« AnteriorContinuar »
forbidden or declared to be unlawful by this Act may sue therefor in any circuit court of the United States in the district in which the defendant resides or is found, without respect to the amount in controversy, and shall recover the damages by him sustained and the costs of suit, including a reasonable attorney's fee."
SEC. 3. That in any suit for damages under section seven of the said Act approved July second, eighteen hundred and ninety, based upon a right of action accruing prior to the passage of this Act, the plaintiff shall be entitled to recover only the damages by him sustained and the costs of suit, including a reasonable attorney's fee; and no suit for damages under said section seven of the said Act, based upon a right of action accruing prior to the passage of this Act, shall be maintained unless the same shall be commenced within one year after the passage of this Act.
Nothing in said Act approved July second, eighteen hundred and ninety, or in this Act, is intended, nor shall any provision thereof hereafter be enforced, so as to interfere with or to restrict any right of employees to strike for any cause or to, combine or to contract with each other or with employers for the purpose of peaceably obtaining from employers satisfactory terms for their labor or satisfactory conditions of employment, or so as to interfere with or to restrict any right of employers for any cause to discharge all or any of their employees or to combine or to contract with each other or with employees for the purpose of peaceably obtaining labor on satisfactory terms.
Sec. 4. That no suit or prosecution by the United States under the first sis sections of the said Act approved July second, eighteen hundred and ninety, shall hereafter be begun for or on account of any contract or combination made prior to the passage of this Act, or any action thereunder, unless the same be in unreasonable restraint of trade or commerce among the several States or with foreign nations; and no suit or prosecution by the United States under the first six sections of the said Act approved July second, eighteen hundred and ninety, shall be begun after one year from the passage of this Act for or on account of any contract or combination made prior to the passage of this Act, or any action thereunder; but no corporation or association authorized to register under section eight of the said Act approved July second, eighteen hundred and ninety, as amended, shall be entitled to the benefit of this immunity if it shall have failed so to register, or if the registration of such corporation or association shall have been canceled before the expiration of one year after such registration, exclusive of the period, if any, during which such cancelation shall have been stayed by an order or decree of court subsequently vacated or set aside. Anything herein contained to the contrary notwithstanding, all actions and proceedings now or heretofore pending under or by virtue of any provision of the said Act approved July second, eighteen hundred and ninety, may be prosecuted and may be defended to final effect; and all judgments and decrees heretofore or hereafter made in any such actions or proceedings may be enforced in the same manner as though this Act had not been passed.
SUBCOMMITTEE No. 3 OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Washington, D. C., Saturday, April 4, 1908. The subcommittee met at 10.30 o'clock a. m.
Present: Representatives Littlefield (chairman), Malby, and Henry, of the subcommittee.
Present also: Representatives Jenkins, Parker, Alexander, Tirrell, Sterling, Bannon, Diekema, Caulfield, and Reid.
Present also: Many representatives of those in favor of and those opposed to the bill under consideration.
The subcommittee thereupon proceeded to the consideration of the bill (H. R. 19745) “ To regulate commerce among the several States or with foreign nations, and to amend the Act approved July second, eighteen hundred and ninety, entitled 'An Act to protect trade and commerce against unlawful restraints and monopolies.”
The CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen, please come to order. The hour fixed for this hearing has gone by by nearly ten minutes and I am the only member of the subcommittee present. There are, however, three or four members of the Judiciary Committee present. If it is agreeable to the parties interested we will begin the hearing now; or, if it is desired, we will wait until other members of the subcommittee come in. It is entirely at your disposal. Mr. Low, I understand, represents the proponents of the measure.
In the first instance, is there anyone here who appears in opposition to the measure generally?
Mr. DANIEL DAVENPORT. I appear in behalf of the American Antiboycott Association, in opposition to the bill. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Emery?
Mr. EMERY. I appear in behalf of some 135 associations in opposition to the bill, representing a national association of manufacturers, members of State, local, and other associations.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Monahan?
The CHAIRMAN. If you three gentlemen will confer together, if it is agreeable to you, and arrange upon some one gentleman to manage the details before the committee in opposition. I will then consult both you and Mr. Low as to the manner in which the hearing shall proceed—that is, as to the order. If Mr. Emery, Mr. Monahan, and Mr. Davenport can arrange among themselves so that one of these gentlemen can speak for all, then I will see what arrangement can be
made between them and Mr. Low as to the order of the hearing. We can arrange those details before the other members of the committee come in.
Mr. DAVENPORT. Is it the understanding that the proponents are to go ahead? The CHAIRMAN. I presume so.
Who will represent the opponents-Mr. Davenport or Mr. Emery, or
Mr. EMERY. We agree on that.
The CHAIRMAN. Very well. Mr. Davenport, will it be agreeable to your people for Mr. Low to proceed in the first instance, inasmuch as he represents the people urging the passage of the bill ?
Mr. DAVEN PORT. Certainly.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Low, what arrangements would you like to make with reference to the order in which the hearing shall proceed ? Would you like to be heard first and exhaust all you may have to say affirmatively, and then hear what the other gentlemen have to say in the way of objection, and then reply; or would it be more agreeable to alternate back and forth? Anything that will suit your convenience will suit the convenience of the committee.
Mr. Low. I think it would be more instructive and helpful if we alternated back and forth, if that is agreeable to Mr. Davenport.
Mr. DAVENPORT. They have a great number of gentlemen here who want to be heard in favor of this measure, and I suppose the orderly way would be to have what anybody has to say in favor of it said first; and that we could ask an opportunity to be heard in reply.
The CHAIRMAN. I suppose that would be the orderly method. Would it be agreeable to you, Mr. Low?
Mr. Low. If we can have an opportunity to reply after the objections have been urged, yes. We certainly feel that we are entitled to that in one form or another.
The CHAIRMAN. Of course, the committee has not yet taken any action upon that, but my own notion about it is that the committee will be disposed to hear everybody who is interested in the measure and that the persons who appear for the bill certainly ought to have an opportunity to reply to those who appear in objection thereto. So, if it is agreeable, we will proceed with Mr. Low's people, who are in favor of the bill, in the first instance, and then the parties who are in opposition may be heard; and then later on you may be heard in reply.
Mr. DAVENPORT. Is the hearing to be confined to to-day?
The CHAIRMAN. That is a matter that has not been determined. I should doubt very much if it was. As far as I am personally concerned, I am willing to sit right through to-day and through Monday and Tuesday, and more than that if it is necessary. Of course, we would expect the hearing to be confined within reasonable limits.
Before the hearing begins I will read some telegrams that have been sent to me, so as to get them into the record. I will read them as a part of the hearing:
Such political jugglery as represented by Hepburn bill to amend the Sherman law will, if persisted in, destroy all remaining contidence in the Administration and turn the country over to the Democrats.
THE KINNARD JANUFACTURING (0.
For obvious reasons this association protest against Hepburn bill amending Sherman antitrust law.
DAYTON EMPLOYERS' ASSOCIATION.
For God's sake spare us such legislation as is proposed by the Hepburn bill, No. 19745.
DAYTON MANUFACTURING CO.
This company believes passage of Hepburn bill to amend the antitrust law will shake the people's confidence in the stability of our Government.
THE BARNEY & SMITH CAR Co.
If the Hepburn bill amending Sherman Act is passed, we believe the people will repudiate the Republican party at the next election.
THE DAVIS SEWING MACHINE CO.
We can conceive of no legislation more disastrous to business interests and to the welfare of this country than would be the Hepburn law if enacted.
THE PLATT IRON WORKS Co.
We protest against proposed Hepburn amendment to Sherman Act, as one of the most vicious pieces of legislation ever put before the American Congress.
THE BROWNELL CO.
The Hepburn measure is a vicious conspiracy and must not become law.
THE COMPUTING SCALE Co.
Record our emphatic protest against Hepburn amendment to Sherman antitrust law.
THE BUCKEYE IRON AND BRASS Co.
Passage of the Hepburn bill will kill the Republican party next fall, we fully believe, and it should.
THE W. P. CALLAHAN Co.
We desire to enter our protest against Hepburn amendments and condemu the originators who are proposing such infamous legislation.
THE DAYTON GLOBE IRON WORKS.
Business interests of this community bitterly indignant over Hepburn bill. We protest against favorable report by your committee.
CRAWFORD MCGREGOR & CANBY CO. The following letter is directed to me: (International Association of Master House Painters and Decorators of the United
States and Canada.]
SOM ERVILLE, MASS., Jarch 30, 1908. DEAR SIB: I learn that there are to be hearings on April 4 on the Hepburn bill (H. R. No. 19745), and as secretary-treasurer of the above association, and on its behalf, I write to protest against the bill as a whole, and especially the second paragraph of section, which I believe would legalize the boycott. It seems to me that the enactment of any such law would be positively class discrimination, and I can not see why one class of citizens should be exempt from the provisions of such a law, made by our National Congress. I remain, Yours, respectfully,
WILLIAM E, WALL, Secretary-Treasurer.
I will say, gentlemen, that so far as anything of any character comes into the possession of the committee I will see that it is put in and made a part of the hearing. That is, everybody is entitled to the possession of information that comes into the possession of the subcommittee. That is the view the subcommittee takes of it. Now, Mr. Low, you may proceed.
STATEMENT OF SETH LOW, ESQ., PRESIDENT OF THE NATIONAL
Mr. Low. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, there was held in Chicago last October a conference upon trusts and organizations, which was called under the auspices of the National Civic Federation. The membership of that congress was composed of delegates appointed by the governors of 42 of the States of the Union and by over 90 commercial and agricultural and labor organizations. At that congress certain resolutions were adopted which have been presented to the House by Colonel Hepburn, and a subcommittee was appointed to see that they were presented to Congress. When we were making the arrangements for the presentation of those resolutions, through the courtesy of the Speaker, the subcommittee had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Jenkins, of this committee, and Colonel Hepburn, of the Interstate Commerce Committee, and as a result of that con ference we were asked to propose a bill or bills. We were not under any instructions from the Chicago conference to do that, and the bill that we propose is not presented with the authority of that conference for that reason. But being called upon to prepare some legislative measure for consideration, the National Civic Federation, which had called the conference, took the matter up and this bill has been prepared after a very careful study of the subject and as wide conference with the different interests as it was practicable to secure within the limited time at our command. The committee therefore will understand that in offering this bill we are complying with the wishes of the chairman of the committee that we should present some definite legislation. The CHAIRMAN. The wishes of the chairman of this committee? · Mr. Low. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. Of the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary and the chairman of the Committee on Interstate Commerce?
Mr. Low. Both of them asked us to prepare a measure.
The CHAIRMAN. Are we to understand that this measure follows the lines of their suggestion?
Mr. Low. Of the Chicago conference, yes; so far as it is practicable to do so, after consulting with the different interests concerned. We can not say that it identically does, because matters have come up since then that were not then under consideration, and in attempting to give definite form to the resolutions we have done as well as we could. I think there is nothing contrary to the resolutions in the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Nothing contrary to what? Mr. Low. Nothing in the bill contrary to the resolutions that were adopted at Chicago.
The CHAIRMAN. Oh, yes.
Mr. Low. They did suggest the appointment of a commission to study certain large phases of the subject, but it seemed to the Federa