functions promptly and thoroughly, but it is not unlikely that it may presently be found advisable to add to its duties still others equally heavy and exacting. It must first be perfected as an administrative instrument.

The country can not and should not consent to remain any longer exposed to profound industrial disturbances for lack of additional means of arbitration and conciliation which the Congress can easily and promptly supply. And all will agree that there must be no doubt as to the power of the Executive to make immediate and uninterrupted use of the railroads for the concentration of the military forces of the Nation wherever they are needed and whenever they are needed.

This is a program of regulation, prevention, and administrative efficiency which argues its own case in the mere statement of it. With regard to one of its items, the increase in the efficiency of the Interstate Commerce Commission, the House of Representatives has already acted; its action needs only the concurrence of the Senate.

I would hesitate to recommend-and, I dare say, the Congress would hesitate to act upon the suggestion should I make it-that any man in any occupation should be obliged by law to continue in an employment which he desired to leave. To pass a law which forbade or prevented the individual workman to leave his work before receiving the approval of society in doing so would be to adopt a new principle into our jurisprudence which, I take it for granted, we are not prepared to introduce. But the proposal that the operation of the railways of the country shall not be stopped or interrupted by the concerted action of organized bodies of men until a public investigation` shall have been instituted which shall make the whole question at issue plain for the judgment of the opinion of the Nation is not to propose any such principle. It is based upon the very different principle that the concerted action of powerful bodies of men shall not be permitted to stop the industrial processes of the Nation, at any rate before the Nation shall have had an opportunity to acquaint itself with the merits of the case as between employee and employer, time to form its opinion upon an impartial statement of the merits, and opportunity to consider all practicable means of conciliation or arbitration. I can nothing in that proposition but the justifiable safeguarding by society of the necessary processes of its very life. There is nothing arbitrary or unjust in it unless it be arbitrarily and unjustly done. It can and should be done with a full and scrupulous regard for the interests and liberties of all concerned as well as for the permanent interests of society itself.

see

[Appendix B.]

EXISTING UNITED STATES LAW.

Act of 1888.

Adjustment of controversies between railways and their employees first found a place in Federal statutes in 1888. This law had two parts. In the first place, when a controversy arose the President could create a commission of threetwo appointees and the Commissioner of Labor-who had a duty of inquiring into the causes, the conditions surrounding the difficulty, and the best means for reaching an adjustment, making a report to the President and to Congress. The services of such a commission in the interest of adjustment could also be tendered to the parties by the President. In the second place, the law gave to boards of arbitration voluntarily chosen by parties power to administer oaths, issue subpœnas, compel production of papers, etc. This law was never used.

Newlands Act.

The basis of the present Newlands Act was laid by the Erdman Act of 1898, dealing only with employees directly engaged in moving trains. It provided voluntary mediation, utilized only upon application of either party, and accepted by the other. The Federal mediators were the chairman of the Interstate Commerce Commission and the Commissioner of Labor. Voluntary arbitration by boards chosen primarily by the parties was also provided. Arbitrators had the power to administer oaths, etc., and there was a limited appeal to the courts.

For eight years this law was not invoked although one attempt to use it occurred, but during the following five years it was utilized in 60 instances,

and methods of procedure were well established. Altogether, these appeals to the Erdman Act resulted in 13 formal cases of arbitration. Through mediation or arbitration a total of 61 cases were settled under this law.

Circumstances in the summer of 1913 led to rather hasty legislation modifying the Erdman Act into the present Newlands's Act. Two permanent Federal officials devoting their whole attention to controversies between employees engaged in train operation or train service and their employers, and the orderly adjustment of such controversies, were authorized. In order to meet criticisms which had been made of three-member boards of arbitration on the ground that the third, neutral member, had too much power six-member boards were authorized-two members to be selected by each party and two neutral members representing the public.

This legislation was requested by the President in view of the emergency caused by demands made by conductors and trainmen upon 42 eastern roads. Negotiations between the men and the roads had resulted in the roads taking the position that wages were already adequate and working conditions were favorable. When the men had voted to strike and the situation was acute both sides agreed to arbitrate in the event the law was changed in the ways outlined above.

Under the Newlands Act 56 cases were settled to June 30, 1915.

Adamson Act.

In the law passed in September, 1916, dealing primarily with the basis of pay for employees engaged in the operation of trains there is provision for a temporary "eight-hour-day commission" of three members, appointed by the President, with duties' of observing the operation of the wage part of the law for a period of six to nine months and of reporting to the President within three months of the end of the observation period. This commission has the powers usually conferred upon arbitration boards to administer oaths, issue subpoenas, etc.

[Appendix C1]

CANADIAN LAW.

Industrial Disputes Investigation Act.

Beginning in 1903, Canada has gradually developed a statute which is intended" to aid in the prevention and settlement of strikes and lockouts in mines and industries connected with public utilities." This law affects railways and their employees.

Administration is in the hands of the minister of labor. Whenever the parties are unable to settle a dispute either may apply for the appointment of a board of conciliation and investigation, one nominated by each side and the third chosen by these two. This board has two duties: (1) To endeavor to bring about a settlement and (2) to inquire expeditiously into all matters affecting the merits of the controversy and, in case it does not effect a settlement, to make a report to the minister of labor, including its recommendations for settlement according to the merits and substantial justice. This report is published.

Before a dispute has been referred to a board of conciliation and investigation and while it is pending before a board employers may not lock out the men, and the employees can not go on strike. For violations of the law in this regard there are penalties in the form of fines.

This act does not attempt compulsory arbitration. After a board has made its report the parties may proceed as they see fit.

Since 1907 some 212 disputes have come under the Canadian law, resulting in the creation of boards in 182 cases. Of the total number of disputes affected by the law, 85 affected railways. In seven instances proceedings under the law did not avert strikes.

Digest of operations under the industrial disputes investigation act, 1907. [Proceedings from Mar. 22, 1907, to Oct. 18, 1916.]

The total number of boards of conciliation and investigation established under the act during the period is 182.

Of the 212 cases in which application was made for the establishment of a board of conciliation and investigation, 167 were reported upon by boards, 29 were settled without the establishment of boards, 8 were settled while board was in process of constitution, 1 board was restrained by the court of review from proceeding with its investigation, 6 are being dealt with by boards at the present time, and 1 is being held in abeyance to permit of a probable settlement. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Washington, D. C., January 2, 1917.

Hon. FRANCIS G. NEWANDS,
Chairman Committee on Interstate Commerce,

United States Senate, Washington, D. C.

DEAR SIR: Your committee is to-day, we understand, beginning hearings regarding the desirability of legislation which would prevent interruption of railway transportation by reason of disputes between railways and their employees, at least until the public has before it an impartial report concerning the questions that are involved.

In this connection we wish to place before you and your committee a report presented in December by a committee of the Chamber of Commerce of the United States. This report you will find at pages 3 and 4 of the inclosed pamphlet, and the personnel of the committee you will find at page 2.

As yet this report represents only the point of view of the committee that signed it, since the time--45 days-which must elapse before the referendum which is necessary in our organization can be completed will not expire until January 30, 1917. Before that time, the position of the Chamber of Commerce of the United States is not formally determined and can not be forecast, except in so far as the chamber has heretofore taken such formal positions as are indicated upon the first page of the pamphlet we inclose.

For your information we also inclose a list of the organizations which are members of the Chamber of Commerce of the United States.

Very truly, yours,

ELLIOT F. GOODWIN, Secretary.

STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM L. CHAMBERS, COMMISSIONER UNITED STATES BOARD OF MEDIATION AND CONCILIATION.

The CHAIRMAN. You may state, Mr. Chambers, what position you hold.

Mr. CHAMBERS. I am United States Commissioner of Mediation. and Conciliation, under the act of Congress of July 15, 1913, commonly known as the Newlands law.

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, the board has prepared a study of arbitration and conciliation laws of the principal countries of the world, providing machinery for the peaceable adjustment of disputes between railroads and employees, the laws of certain countries for the prevention of strikes. We have called this report "Railway Strikes and Lockouts." Briefly stated, Mr. Chairman, this is the first compilation that has ever been made, so far as our information goes, or any attempt to make a compilation of this character, of all the laws of all the countries of the world, relating to mediation, conciliation, and arbitration methods of settlement of controversies between public utilities and their employees.

The board has made no analyses of the laws that relate to public utilities generally, only the features of the laws that relate to railroad service have been anlayzed. In connection with each statute, we have presented an analysis and also a table of results of operations. under those laws. You will find-there are copies enough to go around for the committee-that the board has not expressed its opinion on the questions involved in pending legislation, but has attempted to furnish, for the information of the committee, and for public use, the laws themselves, their analyses, the results under those laws, in comparison with the Federal laws of our own country. I think we have compiled the matter so that you can see from the results whether the efforts at compulsory mediation or arbitration or compulsory military service, as practiced in other countries, have produced better or less favorable results than the voluntary methods of procedure under our own laws.

Without expressing an opinion upon the subject, I want to call your attention to the fact that the laws of France, with the exception of the provision in regard to military service, are practically the same, or at least are very similar to the laws of this country, and the operation of these laws have perhaps been the most successful because of the fact that the Government of France, through the executive, has the power to call to the colors all the railroad employees in such a condition, for instance, as existed here in August and September of last year. The administration and operation of the laws of France is in that regard radically different from our own.

There are several of these amendments that I particularly wanted to call the attention of the committee to.

Senator POMERENE. Do you think that Congress would have the power, under the present Constitution of this country, to pass this law?

Mr. CHAMBERS. I followed rather closely the remarks of the distinguished gentleman who has just spoken and it seemed to me that the power merely as a power-is rather unlimited.

Senator POMERENE. I agree with you that the power is very broad, but whether it could be construed to be broad enough to draft men

into the civil service in case of a strike or in case of a lockout is what I would like to have your opinion on.

Mr. CHAMBERS. You propose to do that under another bill for military purposes.

Senator POMERENE. I am not speaking of military conditions. We can do almost anything in the case of war, but in the case of profound peace, except where labor differences between employees and employers--that is what I am talking about.

Mr. CHAMBERS. I would like to ask the Senator to excuse me from answering questions that involve policies, as I am charged with the administration of this law. I would not feel free to do that. It would not be judicious for me to express any views.

Senator POMERENE. It seems to me that in your position, and with your experience, that you would be able to give us some views that would aid the rest of us.

Mr. CHAMBERS. I understood the Senator's question to ask me for an opinion, rather than for the results of my experience, which you will find in this book and in another Senate document on the effect and operation of arbitration under the Federal law.

The CHAIRMAN. What is that other document ?

Mr. CHAMBERS. Senate Document No. 493, I think it is. It is published by resolution of the Senate.

Senator BRANDEGEE. Put the correct number in the record, please.

Mr. CHAMBERS. Very well. Senate Document 493.

Mr. Chairman, if you will permit me, I want to call your attention and emphasize the importance of the amendment which otherwise might not seem to carry its proper weight.

Under the second section--I refer to the tentative act, committee prints, No. 2-it is provided that-

whenever a controversy, as hereinbefore defined, concerning wages, hours of labor,for conditions of employment shall arise between an employer and employees subject to this act interrupting or threatening to interrupt the business of said employer or employees to the serious detriment of the public interests, either party to such controversy may apply to said Board of Mediation to assist in settling that controversy.

The amendment, as you will find it in the proposed act, strikes out the words "either party" and substitutes "both parties to such a controversy shall immediately notify the Board of Mediation and Conciliation created by this act," and either party may apply to said board and invoke their services for the purpose of bringing about an amicable adjustment of the controversy.

Since the passage of the Newlands law in July, 1913, there have been only 3 ínstances out of 66 controversies which probably would, under ordinary conditions, have led to a strike, where a cessation of train movements resulted, and that record will not be found paralleled in the operation and application of any mediation, conciliation, and arbitration laws anywhere else in the world. In each one of these instances the strike resulted without the Board of Mediation's knowing anything about the controversy, sufficiently at least in advance to tender its services. In all the other 63 cases one or the other of the parties or both jointly requested the services of the board or with knowledge of the existing controversy threatening the public interest the board tendered its services and settlements were had, and in the main—and I make the statement in the presence of representatives