could be under a criminal proceeding? Is that the reason the injunction is regarded as the preferable remedy?

Mr. KIRBY. The injunction is regarded as the only remedy.

Mr. SMITH, of Kentucky. Yes.

Mr. KIRBY. Because we have no recourse against destruction. How are you to reach these people? You can not reach them.

Mr. SMITH of Kentucky. They might be reached in a prosecution for murder or manslaughter.

Mr. KIRBY. No, I think it is difficult even in such a case. History is full of it; if a strike occurs, and you attempt to put other men in the places of the strikers, these things are bound to follow. Now, the only recourse or remedy that we have is the writ of injunction, and that usually stops it. I understand, of course, and can appreciate, why you gentlemen are disposed to look upon the question from a different view point from what I would, or other manufacturers would, who have had the experience. You have got to get up against that to fully appreciate it. You can not be on the outside and appreciate what it is. You have got to be right up against it, and have your plant picketed, and find yourself advised that you can not run your plant except under certain conditions demanded by the labor organizations; you have to be in that situation before you can fully appreciate it.

STATEMENT OF MR. HENRY F. ARNOLD, OF THE AMERICAN TOOL AND MACHINE COMPANY, OF BOSTON, MASS.

Mr. ARNOLD. I have not prepared any extensive remarks or exhaustive arguments for you gentlemen. I came here as a delegate from the Boston Metal Trades' Association. They appointed two delegates to present their sentiment to you gentlemen, and that sentiment is in opposition to this bill. My associate is also here, and we desire to express, in behalf of our association, which numbers about 50 employers in Boston and vicinity, their opposition to this bill. And they maintain that they should not be deprived of the right to obtain injunctions, should necessity require it, and they be entitled to the same. That, gentlemen, is just exactly what I am here for, and that is practically all that I am prepared to say, unless somebody wishes to ask me some questions.

Mr. SMITH, of Kentucky. Mr. Furuseth here desires to ask you a question: "If it could be shown that this bill, if passed, would protect the liberty of individual men, would you still oppose it?"

Mr. ARNOLD. I should want to hear the argument. Unless the bill is proved to be a benefit to the company I represent I should be very much in favor of the law remaining as it is now. It is a benefit to our concern. We certainly think it is all right now as it is. We can not see any reason to change, and I should decidedly oppose any change and should consider that I was voicing the sentiment of the association that sent me here by saying that I was not in favor of any change.

Mr. PARSONS. Mr. Davenport wants a few moments in which to refer to some points of the last hearing.

STATEMENT OF MR. DANIEL DAVENPORT.

Mr. DAVENPORT. I did not have the pleasure, gentlemen, of hearing the remarks of General Grosvenor before this committee at some previous hearing, but he made a statement or two in regard to this matter which in justice to him I think should be referred to. General Grosvenor is one of the honored sons of Connecticut.

Mr. PALMER. Where?

Mr. DAVENPORT. Connecticut. He was born in the town where Israel Putnam lived. His father was a distinguished officer in the civil war from our State, and his grandfather was an officer in the Revolutionary war, and for several generations before that his ancestors, in common with mine, took their part in the labors and sufferings of the generations that have gone before in building for us this, our heritage; and I was a good deal surprised to see that in his high position he was willing to introduce into Congress such a bill as this, and also that he was willing to come before this committee and stand sponsor for it, and I believe it is because he has been misled by supposed information, and that he has been misinformed as to what this bill contains.

On page 353 of this record, speaking of the opposition to this bill, he speaks of it as "the hysterical shrieks of a number of lobbyists who have been here, and the echoes that have come up from the country." He says that this bill has had the support of this committee heretofore, and that is justification sufficient; and he included in his remarks the majority report and the minority report of this committee as sufficient justification for anyone to accept it as the deliberate judgment of this great body. Upon that point I would simply direct his attention to what was said here before this committee by Mr. Littlefield at a hearing when Mr. Bond was speaking the other day, which is to be found on page 235 of the hearings. It is as follows:

Mr. LITTLEFIELD. I think it ought to be stated in reference to that report that it is very doubtful if more than two or three members of this committee, outside of the chairman, ever saw that report before it was presented. Of course I filed the minority view. So you will appreciate the situation.

Mr. BOND. Yes, sir.

Mr. LITTLEFIELD. That is, I do not think the committee as a whole, or that any individual members outside of the chairman, ought to be held responsible for those views. They were drawn, as you know, by Mr. Ray, the chairman, and I do not know whether-I will not say that he did not submit them to any other member, but I have not seen any other member to whom they were submitted. I conferred with him myself while they were being drawn. So the other members of the committee are not necessarily chargeable with the conclusions stated in that report.

The other piece of misinformation which our distinguished friend was laboring under is contained on pages 391 and 392 of the record, which is as follows:

Let me say, gentlemen of the committee, that I am a lawyer of long experience, and had for many years a very large practice, and I have the highest respect and veneration for the principles of law embodied in the equity jurisdiction of the court in the matter of injunctions. The injunction can not be held in higher esteem by any lawyer than it is held by me, and yet I denounce without qualification the practice that has grown up in this country in the courts by the use of the injunction, and without arguing further and submitting the reports that have been made upon this bill as full justification for any man who has been friendly to it, I would say that if these organizers of opposition to this bill would only organize a little in the courts and stop the unjust and outrageous proceedings which we have had in some of the courts of this country, there never would have been any occasion for the outbreak of

labor organizations or laboring men in hostility to the construction that has been given to the power of the courts in this behalf.

Let me read to you an injunction recently issued in one of the courts of the United States. The newspaper account of it I find in the Associated Press dispatch from Chicago. It is as follows:

"In answer to an appeal of the Dearborn Duster Company, the county court to-day issued a far-reaching injunction against striking employees of the company, whose present employees have been frequently attacked by pickets of the Feather Duster Makers' Union. The injunction restrains the strikers or others from picketing, côngregating in the vicinity of the factory, inflicting bodily injury, using the term of 'scab,' or from threatening or intimidating or speaking to the employees of the company against their will. The injunction is the most sweeping ever issued in Chicago and has brought consternation to the ranks of the labor unions."

This is but a fair specimen of a large number of injunctions that have been issued in the United States during the last few years, notably a series of them in the State of West Virginia, and these are the things that have stirred up the laboring men of the country to believe that their liberties are endangered by the reckless and unheard-of issue of injunctions. Note that this injunction enjoined the strikers from speaking to the employees of the company. They must not congregate together. They are forbidden to hold meetings, if forsooth their hall happens to be in the vicinity of the factory in which the strike is.

Now, gentlemen, we as lawyers all know that it is very unsafe for a lawyer to accept as a correct statement of what takes place either before a committee or in court the conclusion that a newspaper reporter draws from what he has heard or what he has learned, and so for the the benefit of this committee, and particularly for the benefit of that worthy decendant of a noble ancestry in Connecticut who occupies a justly honored position in this country, I thought I would take the trouble to ascertain and lay before you, and before him, and before all whose eyes might light on the reports of the hearings before this committee, exactly what the injunction was, and I have here the bill of complaint in that case. I sent out to Chicago to the chairman of the Chicago committee of the Anti-Boycott Association and had a copy made of the complaint and also of the affidavits which are filed in support of this complaint upon which the order was based, and also the order which was made. I think when you gentlemen come to read it you will say, and I think when General Grosvenor comes to read it, he will say, that if that is a fair specimen of the injunctions that are granted in this country upon the state of facts presented in the complaint and supported by the affidavit, instead of being condemned such injunctions should be encouraged.

Mr. SMITH, of Kentucky. Does that order go to the extent of restraining them from speaking to the people?

Mr. DAVENPORT. Nothing but the most unfortunate lack of ability to extract from the order such a conclusion is possible. I wanted to read one of the affidavits that was filed. Of course the judge acted upon those as every judge does when preliminary motions are made. And note, this is not in the State courts, it is a United States court. Here is one affidavit:

Anna Brennan, being first duly sworn, deposes and says that she is a resident of the city of Chicago, county of Cook, and State of Illinois; that on February 18, 1904, she commenced working for the said Dearborn Duster Company at their place of business at 122 South Green street, near Adams street, in the city of Chicago; that on the morning of the 19th of February, 1904, she alighted from the street car at the corner of Madison and Green streets, and started south on Green street to go to work for said company; that when she arrived at the corner of Monroe and Green streets there was a large crowd of men and girls congregated, and when they saw this affiant they rushed for her and grabbed her by the arms and shoulders and

pushed her back against the railing at the side of the street and held her there by force and violence, and said to this affiant, "You shall not go to work at the Dearborn Duster Company this morning." And one of said girls, whom your affiant is informed and believes to be Cordelia Rochon, said to this affiant: "You are not going to work for the Dearborn Duster Company; if you do we will punch your face in. The other girl [referring to Marie Cunningham, who was in the company of this affiant, also on her way to work at this place] got away from us this morning, but we will catch her to-night and land a brick on her head."

And then she proceeded to say they said to a certain person, “You ought to know you would get hurt if you tried to work at the Duster Company." [Reading:]

Affiant further says that she is in need of employment and desires to work for the said Dearborn Duster Company, but is in fear of so doing on account of the threats of personal violence made by said persons.

The

There are a large number of affidavits of a similar character. allegations of the complaint are such as could be supported by such affidavits.

Now the learned court, in making his order, enjoined these people from doing this these things, the enjoining them from doing which so moved the indignation of our patriotic fellow-citizen that he was willing to take away from the Federal courts in this country the power to grant injunctions.

Having described the parties, the order proceeds in this language, that they

their agents, servants, and confederates be and they are restrained and enjoined from in any manner unlawfully hindering, obstructing, or interfering with the business of the complainant Dearborn Duster Company, and from compelling or attempting to compel, by abuse or use of indecent language, violenee, threats, or intimidations of any sort, any person or persons to leave the employment of the complainant, the Dearborn Duster Company, or not to enter its employ if desirous of so doing, and also from doing any unlawful act or thing whatever by any of the unlawful means or methods used in furtherance of a wrongful and unlawful purpose to interfere with and obstruct the Dearborn Duster Company in the conduct of its business, and from in any unlawful manner whatever assisting or abetting any person, company, or organization to do or cause to be done any of the unlawful acts aforesaid.

Now, you notice that the distinguished Congressman said:

They are forbidden to hold meetings, if forsooth their hall happens to be in the vicinity of the factory in which the strike is.

This is what they are forbidden from doing:

And from congregating in large numbers at or near the shop of the Dearborn Duster Company, Chicago, Ill., 122 South Green street, in such a manner as is calculated to intimidate any employee of the Dearborn Duster Company, or persons seeking employment from it, in going to, remaining, or coming from said shop, and from picketing, guarding, obstructing, or patroling the streets, alleys, or approaches to the said shop of the Dearborn Duster Company in such a manner as to intimidate, threaten, or coerce by violence or threats of violence or abusive and indecent language any of the employees of the Dearborn Duster Company, or persons seeking employment of it, and from unlawfully interfering with any such persons being in the employ of the Dearborn Duster Company on account of their seeking to be employed by it, and from speaking to such persons against their will in an intimidating and threatening manner for the purpose of intimidating them, until the further order of the court.

Now it is common knowledge of the law, possessed by all of you, that the supreme court of Pennsylvania, and other courts, have held that if a person persists in speaking to another in such a way as to make his conduct a nuisance, especially if he persist in speaking in a manner to threaten and intimidate that person, he is violating the

rights of that person, and the courts of equity have repeatedly restrained it. I will file these copies of records in this case with the committee, with your permission.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well.

Mr. PARSONS. Mr. Bartlett, of Boston, is next on the programme.

STATEMENT OF MR. EDWIN E. BARTLETT, OF BOSTON, MASS.

Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I come here representing the Boston National Metal Trades' Association, or rather the Boston Metal Trades' Association, which is a branch of the National Metal Trades' Association. This branch organization opposes the passage of this bill which you have under consideration, unanimously, and it was by a unanimous vote that Mr. Arnold and myself came here. The first intimation which Boston received in a public way of any attack upon the courts of this country came to us through an official who was and is now, I hope, the counsel of the American Federation of Labor. This official, debating the question with one of the leaders of the Boston bar, Mr. Brandon, stated that the courts of the United States had besmirched the ermine; that they were the tools of capitalists; that whenever a corporation wished to reach a judgment there was always a judge who could be bought.

This was offered, Mr. Chairman, before the Boston Economic Club, a club which at that time was in favor of organized labor-and I am a member of that club, if you please. We have had monthly meetings; we have had as speakers before the association men like President Eliot, of Harvard University, and Mr. Gompers and Mr. Mitchell and a host of labor leaders, and I can tell you, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, that the Boston Economic Club to-day, as well as the Boston Metal Trades' Association, are against the passage of any law that will put into power the lawless element of this country. Now, I say this advisedly-this "lawless element"-because I believe that the working people of this country are honest, but they are led by some people who seem to have ideas that are not in harmony with the sympathy of this country.

I did not come here to make any extended address. I know how the people feel. I know that there are only a small class of people in New England who are in sympathy with the radical part of unionism. I am a manufacturer, and how many men of those I employ are union men I am unable to say. I have never had any demand made upon me, or any trouble of any kind, and with the union properly conducted I have no fault to find. But it seems to me if you take away the power of injunction from the courts you are doing the country a grievous wrong, and the Boston Metal Trades' Association begs you to let the law remain as it now is.

STATEMENT OF MR. WALTER S. FRAZIER, JR.

Mr. FRAZIER. Mr. Chairman, I represent the Fox River Valley Manufacturers' Association. I have been sent here by this association to oppose the favorable reporting of this bill. It has seemed to our members that it is difficult enough under existing conditions to conduct the manufacturing business, and the adoption of this bill would,