necessity for the passage of this bill.

I desire also to go on record as saying that I am sure that the people who are advocating the passage of this bill are simply advocating it for their own protection. There was a time in my life when I was afraid of a policeman. I looked upon a policeman as a terror to any boy and to any man, and that impression became so fixed in my mind that I was afraid of every policeman I saw. I believed from what I had been told that the object of policemen was to take care of boys and put them somewhere because they were bad. When I grew up I learned differently, and now it is with reverence that I can take off my hat to the police force of the United States and view with pride any soldier in uniform; because I know that I have no cause to be arrested or to be apprehended, because I have violated no law.

And so my conclusion is this: That these people who desire the passage of this bill desire it simply that they may have liberty to do things which the law prohibits them from doing.

These matters have all been covered, this ground has been gone over, and it is scarcely necessary, it is unimportant, for me to say anything more than simply to read the protest which has been prepared by our organization and which I will read and leave with the committee.

WASHINGTON, D. C., February 24, 1904.

To the Committee of the Judiciary, House of Representatives,

United States of America, Washington, D. C.:

The Master Builders' Association of the District of Columbia (Incorporated), at a regular members' meeting, February 2, 1904, appointed the undersigned a committee to prepare and submit to your honorable body a protest against the passage in its present form of House Bill 89, limiting the meaning of the word "conspiracy" and the use of "restraining orders and injunctions."

We therefore beg leave to submit our objections to and our protest against the passage of the bill, for the following reasons, namely:

We believe that it savors of legalizing lawlessness, and destroys in a certain measure the guaranteed protection against danger to life and property. Its tendency will be to foster combinations by which personal liberty can be destroyed, and the spirit of free government will be threatened.

We are confident that its defeat will be more to the interest of organized labor than its success. It must be apparent to all that, whenever organized labor in its mistaken zeal has resorted to acts which it has sought under this measure to legalize, that moment they have met defeat. Public opinion has always rendered its verdict against such means to an end and always will, whether such means be legalized or committed in secrecy. It is contrary to the spirit of our free Government.

Therefore we, as representatives of the Master Builders' Association above mentioned, respectfully submit, on behalf of the association, our most earnest protest against the passage of the bill in its present form and most humbly petition you to use your good offices against its passage. By so doing we believe you will, in a greater measure, benefit organized labor and render to the people of a free government services which are theirs by right of the Constitution. Respectfully submitted.

GEORGE C. HOUGH.
W. H. MCCRAY.
SAMUEL J. PRESCOTT.
W. E. SPEIR.

Mr. GILLETT, of California. Mr. Fuller submits this question:

Referring to the statement that you made that not over 10 per cent of the members of the union were present when strikes were ordered, is it not true that bills pass both Houses of Congress by less than a quorum if the question of quorum is not raised?

Mr. HOUGH. It may be true. That does not necessarily follow that all the members absent knew nothing about it. It legalizes it, but it does not necessarily follow that all the members that were absent were necessarily in favor of it.

Mr. PARSONS. Mr. Chairman, I have been selected as a medium by 12 associations to submit to you resolutions referring to this bill, which are signed by the parties. I desire to have them filed.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well; they can be included in the record.

Mr. PARSONS. We have one from the Master Builders' Association of Pittsburg, Pa.; we have one from the Master Plumbers' Association of Pittsburg, Pa.; one from the Master Plasterers' Association of Pittsburg, Pa.; one from the Mantel and Tile Dealers' Credit Association of Pittsburg, Pa.; one from the Brick Contractors of Allegheny County, Pa.; one from the Builders' Exchange of Allegheny County, Pa.; one from the Builders and Traders' Exchange of Minneapolis,

Minn.; one from the Slaters and Roofers' Association of Pittsburg, Pa.; one from the Master Builders' Association of Minneapolis, Minn.; one from the Master Housemen's Association of Pittsburg, Pa., and vicinity; and one from the Employers' Association of the District of Columbia.

Mr. PARSONS. I will next introduce Mr. Oviatt, of Rochester, N. Y.

STATEMENT OF MR. PERCIVAL D. OVIATT, ROCHESTER, N. Y.

Mr. Chairman, I represent the thirteen trade associations of the city of Rochester; I represent the combined employers of Jamestown, N. Y., and I represent the combined employers of Elmira, N. Y. In my representation of Rochester it may be safely said that I represent the entire invested capital of the city of Rochester, N. Y.

Now, gentlemen, the first thing I should like to talk about is to take up this rather unfortunate illustration which was used by some gentleman favoring this bill here, and that is the Boston tea party. It seems to me it is a pretty apt illustration, for this reason: That act in Boston was very American, but that act was un-English, and at that time they were operating under the laws and under the government of England, and that act was revolutionary in its character.

The American Colonies had stood for things English until their patience was exhausted, and at that time they resolved to throw off the yoke of England and disregard government and disregard law, and at that time, just as in every revolution, and just as in every case where the law is disregarded and revolution follows, they disregarded everything they were bound to live up to if they continued under their form of government.

If these gentlemen want to put themselves in the position that they disregard all law and all government, and that because the American tea party was one thing, and this is like it, that therefore this is revolution, we, I believe, are satisfied to let them consider the bill in that light, and we are willing you should consider itin that light, and we are willing that the country at large should stamp their approval or disapproval of the bill in that view of the situation.

We do say that the bill is un-American, just as the Boston tea party was un-English, because we are operating now under a form of government that is American, and at that time it was English.

I appreciate the situation here; I appreciate that you are weary, and I appreciate this is a body of men to whom it is unnecessary to repeat anything.

I regret that for the sake of getting it out of my own system I could not say all that there is to be said on all the propositions here—that is, almost all, of course. It has been said, however, and I can not say it without repeating it, and it has been better said than I could say it. But there is one phase of the question that I should like to address you upon which has not been touched upon very fully. For the purpose of this argument and for the purpose of our presence here to-day, let us disregard the nature of the bill; let us disregard its evils and its horrors, as they have been painted by other gentlemen, talking against the bill; let us say that so far as the merits of the bill are concerned they are what they should be.

Then, gentlemen, let me draw to your minds illustrations of other things. Let us remember that a country, as we believe, should be a