Mr. GOMPERS. If I may be permitted to present them in a minute or two. In what I have said so far I have tried by way of explanation to refute, if refutation be necessary, the charge or the insinuation that my associates, and I particularly, are associated in some way or other or influenced, by the liquor interests and the brewery interests. Of course, at the present time there is no brewery interest, and therefore the liquor interest-that is, the hard liquors-of course they do not want the modification of the Volstead law so that a bill of 2.75 per cent will be approved.

Mr. LARSON. May I ask a question pertinent to a statement you made there, namely, that you can not make people good by law? Mr. GOMPERS. Temperate, I said, and I will add "good." You can not make people good by law.

Mr. LARSON. What do you think of the political philosophy of Gladstone, namely, that the purpose of the law should make it easier for people to be good and harder for them to be bad?

Mr. GOMPERS. I think that is not philosophy; I think it is sophistry. Mr. LARSON. You do not approve of that statement?

Mr. GOMPERS. I think that it is very far-fetched, and that which induces the actions of good are the result of conditions and environment and not law.

Mr. FOSTER. I doubt whether any member of this committee shares the notion that you are here prompted through any liquor interests. It is wholly from the standpoint of the American Federation of Labor that you speak. I doubt whether any member of this committee shares any such view as that.

Mr. GOMPERS. That is gratifying to me, but somehow I could not help but take advantage of the opportunity of meeting just such an issue. In fact in a respectable daily journal, one usually dependable, one of the few dependable daily newspapers of the country, the charge was made quite recently that I do not represent the views of the American Federation of Labor when I advocate the modification of the Volstead law, and when one of the representatives of that paper came to my office, the office of the American Federation of Labor, a short time afterwards, I demonstrated to her satisfaction that I spoke by authority of the American Federation of Labor, and I asked whether she thought that the newspaper would be willing to publish any such statement. She said, "No; that is not good news.

Mr. LARSON. It is true, however, that a respectable number of people who are part of the labor organizations do not favor your views on such a question?

Mr. GOMPERS. That all depends on what you regard as respectable, whether it is in large numbers or small. One man or two men may be respectable in spite of the fact that they are in the minority.

Mr. LARSON. I take it that in my own district a very large percentage of the organized labor people, among whom are a great many leaders in the labor movement, were in favor of the Volstead Act and are now in favor of it.

Mr. GOMPERS. Let me at this time, then, to meet that statement, say this: In 1919 the American Federation of Labor held its convention in June. A resolution was introduced protesting against the then bill, insisting or rather asking or demanding that a bill be enacted authorizing the manufacture and sale of a beer of 2.75 per cent. The 14th of June fell on Saturday, the last day of the first

week of the convention, and it being Flag Day, the convention adjourned and came by special train, all the delegates I doubt if there were half a dozen who remained behind-to Washington, held a mass meeting on the Capitol steps in honor of Flag Day, and a committee of my associates and I were selected by the convention to present the resolution and an argument before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee in furtherance of that protest, and that demand for that beer. That convention adopted the protest and demand by a vote of 26,000 to 3,000, using round numbers, and by unanimous vote the question of the adjournment and sojournment to Washington was adopted.

Mr. HERSEY. You carried flags "No beer, no work," didn't you? Mr. GOMPERS. No, sir.

Mr. HERSEY. In that procession?

Mr. GOMPERS. No, sir.

Mr. FOSTER. I was present and I did not see any such banner as that.

Mr. GOMPERS. There was no such banner. Our effort was to prevent any such movement as "No beer, no work."

Mr. YATES. I would like to ask you a question. One paper asserted that in some remarks you made on the steps of the Capítol you said that the workingmen of America would have beer or there would be revolution. Were you correctly quoted in regard to that? Mr. GOMPERS. No. I never made any such statement. I am not given to the use of such flippant or irresponsible and inconsiderate language.

Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Gompers needs no help, but I say once again I heard your speech and I recall nothing like that being said when you made it."

Mr. GOMPERS. I might say that I had the honor of appearing before that Senate subcommittee and made an argument covering many pages of the printed hearing. I would like, if I may, at this point to have a paragraph read to the committee from that statement I made at that time.

The CHAIRMAN. We shall be very glad to hear it.
Mr. GOMPERS (reading):

I know of nothing that could be done by the Congress of the United States that would be one-hundredth part so prejudicial to the orderly development and progress, and the peace and tranquility of the masses of the people of the United States, as this attempt to take from them the opportunity of drinking a glass of beer with the contents of 2.75 per cent alcohol. I am not an expert, I am not a chemist, I am not a scientist; I do not know much about the degrees of alcohol which might be contained with some degree of safety within a beverage; but this I do know from those who have the experience, that the beer of 2.75 per cent of alcohol is nonintoxicating in the ordinary acceptance of that term. Of course, if one shall take some other beverages and distill them or boil them down, there may be in those beverages or other articles a quantity of alcohol that will destroy not only the brain but the heart and the body; but I am assured, from every point of information accessible to me, that the drinking of beer containing 2.75 per cent of alcohol is nonintoxicating and noninjurious.

In an article I was asked by McClure's to write upon this subject, and over which the company put its own heading "Labor and Beer,' much to my chagrin at such a title, the last paragraph, or rather the last sentence of it, I want to read:

Bound by every tie of principle, hope, and aspiration for my country's welfare and progress, association with the men and women of our country as closely as I am, for the first time in my whole life am I apprehensive for the future.

I think that my apprehension has been fully justified. It is to avoid a great calamity that I joined in the effort for the modification of this Volstead law. May I say this to you, gentlemen, that in the convention of 1921 of the American Federation of Labor a resolution was introduced, or several rather, again expressing a demand for a modification of the Volstead law, and that resolution was adopted by an overwhelming vote? There were some cries for an aye and nay vote. As presiding officer I asked whether there was a sufficient number who desired a roll call, the aye and nay vote, and if those who wanted such a roll call would raise their hands, and out of the 540 delegates there were 13 who raised their hands, and among the 13 I recognized a few who were desirous of going on record and who favored the modification. That was not a sufficient number for a roll call, the rule requiring one-tenth of the delegates in attendance at the convention to order a roll call or an aye and nay vote.

Mr. HERSEY. Have you the resolution which was passed?

Mr. GOMPERS. Yes, sir. I will give copies of each of the resolutions of 1919 and 1921.

Mr. HERSEY. Not each of the resolutions, but the one as to the Volstead Act.

Mr. GOMPERS. At the Portland convention of the American Federation of Labor, held a few months ago that is in October, 1923-a resolution was presented and adopted in favor of the modification of the Volstead law, declaring for the manufacture and sale and use of a wholesome beer of 2.75 per cent. That resolution was adopted after some discussion, and the vote was overwhelming. There were three or four delegates who desired a roll call or an aye and nay vote. There was an insufficient number to call the roll. One of the delegates arose in the convention and asked that he be recorded by the secretary as voting in the negative upon the resolution. As presiding officer, I asked the secretary to make the record, and inquired whether there was any other delegate who desired to be so recorded. There was no other.

The president of the national trade-union, the same union of which this delegate was a member and represented, this president in the convention arose and said: "The vote of the delegate in opposition to this resolution is in contravention of the opinion of the men and the organization he represents."

I shall take pleasure in furnishing the committee with copies of each of these declarations, those passed in 1919, 1921, and 1923.

The American Federation of Labor contends that the Volstead Act should be modified for the reason that it does not carry out the intent of the eighteenth amendment, which prohibits the manufacture, transportation, and sale of intoxicating beverages.

The 1919 convention of the American Federation of Labor adopted the following resolution:

The American Federation of Labor in convention assembled in Atlantic City, expresses its disapproval of war-time prohibition and directs that a strong protest from the delegates at this convention be forwarded to the Government at Washington, setting forth in a most emphatic manner the opinion of the delegates to this convention that the present mild beers of 2.75 per cent alcohol by weight should be exempted from the provisions of the eighteenth amendment to the Constitution and also from the provision of the war prohibition measure.

In 1921 the convention of the American Federation of Labor declared: "The American Federation of Labor is in favor of a modification of the Volstead Act to permit the manufacture and sale of a national beverage of wholesome beer."

Following this action the executive council on February 25, 1923, issued an address to the American people after an exhaustive investigation of the effects of the Volstead Act. It was shown by this investigation that there had beenA general disregard of the law among all classes of people, including those who made the law.

Creation of thousands of moonshiners among both country and city dwellers. The creation of an army of bootleggers.

An amazing increase in the traffic in poisons and deadly concoctions and drugs. An increased rate of insanity, blindness, and crime among the users of these concoctions and drugs.

Increase in taxes to city, State, and National Governments, amounting to approximately one thousand million dollars per year.

The executive council said:

"We seek no violation of the eighteenth amendment but, on the contrary, we declare for a reasonable interpretation of that amendment in order that the law may be enforceable and enforced, and in order that the people of our country may not suffer from an unjust and fanatical interpretation of the Constitution. The convention of the American Federation of Labor held in Portland, Oreg., October, 1923, approved the declarations of the executive council and also adopted the following:

"The American Federation of Labor has gone clearly on record as being in favor of such modification of the existing law as will permit the manufacture and vending of wholesale beer and light wines. That we may correct an impression which has sought to be created by the advocates of the Volstead Act that the action of the American Federation of Labor was not a fair statement of the attitude of the organized labor bodies affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, this convention votes its reaffirmation of the action of former conventions dealing with this subject, giving approval at the same time to the statements made in the circular sent out by the executive committee of the nonpartisan political campaign committee in order that there may be no misunderstanding as to the position of the American Federation of Labor on this important and vital question.

"It is our belief that the efforts at enforcement of the Volstead Act have produced results that in themselves are so far from being what was promised or reasonably expected might follow the adoption of the eighteenth amendment that we feel warranted in saying that the reasonable modification now asked for, and a rational enforcement of the eighteenth amendment, will bring relief greatly sought by the people. The fact that the open saloon has been supplanted by the 'speak easy,' and that instead of licensed venders of liquor, who carried on their business under strict surveillance and regulation by law, we now have an unnumbered multitude of bootleggers, who dispense their vile and poisonous liquors in secrecy, to the great detriment of the health and morality of the people; the presence of this nefarious traffic has brought with it a great host of so-called law enforcement officers, many of whom have not hesitated to set aside or ignore all other laws in their zeal to enforce the one law in which they have interest.

"Between the lawless vender of forbidden liquor on the one side and the lawless enforcement officer on the other, the public has suffered irreparable damage of the consequent and inestimable diminution of regard for any law. We believe that this condition may be remedied by giving a more reasonable interpretation of the eighteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States than is contained in the so-called Volstead Act, and the executive council, through its legislative committee, is directed to use all reasonable efforts to bring about such modification of this statute as will have the effect of giving to the people wholesome beverage in lieu of the flood of 'moonshine' that now poisons those who are foolish enough to consume it, and which encourages the illicit traffic and the irrational efforts to suppress that traffic, which has brought so much confusion into our national, political, and social life.”

In this question, in this subject, as in every other subject affecting the welfare of the people of my country, every question of right, every question of justice, every question of law, every question of privilege, every question of standards of life and work, concern me, and those who know me and my habits of life flatter me by saying that I am a busy man, and I am glad to be busy. I am glad to be active, I am proud and gratified if I can be of some service to my fellows. I have not anything and I don't want anything except my country's good.

I have not anything and I don't want anything except the good of my fellow citizens and their children. All that is sacred to me, dead and alive, is here, and I want if I can to help as best I can that they in their time shall find a better life and a better surrounding and a less burdensome struggle than that which confronted and surrounded me when I entered the industrial field.

I say that I am busy, busy on anything and everything. Some people think that I have some judgment and good judgment; others, and I flatter them, who think that I have no judgment at all, but who ask my opinion, who ask my advice. advice. I have been consulted by men having the affairs of State in charge, not only here but abroad. In Australia, in New Zealand, the same question of prohibition was up and they did not undertake to do so in the form of riveting the thing into the constitution of their country, but as one of the proposed laws to be put upon the statute books the same as any other

subject to change and modification, easy of change or repeal, if necessary, if experience should so demonstrate the necessity. I am glad to have been able to give advice to the people of New Zealand and of Australia, and I am much gratified that they followed my advice, and that is they buried their proposition for prohibitory laws and I received a congratulatory cablegram from them as well as letters for the service which they believed and declared that I gave them.

The embassy of Sweden at Washington asked me the very same question. So did Canada. There are but five of the nine Provinces now in Canada that are dry and they are getting moist. Manitoba has repudiated its previously dry position; British Columbia the same thing, after the experience they have had with it. It may be interesting that in British Columbia there was a question up by referendum on the wet and dry issue, and the drys won by a handsome majority. Within a few years afterwards the women became enfranchised, and a petition went forth for another referendum, and upon the second referendum, with women given the franchise, the vote was overwhelmingly wet.

I wonder whether I might not have the privilege of inserting two or three of the letters which I had written months ago and some two years ago in the record for reference of the committee, for the preservation of the thought, to some more important people than myself. The CHAIRMAN. If there is no objection the committee extends the privilege of permitting those letters to be inserted. (Following are the letters referred to:)

WASHINGTON, D. C., December 14, 1917. SIR: On one occasion I took the liberty of addressing you upon a subject which was then imminent but which is now assuming proportions so threatening and so dangerous that I feel it an incumbent duty upon me, as a man and a citizen, to bring to your attention and thought upon the pending joint resolution now before the House of Representatives, being a proposed amendment to the Constitution of the United States, commonly known as the nation-wide prohibition amendment.

Did I for a moment feel that the subject matter were of but passing or momentary interest, or that it did not involve grave injury and dangers, I should hesitate long before asking your consideration of what I hope to present to you; but, because I am so apprehensive of the consequences to our people, our country, and the tremendous enterprise in which we are engaged, I feel it incumbent upon me to trespass upon your time so that you might in your own way use your good judgment and great powers to avert what I am fully convinced would be the