that drafted the original proposition. I helped to canvass the vote on the proposition-that is, the referendum proposition-that had been submitted to the men whether or not it was acceptable, and followed it through until—I was not here when the law was passed. I was elsewhere; but was up her just a few days before that, and I will say to you honestly that that statement coming from anybody is not correct. We did not ask, mark you, that they would stop the men whenever the eight hours were up, but we did honestly want, and it was the intention of every man in this country, not to get an increase in pay but a shorter working-day, and when it comes to the facts-I suppose the railroads themselves would not like to have it; they would rather have a 12-mile-an-hour speed basis than they would have a positive eight-hour day, laying aside the cost.

Senator POMERENE. Then the real object of the brotherhoods in asking for time-and-a-half pay for any time over eight hours was not for the purpose of increasing their compensation but for the purpose of penalizing overtime?

Mr. DOAK. That is it exactly. I know that was what was back of all of it. Shall I proceed?

Senator POMERENE. Go on.

Mr. DOAK. I think we have pretty thoroughly gone over what led up to the settlement. Now, the provision of Senator Newlands's bill is that there be a period of investigation, and, as I said before, it was, as I understand, and by comparing it with the Canadian industrial-disputes act, copied largely after the act in Canada, dur ing which time there will be, while this commission is investigating, there will be everything is supposed to remain in status quo. I would like to ask Senator Newlands, if you will pardon me now, to explain as to a lockout, just what he means by the provision there, if not out of order.

Senator ROBINSON. You mean the definition of lockout, as contained in the bill?

Mr. DOAK. Yes; just what he had in mind. The reason I ask this, Mr. Chairman, is because the language defining a lockout in the Canadian act, as compared with this, has been changed.

The CHAIRMAN. In what particular has it been changed?

Mr. DOAK. Well, this has been added: "For reasons other than personal skill, capacity, or fitness."

The CHAIRMAN. Those words are left out in this?

Mr. ROBINSON. No; they are contained in your bill, and are not found in the Canadian act.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I think it means what it says.

Mr. DOAK. Well, we have always found that in certain language that what was intended was not always applied. My reason in bringing this out was this. That is as broad as the scope of the country, and that would absolutely tie the men under the strike provision, and would license the railroads to do anything they wanted to, and the term, "lockout," there, is absolutely, as I see it, and as we think is to be applied, of no benefit whatever. That is one objection to this

measure.

The CHAIRMAN. Can you suggest an amendment to that definition of the term "lockout"? Would you strike out those words? Mr. DOAK. I want to know why they were put in there.

The CHAIRMAN. They were put in there for the purpose manifest, that there was no desire to prevent the railroads from letting out from their employment a man whose personal skill, capacity, or fitness for the job was-who was either not personally skilled, or who had not the capacity or fitness for the job.

Senator CUMMINS. I suppose what Mr. Doak means is this: It would be very easy for a railroad manager to believe that anyone that demanded a strike was not a fit man for a job.

Senator ROBINSON. And justify it on the ground that the person locked out did not possess the necessary skill, capacity, or fitness.

Mr. DOAK. And so recently was that brought to my mind. Less than a month ago I settled, under mediation, a case growing out of the eight-hour controversy, in which a negro was dismissed simply because he dared to vote for a strike, or dared to say that if the white men left the service, that he was going with them, and it took the strength of the four organizations on the railroad to reinstate that

man.

The CHAIRMAN. You do not think that they

Mr. DOAK. He was not fit.

The CHAIRMAN. You do not think that they would justify, under the language of this act, the exclusion of that man from employment, do you?

Mr. DOAK. Why, it would. They served notice on the men, during this last movement, that if they voted a strike, they would discharge them; if they had anything to do with the movement, they would discharge them.

The CHAIRMAN. But that would be a violation of this law, would it not?

Mr. DOAK. No; absolutely no. They would come in and say, as you use the term, "fitness," or any of those other things, or personal skill, and you would not have the right to go and protest against that, and you would have absolutely no right to say anything.

The CHAIRMAN. I think you would. Of course, the railroad could disobey this act, and could assign a false reason for doing so, but if the reason did not involve the assumption that the person was unskilled, or had not capacity, or was unfit for the job, well, that reason would avail.

Senator POMERENE. Why would it not meet your position to strike out the word "fitness," and leave it, " for reasons other than personal skill or capacity"?

The CHAIRMAN. You might change the language. All it is intended to do is to not compel the railroad to keep in its employ a man who is insane or who lacks capacity or fitness for the job.

Mr. DOAK. Why, sure not; but, then, who is the judge?

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I imagine in this case the court would be, if finally tested.

Mr. DOAK. No; the only way we can judge those things is to go in there and show our strength and what the organization wanted.

The CHAIRMAN. But there would be simply the judgment of one organization against the other, your organization stating that a man was fit and the railroad insisting that he was unfit.

Mr. DOAK. We have never gone into a case like that and gotten away with it, Senator.

The CHAIRMAN. If he was fit when the railroad declared him to be unfit, the discharge of a man under this act would constitute a violation of the act.

Mr. DOAK. We have never been able to get away with anything like that at all, and we will never. I can speak for these officers. I have had dealings with all of them in these four organizations, and whenever they go in and the fellow is not delivering the goods they invariably throw his case out of court. But it is under a subterfuge here in a case of this kind. And, furthermore, if you are going to honestly conduct, or have the matter remain in status quo while an investigation is being made, why do you not provide, if it is necessary to have an investigation-why do you not provide against the employment of strike breakers and the stoppage of the purchase of arms and ammunition and things like that to prosecute the strike? We have gone through mediation under the Newlands Act.

The CHAIRMAN. We would be glad to have you suggest any amendments which you desire.

Mr. DOAK. We have gone through mediation under the Newlands Act, and when we were at New York, when the Federal mediators were in conference with the contending parties, and when they were in Washington in conference with the President of the United States, and when Congress itself was debating on these questions, the railroads were employing every strike breaker they could employ. Not only that, but we have information, as was given out in the public press, that they were purchasing arms and ammunition. What for? For the purpose evidently of defeating the purpose of the employees. We have had case after case. We have had to go out over this country just since that time on cases that have arisen where men have been discriminated against on account of this act. No; that absolutely turns us over, lock, stock, and barrel, and ties our hands for a period of four months, during which time preparations can be made and will be made to defeat the purposes of the employees; and we are not speaking from hearsay, but from actual experience in the past. I was in a case just recently.

The CHAIRMAN. You say organization will be made during that time to defeat the purposes of the employees. What is the purpose of the employees? Is it simply to get an increase of wages or a diminution of hours, or some other matter, or is it to so paralyze the operations of the trains as to compel the yielding of the railroads to the operatives' demands?

Mr. DOAK. Well, Senator, in the name of goodness, may I ask what recourse on earth have these employees on these railroads when there is a combination under which, gentlemen--you can talk about your combinations and pass your antitrust laws if you want, but there is nothing in the antitrust laws of this country that prohibits the railroads from combining against their employees, and if this act is passed there is nothing that will prevent them from combining against the employees, and we have a combination of sixteen or eighteen or twenty billions of dollars capital, and the only weapon. we have to defend ourselves as individual employees from these corporations is the strength of these organizations and the right to strike.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, you say what other recourse is there except the right to strike and, in connection with that, the power to paralyze

the operation of trains in interstate commerce, unless your demands are complied with. Now, I will admit that practically under existing law there is no other recourse, but it is disgraceful to civilized society, it seems to me, to a civilized Government such as ours pretends to be, if no other recourse is provided, and we are trying now to provide a recourse, some system under which reason will be applied in the settlement of these disputes, instead of force.

Mr. DOAK. No doubt you are honest Senator.

The CHAIRMAN. I think you will realize that ultimately your strike can not be successful, unless you can paralyze the operation of the trains, and that involves a great cruel wrong upon society at large. Now, then, that is force, that is real force, and force used by the few against the many, and inflicting a great wrong upon all of the people of the United States.

Now, what we are trying to do is to find some recourse under the law. I admit, as you say, that under existing law there is no other recourse for the railway employees who claim that they are the victims of injustice, and who demand some change in their relations with their employers, except to strike, and, incidentially, to tie up the operations of the interstate commerce of the country. Now, we are trying to organize some other system.

Mr. DOAK. No doubt you are.

The CHAIRMAN. To substitute law for violence.

Mr. DOAK. But in so doing, Senator, here is what you have done. If this law goes into effect, you have tied us and enslaved us, to the detriment of these employees, and simply taken away from us, in the interest of society, the only weapon that we have to defend ourselves with, without giving us a recourse, possibly, in the end.

The CHAIRMAN. I should be very sorry to see that done, and would be very glad to have any suggestion of an amendment to this bill in any way, an amendment to the definition of the term, "lockout."

Mr. DOAK. Senator, I want to say this to you. You might think that you have not done us a harm, but in the final analysis, with this law, with any change in the present law, you have simply given our opponents four months, or three months, or whatever period it may be, in which to prepare, during which time you are making your investigations, and you make your report. We can not do anything, the employees have no opportunity, and never have done anything after the strike vote is delivered to us. That is all the preparation we can make, all we do make, but the other fellows this law applies to every line of railroad, regardless of its size, with the exception of independently owned and operated railroads of 100 miles or less in length. You take on a railroad you have recently gone through a situation of that kind where there were 1,800 men employed, all told, in all four organizations, of all classes involved. They appealed from mediation, and had the assurance that a member of the Board of Mediation and Conciliation was coming there to use his good offices to effect a settlement, which he did, but all the time the railroad was hiring every strike breaker that they could get from all over the country, importing them in there, to defeat the purpose of the employees. It is going to apply to every one of them. It applies to the road with 200 men on it, the same as it does where there are 10,000, or the case of a strike where there are 500,000 men,

and you have turned us over bodily to the forces, and defeated our purposes.

Now, I want to tell you how, under the present law, under the present Newlands Act, we defeated the purpose of the managers. We simply said to them that we would not accept mediation under any circumstances, and we would put the strike on unless they took those men off of the property, and through the good work of the Board of Mediation and Conciliation, they made them remove the strike breakers off of the property before they would come in and take up the case. With this law we would have been there, and they would have prepared and kept them there, and we would not have got any settlement. As it was, we got a good settlement, and everything was settled, and restored peace and harmony between the employer and the employee on the property. I had a letter this morning, saying that despite the fact of the seriousness of the situation, that there is absolute harmony and peace prevailing there now between the two parties, where before they had had trouble.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Doak, we will have to adjourn now. I want to call your attention, before we close, to this proposition, and I would like you to remember it to-morrow. It is possible that the employees may be engaged in a very praiseworthy effort to redress their grievances, and it is possible that that effort may be resisted by the railroad managers. Now, in addition, the railway operatives propose to strike upon a certain day. It is the duty of the railway managers to keep those trains moving, under the law. All we contend is that they should be aided by the law in keeping those trains moving; not that they should be justified in resorting to illegal methods to keep them moving, resort to force and violence, but it is clearly their duty to keep those trains moving, and, incidentally, to get the men who will move them, and who are willing to move them. Now, I want to ask you what suggestion you have got to make with reference to changes in the law that will enable the railroads to keep these trains moving, as it is obviously their duty to do.

Mr. DOAK. Yes; but is there a positive law which says they must, under such circumstances, keep them moving?

The CHAIRMAN. Of course it is; under any circumstances, it is their duty to keep the trains moving.

Mr. DOAK. Now, on that question, since it has been brought up, I would be very glad to see the law which compels them to operate the trains and penalize them if the employees tie up the railroads. The CHAIRMAN. We would like to hear you on that point tomorrow, Mr. Doak.

Mr. DOAK. Information is what I want. I want to see the law on it.

(Whereupon, the committee adjourned until to-morrow, Wednesday, January 10, 1917, at 10 o'clock a. m.)