Mr. WILLS. I would like to ask, Mr. Chairman, that Mr. Andrew Furuseth be given a few moments at this time, if you please.

Mr. SIMS. Very well.

STATEMENT OF MR. ANDREW FURUSETH, PRESIDENT OF THE NATIONAL SEAMEN'S UNION OF AMERICA, NATIONAL HOTEL, WASHINGTON, D. C.

Mr. FURUSETH. The only words that I have to say in addition to what I said before the Senate committee, Mr. Chairman, are that there can be no compulsion, whether for a day or a week or a year, without destroying all efficiency. Whenever men are compelled to labor against their will-any class of labor-the best men in that calling inevitably lead. The first penalty of that kind of legislation falls upon the men in question and the second upon the nation that enacts it.

No better evidence of that can be found than in the case of the seamen. One hundred years ago, or a little more, they were as free as anybody else, because at that time everybody was a serf, or practically so. The rest of the population became free, and the seaman was kept in the same status he had before. Gradually, as surely as the dropping of water wears away stone, the status of the seaman destroyed first the skill, then the self-respect, then the capacity for work, and, in sum total, all efficiency amongst them, and the result was and is that to the sea come only the kind of men who have fought life's battle and had accepted defeat and that have lost the courage to go and quit quickly, and so lingered along.

Any proposition to take from the railroad men their right to quit work at any time when the train is in safety, as at a terminal, can only end in the destruction of all efficiency amongst railroad men in reducing the standard of efficiency, and in reducing the standard of their living. From that will inevitably follow an increase in disasters, and an increase in the loss of life, and it has followed amongst the seamen. You brought about those things amongst the seamen. You wiped away all compulsory service, put upon the individual or collective group through the passage of that seaman's act, and then restore it with reference to the railroad men, and the time will undoubtedly come that it will be restored in some form or another with reference to the seamen. Now, all disaster comes from those things. Disaster followed as the result of Cæsar's anticombination decree, followed the laws in the middle ages, and followed as a result of the laws adopted in Hungary with reference. to the agricultural workers, and it follows with reference to the seamen in every nation of the civilized world, so called. That is so for the very reason that I have stated, and for the further reason that our religion says that God created man equal in His own image, and the Declaration of Independence of the United States pledged that that should be the very soul of the United States. For those reasons, I come here on behalf of the seamen to protest, as emphatically as we know how, against any law that will in any way, or for any reason, deprive men, either collectively or individually, of any right to quit work for reason or for no reasons at all. Being men in the image of God, we have undoubtedly been endowed with certain

inalineable rights, which rights are the fundamental declaration of the Constitution of this country, and they are rights which no one has any right to take from us. No man has any right to take from us our freedom and make us subject to the dictates of others. Nothing but disaster ever came from those things; nothing but disaster ever will.

There is a feeling that the railroads may be willing to stop from time to time in the struggle between the employees and the workingmen. I have no such fear. There will be enough difficulty in strikes to compel the employer to redress the most important grievances; and that is all that will ever come from it. That is all it will ever bring. Whatever it will bring to the public, if you please, is nothing as compared with the disaster that will follow from adopting any other course except freedom.

STATEMENT OF W. N. DOAK, VICE PRESIDENT AND NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY TRAINMEN, RELATIVE TO THE WORKING AND APPLICATION OF THE CANADIAN INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES INVESTI. GATON ACT.

Mr. DOAK. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee: You having under consideration H. R. 19730, which contains a proposed amendment to the present Newlands Act, copied in substance after the industrial disputes investigation act of Canada, and have heard no doubt advocates of this measure contending as to the merits of this act in the Dominion. On the other hand, I believe a statement of Mr. Ralph M. Easley, chairman of the executive council of the National Civic Federation, has been filed with your committee, in which he shows the exact status of the working of this act in Canada which argues contrary to the views expressed by those favoring this

measure.

The history of legislation in Canada respecting these matters is briefly as follows: In 1900 the conciliation act was passed, based upon the English act of 1896. It was designed to encourage amicable settlements by conciliation and arbitration, but was purely voluntary in its character. It extended to industries generally.

In 1903 the railway labor disputes act was passed, providing in case of railway disputes for conciliation and mediation and where that failed for compulsory investigation and report by a board under provisions similar in most respects to those afterwards inserted in the industrial disputes investigation act, 1907; but the requirements respecting application were less stringent than in the later act, and the minister was given power to establish a board of his own motion. This act applied to railway labor disputes.

In 1906 the conciliation act and the railway labor disputes act were consolidated under the title of the conciliation and labor act. In 1907 the industrial disputes investigation act was passed. Except where both parties agree to invoke it this act applies only to public utilities in meaning. It provides for the establishment of a board on the application of either party to a dispute and for mediation and compulsory investigation and report by such board; and it prohibits lockouts and strikes until such investigation and report have been made. It requires employers and employees to give at

least 30 days' notice of intended change in wages or hours of employment. This act was approved March 22, 1907, and has been in existence for more than nine years.

During the nine years from 1907 to March 31, 1916, there have been 191 disputes referred to under this act as follows: Forty-three affecting coal mines, 13 affecting metal mines, 75 affecting railways, 21 affecting street railways, 11 affecting shipping, 2 affecting commercial telegraphs, 2 affecting telephones, 3 affecting light and power, 9 affecting municipal work, and 12 disputes affecting public utilities. There were 20 strikes under the provisions of this act, 6 in the coal mining business, 5 in the metal mining business, 6 affecting railways, 2 affecting street railways, and 1 affecting municipal work. The total number of men involved, all told, in all these disputes were approximately 146,000, and approximately 32,000 of this number went on a strike, or nearly 22 per cent of the number of employees involved. Nearly 11 per cent of all cases handled under the Canadian act resulted in a strike either during the period of investigation or afterwards.

While it is true that there have been a great number of adjustments under the provisions of the Canadian industrial disputes investigation act, it has proven so far as a satisfactory method of adjustment is concerned a dismal failure in securing industrial peace.

A draft of a bill is now under consideration and has been for some time as proposed by the minister of labor of Canada, amending this act in a great many respects. The drift of his sentiment seemed to be in favor of compulsory arbitration more than to strengthen the compulsory investigation act. Consequently, this substantiates the argument that has been advanced before this committee that compulsory investigation is only an entering wedge to compulsory arbitration. It is admitted that the disputes act has been a failure for various and sundry reasons; therefore, it is hoped by the minister of labor in Canada that he will be able to put into effect compulsory arbitration under the guise of strengthening the investigation act. Your attention is directed to the definition placed by the Canadian disputes-investigation act of a lockout as follows:

Lockout (without limiting the nature of its meaning) means a closing of a place of employment or the suspension of work, or a refusal by an employer to continue to employ any number of his employees in consequence of a dispute, done with a view to compelling his employees or to aid another employer in compelling his employees to accept terms of employment.

This act when compared with the proposed bill discloses the following:

The term lockout" as used in this act shall be held to mean the closing of a place of employment or a suspension of work or a refusal by an employer to continue to employ any one or more of his employees in consequence of a controversy as above defined or discriminating in the matter of continued employment for reasons other than personal skill, capacity, or fitness, against any employee involved in such controversy, the same being done with a view to compelling his employees or to aid another employer in compelling his employees to accept terms of employment.

You will note that there has been inserted this language in this proposed draft: "For reasons other than personal skill, capacity, or fitness against any employee." This absolutely nullifies any possible chance of penalizing an employer for a so-called lockout, and

leaves the question open and permits the employer to dismiss any employee, and provides, in section 13 of the proposed bill, as follows: "Any employee violating this section or any officer or agent of any organization of employees violating this section shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction shall be fined," etc. With these examples cited, if there was a controversy pending and an employer was to dismiss one or more of his employees under the guise of incapacity or fitness or any other case, it would prohibit the employees or officers or agents adjusting this matter during the pending controversy from in any manner taking any action concerning this case, but at the same time leaves the employer free to dismiss any employee that he may desire. The employees fail to understand the reason for the change in the language of the proposed bill from that contained in the Canadian industrial-disputes investigation act, if it was the sincere purpose of the framer of the proposed bill to follow along the line of this measure.

The Canadian industrial disputes investigation act provides certain penalties for the violation of its provisions, and these have been violated promiscuously by both employers and employees with impunity, and has proven that the law is worthless so far as its enforcement is concerned.

You have been told that labor in Canada generally favors this measure. At a meeting of the representatives of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen, Order of Railway Conductors, Brotherhood of Railway Trainmen, Order of Railway Telegraphers, and International Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees, held in Toronto, October 12 to 15, inclusive, 1915, the present Canadian industrialdisputes act and the proposed changes of the minister of labor were strenuously opposed and their protest printed for distribution among the employees generally in Canada, as well as to the senators and members of Parliament, setting forth their strenuous objections to this act and the proposed changes, and suggesting that if necessary to have some form of investigation to give them an act that was worth something. At this meeting there were resolutions adopted reading in part as follows:

Any attempt on the part of Parliament to tie labor to its task should be opposed by every liberty-loving individual. To adopt such a law would be practically a reversion to a form of slavery or serfdom if the principle of investigation and of holding up to the public for its approbation or its censure the conditions which bring about a strike or lockout is justifiable, and we believe it is, we must insist upon the public being the final judge to either acquit or condemn. If there is any justification in the act providing for an investigation then that investigation should be held and the facts as found by the investigating tribunal reported by it to the public. If any individual, be he the best man on earth, is to be permitted to adjust, abridge, or alter in the slightest particular the report of the party in such a manner as to him seems most desirable as a means of securing the acceptance of the report the whole intent of the act is liable to be defeated.

It is to be hoped that all concerned will take an active interest and use all influence necessary to prevent the placing upon the statute books of this country laws that would hamper or obstruct the efforts of these organizations to better or improve working conditions from time to time. We should insist by every effort at our disposal to continue to be free men in a free country and to exercise on behalf of laboring men our inherent right to pursue our lawful interests and further our well-being in the same manner and to the same extent as is permitted a combination of capital or employers to exercise such rights.

In a recent communication from one of the officers of our organization, who is a citizen of the Dominion of Canada and has had numerous cases under the Canadian industrial investigation disputes act, I quote you the following:

In considering all these documents it should be borne in mind that the industrial disputes investigation act, 1907, in Canada was brought into life as the result of a desire on the part of certain bodies of Canadian workingmen to improve their conditions without having a proper knowledge of just how that might be done, and the workingmen were promised that most beneficial results would accrue to them under an act which would compel an employer to lay his case before a presumably unprejudiced board.

As the matter worked out the act has become a most splendid and striking example of a well-intentioned farce that can be shown anywhere for the substantial reason that to talk about an unprejudiced board of investigation in a dispute is to deal in nonsense, because of the fact that nearly always, if not without exception, the representative of an employee in a dispute is one of their number or one who is absolutely committed to their views and their most cherished ambitions, while the representative of the employer is always a railroad official or a hired legal or other representative of the company, the net result being that the only man on any board who can be considered as unprejudiced is the chairman, and data as to that can be cited in numerous cases.

The present minister of labor in the Dominion of Canada has kept for the past four or five years as compiled by the railroad companies and other employers of labor, according to the view of the undersigned and some two or three others, appeared to hold the view that he could diplomatically bring about a change in the law that would compel employees to accept the word of a board, the result being that he had the document prepared which is inclosed herewith as document marked No. 2.

My personal view is that a determined effort will be made in the Dominion of Canada by all labor organizations to bring about a repeal of the industrial disputes investigation act and at the same time we must admit that it has done some good to some small bodies of labor working for one employer or usually merely shamed into doing something more equitable for his employees rather than be held up to public condemnation for the low wages or the conditions of employment conceded to his employees.

I am glad to note by the daily press that that probability of compulsory investigation being made effective in the United States is not alarming at the present time, and I judge that Congress will shortly decide that such an act as that in effect in Canada can not be made effective in the United States.

The working people of Canada have found that in a great many instances that the supposed neutrals on the boards of investigation were in substance the same as has been found to be the case in the United States in one or more cases of arbitration that they were directly or indirectly interested financially in the questions at issue. Therefore it has been found that justice has not prevailed and it seems only fair to assume that such would be the case if such a law was enacted in the United States.

By comparing the results under the Newlands Act now in effect in the United States, and which has been in effect three and a half