Page images
PDF
EPUB

ANTI-INJUNCTION BILL.

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
January 13, 1904

The committee met at 11 o'clock a. m., Hon. John J. Jenkins, char

man, presiding.

The bill under consideration is as follows:

[H. R. 89, Fifty-eighth Congress, first session.]

A BILL to limit the meaning of the word "conspiracy" and the use of "restraining orders and injunctions" in certain cases.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That no agreement, combination, or contract by or between two or more persons to do or procure to be done, or not to do or procure not to be done, any act in contemplation or furtherance of any trade dispute between employers and employees in the District of Columbia or in any Territory of the United States, or between employers and employees who may be engaged in trade or commerce between the several States, or between any Territory and another, or between any Territory or Territories and any State or States or the District of Columbia, or with foreign nations, or between the District of Columbia and any State or States or foreign nations, shall be deemed criminal, nor shall those engaged therein be indictable or otherwise punishable for the crime of conspiracy, if such act committed by one person would not be punishable as a crime, nor shall such agreement, combination, or contract be considered as in restraint of trade or commerce, nor shall any restraining order or injunction be issued with relation thereto. 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, as to the agreements, combinations, and contracts hereinbefore referred to, be construed as if this act were therein contained.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Gompers, you desire to be heard this morning in regard to this bill, do you not?

Mr. GOMPERS. There is no disposition on our part to be heard upon this bill at all.

The CHAIRMAN. What is the number of the bill that you gentlemen desired to be heard on, is it H. R. No. 69?

Mr. GOMPERS. It is the Grosvenor bill.

The CHAIRMAN. H. R.No. 89?

Mr. GOMPERS. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. We will be glad to hear what you have to say.

3

STATEMENT OF SAMUEL GOMPERS, PRESIDENT OF THE
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR.

Mr. GOMPERS. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, there is no desire on the part of the advocates of this bill to be heard, unless, of course, the committee in its view should determine that hearings are necessary. This bill has been before the last three Congresses, and in each instance has received the favorable consideration of the committee, and was favorably reported to the House, and the bill has passed the House of Representatives by a practically unanimous vote. We feel, therefore, unless the committee should deem it necessary that we should present any argument in favor of the passage of the bill, as to why the committee should report it favorably, that we do not care to do so. Of course, if the committee does so desire we will gladly yield to the committee's judgment.

We understand that your honorable committee has referred this bill to a subcommittee, and that this subcommittee has reported to the full committee its recommendation that the bill receive the favorable consideration of the committee as a whole, and that it be so reported to the House, and we are of opinion that by reason of the consid eration of the bill and the favorable report that we ought not now, and it is not now requisite, to make any argument in its favor. We believe that it would facilitate matters if it be not necessary for us to make an argument or present any facts in support of the bill.

The CHAIRMAN. It may be only fair to you to state to you that since the bill was set down for a hearing this morning a very large number of applications have been filed with the committee for a full hearing on this subject in opposition to your views. I think that we must have received seventy-five telegrams, at least, on yesterday, and two or three hundred letters, and we have not had time to even read them, although we know that they refer to this matter; and at a later time it will be the duty of the chairman, of course, to lay these letters and telegrams before the committee for their consideration. I can not anticipate what action will be taken, but I thought I would let you know that there are a great many gentlemen who are very desirous of being heard on this bill.

Mr. GOMPERS. Am I to accept your answer, Mr. Chairman, as advice to proceed with a statement?

The CHAIRMAN. Oh, no, no, Mr. Gompers; I just desired to let you know that there were a large number of persons who desired an opportunity to be heard, and several members of Congress have been here asking also to be heard in opposition to your views. I do not know what the pleasure of the committee will be with reference to the matter. That will be taken up hereafter.

Mr. GOMPERS. Of course, we have no right, nor is there any disposition on our part, to even persuade the committee to change its regular course, but inasmuch as we have presented our side of the matter in question on this bill so frequently, and those hearings are in documentary form, printed hearings, I would ask whether it would meet the views of the committee if you should hear first what our opponents against the passage of the bill have to say, and then let us try to meet the opposition.

Mr. GILLETT. I think that is right.

Mr. LITTLE. In other words, you want to hear what is to be said on the other side.

Mr. GILLETT. And you want to answer it?

Mr. GOMPERS. I can imagine what the opponents of the bill might have to say, but I do not know.

Mr. CLAYTON. Then, Mr. Gompers, if the committee will accord the opposition to this bill a hearing, all you want would be a chance to hear what they have to say and to reply to them?

Mr. GOMPERS. Yes, sir.

Mr. CLAYTON. I think that is fair. I do not know, of course, what the committee may do.

Mr. GOMPERS. I can present a plain statement of facts as to what we want, if you care to have that now.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Gompers, certainly this morning has been fixed for hearing you, and the committee will be very glad to hear you and give you all the time that you desire, but I thought that it was only fair to you to let you know that an application would be made later for a hearing in opposition to your bill.

Mr. GOMPERS. Would it not suit to have it go over until some day later?

Mr. HENRY. Some day when you can appear, and then we can hear both sides at once?

Mr. GOMPERS. Yes sir, providing that it does not hamper the opportunity for a reply. And may I suggest this: I have no right to impugn the motives of any man, or any desire to do that, nor have I any desire to impugn the motives of any set of men, or their purposes, but I do ask that the committee may take under favorable consideration this question, that is that the hearings before the committee on this subject be not prolonged unduly. It is not an unusual thing, when people either have a bad case, or believe that they have a bad case, to use the common parlance to "fight for time," and I submit this consideration to you gentlemen. We believe that this measure has hung fire about long enough, and that we should know by a direct vote of the Congress whether we may expect the passage of this bill and its enactment into law, or its defeat. We have the right at least to ask that, that there shall be a decisive vote for its passage or its defeat.

It is not necessary for me to say how anxious I am and we are for its passage. I would say that it was passed by the House of Representatives on three separate occasions, by three separate Congresses, and went before the Senate and there hung fire until, by reason of the expiration of the Congress, it failed to pass. We ask that this bill be considered at an early date, and while we have no right, and no desire at least, to say anything as to why the opposition should not be heard, we do believe that cumulative statements and cumulative evidence should not be allowed for the purpose of taking up time. The opponents of the bill ought to be required to follow somewhat in the course now pursued by the House of Representatives-that is, they should be satisfied with a specific, specified time allotted to both sides, or to each side, and the opponents to the bill should determine among themselves as to who shall present on behalf of the opposition the arguments and testimony, or the presentation of facts; and so ought the proponents or advocates of the bill. Then it will have a fair limitation of time, and a fair presentation of the facts can be made, followed by arguments.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there anyone waiting this morning who desires to be heard further, Mr. Gompers? Is there anyone associated with you who desires to be heard further?

Mr. GOMPERS. No, sir. I have had a consultation with the advocates of the bill, and we have no further desire to be heard this morning.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will very carefully consider your request, Mr. Gompers, and we will communicate with you later. There is no gentleman here present this morning, that the committee knows about, representing the other side, whom we could hear so as to be able to agree upon some apt time when it would be agreeable to all parties to have a further hearing. I trust that you will understand that it was not our intention to embarrass you this morning, Mr. Gompers, but inasmuch as the committee has received so many communications from all parts of the country from people asking that they be heard, it would be our duty to consider those requests when we go into executive session, later.

Mr. GOMPERS. Certainly, certainly.

The CHAIRMAN. And it was only just to you that you should be advised of the fact that an application would be made.

Mr. LITTLEFIELD. I did not understand that Mr. Gompers has any objection to being heard, but I understand that he wants to be here when the hearing is fixed, and hear what is said by the opponents of the bill, and then make such reply as he sees fit to make.

Mr. GOMPERS. That is it.

Mr. LITTLEFIELD. And I understand you will practically accommodate yourself to such time as the committee may be able to fix.

Mr. GOMPERS. In case I should be required to, I should feel that that would be necessary. But may I suggest to the gentlemen of the committee the fact that I am a very busy man and I am frequently called out of the city, and while, of course, I should accommodate myself to the wishes of the committee, yet if the committee can without inconvenience set a time when I knew I should be here, so that I might make a point to be here, it would be a great accommodation

to me.

Mr. LITTLEFIELD. Do you reside in Washington?

Mr. GOMPERS. I sojourn here, sir. That is, in fact, I reside here; but legally, technically, I am a resident of New York State.

The CHAIRMAN. Unquestionably the committee would be very glad to consult your convenience, but it may be impossible to announce a conclusion before their next meeting, on Friday morning. We will have to look this correspondence over and find what these people are asking for, and agree upon a suitable day which will be agreeable to all. As you say, you wish it disposed of as soon as possible, and that is the wish of the committee.

Mr. GOMPERS. Just a word in regard to that. For three consecutive years the convention of the Federation of Labor has directed me to proceed to Porto Rico and make an investigation of the conditions of labor there, and for two years I have been unable to go there, but I have already made arrangements now to go there early in February of this year.

Mr. LITTLEFIELD. Are you going right away?

Mr. GOMPERS. Not until the early part of February.

« PreviousContinue »