by carriers may not be enforced by delaying their passage; but these statutes should not be used for the purpose of defeating the collection of proper tolls. (3 Op. A. A. G., P. O. D., 732.) "A State game warden has no authority to retard the passage of the mails for the purpose of searching for evidence of violation of State game laws by a mail carrier. (4 Op. A. A. G., P. O. D., 14.) "In the light of this decision, United States v. Kirby, supra, it is my opinion that a temporary and reasonable delay in the transportation of the mails, occasioned by an agent of the Indian Office in searching the conveyance of a mail carrier suspected of carrying liquor into the Indian country, under the authority of Section 2140 of the Revised Statutes, would not be within the prohibition of Section 201 of the Criminal Code. Mail matter itself, of course, is not subject to search or seizure in these circumstances." (Op. Solicitor, P. O. D., of April 9, 1915; unpublished.) Very truly yours, W. H. LAMAR, Solicitor. (Order of Railway Conductors, Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, and Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen.) Personal.] NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE AND INFORMATION BUREAU, Hon. FRANCIS G. NEWLANDS, United States Senate, City. DEAR SIR: With the beginning of the development of railroad transportation in America the employees in engine, train, and yard service found it necessary to organize in order to protect their interests as to their conditions of employment, rates of pay, and hours of labor. Therefore they conceived the idea that by collective bargaining their mutual interests were best served and protected and substantial justice could be obtaned as between employer and employee in this manner. The results were that the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, the Order of Railway Conductors, the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen, and the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen came into existence. Following their organization for a number of years their efforts were on the individual properties. However, it developed that the employers were organizing in groups or associations taking in a number of lines of railway in given territory, and accordingly the employees to meet this new situation had to organize associations covering the same territory. These means of negotiation were carried on for some time and with a marked degree of success, but the employers extended their organization to a larger degree, taking in practically the whole North American continent, and the employees in order to meet this new situation and to make effective their requests for a shorter workday, made requests on roads in the new territory started by the employers. Resulting from this arrangement requests were made simultaneously on all of the lines in the United States for a basic eight-hour day and time and a half time for overtime, which resulted in the final analysis in our inability to reach an adjustment because of the position of the employers in declining to meet the requests of the employees. The methods of accommodation provided by law in the United States were exhausted and the President of the United States requested the parties to the controversy to meet him, at which time he made certain suggestions as a basis for the settlement of the pending controversy, recognizing certain parts of the requests of the employees and declining others, which was accepted by the employees but declined by the employers, and resulted in the President going before Congress and presenting these facts, Congress then taking action by the passage of the so-called Adamson Act, and with the understanding on the part of the employees that if this granted the basic eight-hour day it would be acceptable to the employees as a settlement of this question, and acting upon these assurances it was accepted by the employees. Under the provisions of this act the basic eight-hour day was to become effective January 1, 1917. However, the employers saw fit to stop the application of the basic eight-hour day by resorting to suits, injunctions, and numerous litigations, resulting in this matter being held up in the courts past January 1, 1917. This matter is still in the courts and no decision will now be rendered until after the adjournment of the present session of Congress, the employees in the meantime being deprived of the benefits derived from the act of Congress and of the benefits guaranteed them if they would accept this settlement. In the meantime the President of the United States suggested that in future controversies between the railroads and their employees, when the methods of accommodation provided by law had failed that there should be an investigation in order that the public might be fully apprised of the merits of such controversy. But due to the attacks being made by the railroads on the acts of Congress which had not been settled by the courts, involving the rights of Congress to treat with this subject, many and numerous proposals were made dealing with this question, some in the form of compulsory investigation, some in the form of empowering the Interstate Commerce Commission with the authority to fix rates of pay and hours of service of the employees and others by the introduction of bills in Congress, not waiting for the action of the courts on this subject. Hearings were held on some features of these proposals and strenuous opposition was made to the passage of any form of legislation at this time or at least until the pending questions were disposed of by the courts and the employers. After these hearings before the committees of Congress reports by these committees, in the form of two proposed bills, were submitted to Congress, in which new matter was injected which the employees had not been given the right to be heard on. The employees protested against the passage of the proposed legislation already introduced, stating it wholly unnecessary at this time for Congress to act, but in the event that some action was imperative they suggested a method of investigation which they believed to be fair. This, however, was declined by the committee. The House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce reported out a bill which was introduced by the chairman of the committee, Mr. Adamson, and known as H. R. 20752, containing new matter which had not been considered in open hearings by the committee and the employees given opportunity to be heard on same and which contains provisions that strike at the very liberties of the employees in interstate commerce and goes further than any known legislation in the history of the civilized world toward the enslavement of these people. The Senate Committee on Interstate Commerce reported out of the committee, and had introduced in the Senate by its chairman, Senator Newlands, a bill (S. 8201) which in substance is the same measure as reported out by the House committee, although eliminating some objectionable features of the House bill and making certain exemptions not contained in the House bill. It, however, does contain new matter on which hearings have not been held and which to say the least is very objectionable and dangerous to the liberties of the employees in interstate commerce. The President of the United States suggested that in case of actual or threatened war that he be given certain authority regarding the handling of or transportation of troops and military supplies. Taking this as a criterion, an attempt has been made to make drastic provisions for the confiscation of property and the conscription of employees in time of actual or threatened war and added provisions extending to times of peace "and other emergencies," making the most drastic and far-reaching attempt toward the destruction of the rights of the employees of the railroads. The past history of these railroad organizations has demonstrated their patriotism, conservatism, and reputation for honesty and fair dealing. The very fact that in the past years we have been able to adjust our differences without serious inconvenience to the public, and based on this reputation we do not now believe that we should be deprived in the future of the same rights accorded other American citizens. We, therefore, as the representatives of more than 400,000 citizens of the United States, in the name of liberty and justice ask your most serious consideration of the two pending measures in Congress, which we believe strike at the very liberties of these citizens and of their more than 1,000,000 dependents, and earnestly request that you use your best efforts to defeat this drastic and unnecessary legislation, remembering that any legislation that destroys the liberties of American citizens merits most serious consideration, and that men engaged in interstate commerce should be accorded fair, reasonable treatment and not be discriminated against because their employers refuse to bow to the will of the Congress of our country. Thanking you for any consideration given this request, and assuring you that anything you may do to defeat this drastic legislation will be appreciated by the million and a half people we represent directly and indirectly, Very truly, yours, H. E. WILLS, A. G. C. E., and National Legislative Representative, B. of L. E. Vice President, National Legislative Representative, B. of L. F. and E. Vice President, National Legislative Representative, O. R. C. Vice President, National Legislative Representative, B. of R. T. MASSACHUSETTS STATE BOARD OF TRADE, DEAR SENATOR: Inclosed please find resolutions passed unanimously at the mass meeting of business men held in Springfield, Mass., at the auditorium, on the afternoon and evening of December 28. His Excellency, Gov. Samuel W. McCall presided; President Henry G. Wells, of the Massachusetts Senate; Dr. Victor S. Clark, of the Carnegie Institute of Washington, Washington, D. C.; and John F. Tobin, of the American Federation of Labor, were some of the prominent speakers. Appreciating your interest in the problem of transportation, and knowing that you will give full value to the expression of the business men of Massachusetts, I am, Sincerely, yours, MASSACHUSETTS STATE BOARD OF TRADE, PREAMBLE AND RESOLUTIONS FAVOR FEDERAL REGULATION OF RAILWAY RATES, INTERSTATE AND INTRASTATE FEDERAL CONTROL OF RAILWAY SECURITIES ISSUES. Proposed railway strikes or lockouts should be subject to investigation by the Interstate Commerce Commission. The New Haven should retain control of its boat lines. Favor increase of Interstate Commerce Commission membership to nine. The Massachusetts State Board of Trade, comprising 53 commercial bodies representing a membership of 15,000 substantial business men in convention assembled at Springfield, December 28, 1916, preamble the Congress and the President of the United States as follows: Within the past few years the banking laws of the country have been thoroughly remodeled and a central agency established whereby the merchandizing of credit has been put upon a sound economic basis and the incongruities of the past done away with. Not so with the railways. They are subject to 49 masters-the Federal Government and 48 individual State governments. Despite the fact that the railway business has grown essentially national in scope, railway regulations has remained local in character. It is true that the Government, through the Interstate Commerce Commission, controls the railways in so far as interstate traffic is concerned, and that State regulative commissions assume control merely of interstate business. But the distinction between the two-interstate and intrastate has become more artificial than real, and serious conflicts have become more and more frequent. Probably the most serious charge to be made against the dual system of regulation as employed in the United States is its inefficiency. It is unnecessarily costly, both to the Government and the railways, and consequently to the people. Conflicting regulations and laws are passed by the various States through which the railways run, and it is often difficult, and sometimes impossible, for a railway to obey the law of one State without conflicting with the regulations of another. A prodigous waste of energy has resulted, and a corresponding loss of power to serve the public. The railways and the public suffer from present conditions. Railway development has come to a standstill practically. The future of the country, and particularly during the next few years, demands a more enlightened policy. In the interest of New England, as well as in the interest of the whole country, we offer the following: Resolved by the Massachusetts State Board of Trade in convention assembled in the city of Springfield, December 28, 1916; That the act to regulate commerce shall be so amended as to confer upon the Interstate Commission final authority over all rates and regulations which affect interstate commerce, whether such rates apply to interstate or intrastate shipments; and that in the event of conflict of jurisdiction between the Interstate Commerce Commission and the railway commissions of the several States, that the jurisdiction of the Interstate Commerce Commission shall be final and conclusive. Resolved, That in order to attract the necessary capital and to provide for the development of transportation facilities to meet the rapidly growing commercial needs of the country, and to develop its resources, Congress should enact such legislation as will restore the confidence of the investing public and guarantee the transportation service required to meet the needs of the public, and that this confidence can only be secured by giving to the Interstate Commerce Commission final and conclusive authority in the matter of issuance of all railway securities. Resolved, That we favor an increase in the membership of the Interstate Commerce Commission from seven to nine members, as provided for in the bill which has passed the House of Representatives and is now before the United States Senate for final passage. The Interstate Commerce Commission, in a report just submitted to Congress, says: "The New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad system is made up of various formerly independent lines of rail and water carriers. By purchases and consolidations the New Haven Co. has become the owner of various water lines, operated mainly between New England points and New York Harbor, which compete directly with its rail lines between the same points. There is no question as to the competition, but the record is replete with evidence from shippers and representatives of communities in New England to the effect that the service is in the interest of the public, is of advantage to the convenience and commerce of the people, and if the present ownership and operation is discontinued there will be no reasonably adequate service to take its place, and the communities will be deprived of the benefits of the water transportation and the competing routes, thus inflicting irreparable injury and benefiting no one. "We think that these facts should be brought to the attention of the Congress, so that in the light of those facts it may determine whether or not authority shall be conferred upon the commission to permit, in such cases and under such circumstances, a continuance of the railroad ownership, control, or operation of the water lines, subject to such further and different orders as the commission may subsequently enter upon a further hearing and a showing of substantially changed circumstances and conditions." There is no need to add to the statement of the Interstate Commerce Commission, which discloses that the sentiment of the New England public is in favor of "giving to the Interstate Commerce Commission the power to continue the present situation of railroad control both of the Sound lines and the I ake lines as well." Therefore, be it Resolved, That the Massachusetts State Board of Trade urge the Congress to pass the following amendment to the fourth paragraph of section 5 (as amended Aug. 24, 1912) of the act to regulate commerce, as follows: "If the Interstate Commerce Commission shall be of the opinion that any such existing specified service by water other than through the Panama Canal is being operated in the interest of the public and is of advantage to the convenience and commerce of the people, or that such extension will neither exclude, prevent, nor reduce competition in the route by water under consideration, the Interstate Commerce Commission may, by order, extend the time during which such service by water may continue to be operated beyond July first, nineteen hundred and fourteen." Resolved, That a copy of this preamble and these resolutions be forwarded to each Member of the House of Representatives and the United States Senate and to the President of the United States. JOHN H. CORCORAN, Chairman. Other members of committee on resolutions follow: William Henry Gleason, Winchester, Mass., representing Associated Industries. Joseph Wing, Brookline, Mass., representing National Wool Manufacturers' Association. George F. Willett, Norwood, Mass., representing Norwood Board of Trade. Hon. Frank E. Stacy, Springfield, Mass., representing Springfield Board of Trade. F. Alexander Chandler, Boston, Mass., representing New England Hardware Dealers' Association. George L. Avery, Framingham, Mass., representing Framingham Board of Trade. George C. Morton, Boston, Mass., representing Paint and Oil Club of New England. Hon. FRANCIS G. NEWLANDS, United States Senate, WASHINGTON, D. C., February 12, 1917. Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: Mr. Gowen, the general counsel of the Pennsylvania Railroad, and I hoped to have the opportunity of seeing you on Saturday to bring to your attention certain amendments to S. 8201, but your engagements prevented. In section 2, line 12, we think there should be inserted after the word "retard," the words "to attempt to obstruct or retard," and in section 2, line 24, the words "for any of the purposes by this section prohibited" should be stricken out. The reasons for suggesting these amendments as they occur to us are as follows: The amendment indicated on line 12, page 4, seems to be desirable because, as the section now reads no offense would be committed by efforts to obstruct or retard the passage of mails or interstate transportation unless those attempts were successful. It is most important, having regard to the object of the section, that the attempt to obstruct or retard should be punishable even though not successful. Moreover, if the attempt itself to thus obstruct or retard were not punishable, it would be necessary apparently to establish, in order to convict anyone, that the carriage of the maile or interstate transportation was actually obstructed or retarded by some act of his, and in cases where the intimidation was participated in by a large body of men, it might prove very difficult to establish that the act of any one man was responsible for the obstruction which ensued. It is important that the words stricken out on lines 24 and 25 should be omitted, otherwise it would be necessary, in order to convict under the section, to establish not merely the trespass which the section prohibits, but also that the person trespassed in order to obstruct or retard the carriage of the mails or interstate transportation. This would make necessary proof of intent, always a difficult matter to establish. In case of a strike it is most important that the striking employees should be prohibited from coming upon or trespassing upon the premises of the employer without some justification for so doing, and of course where there was justification the provisions of the section would not be violated, because in that case the act of going upon the premises would not be an act of trespass, and consequently the section would not apply. Where there is no justification, however, then in order to accomplish what the section is designed to accomplish there should be a prohibition of trespassing, regardless of the purpose for which it is committed. We trust that these amendments will commend themselves to your consideration, and that you will see your way clear to have them inserted in the bill, for we believe the bill will be very much strengthened by their insertion. Very truly, yours, STATEMENT OF MR. AMOS L. HATHEWAY. The CHAIRMAN. Please give your full name, residence, and occupation. Mr. HATHEWAY. Amos L. Hatheway, Boston, Mass., attorney at law. I am representing the Boston Chamber of Commerce in my capacity as a member of its transportation committee. The Boston Chamber of Commerce, gentlemen, is a body of some four thousand-odd citizens intimately associated with the financial and commercial interests of New England. They are part of the great public, and the great public, it seems to me, is a party very much in interest here. I am not going to burden the committee with statistics. I shall assume that this committee has been informed and fully realizes that New England is particularly liable to acute suffering in case of developments similar to that which came. to such a head last August. She is dependent for 75 per cent of her sustenance upon merchandise which is brought in from the outside and must pay for that by an equal amount of her own manufactured products which she sends out. I am assuming that these facts are familiar to the committee as well as the broader facts that the public at large is an acute and immediate sufferer whenever such a condition is allowed to develop as developed in the closing days of August, 1916. I shall, therefore, gentlemen, get down to what seems to me the basic propositions involved in the situation, and they are first, to my mind, the parties involved, and I submit, so far as the parties are concerned, they are first, capital, as represented in railroad transportation, secondly, the workers, who conduct the operation of the railroad lines, and thirdly, the great public, as a party with a paramount |