UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT,

District of Alaska, Second Division.

I, George V. Borchsenius, clerk of the United States district court for the district of Alaska, second division, do hereby certify that I have compared the foregoing copy with the original order of injunction in re E. W. Johnston v. Federal Labor Union, Nome City, Alaska et al., No. 1377, now on file and of record in my office at Nome in the district of Alaska, and the same is a true and perfect transcript of said original and of the whole thereof.

Witness my hand and the seal of said court, this 15th day of August, A. D. 1905. [SEAL.]

GEO. V. BORCHSENIUS, Clerk. By ANGUS MCBRIDE, Deputy.

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, Suffolk, 88.

To William II. Frazier, George Y. Small, Alfred McDonnell, John Thormer, John Lind, all of Boston, in our said county of Suffolk, and all other officers and members of the voluntary association called the Atlantic Coast Seamen's Union, their agents, attorneys, and counselors, and each and every one of them, greeting:

Whereas it has been represented unto us, in our superior court, by Leroy K. McKeown, Joseph Donnell, S. R. Crowell, William F. Palmer, all of said Boston, Gardnier G. Deering, William T. Donnell, both of Bath, in the State of Maine, and the members of the following firms: John S. Emery & Co., of said Boston; Percy & Small, of said Bath; J. S. Winslow & Co., of Portland, in the State of Maine; Pendleton Brothers, of New York, and Crowell & Thurlow, of said Boston, complainants, that the said complainants have exhibited a bill of complaint in our said court against you, the said respondents, wherein said complainants, among other things, pray for a writ of injunction against you, the said respondents; we therefore, in consideration of the premises, do strictly enjoin and command you, the said respondents and each of you, and all and every persons before named, to desist and refrain from interfering with the business of the complainants or any of them, by the use of threats, force of intimidation with any one seeking employment as seamen with any of the complainants or their agents, or by the use of promises to pay board, or by any other persuasive inducement or act, to induce seamen to break or violate any of their shipping contracts with the complainants or their agents until further order of our said court or some justice thereof.

Witness, Albert Mason, esq., at Boston, the 29th of February, in the year of our Lord 1904.

GEORGE E. KIMBALL,
Assistant Clerk.

Mr. FULLER. If the other side is through, we are ready to go ahead. Mr. DAVENPORT. As I stated this morning, I don't know anything about it, but I understand that Mr. Levi Mayer, of Chicago, desires to appear here at some day for the purpose of discussing these questions. The CHAIRMAN. That will be for the full committee to determine.

STATEMENT OF MR. H. R. FULLER.

The CHAIRMAN. It may be a little irregular for us to go ahead until the other side has closed, but, as I have expressed myself before, I would like to see this hearing closed, so I will proceed.

I wish to first say a few words with regard to the arguments of Brothers Furuseth and Gompers against the Gilbert bill, and I regret that they are not present.

Mr. Furuseth says it is an arbitration bill, and, as I understood him, will make the judge the arbitrator in all labor disputes in which an injunction is asked. I do not agree with him in this opinion, neither am I able to strike any line of reasoning whereby such a conclusion is justified. This bill does nothing more and nothing less than to require that hereafter in labor disputes an injunction or a restraining order shall not be issued without giving the adverse party an opportunity to be heard, instead of issuing them ex parte as heretofore. It gives no new authority to issue such writs, for it is expressly provided in the bill that nothing in it shall be held to authorize the issuing of a restraining order or an injunction where the same is not authorized by existing law. If it makes a judge an arbitrator of all questions in a labor dispute simply because he is required to give notice before he can issue an iujunction, then from 1793 to 1872 the judges were arbitrators of all questions in every dispute in which either a temporary or permanent injunction was sought, for during that period of seventy-nine years neither a temporary nor a permanent injunction could be issued without notice.

If the judge is to be the arbitrator because the bill applies only to labor disputes, then he must now be the arbitrator of all questions in patent cases, for there is a law giving the courts the power to issue injunctions in patent cases in any way they may think proper. If he is to be the arbitrator because the bill applies only to labor disputes, then how about the Little bill, or the Hoar-Grosvenor bill, which we all favored. They apply only to labor disputes.

It has been said if the President knew the effect of this bill and advocated it, he was no friend of labor. I think we can well presume that the President of the United States knows, or at least contemplates the effect of legislation which he recommends to Congress; and I do not think it will be seriously contended that he did not recommend this bill in his last message.

As to the friendship of Theodore Roosevelt for labor, I think his past actions speak louder than words. While police commissioner of the city of New York he not only made the police permit striking workmen to picket, but he also required them to protect them in that right. As governor of the State of New York he recommended labor legislation to the legislature of that State. He was the first and only President to indorse labor organizations in a message to Congress, and recommendations for labor legislation have occupied prominent places and filled many pages in his annual messages to Congress from the first one down to the one to the present session. And since he has been President of the United States the White House doors have swung as freely to the representatives of labor as they have to Mr. J. Pierpont Morgan or Mr. A. J. Cassatt.

Mr. SPELLING. Will you allow me to ask you-I want to get the

record straight-whom you represent? Do you represent the Administration?

Mr. FULLER. What Administration do you have reference to?
Mr. SPELLING. The present one. Whom do you represent?

Mr. FULLER. I represent the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, the Order of Railway Conductors, the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, and the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen, or, I might say, I am trying to represent them.

Mr. SPELLING. Who are the officers of the trainmen?

Mr. FULLER. Do you question my authority?

Mr. SPELLING. Well, please

Mr. FULLER. If you question my authority, I will be glad to give you the names.

The CHAIRMAN. If you do not desire to answer the question you need not get into any controversy

Mr. FULLER. Mr. Chairman, I will, for the sake of making the record right, submit here a copy of my credential and I will be glad to have Mr. Spelling examine this paper. It bears the signatures of the executive officers of the organizations I represent. As to representing the Administration, I say no, I represent no one except these men whom I am authorized to represent.

The credential referred to was submitted by Mr. Fuller, as follows: [Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen, Order of Railway Conductors, Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen.]

DECEMBER 1, 1905.

To whom these presents may concern, greeting: This is to certify that the bearer hereof, Mr. H. R. Fuller, whose signature appears below, has been duly chosen to serve as the representative of the above-named organizations at Washington, D. C., during the first session of the Fifty-ninth Congress, in matters pertaining to national legislation.

W. S. STONE,

Grand Chief Engineer, B. of L. E.
JOHN J. HANNAHAN,

Grand Master, B. of L. F.
E. E. CLARK,

Grand Chief Conductor, O. of R. C.
O. H. MORRISSEY,

Grand Master, B. of R. T.

H. R. FULLER,

Representative.

Mr. SPELLING. What is the date of that?

Mr. FULLER. I am simply answering the statement made here with regard to President Roosevelt, in reference to the action he has taken in regard to this bill.

Mr. SPELLING. What is the date of your credential?

Mr. FULLER. December 1, 1905.

The CHAIRMAN. Go ahead with your argument.

Mr. FULLER. Recently a United States circuit judge in the eighth circuit, who was at one time told in a dissenting opinion by one of his associates that he had made human life cheaper than lumber in that circuit, rendered a decision on our safety-appliance law which practically nulified its most important provisions; and for the first time, so far as we have been able to learn, the United States Government intervened in a suit between private parties, and in order to save that

A-I-06-19

wholesome and beneficent law, President Roosevelt ordered the Attorney-General to appeal to the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which was granted. The case was argued by the Government, and the honorable Judge Sanborn was reversed on every point. This action on the part of President Roosevelt meant much to the men I represent; and the statement that he is not a friend of labor does not represent their sentiments.

When I say Mr. Roosevelt has been a friend to labor, I do not mean to say that in being our friend he has been unfair to capital. I think it might better be stated that he has been fair to labor. While he has done these things, I do not think he has done anything more than a good, conscientious President would do; but it is so extraordinary, in view of our past experiences with other Presidents, that I believe we can be excused for calling him our friend.

Mr. ALEXANDER. May I interrupt you a moment?

Mr. FULLER. Certainly.

Mr. ALEXANDER. I have been obliged to divide my time between this committee and the Rivers and Harbors Committee for some week or more, so that I have not been able to be here and hear all that has been said. I apprehend that there is a difference between you and the people you represent and Mr. Spelling and the people that he represents.

Possibly you have already been over that, and have explained it, and it is in the record. If it is, that is sufficient; I can read it in the record. But if it is not in the record I wish you would make the statement now while Mr. Spelling is present, that we may have a careful statement before us.

Mr. FULLER. I would be very glad to.

Mr. SPELLING. If the statement does not suit me I will respond.

Mr. FULLER. Our position is this: For ten years or more the working class of people have stood up under this abuse of the power of injunction by Federal judges. We have tried repeatedly; there has been a continual agitation and petitioning to Congress for legislation to remedy that abuse or prevent it in the future.

Bills have passed one House or the other, but never both Houses. A bill passed the Senate and came to the House and it did not pass here; the Grosvenor bill passed the House and it went to the Senate and they would not pass it over there. The President made a recommendation favorable to legislation which would give the adverse party an opportunity to be heard. We thought this was a step in the right direction, and we could afford to urge the passage of such a bill, and we are doing so.

I do not believe in taking anything that is not on the right line, but with the hope of making a start in the right direction we agreed to accept such a proposition, and that is contained in the Gilbert bill. Now, in doing that we do not claim that it is a cure for the evil. We claim that it is only a step in the right direction. If the American Federation of Labor would confine their arguments against this bill to the fact that it does not go far enough, that it is not a full remedy for the evil, then I think there would be considerable merit in their arguments, because we do not think that it goes far enough, and if it is passed and is strictly adhered to by the courts the agitation for legislation to further prevent this abuse will necessarily go on, because this bill will not be a cure.

Now, then, when I appeared before the committee a few days ago I said that while we advocated this bill that the committee had several bills before it which sought to remedy this evil, and if it saw fit to pass any of the other bills-if in its judgment as legislators it thought best to do so-we would not object; that we would take any bill that it then had before it. That is our position to-day. I think I have made myself understood.

Mr. DAVENPORT. May I ask a question?

The CHAIRMAN. Do you care to be interrupted?
Mr. FULLER. Yes; I am perfectly willing.

Mr. DAVENPORT. Is it not true at the same time the President urged the passage of such a bill that you advocate he said that the kind of bills the American Federation of Labor was advocating was one that he was opposed to?

Mr. FULLER. I did not understand him to say that in his message. If I remember rightly, his message is not susceptible of that interpretation.

Mr. SPELLING. The gentleman here

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Fuller will proceed.

Mr. SPELLING. But, Mr. Chairman

The CHAIRMAN. You will take your seat, Mr. Spelling. You will have to obey the rules of this committee, and do it at once.

Mr. SPELLING. I don't want to quarrel

The CHAIRMAN. It doesn't make any difference, Mr. Fuller has the floor.

Mr. FULLER. I do not object to him interrupting me.

Mr. SPELLING. He said that he would let me ask him a question. Now, can I do it?

The CHAIRMAN. No; you can not do it now.

Mr. SPELLING. Very well.

The CHAIRMAN. The reason is that if we keep on with this discussion we will never get through.

Mr. SPELLING. I am not trying to quarrel with him; it is all friendly.

The CHAIRMAN. That may be, but we want to get through.

Mr. FULLER. Mr. Gompers took the position that there was no law which authorizes the issuing of injunctions in labor disputes. He says the Sherman antitrust law was never intended to apply to labor. I wish I could agree with him in this opinion, but I can not. I have read the debates in the Senate on that law, and it is very plain to me that it was intended by members of that body, at least, that it should apply to labor. As to whether the labor injunction is here by authority of law, I wish to quote a few words from an authority on this question. This writer, too, is a critic of the modern use of injunctions. I quote from Labor in its Relation to Law, by F. J. Stimson. On pages 122, 123, and 124, speaking of the interstate-commerce and Sherman antitrust laws, he says:

But in 1887 was passed the United States law regulating interstate commerce and in 1890 the United States law against trusts.

In the great business of railways, and also of stevedores, sailors, wharf laborers, and certain other classes of laborers who were employed in handling goods designed for shipment to another State, these statutes gave express power, and in fact directed ob T