The human-labor power which this law compels wage earners to give to employers against their will is inseparable from the body and the personality of the wage earners. It is part of the men and women themselves. They can not be forced to work for an employer against their wills without reducing them to the legal condition of slaves and transforming their minds and spirits into those of slaves. No more dangerous proposition has ever been proposed than this compulsory-investigation measure.

Problems of industrial justice and redress for industrial wrongs can not be worked out by laws. Human relationships are involved and these can be adjusted on a basis of equity only through cooperation and mutual consent. Neither employers nor wage earners can be forced by law to a state of mind and cooperation necessary for the protection of the rights and interests of the human element in production, transportation, and distribution.

The institutions for achieving industrial justice and industrial freedom must be agencies that permit of the freest and best development of the people, for the establishment of justice and freedom come only through the growth and development of right thinking and right living so that opportunities for freedom and justice are used for the best interests of all.

In only one State of the Republic has there been a law providing for compulsory investigation of industrial disputes. That law was enacted in Colorado in 1915, and has been discussed in the following issues of the American Federationist: October, 1915; December, 1915; June, 1916; October, 1916.

As a result of their experiences under this law the trades-unionists of Colorado in their convention held at Colorado Springs in August, 1916, declared emphatically against the law by practically unanimous vote--that is, with only one dissenting vote-and have pledged themselves to work for the repeal of the law.

It should be our aim to aid our fellow-workers of Colorado in their laudable purpose.

The action taken by the Colorado trade-unionists in August is identical with that taken by the Canadian trade-unionists in their last Trades and Labor Congress held in September, 1916.

For many years those who were personally affected by the operation of the Canadian law have denounced the principle upon which it was based, but the opinion never became general enough in Canada to become the demand of the organized labor movement until the Canadian law had been extended by an administrative act to apply to a greatly increased number of workers in Canada.

The experience of the workers during the past year under the extended application of the Lemieux Act resulted in a practically unanimous demand on the part of the Dominion Congress that the law be repealed.

This action of the Canadian trade-unionists is dealt with in the report of the secretary of the Canadian Trades and Labor Congress which is in the appendix to this report.

We recommend that this convention take an unequivocal position against compulsory institutions and in favor of the maintenance of institutions and opportunities for freedom.

Mr. GOMPERS. That report was referred to the committee on resolutions of the convention. I ought to have said that that report comes under the heading of "The railroad brotherhoods' strike."

The committee reported as follows upon that portion of the report of the executive council, under the above caption, on pages 78 to 81. The committee on resolutions reported as follows:

The subject matter is thoroughly and comprehensively set forth in the report of the executive council, and its accompanying recommendation is so clearly pronounced as to the position of the American Federation of Labor on the question of compulsory institutions that no doubt of any description whatever is left. Your committee therefore recommends concurrence.

A motion was made and seconded to adopt the report of the committee, which, after discussion, was adopted by unanimous vote.

In the same convention a delegate from the Journeyman Tailors' Union of America, having come recently from Denver, Colo., where he had been a charge of a situation, a contention between the journeyman tailors and the employers of the journeyman tailors, where they had experienced months and months of long drawn-out investigations and procrastinations, introduced a series of preambles and resolutions denouncing the Colorado compulsory-investigation act, demanding and asking that the convention indorse his proposition in so far as it applied to Colorado. The resolution, as is every proposition coming before our convention, was referred to a committee for the purpose of considering it and reporting upon it; and I may say this, gentlemen, that in the conventions of the American Federation of Labor every resolution introduced must be disposed of in some way or another. It can not be killed in committee. Every man who has an idea and makes it as a contribution to the better understanding of that cause which we have the honor to represent has the right to have his day in court and to be heard. In the conventions of the American Federation of Labor the delegate representing the smallest organization of workers has the right to contribute his thought by offering a resolution and having it considered by a committee and by the convention.

That resolution was referred to a committee, which, after considering it, so changed the resolution as to apply not only to Colorado but to every legislative body in all America. And in that form the resolution was adopted by the convention by unanimous vote.

I ask that I may have the opportunity of incorporating these preambles and resolutions adopted by the convention. It is about half a page of printed matter.

The CHAIRMAN. Please hand them to the reporter, and they will be inserted, Mr. Gompers.

(The matter referred to is here printed in full, as follows:) Whereas certain employers of labor and other dominating influences of Colorado, having failed to destroy labor unions by direct action, have resorted to a subterfuge of administering proclaimed justice and equity under a recently established law for enforced investigation of labor disputes at the hands of an industrial commission appointed by a governor servile to the employers of the State; and

Whereas said law establishes involuntary servitude of the workers during the hearing of industrial disputes and until the cases are finally disposed of, and is so worded that it can be stretched or shrunk at the whim or bias of the commission. The commissioners can hear a case promptly and speedily dispose of it, or they can delay it without limit of time if they or the influences back of them so desire; and

Whereas they can hear workers in public and investigate employers in private and keep secret the private evidence from the workers involved and from the public. They can hold workers in involuntary servitude, with the threat of a jail sentence, while employers can get ready to defeat the workers' demands. Whereas to allow such laws to stand on the statute books, or to be adopted by other States, or to allow our Federal Government to enact such a law in principle, or in fact, or for us to approve of commissions appointed by political officials under the influence of employers without a protest, would be error and negligence on our part, and dangerous to our liberty as guaranteed under the Federal Constitution. And to allow the payment of large salaries to commissions for the suppression of labor's legal and natural rights to continue or to spread without a protest would be construed by the public in general, and those who make, or who may make, such laws, an acquiescence of labor in the principle involved, and of labor's willingness to be held in involuntary servitude, and to abide by decisions of commissions that may be biased, or those who may not understand labor's cause or its necessities: Therefore be it

Resolved, That men individually or collectively have a right to stop work any day or any time in a free democracy, and that their right is natural, legal, inalienable, and never should be surrendered; and that laws that violate this right are hereby denounced as reactionary, unconstitutional, and dangerous to the stability of democratic government: Therefore be it

Resolved, That this convention calls upon all labor unions, central bodies and State federations affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, and its executive council, to do all with their power to have repealed any or all such laws that may exist in the several States, and to watch vigilantly and oppose the further enactment of such laws by our Commonwealths, or by our Federal Government, to the end that the workers may have the same freedom as have other citizens of this Nation.

Mr. GOMPERS. I would like to address myself to the fundamental principles of this pending legislation, and yet, before doing so, I think that I ought to have the opportunity of saying a word in connection with some observations which I took the greatest of interest in hearing. I refer to the statements made by the Rev. Mr. Crafts some day last week. For a general statement of misunderstanding, Mr. Crafts takes the cake. He evidently had, according to his own story, the fortune of running into strikes wherever he went. Perhaps it might be an anticipated contagion. Now, nobody wants to inconvenience Dr. Crafts, but he, like every other mortal man, must at times be required to suffer inconvenience. His wonderful source of misinformation in the countries that he visited is remarkable. He went even to Australia, and there he found this wonderful place of peace and tranquility.

I would like you gentlemen to read a statement made by Mr. Beanchamp, in a recent address made before a board of business men in New York, which was reported in the New York Times of the day following. Mr. Beauchamp is not a labor agitator. He is a banker. Mr. Beauchamp mentioned, and it has been corroborated by statements made since, that in a strike-in a strike, mark you-there was a pitched battle between unarmed strikers and bankers and bank clerks and farmers and strike breakers and gunmen, with guns and pitchforks. The late Henry D. Lloyd visited the Australian countries, and he, too, splendid and big-hearted man as he was, was hypnotized. He went through these countries under the influence of hypnotism, and Mr. Lloyd came back and wrote a beautiful book, A Country Without Strikes, and ever since there have been strikes going on in the country without strikes.

But, of course, the Rev. Dr. Crafts could not see them. He could only see them in America.

I hold in my hand a copy of the official publication of the United Mine Workers of America, the December issue of 1916, and I ask that a letter which appears on page 10 of that issue be incorporated in the record. Permit me to read its caption and the first sentence: Huge coal strike in Australia.

Every mine in Australian Commonwealth out on strike; grand object lesson of solidarity.

And then follows in parentheses:

Special to the United Mine Workers' Journal, by W. Francis Ahern, Box 2471, G. P. O., Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.

And here follows the opening sentence:

Every mine in the Commonwealth of Australia answered the call during the first week of Nevember for a general strike.

Senator POINDEXTER. What year was that?

Mr. GOMPERS. This is within two months.

Dr. CRAFTS. They are backsliding.

Mr. GOMPERS. No; Dr. Crafts, it is your lack of understanding of human nature. This letter published shows that 100 per cent of all the miners in Australia quit work and went on strike in this country without strikes, this Elysium, and I may say, too, that in the body of this correspondence, this letter is the further statement that the miners-this is so interesting, full of meat, full of interesting thought and action and statement of fact that the miners were required under the eight-hour law of Australia, the eight-hour prevailing practice, to add to the working time three hours to get from the mouth of the pit to not only down in the mines by the shafts but in traversing to the varicus places where they had to perform their work. The employers demanded that the time should be reckoned when they reached in the mine the point and place where they were required to perform the work, and the miners said that the eight hours should begin when they reported for duty at the mouth of the mine. That was the contest and the point about it. And I want to call your attention to the fact that in this strike of every coal miner of Australia they have offered to do the work to fit the ships that may be necessary in order to perform their duties to the Government and to themselves in this hour of stress and storm and war. I ask at this point, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, that this article may be incorporated in the record. I am sure you will find it exceedingly interesting.

The CHAIRMAN. Hand it to the reporter, Mr. Gompers.
(The article referred to is here printed in full, as follows:)

HUGE COAL STRIKE IN AUSTRALIA-EVERY MINE IN AUSTRALIAN COMMONWEALTH
OUT ON. STRIKE-GRAND OBJECT LESSON OF SOLIDARITY.

[Special to the United Mine Workers Journal, by W. Francis Ahern, Box 2471, G. P. O., Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.]

Every mine in the Commonwealth of Australia answered the call, during the first week of November, for a general strike. Not one over the whole length and breadth of Australia refused the call when it was made. If ever there was an object lesson required as regards trades-union solidarity Australia has furnished that example. Every mine employee has come out and is determined to stay out till his demands are granted. The strike has been brought about owing to the coal barons of Australia refusing to grant the men the "eight hours bank-to-bank." While the miners interpret this to mean the time from the first man down till the last man up from the mine, the coal owners interpret it, as usual, in a different way--from the last man down to the first man up. As will be seen, especially by readers of this journal, there is a radical difference between the two positions.

This strike promises to be the greatest ever in Australia, and for the purpose of getting accurate information for this journal I have made it my business to personally hike through the great coal-belt localities of New South Wales, where the strike first started, and gain authentic particulars, since I recognize the coal owners, through their American agents, will lose no time in giving their side of the matter and thus creating a false idea.

To fully understand the bank-to-bank question as it obtains in Australia it is necessary to say that in many of the older pits it takes a miner a full hour to reach the working face from the bottom of the shaft. With the time taken in lowering and raising the men and in going to and returning from the working faces, etc., about three hours is lost. When you consider that the owners require the men to work eight full hours underground it will be seen that this is in reality an 11-hour work day. The men say they would be content to work but five hours underground and lose the extra money rather than suffer the

privations of working a full eight hours at the coal face. As in other places, the men are paid tonnage rates; that is, by results (no coal, no pay), so it will be seen that, it is not a question of more money that is affecting the miners of Australia to-day. They demand, in all, that the law of eight hours be observed in reality as well as in spirit.

The matter is of long standing and, owing to it having been sidetracked by the owners, the men have lost all patience with them and have now decided that they will not go back to work until their demands are granted in full. When the miners last met the owners on the matter of increased rates and shorter hours the owners granted the extra money asked (as detailed in the United Mine Workers Journal of September 7 last), but the hours question was not settled, though the owners gave the men to understand that it would be granted within a week or two. This was also distinctly understood by the arbitration court, which court did not register the wage agreement pending the settlement of hours. But since the owners have not granted the shorter hours the result is the strike.

Early this year the men came out on strike over this very matter and were only induced to return to work on the understanding that their demands would be met by the owners not later than March last. But the owners did not concede the shortened hours, neither was the arbitration court in a position to compel them at that date. A further application of shorter hours was made when the case of higher rates was heard in July last (as detailed), but with no results. Then the owners, since the wage agreement was not registered (pending the hours settlement), commenced to refuse to pay men the increased wages granted by the arbitration court, with the result that some of them stopped work. When this came about the arbitration court refused to take up the case until the men went back to work, but they had had enough of it and had resolved that, come what might, they would stand out till the matter was finally settled one way or the other.

Unable to stand the pin pricks any longer the miners' federation gave the requisite fourteen days' notice, under the law, for a general strike, which the owners did not think worth taking notice of. They then issued notices for the general strike. The men have not technically broken the law, and that is the reason why the government has not stepped in. They have formally finished their contract to work by giving the fourteen days' notice, and they say that they start work afresh only under the new conditions. The call to strike was first made in New South Wales, and within twenty-four hours every mine had stopped. During the next couple of days the call was made to the other Australian states, and to a man they came out. To-day every mine in Austrialia has ceased operations and not a single ounce of coal is being raised. It is a general lesson for the solidarity of labor in Australia, and proves up to the hilt the virtues of big unionism.

There is, of course, another aspect to the matter, and that is the failure of compulsory arbitration. The underlying principle of that law was that there should be, during the hearing of a dispute, continuity of industry. But when there was a genuine case to be heard, the court finds itself impotent to deal with it. In vain the Commonwealth Government called in its powers under the war-precautions act to enforce the working of the mines till the dispute was heard, but all to no purpose. It, too, proved impotent, and to-day we have the arbitration court standing idly by and the men out on strike, and the latter fully determined to get all their demands granted before they go to work again. The reason for this is that by a system of close unionism the owners can not find a single "scab" worker to go in the mines. Australia is, I believe, the only country in the world that has no scab coal miners. We never had one in the country. If we did, he'd be rushed to the museum and kept safely on exhibit.

There is now some talk of the government stepping in and working the mines as national industries, but whether this will be done is not fact yet. At any rate it is asserted that they would do so by granting the men their demands. This the men would desire, because they feel sure they could demonstrate to the owners that the mines could be worked profitably on the shorter hours, which the owners deny to-day.

Matters are reaching a serious crisis at time of writing. All industrial life is being shortened and is closing down. Considerably more than 100,000 men are out of work, owing to the dispute, the miners having struck at a time when there was a real shortage of coal. The only industries the miners say they will aid in by way of shifting coal from the coal stacks is the hospitals