SUBSIDIES TO RAILROADS.

LARGE GRANTS OF MONEY AND LAND WITH OTHER VESTED RIGHTS.

In February, 1901, the Republican Congress, against the protests of the Democrats, passed two bills subsidizing railroads. These are known as the acts of February 12, 1901, one of which granted about $3,000,000 worth of land to the Baltimore and Potomac and the other about $1,500,000 to the Baltimore and Ohio. After the passage and approval of these acts, both companies came under one management through an arrangement in the nature of a trust or "community of interest," whereby the Pennsylvania Railroad Company practically monopolized the entire railway traffic of the District of Columbia.

In May, 1902, the Senate, in spite of the unanimous opposition of the Democratic members, passed a bill, ostensibly to provide for a union station, but really to create a monopoly in favor of the Pennsylvania Company, and to bestow on it, besides a bonus of more than $7,000,000, the exclusive right of way into and through the District of Columbia and across the Potomac River at Washington. This monopoly of the right of way alone was estimated by Senator Patterson, in his speech opposing the bill, at $50,000,000. This bill was held up in the House Committee on the District of Columbia, and is, like the Ship Subsidy Bill, still pending. It is understood that both bills will be pushed at the next session by the combined railway and shipping interests.

The nature and extent of the influence behind this bill will be better understood by reference to Mr. Moody's article concerning "facts and figures regarding American railroad consolidations," which will be found elsewhere in this work. If a precedent for subsidizing railroads should be once established, the combined power of all the railway systems in the country would be brought to bear on Congress for plundering the National Treasury. We do not have to guess what the Republican party would do. The vote on the so-called Union Station Bill shows what it would do. Forty-five Republican Senators voted for that bill, and 25 Democratic Senators against it, thus making it a party issue. The vote on this bill is given in the table of Senate roll-calls.

TARIFF REVISION POSTPONED UNTIL THE "PROPER TIME."

[Boston Transcript, Rep., August 11, 1902.]

Mr., Grosvenor did not say when the "proper time" for tariff revision would arrive, but it is well known that he fully agrees with the other Republican leaders of the House that there probably will be no revision in which the House which is to be elected this fall will share. When, therefore, Republican politicians commend Mr. Grosvenor's remarks, they mean that the men who rule the Republican party have not the slightest intention that the tariff shall be disturbed until they are compelled to revise it.

Nobody here regards with any seriousness the recent declarations of Senator Cullom, Representative Tawney and other Republican members of Congress in favor of tariff reform. There are those who say the Republican "tariff reformers" do not wish to be taken seriously by anybody outside their constituencies. They are tariff reformers of the Babcock variety, but whether they are sincere or not, there is not the slightest reason apparent to Washington politicians for expecting that any considerable movement for tariff revision will be developed in the Republican party next winter. Secretary Shaw, for example, thinks the Republicans of Iowa should not have made declarations which embarrass the party at large. He says they knew quite as well as he that the tariff is going to "stay put" for several years to come unless the Republicans get tremendously shaken up in the fall elections, and in that way scared into making some revisions.

LABOR LEGISLATION.

ITS WHOLE HISTORY SHOWS REPUBLICAN OPPOSITION. DEMOCRATS LAVE FAVORED WHAT LABOR MANED.

DE

There are nearly fourteen million voters in the United States, of which about two-thirds are wage-earners. Of these, over two millions are members of labor organizations, the American Federation of Labor alone being composed of over 16,000 labor unions, with over 1,500,000 members. This vast body of voters, the bone and sinew of the country, are entitled to the greatest consideration at the hands of those who make the laws, and their just demands should be acceded to. Labor demands protection from unjust competition and equal rights and equal opportunity with their employers. Labor in the past having been divided politically, has hitherto considered it to its interest to maintain a non-partisan attitude. The American Federation of Labor, in its constitution, declares:

"Party politics, whether they be democratic, republican, socialistic, populistic, prohibition or any other, shall have no place in the conventions of the American Federation of Labor."

Other labor organizations have made similar declarations, and yet from the extreme partisan control of Congress by the Republicans, the labor leaders who are selected to urge the desired legislation are drawn into the whirlpool of politics and have been forced to beg legislation of the dominant party, who are naturally opposed to it, so that no tangible results have followed.

The history of labor legislation, whenever the Republican party has been in control, tells the same tale. The only legislation of consequence has been passed when the Democrats controlled at least the popular branch of Congress.

Republicans Oppose Labor Demands.

In fact, the Republicans have fed labor on the husks, and while pretending to support the legislation asked for, have granted nothing of any service.

Hearings before committees have been held and in some few cases bills asked for by labor have been favorably reported, but in many cases amendments have been adopted that have completely changed the scope of the bill, resulting in rendering it harmless to or even in the interests of the corporations, trusts and employers, instead of benefiting labor. If pressed to the point where action had to be taken, the bills were passed by the House, only to be defeated or pigeon-holed in the Senate.

An examination of the legislation enacted by the present Congress shows that the above indictment of the Republican majority is substantiated by the record and the official votes recorded show that the great majority of the Republican members of both Houses have voted against the demands of labor leaders. On the other hand, the Democratic members of Congress have almost without exception favored the legislation asked for by labor, both in its initial steps in committees and when voting for its enactment. This shows beyond question who are the real friends of labor and the legislative condition of these bills at the close of the session is

"We support endeavors tending to secure to every human being the fruits of his labor, and to institute laws that have for their object the welfare of the people, instead of the welfare of single classes."-The Nordamerikanisches Turnerbund (North American Gymnastic union).

the best evidence that the Republicans are hostile to the demands of organized labor.

Labor Legislation 57th Congress.

The various bills and the disposition of them are as follows:

1. Chinese Exclusion.-This bill, as originally introduced, was agreed upon by the delegations representing the Pacific States, and known as the Kahn-Mitchell Bill. It was amended by the House Committee on Foreign Affairs so that the Chinese in the Philippines and Hawaii and those that could get into those islands would have access to the United States. Also the clause to prevent the employment of Chinese on ships sailing under the American flag was eliminated. This is fully explained under the head of Chinese Exclusion. It is sufficient here to say that the bill as passed, in its most important features is entirely against the interests of labor.

2. "Conspiracy" or Anti-Injunction.-This bill, H. R. 11,060, passed the House as originally introduced, but when it found its way to the Senate, it was reported from the Judiciary Committee of that body with an amendment. This amendment was objectionable to organized labor, and the bill was not pushed to a vote.

Delay, Amendment or Defeat.

The usual see-saw methods of the Republicans were adopted to defeat this legislation. The coming elections for Congress forced the Republican members of the House to allow the bills to pass, so that they could show a record favorable to the labor organizations, well knowing that they had so delayed the matter, and probably with assurance from their friends in the Senate that it would either be amended or defeated. Both these events happened. The amendment adopted in the Senate entirely changed the intention of the original bill, as in its present shape, the courts will be able to grant an injunction against strikes, and subject the strikers to imprisonment for violating such an injunction. The bill did not come to a vote in the Senate, and therefore no legislation was enacted.

1

3. Prison Labor.-This bill, H. R. 14,410, passed the House of Representatives, and was referred to the Judiciary Committee of the Senate, and the record shows that no further action was taken.

4. Eight-Hour Bill.-(H. R. 3076.) For some years organized labor has asked Congress to pass a bill limiting the hours of labor, as it had been found that the law of 1892 was being evaded. Such a bill was passed by the House of Representatives on May 19 of the present Congress without a roll call. The bill then went to the Senate and was referred to the committee on Education and Labor. Several hearings were had, but the record shows that no action was taken, the representatives of the employers having more influence with the Republican majority than the wishes or demands of labor.

It cannot be said the Senate Judiciary Committee did not have time to consider the bill, for the Democratic members were ready at any time to vote to report it, but the hearings were prolonged with the evident intention of defeating it without having the matter brought to a vote, so there should be no record made to fasten the responsibility. Thus again labor was defrauded of its just demands.

Republicans Controlled by Trusts and Corporations.

All this shows the Republican party is wedded to its idols, the trusts and the corporations, that the oligarchy that controls leg

islation in the Senate and House, are always working in those interests and that no legislation which the trusts and the corporations and the monopoly classes, consider will injure or embarrass their cinch on the labor of the country can become law, but any legislation which those controlling interests demand is at once given the right of way and made the special order at the earliest possible moment.

The labor leaders were especially interested in the Chinese Ex clusion bill; yet in the House the bill was amended in Committee to suit the corporations, and if the near approach of the Congressional election had not frightened the majority of the Republican members, it is possible that there would not have been enough voting with the Democrats to strike out the hostile amendments and pass the bill as originally introduced.

In the Senate the bill was so amended as to suit the corporations, nearly all the Republicans voting for the amendments; and every Democrat but five voting for the protection of labor, and also especially to protect the American seamen from their Chinese competitors.

On the Anti-Injunction bill in the Senate, the division on party lines was even more defined, the report of the Committee to whom the bill was referred indicating that the entire Democratic membership might be relied on to pass the bill as introduced. The Legislative Committee of the American Federation of Labor in their report, which appeared in the American Federationist for May, p. 233, says:

"The bill is now S. 4553. It was not a unanimous vote in the Senate Committee on the above amendment.

"The Anti-Injunction bill was reported from the House Committee on Judiciary without any amendment, but a minority report filed by Mr. Littlefield, of Maine, stands for the same purposes expressed in the Senate Committee's amendment."

On the other bills in which labor was interested, the position of the members of the two parties is a similar one.

The Same Old Story.

The condition of affairs on labor legislation is very similar to that at the adjournment of the first session of the Fifty-first Congress. The Republicans were the dominant party then, as now; a new Congress was to be elected and the efforts of the labor leaders to have the Republicans enact legislation had been thwarted by the same old tactics of amending the bills introduced so that they were worthless to the toiler, or defeating them in the Senate.

After the Fifty-first Congress had adjourned, Speaker Reed made a speech at Portland, Me., that the present Speaker of the House might like to follow. Mr. Reed said:

"Notwithstanding the fact that by far the greatest number of journals which represent organized labor are against the Republican party, notwithstanding the fact that their committees on legislation departed declaring, some of them, that no legislation could be had from the Republican House, it remains a fact that every bill which they presented, without exception, has been taken up, considered, debated, and, WITH PROPER AMENDMENTS, has been passed."

With "proper amendments" is good, when it was well known that the amendments were just what labor did not desire.

Mr. Henderson could not make as good a showing as Mr. Reed did, he could not say all the bills which labor had presented had been taken up and passed. . . He might say some of them had been considered, debated and "with proper amendments, had been passed. Yet this would hardly be a fair statement. It remains a fact that every bill which they presented, without exception, has been either amended to suit the trusts and corporations, or pigeon-holed by the committee.

Republican Labor Legislation.

The history of labor legislation is a black one for the Republican party.

In 1864 a Republican Congress passed a contract labor law, which allowed employers to bring the "pauper labor of Europe" here under contract and give a lien on any property, real or personal, the contract laborer might acquire if he did not perform the service he had agreed to. The vicious effect of this law upon American labor is a matter of history. The Republican party kept that law upon the Statute books for 21 years, though several attempts were made to repeal it. It might be the law today, judging from the record of the Republican party on legislation for the toiling masses, if a Democratic House had not succeeded in repealing it. On June 19, 1884, the House passed the Foran bill prohibiting the importation of laborers under contract. The Republican Senate held the bill until the following February, when the people, having elected a Democratic President and a Democratic House, it was reluctantly taken up and passed.

Eight-Hour Legislation.

The history of the eight-hour legislation show a similar condition of affairs.

The first eight-hour law was introduced by Mr. Rogers, Dem., of New Jersey, in 1866. The Congress was Republican and the bill was laid away and never considered.

Mr. Niblack, Dem., of Indiana, introduced a joint resolution in the Thirty-ninth Congress, which was Republican, declaring eighthours a day's work in the Government service. This, too, died in committee.

March 14, 1867, Mr. Julian, Dem., of Indiana, re-introduced the Rogers bill. Mr. Holmam asked for its consideration, but this also went to the Judiciary Committee, where it remained.

In 1867, General Banks, Rep., also introduced an eight-hour bill, which passed the House, but was hung up in John Sherman's Finance Committee in the Senate.

In 1868 General Banks got an eight-hour law through the House and Thomas A. Hendricks got it through the Senate, against the protest of John Sherman and other Republicans.

Senator Sherman declared after the passage of the bill that its title should be changed to "A bill to pay Government employees 25% more wages than employes in private establishments receive."

In 1892 the law limiting the daily service of laborers and mechanics to eight hours was originated by a Democratic House and became a law August 1, of that year.

The whole history of labor legislation shows the constant efforts of the Democrats to enact all laws that will benefit the toiling masses, and the open or concealed opposition of the great majority of the Republicans to the same.