though innocent in themselves, would necessarily be of the same character and may be enjoined if the conditions which call for equitable relief by injunction are present.

To the same effect see A. R. Barnes & Co. v. Chicago Typographical Union (232 Ill., 424; 83 S. W., 940), Reynolds v. Davis (198 Mass. 294; 84 N. E., 457).

12. PAYMENT OF BENEFITS TO PARTICIPANTS IN UNLAWFUL STRIKE. An injunction will lie to prevent the payment of strike benefits to persons engaged in an unlawful strike.

In Reynolds v. Davis, supra, it was held that a particular strike was illegal and that the plaintiff employers were entitled to an injunction restraining the defendants from combining together to further such strike and from doing any acts whatever, peaceful or otherwise, in furtherance thereof, including the payment of strike benefits and putting the plaintiffs on an unfair basis."

66

In A. R. Barnes & Co. v. Chicago Typographical Union (232 Ill., 424; 83 N. E., 940), it was held that where the object of the strike was unlawful the offer by a labor union of money or the procuring of places of employment in other cities, or the offer of transportation to other cities as a means of inducing employees of plaintiff to join the strike would be enjoined.

THURSDAY, JUNE 13, 1912.

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY,

UNITED STATES SENATE,

Washington, D. C.

The subcommittee met at 10.30 o'clock a. m.
Present: Senators Nelson (chairman) and Sutherland.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Monaghan, you may proceed. Will you kindly state the name of the organization you represent?

STATEMENT OF MR. GEORGE F. MONAGHAN.

Mr. MONAGHAN. Mr. Chairman, I represent the National Founders' Association, an association consisting of 500 of the largest foundry and manufacturing establishments of the United States, involving a capitalization of approximately $500,000,000, and with a proportionate number of employees. The names of the members will be filed with the committee. The association represented by me, as well as the individual members of it and the ramifications of it throughout the various cities of the United States, are very vitally interested in this bill. The measure itself, speaking of it generally, is very cleverly drawn and designed to accomplish the direct purpose of nullifying completely the effect of injunctions in labor disputes. It may be well at this time to emphasize the fact with the committee that there has been no hearing at all given upon this bill by the House committee. The measure which was presented to the House committee, known as the Wilson bill, was considered and a hearing was granted by the House committee, but the Wilson bili was so extremely radical in form and its purpose so obvious that we contented ourselves with a discussion of abstract law in the case rather than with a relation of the practical effects of the measure. The bill which is before us now accomplishes practically the same thing that the extremely radical wording of the bill introduced originally in the House presents, but under a different form.

68946-12- 4

It may be said in general that the bill now presented nullifies the common-law doctrine of conspiracy. It furthermore justifies the primary and the secondary boycott, and permits the so-called peaceful picket. Finally, it embraces class legislation in its most vicious form and deprives employers in labor disputes of injunctive relief from a class of wrong which would be illegal and criminal as applied to any other body of men in any other kind of contest.

There appears on the record of the House hearings absolutely no justification for this measure and no reasonable excuse for it. It has been claimed that union men and labor organizations in disputes with their employers throughout the United States have been unjustly treated by the courts, but I have yet to hear from the proponents of this bill of a single instance of abuse by the courts of the writ of injunction. It is true that errors have been occasionally made, but only very occasionally, and I am compelled to say that as compared with injunctions in other litigation the amount of error committed in connection with the granting of injunctions in labor disputes is small indeed.

INJUNCTIONS RARE IN LABOR DISPUTES.

It is well at this time, while adverting to the claim of organized labor that the writ of injunction has been improperly used and that labor is made to suffer very materially in consequence, to consider the number of injunctions that the organization represented by me has been interested in during the past eight years. The association, as I have already stated, is a large one, embracing members in practically every State of the United States, and numbering upon its roster 500 manufacturing establishments as members. Between the four years 1904 and 1907, inclusive, this organization was directly concerned through its membership in 300 strikes; in those 300 strikes only 34 injunctions were granted by the courts. In all those 34 injunctions secured, and in the 300 strikes in which we were interested, there were only 36 contempts prosecuted, and in those 36 contempt. cases 32 convictions followed, and in the majority of instances the final result was the imposition of a fine.

The CHAIRMAN. Could you furnish us a list of those cases?
Mr. MONAGHAN. I have it compiled.

The CHAIRMAN. Will you leave it here with the stenographer to put into the record?

Mr. MONAGHAN. I will be glad to do so. [See Exhibit A.]

Senator SUTHERLAND. Were those cases in the State or Federal courts?

Mr. MONAGHAN. In the Federal and State courts both. During the last four years we have been concerned in 224 strikes. In those 224 strikes in which we have operated for the past four years there have been approximately only five injunctions applied for, five injunctions granted, and no prosecutions for contempt. So that in so far as we are concerned it will be clearly seen by the committee that under the cricumstances narrated there can be no reasonable demand on the part of the labor organization for a relief from an intolerable condition.

The CHAIRMAN. Will you allow me to interrupt you a moment? Could you furnish the committee with a memorandum or a statement of the injunctions in those cases; that is, the restraining orders?

Mr. MONAGHAN. I can if the committee will allow me to take some time within which to do so. I could not, of course, do it to-day. [See Exhibit G.]

The CHAIRMAN. Could you furnish us a copy of the injunctional or restraining order?

Mr. MONAGHAN. I will be glad to do that, Mr. Chairman. Further than that, before I conclude I will present to the committee in compiled form the affidavits or a compendium of the affidavits upon which those writs were granted in various cases during the first four-year period I mention, which is the only compilation I have at the present time. [See Exhibit A.]

Senator SUTHERLAND. Let me see if I understand you. During the last four years there were how many strikes?

Mr. MONAGHAN. About 224.

Senator SUTHERLAND. And in those strikes there have been only five injunctions applied for?

Mr. MONAGHAN. On the part of those concerned with our organization. I do not say there have not been injunctions applied for by other organizations for example, by the Anti-Boycott League or other institutions independent of our organization-but our organization, concerned with 500 of the largest manufacturing companies, like the Allis-Chalmers Co. and others, has only been concerned with applications for injunctions in about that number of cases. This does not comprise other strikes between the Iron Molders' Union and concerns not connected with our organization.

Senator SUTHERLAND. You mean by your organization anybody who is a member of it?

Mr. MONAGHAN. Exactly. There is a further fact I desire to emphasize before the committee, which has always been adverted to, not only before this committee, but before other committees. From 1900 to 1912 in the Federal courts there have been only 25 injunctions. The CHAIRMAN. In labor disputes?

Mr. MONAGHAN. In labor disputes. There have been only 25 injunctions which appear of record in the Federal courts and 447 injunctions in other cases not involving disputes of labor. So again I emphasize the fact that union labor in this connection has endeavored to build a mountain out of a molehill for the purpose of affording it an opportunity to create a false issue and to dominate by force the manufacturing industries of this country. In other words, it has maneuvered to place itself in a position where when a struck foundry is without remedy at law the union may with impunity violate the law of conspiracy as recognized from the first day of the foundation of this Republic down to the present time, persecute institutions, industrial and otherwise, and attack the independent workmen in a manner which would be criminal in any other controversy and leave the unions and their members free from legal responsibility, with the ultimate object in view of dominating or destroying the industries opposing them.

The CHAIRMAN. Could you furnish us with data with reference to these strikes that you refer to, as to the grounds on which the strikes are instituted, whether for shorter hours and better wages, or whether, as some of you call it, to "unionize"; that is, to prohibit the manufacturers from employing anybody but union men? I would like to get that information if you can furnish it.

Mr. MONAGHAN. It is possible to furnish it, and I shall be very glad to file that data with the committee. However, the committee must understand that in order to compile that data in such form as would be at all satisfactory to the committee some time must be taken for the purpose of collecting the facts from the various institutions which have been interested, but that time need not be long. So fast as the mails can act, we will act. [See Exhibit B.]

LABOR CONDITIONS IN AMERICA.

In answer to the query made by the chairman, let me further state that the condition of labor in this country is the equal of the condition of labor in any other country under the sun. I say that conservatively, because I believe, from consideration and examination of the bulletins issued by the Department of Labor, that the condition of labor in this country as regards wages and conditions is better than in any other nation and that the strikes which are instituted to-day and have been in progress for the past eight years and more have not been called, as a general rule, to increase wages or to improve shop conditions, or to secure the installation of safeguards surrounding machinery, or to perfect the sanitary conditions of the shop, or to effect changes directly pertinent to any workman, whether he is a member of a labor organization or not. The strikes that have been instituted in the vast majority of instances have been called solely to fasten on the industries affected the un-American doctrine of the closed shop. This being, then, the chief cause of labor disputes, it is pertinent to inquire into its purpose, the number of workmen affected, and whether its purpose at all justifies the denial of legal relief to one employed when attacked.

CHIEF PURPOSE OF STRIKES TO-DAY IS THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE UNAMERICAN DOCTRINE OF CLOSED SHOPS, AGAINST WHICH THE INDEPENDENT WORKMEN AND EMPLOYER ALIKE PROTEST.

Let us realize the fact that in the United States there are, according to reports by the Bureau of Labor, approximately 30,000,000 men, women, and children engaged in gainful occupations. That, of course, is all-embracing. There are 2,000,000 men united in organized labor, including all the unions of the United States. The vast majority of men working at trades, working at agriculture, working in manual pursuits, are not organized, and a great proportion of these men who might join labor organizations have not done so. They stand as independent workmen, and many of those men are men employed by the manufacturing institutions represented by me. These men refuse

to join the labor organizations because of the burden that labor unions put upon them. This burden is found not alone in the financial contributions they would be obligated to make to the union exchequer, but the restrictions enforced by the unions limiting the amount and character of their work and the wages they may receive. For example, a man who is an industrious molder, an expert metal polisher, or a printer may, if he is allowed, make $6 a day on the piecework system, or perhaps 8 or 10, but the union restricts the amount of his work, hence the amount of his wage, and sacrifices his expert ability to the average ability of other workmen. He might be able to finish his work under union limitation by 2 o'clock in the afternoon, but the union requires that he shall not work any longer if the union measure is filled, and if he does a strike is declared upon that shop if the em

ployer tolerates it. These independent workmen are just as devoted to the principle of open shop as labor organizations are devoted to the principle of closed shop, and for myself I may say, and for those whom I represent, the claim of labor organizations that they speak for the labor of this country in all of its ramifications and all of its trades is emphatically sheer bluff and bluster.

Under the open-shop principle all manufacturing institutions do not discriminate, though they have a right to do it legally, as between union men and nonunion men, and in jurisdictions where the union is not sufficiently strong to absolutely command it union men work side by side with nonunion men. We do not discriminate and have not discriminated between men belonging to a labor organization and men who do not. What we object to under the closed-shop principle is that it permits the walking delegate of a labor organization to step into our plants and attempt to run them. The organization is substituted in place of the men. It matters not how satisfied they may be, it matters not how content the employer, if conditions do not conform themselves in all particulars to the whims of so-called labor leaders, strife is formulated and strikes declared. In answer to the statement by the employer that his men are satisfied, that they are content with their wages and content with their conditions, the answer will invariably be "It makes no difference; if these men are union men, they subscribe to the constitution and by-laws of the labor union and we demand you conduct your shop in the manner we require." The labor union requires that we shall employ none but union men, that our reasons for discharge shall be subject to their approval, that hours of work and pay for work and limitations of product shall be within their power to direct, that we can not discharge a man for any cause without union assent, and similar drastic conditions. The kinds of work a union man is limited to do are illustrations of the drastic character of the union regulations as applied to industrial establishments, and withal the individual workman may be content, but the union assumes tò direct his action and control the acts of his employer by force of union threat of strikes and boycott. These are minor forms of the intolerable conditions that find themselves exemplified in every institution which is dominated by labor organizations.

The CHAIRMAN. There is another thing that occurs to me which I would like information about, and that is, What is the rule in these several organizations or unions with reference to admission of apprentices? I would like you to furnish the committee with information as to that.

in

Mr. MONAGHAN. I shall be very glad to do that. I will say, answer to the request, that data will be furnished. Furthermore, I claim that there is a restriction placed upon the apprenticeship of this country to such an extent that if we and employers generally throughout the country subscribe to the closed-shop principle it means an absolute monopoly of labor by labor unions and indirectly the control by them of all of the industries of this country in the trades dominated by the labor organizations.

The CHAIRMAN. I want to say, based on common rumor or newspaper statements or magazine statements, that I understand some unions in some lines have no limitation, while in others there is a restricted limitation, that it is not the same in all cases?

Mr. MONAGHAN. That is true. I know that it is true, generally.