Telegraphers have no fault to find with arbitration, but they strenuously object to compulsory service, and compulsory arbitration invariably includes some form of compulsory service.

Man's necessities should be his only compulsion to labor.

Laws that might be acceptable to citizens of Canada, New Zealand, and Australia may not be expected to be acceptable to citizens of the United States. We have a Constitution prescribing limits for our legislative activities, while the other countries named have not. While compulsory service under another rame might properly be tolerated there, it is prohibited here by our Constitution except as a punishment for crime.

The artful idea recently advanced that individuals might quit their employment under a compulsory arbitration law, but no strike could be ordered, is only another way of declaring a labor organization to be unlawful in its functions, and an attempt to curb and limit the actions of men whose life work is not understood or appreciated by those outside the influence of a labor organization.

Let us get back to real things. Arbitration is a misnomer if there is anything compulsory about it. Compulsion means jail or fines for somebody. It savors more of a criminal court than a tribunal formed for the purpose of adjusting equitably a workingman's grievance.

Permit me to call your attention to the work done under the existing law relating to mediation, conciliation, and arbitration.

From the approval of the Newlands law on July 15, 1913, up to January 1, 1917, a total of 65 controversies have been adjusted through the Board of Mediation and Conciliation. Of this number 48 cases were settled by mediation, 7 were adjusted by arbitration, and 5 by mediation and arbitration. In two cases arbitration is pending, hearings beginning on January 8. In one case which the board had attempted to mediate, a strike was arrested by congressional action. In one case settlement was reached between the parties themselves after the board had begun mediation proceedings. In one other case mediation proceedings resulted in an arbitration agreement, but before the arbitration actually began a settlement on basis suggested in mediation was arrived at between the parties. Applications to the board:

Employees made application for service of board in..
Railroads made application for service of board in..
Joint applications by roads and employees made in.

Cases.

25

15

17

8

Board proffered its services, which were accepted by both parties in.
Total cases.

65

Since January 1, 1917, one case has gone to the board-that of the New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad versus telegraphers, station agents, and levermen. This case is now in mediation in New York City.

In the above compilation we have mentioned cases in which all classes of railroad employees covered by the law were concerned, the following compilation relates to the cases in which the members of the Order of Railroad Telegraphers took part:

* See footnote b.

3 See footnote c.

4 Arbitration pending.

5 Mediation pending.

(a) In consideration of the roads' agreement strictly to apply the present schedule in the meantime, which the employees claimed was being violated in some particulars, the request of the road for a postponement of mediation was agreed to by the employees.

(b) Meliation was conducted by correspondence and the parties reached an agreement.

(c) Mediation began Aug. 7, 1916, but by agreement of all parties was postponed to Aug. 21, 1916.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating thereof. As far as the telegraphers are concerned they have gained much by mediation, conciliation, and arbitration, and are therefore willing to go along with the present law. As to the proposed compulsory-arbitration laws it is our view that they are illogical, inconsistent, unconstitutional, and will be altogether undesirable to the free workers herein

74873-17-19

represented. Government by consent of the governed is an axiom dear to the American people. Railroad employees are not going to be content under a law that holds them to their job when they want to quit. They are not in the frame of mind to indorse a proposed law that means compulsory service for them for any length of time be it 5 or 90 days or any other period. We ask you not to add to our difficulties by enacting drastic laws or create more unrest among the wage earners than is in evidence at the present time.

In peaceful times, such as prevail in this country, there is no occasion apparent for the enactment of such drastic legislation as is now under consideration. It is doubtful even if this country was about to enter into a war that such legislation should be enacted in advance of its necessity. The necessity for the compulsory enlistment of railroad employees may never arise. Then why put such an offensive enactment on the books? Again, it may reasonably be asked why inflict upon railroad employees compulsory enlistment and not all other eligible citizens?

The Order of Railroad Telegraphers is opposed to the bill that aims to authorize the President of the United States, in certain einergencies, to take possession of railroad, telephone, and telegraph lines, and for other purposes.

The bills now under consideration, wherein certain forms of compulsory arbitration and military control are contemplated, portend a grave departure from the accepted principles of democracy, including as they do the abandonment of constitutional guaranties and the possibility of large numbers of citizens being fined or thrown into jail because they ceased to work.

Even in countries governed by monarchs and dictators and at a time when they were harrassed by wars, compulsory enlistment of citizens met with such strenuous opposition that it was only adopted as a last resort to save the life of the nation, while here it is solemnly proposed for railroad employees in times of peace..

It would appear that democracy had been shaken off its foundation, perhaps by war news from abroad and the possibility of some railroad employees at home ceasing their labors because of grievances that should have been equitably and promptly adjusted long ago.

The CHAIRMAN. I am informed that Mr. Doak wishes to submit some few remarks in addition to what he has already said.

STATEMENT OF MR. W. N. DOAK, VICE PRESIDENT AND NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE, BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD TRAINMEN, ROANOKE, VA.-Resumed.

Mr. DOAK. Mr. Chairman, you say you are going to close the hearings this evening?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Is there anybody else that you would want to have heard?

Mr. DOAK. There is one subject that has not been touched on at all by us, and that is the proposed act authorizing the President of the United States to take over the railways, and if you are considering that, and if you are going to close all the hearings, we would like to have a little something to say about that.

The CHAIRMAN. All these bills were put into the record at the first hearing, and the announcement was made that hearings would

be had upon all of them; so the opportunity has been presented. But if you have anything to say upon the subject by way of a supplemental brief, it will be printed, just as your other statements have been, in the record. There is a disposition on the part of the committee to close the hearings now, and to proceed to the consideration of these bills.

Mr. DOAK. Mr. Chairman, of course you have a right to do so; I will not question that. But this is a very big question.

Senator CUMMINS. Go on and let us hear what you have to say

now.

Senator BRANDEGEE. I want to suggest this to you, Mr. Doak, without any relation as to whether we shall hear you or how extensive the hearing ought to be on that. The bill that Mr. Adamson has introduced in the House incorporates that provision as a part of it. Perhaps you have noticed that

Mr. DOAK. Yes, sir.

Senator BRANDEGEE (continuing). Authorizing the President to take possession of these roads as a military necessity, etc. I do not know whether he is going to have any hearings or not.

Mr. DOAK. I understood that he announced that he would not, Senator; and I suppose that is a part of the " spanking" process that he is going through.

Senator BRANDEGEE. If the House should pass that bill, of course I assume it would be referred to this committee, and then we might, probably would, have hearings on that House bill. But I do not care to say anything more about it. You had better proceed

now.

Mr. DOAK. I would prefer, instead of filing a supplemental brief, to talk the matter over with you and give you a chance to ask me questions.

Senator BRANDEGEE. Why don't you go right ahead and give your general views, and then if you want to amplify them later by a brief or by talking individually with us perhaps that could be done.

Mr. DOAK. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I have not prepared anything on this at all. As a matter of fact, yesterday or day before, when I closed my testimony on the other measures, I suggested at that time that possibly I wanted to be heard, but I was not sure; and I never said anything about this bill at that time, and did not want to get that phase of the situation confused with what we had under consideration.

I undertand this bill has certain language in section 1, particularly, that I would like to have some information on, as well as to say some things about. It says:

That in case of actual or threatened war, insurrection, or invasion, or any emergency requiring the transportation of troops, military equipment and supplies of the United States, the President of the United States, when in his judgment the public safety may require, is hereby outhorized to take possession of, etc.

There is a question in my mind if the language contained in section 1 of this act is not very far-reaching. "In case of actual or threatened war, insurrection, or invasion, or any emergency requiring the transportation of troops." I may have entirely the wrong idea of this legislative program proposed by the three bills. One or two

we have already spoken of-one proposing what we term “compulsory investigation"; another measure providing for the Interstate Commerce Commission to fix the rates of pay of these men; and, third, a bill introduced providing that the President of the United States could take these railroads over. I want to say, as to the patriotism of the men we represent, that it is not necessary to have any law. We are ready and willing at any time to respond to this Government, and I can only refer you to what now is transpiring in the Dominion of Canada. The organization that I have the honor of representing has to-day approximately a thousand members, if not more, in the trenches in France, who have volunteered for their country; and the reason that the railroads in Canada were not requested to grant an eight-hour day by the employees in Canada, and that the last wage movement was restricted entirely to the United States, was the fact that the men in Canada said, "No; we have trouble; we are in war; and we will not submit this to our men."

Senator CUMMINS. Mr. Doak, I do not believe that a single member of the committee has any doubt about that whatsoever.

Senator ROBINSON. No; I do not think so either.

Senator CUMMINS. We know the men, and we know they are among the best citizens of the country, and would respond to the call of their country as generally as any other class, probably a little more generally than some other classes.

Mr. DOAK. Senator, I am just trying to lead up to a certain point in stating this. And when the trouble arose in Mexico, something was done in our organization that never had been done before. We have a war clause in our insurance policies, as all insurance companies have. The president of our organization suspended that and told the men to go to Mexico and fight for this country if necessary. Every day we are paying death claims on men that have been killed in the European war. But what I am leading up to is this: Am I to understand, in the United States, that such a condition is made possible by this act as did actually prevail in the Republic of France? Is it the intention that these men at any time, in a given territory, on a given railroad, are to be drafted into military service, to defeat the purpose of a strike in case they are called out? If such is the case, gentlemen, we are unalterably opposed to it.

Now, is that the case? Could that be construed under the clause of insurrection? Could that be construed by any means to mean that it would be possible that the President of the United States or any man in this country could thus defeat the purpose of the men, as were the purposes defeated by the President of France, calling the men to the colors under the military clause or under some clause of this kind that they had in France, absolutely defeating the men and killing the strike?

Senator CUMMINS. Mr. Doak, I do not believe that any member of this committee can answer that question. I have been asking it myself ever since I saw it. Every man, I fancy, must read the bill and determine for himself what it means.

Senator ROBINSON. May I ask you a question?

Mr. DOAK. Certainly.

Senator ROBINSON. If the bill were confined to extending this power to the Chief Executive, to be applied solely in case of actual or threatened war, would there be objection to it?