I want to briefly review what has been done in the way of mediation, conciliation, and arbitration for the past few years, and I think in doing so that it is convincing that there is no need or apparent need for any radical change in the legislation already in effect. Senator TOWNSEND. Would it interrupt you at all to ask a question, or would you prefer to go on and make your statement?

Mr. DOAK. It does not make any difference, Senator. I will answer a question.

Senator TOWNSEND. I just wanted to get right on that before you go any further. Did I understand you to say that the only people affected by this legislation were these four or five hundred thousand people; that nobody else was interested in that legislation?

Mr. DOAK. We are the ones who are directly affected. It includes the engineers, the conductors, the firemen, the trainmen, the yardmen, and the telegraphers.

Senator TOWNSEND. What I mean is, you do not want to be understood, do you, as saying that the public and other interests are not vitally interested in this legislation?

Mr. DOAK. Oh, no; not in the least. I did not mean to leave that impression at all, but I meant, so far as the application of this law was concerned, that we were the ones and the only ones that were affected by the application of the law.

The first general law bearing on this subject was the act of 1888, approved October 1 of that year. The request, under the act of 1888, must be filed in writing by the party desiring same. If acceptable to the other party, then each party appointed one arbitrator and the two selected a third. The three thus constituted a board of arbitration. There was no provision under the law, if they disagreed, for the appointment of a neutral arbitrator. The board thus constituted had the full power to subpoena witnesses, require the production of papers, administer oaths, etc., the same as commissioners of the United States. The award of such board of arbitration was made public and a copy filed with the United States Commissioner of Labor. No authority, however, was given for the enforcement of the award.

This act provided that the President of the United States might select two commissioners to act in conjunction with the Commissioner of Labor for the purpose of examining into the facts of the controversy and suggesting the best means of adjustment. This commission transmitted its report to the President and to the Congress. The President could tender the services of the commission of his own motion or upon application of either party, or upon the application of the executive of the State. During the investigation by this commission the commissioners had the same authority as the board of arbitration. The report of this commission was made public and each party notified of its suggestions. There were no provisions, however, for the enforcement of its decisions.

This form was very seldom, if ever, used during its existence. This act was supplanted by the act of June, 1898, known as the Erdman Act, after having been in effect nearly 10 years and without any results whatever. The Erdman Act provided that the chairman of the Interstate Commerce Commission and the Commissioner of Labor of the United States should constitute the board of mediation. If a controversy arose, either party could request the aid of

the board, their services in such cases being conditioned upon the receipt of a request for mediation by either party and the acceptance by the other. When such request was received the board tendered its friendly offices to the other party, either party being privileged to decline. In scope the law applied only to those engaged in the movement of interstate commerce, namely, engineers, firemen, conductors, trainmen, yardmen, and telegraphers.

Senator BRANDEGEE. Let me ask you this question: Why are not the switchmen all along the tracks included?

Mr. DOAK. All along the track?

Senator BRANDEGEE. Yes; the entire length of the railroad. You will notice that the bill, when it defines the term "employee," states that it is any person who is actually engaged in the operation of the train.

Mr. DOAK. I used the term "yardman," Senator. "Yardman " can cover yard foremen, conductors, switchmen, and whatever title they may be given. So they are included in the scope of the law. Senator BRANDEGEE. They would be actually engaged in the operation of the trains?

Mr. DOAK. Oh, yes; certainly.

Senator BRANDEGEE. And are they organized also into a union? Mr. DOAK. Now, that is a rather difficult question to answer. Senator BRANDEGEE. Answer it in your own way as what the condition is that obtains.

Mr. DOAK. I will try to do so. The switchmen-of course, switching occurs in the yards are members of the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen or of the Switchmen's Union of North America, and switch tenders, even the ones that are stationed at some points to throw switches, in some instances are eligible to either of the organizations.

Senator POMERENE. What do you mean by "eligible to either organization"?

Mr. DOAK. To membership in either of these two organizations, the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen or the Switchmen's Union of North America. Then, when you take up the tower men or the men that are up in the towers, they are sometimes members and are legislated for by the Order of Railway Telegraphers. So to define exactly whether they are all organized is rather a difficult matter; but, generally speaking, they are.

Senator BRANDEGEE. And the men who may not be in a terminal or in a yard, strictly speaking, but wherever there are sidings all along the entire length of the road-are those men who operate switches there, as a general rule, organized?

Mr. DOAK. Generally speaking, they are intermediate yards. These places are called intermediate yards, and, of course, the men would be eligible for admission into the organization and to be legislated for.

The CHAIRMAN. I am told there are about 2,500,000 to 2,800,000 employees on the railroads. Can you state approximately the classes that these employees belong to, outside of the men who are engaged in train operation?

Mr. DOAK. I could not, I suppose, cover them all, Mr. Chairman, but they have the clerical department

The CHAIRMAN. Is it known how many there are of them?

Mr. DOAK. No; I do not know how many there are of them. However, your act, of course, does not apply to those men.

The CHAIRMAN. No.

Mr. DOAK. It does not apply to any of them; only to the men engaged directly in the handling of the trains, by actually handling the trains or handling train orders.

The CHAIRMAN. But there was a petition presented here by some representatives of the employees of the railroads outside of train operation. I think there were some three or four hundred thousand names, and I wanted to get some idea as to what the character of the service of the million or more men outside of those employed in train operation is.

Mr. DOAK. It would, of course, take in the entire clerical department, and then it would take in, I presume, the freight handlers in the stations and the shopmen, the track men, and all the other classes in connection with the operation of the railroad.

The CHAIRMAN. There are no statistics, to your knowledge, on that subject?

Mr. DOAK. No; I have not seen any, Senator.

Senator CUMMINS. I think Mr. Lee gave those in round numbers. Mr. DOAK. Mr. Holder informs me, Mr. Chairman, that they are all computed and given in the yearbook of the Interstate Commerce Commission. I have not looked into that feature of it.

Senator POMERENE. May I ask that Mr. Holder furnish that, so that it may be incorporated in the minutes?

Mr. HOLDER. Yes, sir.

(The letter referred to was subsequently submitted and is here printed in full as follows:)

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR,

Washington, D. C., January 9, 1917.

Hon. FRANCIS G. NEWLANDS,
Chairman Senate Committee on Interstate Commerce,

Room 328, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: During the hearings before your committee on January 9, in response to a request from Senator Pomerene, I promised to furnish a table of the employees on the interstate railways of the United States classified as to trades and occupations.

I furnish same herewith as taken from page 26 of Statistics of Railways in the United States for the year ended June 30, 1915. The statistics for 1916 are not yet compiled by the Interstate Commerce Commission.

In column No. 2 I venture an estimate of the percentage of the number organized in the several labor organizations or trade-unions of the occupations, and I base this estimate on the best available data.

Occupations printed in italic are those generally conceded by the courts to be actually engaged in the movement of interstate commerce. The others are still in the twilight zone," sometimes placed in intrastate and at others in interstate commerce.

Yours, very truly,

ARTHUR E. HOLDER,

Legislative Committee, American Federation of Labor.

Statistics of railway employees engaged in interstate commerce in the United States, by class, trade, and occupation, year ended June 30, 1915.

Grand total number employees on railways engaged in interstate com

merce in United States for year ended June 30, 1915...

1,409, 342

13, 560

90

90

25

50

Mr. DOAK. Whenever the services of the board under the old Erdman Act were invoked, of course, the two members of the board of mediation, or one of them, immediately put themselves into position to go into the details in connection with the controversy to try to effect a settlement, either the settlement of the entire question by mediation or to get the parties to submit to arbitration under the provisions of the act; and when they reached arbitration either party had right to select one man, and they had five days in which to select the other arbitrator, and in the event of their failure, then the board itself appointed the third member of the board of arbitration. That was the difference between the Erdman Act and the act of 1888. They must select under the old act of 1888, but under the Erdman Act it gave the Board of Mediation and Conciliation the right to select the arbitrator in the event of a disagreement or failure to select a third party.

When the award was rendered, it was effective and binding under the Erdman Act; that is, provided it was not appealed to the court for error of law apparent on the record.

During the first eight and one-half years of the existence of this act, from 1898 to about 1907, there was only one case handled under the provisions of the Erdman Act. During the next five years, from 1907 to 1912, it was used more than sixty times with marked success. The law continued in effect until July 15, 1913, at which time the act was amended by the enactment of the Newlands Act, and after having been in existence for about 15 years.

Senator POMERENE. May I ask you to explain just one statement that you made? You say that during this latter period it was used more than 60 times with marked success. Do you mean by that to have it inferred that there were other times in which it was not used with success or with indifferent success?

Mr. DOAK. It was used but one time before this; but in the last five and a half years of its existence it was used more than 60 times. For more than eight years it was used only once. Then it was used 60 times in the latter part of that period, and when I use the words "marked success" I mean that in each instance there was a settlement reached. Whether it was satisfactory to both parties or not is another question; but, anyway, so far as the public was concerned, or anyone was concerned, when we had no strikes or any trouble, it was used with marked success. That is the effect of the settlement under

the provisions of the law.

The amendment to the Newlands Act, of course. provided for a change in the personnel of the board to the three members of the Board of Mediation and Conciliation under the Newlands Act, and it also provided that if it was desired to have more than three arbitrators in a case the board could be increased to six, and that the two contending parties would select two, and they had five days in which to select two more, and if they disagreed, the Board of Mediation and Conciliation appointed the other members.

Practically the provisions as to the handing down of the award and everything in connection with it were carried forward in the Newlands Act from the old Erdman Act, and the only difference was that when the award was handed down they would file it. It must be filed with the court, and then if there was no appeal taken from the decision of error of law apparent on the record within 10 days