Strange, indeed, it is that when, all through the ages, the workmen were either slaves or servants or wage earners, there has never been any attempt to curb the right and the power of the employers to impose their will upon the workmen. The workers were not part of the community, for even under Magna Charta the working people were not regarded as the subjects of the Kingdom of England, and hence the rights which were accorded to citizens and the nobility were not accorded to workers. All through the ages there has been no attempt to curb the right of the employers to enforce their will upon the workers, until the spirit of the workers manifested itself in the determination that some of the tyranny and some of the injustice should be thrown from their shoulders, and an appeal to governmentl agencies, the exercise of political rights, and the development of the economic organization of the workers finally lifted the burden somewhat. All through the past 50 years, until quite recently, there has not been a move made to remove the power and the grip of employers upon the conditions of the workers, until the last Congress when the labor provisions of the Clayton antitrsut law were enacted.

Now that the working people of our country have come to realize that they possess some power and influence by a course of action perfectly normal, perfectly lawful, and buttressed by the Constitution of our country, the right to quit work, it seems that all the efforts of some of our great minds in Congress have been directed to find a way to defeat the efforts of the workers against the exercise of that power.

If we came before you and asked you to authorize by solemn law the encouragement of assault, of attack upon life and property; if we came to you to condone any offense against the law, you might rightfully hold us up to scorn and to the contempt of our people now and hereafter. There isn't a man whom I know who would advise assaults upon life, body, and property. What we claim is that this body of ours, in which you have no property right; this mind of ours, in which you can have no property right; this soul of ours, in which you couldn't even make a pretense of having a property right that we shall exercise these, our body, our hearts, our souls, in withholding our labor, not in doing an affirmative act but to fold our arms, to refuse to give up our labor power except upon the conditions that conform to our will, to our conscience, the right of free man.

To say that a man can quit his job as an individual and fold his arms and not work, or seek work elsewhere, you say that that is legal; but that if another man in advance agrees with this man after con sultation to both fold their arms and not work, that that is criminal, unlawful.

I am perfectly willing that men of our time and the time to come, if they should ever think of us, may judge.

I hold in my hand a copy of the Denver (Colo.) Labor Bulletin of Saturday, January 6, 1917. The caption is, "Legislature should correct own error." I should like to insert that article in the record at this time.

The CHAIRMAN. Identify it, Mr. Gompers, and give it to the stenographer. It will be a part of your remarks.

(The article referred to follows:)

LEGISLATURE SHOULD CORRECT OWN ERROR.

Members of the State legislature, in considering the repeal of the industrialcommission law and the amending of the workmen's compensation act to provide for administrative officials, must bear in mind that the demand for the repeal of this law does not come entirely from organizations of labor in this State. The important provisions of the statute insidiously strips from the working people of the State those rights which have been guaranteed them by the Constitution of the United States and the constitution of the State of Colorado, and in addition the right of all the people of the State are involved.

The repeal of the industrial-commission law must be accomplished in the interest of the perpetuation of a representative form of government. If the last legislature, under the influence of interests hostile to a government by the people, can barter away the rights of the working people in defiance of consti-, tutional provisions, both national and State, it is necessary to take but one more step to strip from all the people of the State all their constitutional rights.

The members of this legislature must be made to understand that because wage earners happen to be members of some trade or labor organization that this fact should not automatically operate to place them in a special class over which the Constitution of the United States and of this State does not extend its protection.

There is not a reputable attorney in the State who will or who has defended the legality of this law. At a meeting of the bar association in Colorado Springs last summer Attorney E. P. Costigan, whose interest in the big questions concerning the general welfare of the people is well known, delivered an address, in which he declared that the industrial-commission law was subversive of every principle of human rights and in direct conflict with constitutional guaranties. While the industrial commission was represented at this meeting by its legal member, yet the statements made by Mr. Costigan went unchallenged.

In addition, there has been no opportunity presented whereby a test case could be taken to the supreme court of the State. The commission, in the case of the machinists, after ordering the employers to produce their books, as provided in the law, met with a refusal. The commission did not insist on the enforcement of its its order and the case did not reach the courts. This instance is related for the purpose of indicating the evident understanding of the commission itself in regard to the legal soundness of the statute which brought the industrial commission into being.

Further, every citizen of the State is interested in the preservation of every right to which he is entitled. The question of the repeal of the industrialcommission law therefore does not rest entirely upon the demands of the organizations of labor, but rather upon a jealous and enlightened citizenship, whose vigorous and sustained defense of their rights and liberties is necessary to preserve to the people themselves the freedom accorded them under constitutional guaranties.

While the men and women of labor deplore the necessity of collectively ceasing labor because of their inability to come to an agreement as to terms of employment, yet the preservation of the inherent right to work or not to work is of such fundamental importance to society as to transcend every other governmental function.

Under our form of government, with its organic law, history, and traditions, the denial of constitutional and inherent rights to any particular group of citizens will sooner or later lead to a revulsion that will disintegrate and finally destroy the foundation and fabric of our Government. Statesmen whose influence and service leave their impression indelibly written in the annals of their time fully realize that the freedom of a people means the freedom to commit error, and that error will be committed. The people, under our form of government, in contradistinction to that form of government where the state, so-called, predominates, can be trusted to rectify errors of judgment. It is upon this basis that the labor organizations of the State, as well as a large group of citizens in nowise connected with our organized movement, base their demand for the repeal of the industrial-commission law.

The members of the State legislature are urged to give this question their earnest consideration. Involuntary servitude is repugnant to the enlightened 79098-17-6

civilization of our day and time. Man's ownership in man must not be reestablished in the United States. For five years the soil of our country was drenched in the blood of Americans that the rights and liberties of the people might be firmly established. Man's ownership in himself became an actuality. The price paid was the lives of hundreds of thousands of partiots and untold suffering and treasure.

Government by the people, for the people, and with the people rests in the hands, temporarily, with the law-making branch of our Government. It is hoped and expected that those who have been entrusted with the welfare of the people of our State will meet the responsibility imposed upon them and restore to the citizens of this State the rights and liberties taken from them by the last State legislature.

Mr. GOMPERS. I desire to call attention to a statement contained in that article, to the effect that at a meeting of the Colorado Bar Association some few months ago a reputable attorney, a man of good standing in his profession and among the people of the State, and known well outside of the State, made the statement that the Colorado compulsory investigation act, with its features of depriving men of the right to strike-that is, to make unlawful the cessation of work-is repugnant to the Constitution of the United States and of the State of Colorado and contrary to the best interests and the welfare and the freedom of the people of the State, and that there was not a lawyer who would defend the constitutionality of the act. There was not a lawyer who undertook to criticize, to answer, or to refute the statement made by the attorney. The attorney for the Colorado Industrial Commission, intrusted with the enforcement of this compulsory-service act, was present, and he, too, failed to challenge the statement made by Mr. Costigan.

Mr. RAYBURN. Right there, Mr. Gompers, I don't understand just exactly that proceeding. Was there a resolution to that effect passed by that association, or just a man made a speech there and made an assertion?

Mr. GOMPERS. The attorney for the labor organizations delivered an address in the presence of the members of the bar association at their regular convention, attacking the provisions of the Colorado compulsory-investigation and compulsory-service law. The attorney for that association, the attorney for the industrial commission, was present, and neither he nor any other attorney questioned the accuracy of the criticism and attack of Mr. Costigan.

Mr. RAYBURN. I just wanted to get that straight. I didn't know but what there was some action taken.

The CHAIRMAN. Was it open discussion at the time that that speech was made?

Mr. GOMPERS. Yes, sir; that is my understanding.

The CHAIRMAN. Was it just a formal address which he made?

Mr. GOMPERS. No, sir; there was no formality about the address; it was a discussion, and the article recounting the incident is recorded in that which you have given me the permission to incorporate as a part of my remarks.

Something has been said-a question was asked whether it was possible to get a thousand or more men to insert in place of strike breakers without disclosing that fact. I think it would be exceedingly difficult to have such an operation consummated to its finality in secret, but I may relate an incident which occurred not more than about three weeks ago. I had occasion to go to Havana, Cuba, and

there the law of the Republic is that no laborer may be brought within the country under contract, either written or implied, and that the assumption of guilt in this respect is taken unless disproved by those who seek entrance in the Republic.

Before I left Washington to go to Cuba I had received a cablegram asking me to prevail upon the organizations of workers in the railroad and in the street railway service to prevent to offer to give the men the information so that they may be advised that there is a great strike in progress in Cuba. I went to Cuba-was there only about three and a half days-and learned that in that Republic hundreds and hundreds of men had been imported into Cuba, under contract, and in violation of the laws of the Republic. Attention was called to the fact, evidence given to show that the men had received money in order to pay their transportation, made good later by the railroads and the railway companies of Cuba. The strike was lost, and the men who were imported to break the strike contributed the chief means by which the strike was broken. A number of the men, having been advised, left the employment of the company and returned to the United States, and they were willing to give evidence of the violation of the law.

Gentlemen, let me say this to you: We who have been in this movement of labor and have had to deal with our fellow workers in our own trades or in other trades, and who have had conferences with the employers and their representatives; who have been in disputes and conflicts, in strikes and lockouts you gentlemen can have no conception of what transpires, both in anticipation and during the inauguration of an industrial dispute between employer and employee.

The genius of the lawyers is on their side; the judiciary is usually on their side. The conception of property and property rights is as old as the hills-the conception of the property right extending to the body and the labor power of the workers. With the employers as the genius of preparing for a personal conflict-a possible strike, a possible cessation of work-strike breakers, gunmen, detectives, spies I wish I had before me just now one of the many documents I had in my possession when I appeared before the Industrial Relations Commission-a book issued by one of the detective agencies, a book probably of 200 pages or more, illustrated in some parts, of the work undertaken and the work performed by the operatives of that detective agency in the industrial disputes, in ferreting out the men who have some little degree more of independence, courage, judg ment, and desire than the rest of men and women, and ferret them out, and see that they are either demoted, transferred, or discharged; how strikes have been provoked by these agencies; how violence has been provoked by these agencies; how men have had their very hearts and spirit broken by having once yielded in a moment of weakness, or of a moment of dire necessity, to the wiles and the bribes of these agencies existing and succeeding simply by payments from the funds of the great corporations. To think that there can be established a status quo between employers of labor and on the part of the workers pending a controversy, is to deceive yourselves. There is no such thing possible-at least we can not be deceived.

I hold here a piece of curious literature in my hand, and, if I may, I just want to describe what it is and read two paragraphs from it.

A friend of mine, a Mexican representative of labor, Mr. Carlos Lovera, came from Argentina to New York on the steamship Byron. Mr. Lovera had gone on a tour through the South American countries with a view of establishing a Pan American federation of labor. On his way back to New York, and from thence to Washington, some of the authorities on the vessel issued a daily mimeographed bulletin containing what purports to be the news of the world, communicated to the ocean by wireless. It reads as follows:

ITEMS OF AMERICAN NEWS.

NEW YORK, October 4.

President Wilson was dangerously injured in a train wreck to-day when on his way to New York to attend a meeting of the striking railroad employees. The special train was wrecked just east of Marion Junction while running at a high rate of speed. The engineer and fireman were killed and four of the presidential party were injured. A special train conveyed the party to New York, where the President was taken to the Presbyterian Hospital. At a late hour the following bulletin was issued by the physicians:

"President Wilson's injuries are dangerous, but not necessarily fatal, though he is in great danger."

Samuel Gompers has asked the public to refrain from judging this to be work of strike breakers until full investigation has been made.

[Laughter.]

Another item under same date is as follows:

Gov. Whitman has declared New York City under martial law, and the board of governors of the stock exchange have closed the stock exchange until Monday next.

The CHAIRMAN. It must have been a fine novelist signing those dispatches a fine romancer.

Mr. GOMPERS. Not more romancing, Mr. Chairman, than undoubtedly are the newspapers of our country; and no more romancing than was indulged in during any event in which the working people were engaged in necessary dispute with employers; and no more romancing than was indulged in in the newspapers and in the magazines during the efforts made by the railroad brotherhoods to establish the eight-hour workday; and no more romancing than would be indulged in at any time in the future if you endeavor to shackle the men of labor in their efforts to improve their condition. When I say men I hope I may be understood to include women, for they are now coming into industry constantly in great numbers, and their rights must also be included. And let me say this: I have not the slightest doubt but what there may be the best of intentions in those who propose this species of legislation, but you will stop there if you do it. Thus far Congress has maintained the policy of mediation, conciliation, and possibly arbitration without any compulsory features. The Erdman Act was the first entering wedge; secondly, the Newlands Act, each of them containing the voluntary action; and now Congress is very seriously considering what I would want to use in quotation marks the word "strengthening"; strengthening those laws, supplement them by other legislation. It is a carefully worked out plan. The present declaration is, "No, we will not apply this compulsory feature to all labor; we will confine it to the brotherhoods." Perhaps the hope is that the working people of other trades and calling may be lulled into the fancied security that it does not mean them and does not portend anything to them. I have never read in any history