GIFT or 
 
 K^'/uJ^^A-^.^C/»ji..i^r^\^ 
 
 !r 
 
 ^ 
 
 m 
 
 m^ 
 
 ■ 
 
 iilfiifiiiiii 
 
 iiiik 
 
 ii 
 
 IP 
 
 % 
 ilii 
 
 ^mk 
 
 sofii'umffiw 
 
 SJ9M»IM 
 
 -sojfl pjoiAeo 
 
 m 
 
Conference on 
 
 Federal Regulation of 
 Railways 
 
 under the auspices of 
 
 The Massachusetts State Board of Trade 
 
 held at 
 
 Springfield, Mass. 
 December 28, 1916 
 
 LIBRARY OF C0N6RESS CARD A17-418 
 
 
 Including Resolutions Adopted by Massachusetts State Board of 
 Trade, and addresses by Mr. Frank W. Whitcher, Governor Samuel 
 W. McGall, Mayor Frank E. Stacy, The Hon. Henry G. Wells, Dr. 
 Philip S. Moxom, Dr. Victor S. Clark, Mr. John F. Tobin, Mr. Fred- 
 erick P. Fish, Mr. Howard Elliott, and Mr. George L. Graham. 
 
-\ 
 
 ^ ^ 
 
 f- '^f- 
 
 f. 
 
 t 
 
 J * « -J >» • ♦'* J 
 
MASS MEETING OF MASSACHUSETTS BUSINESS 
 
 MEN, HELD AT THE SPRINGFIELD, MASS., 
 
 AUDITORIUM, ON DECEMBER 28, 1916, FOR 
 
 DISCUSSION OF THE TRANSPORTATION 
 
 PROBLEM. AUSPICES OF THE 
 
 MASSACHUSETTS STATE BOARD 
 
 OF TRADE 
 
 2.30 P. M. SESSION 
 
 President Frank W. Whitcher: Gentlemen, in view of the 
 vital importance of the railroad situation with which our 
 country is presented, a meeting of the National Coun- 
 cillors of the Chamber of Commerce of the United States 
 was called, to be held on the 17th and 18th of November. 
 That meeting was called to discuss the railroad contro- 
 versy, with a view to making recommendations to Con- 
 gress regarding measures of relief for the benefit of the 
 public. There were present at that meeting representa- 
 tives of over four hundred national trade and commerce 
 organizations. Speakers were present who were ac- 
 quainted with every phase of the railroad situation. 
 Their words were followed with the greatest attention, 
 and they were intensely interesting and instructive. 
 Everybody there felt that never again should the possi- 
 bility arise whereby the wheels of transportation could 
 be stopped, as it appeared likely last August. It seemed 
 to us that should the wheels of transportation be stopped 
 there would result not only a national crisis, but it would 
 also produce a national calamity ; for if the food products 
 of the country were cut off, even temporarily, great suf- 
 fering would ensue. If the raw materials could not reach 
 the mills they would be obliged to shut down and labor 
 would suffer. Such a crisis could not be permitted. 
 
 The railroads are like the great trees. As the country 
 has grown and the railroads have reached out over the 
 
 3 
 
 35864fci 
 
o^**^: 
 
 
 country the cities and towns have grown along with them, 
 and as the leaves of the tree would suffer if the sap could 
 not reach them, so would the cities and towns suffer if 
 transportation could not carry to those cities and towns 
 the food and products necessary for their existence. 
 
 When the councillor of the Massachusetts State Board 
 of Trade, ex-President John H. Corcoran, rendered his 
 report to our Board the gravity of the situation was real- 
 ized, and it was felt that the Massachusetts State Board 
 of Trade should take some positive action. In discussing 
 what means should be taken, it appeared that a mass 
 meeting would be the better way to express the business 
 sentiment of the country. A committee was appointed 
 with full powers. We wired the Chamber of Commerce 
 of the United States that such a meeting was contem- 
 plated. Back came the reply: ^^By all means hold the 
 meeting, and hold it immediately if possible." The com- 
 mittee came to Springfield. We stated the case to his 
 Honor, Mayor Stacy, and to the secretary of the Spring- 
 field Board of Trade, Mr. Foss. And they said: **Have 
 the meeting surely, and we want you to have it in Spring- 
 field. We have here an auditorium which will care for 
 any number of people. We took care of the twenty thou- 
 sand people at the National Dairy Show this fall, and we 
 can take care of every gathering that you can bring here. 
 We have splendid hotel accommodations. There is no 
 reason why you should not come to Springfield." 
 
 There was another reason in the minds of the commit- 
 tee why we were glad to welcome the invitation to Spring- 
 field, and that is that the people from the eastern part of 
 Massachusetts might be brought up here and meet the 
 gentlemen of this city who have such a -splendid public 
 spirit and who are doing so much for Hampden County 
 and for Massachusetts. This city already has received 
 the honor of being the first district to receive the farm 
 loan arrangement and bank, which our Government has 
 just about undertaken. That alone, gentlemen, will do 
 much for Western Massachusetts. In fact, for the whole 
 of Massachusetts and New England. 
 
The public spirit, gentlemen, in this section of the State 
 seems to permeate the very atmosphere, and your com-- 
 mittee felt that to bring you here to rub elbows with the 
 people here you would imbibe some of the public spirit 
 which you would carry back from this grand old State 
 and help to develop amongst the people everywhere the 
 same public spirit, if possible, which exists in this and the 
 surrounding sections. (Applause.) 
 
 And, gentlemen, we have been sending invitations 
 broadcast over the State. You are here in response to 
 those invitations, and it is certainly a very great pleasure 
 to the members of the Massachusetts State Board of 
 Trade to see such a representative body of gentlemen who 
 have been willing to give up their time to come here at 
 such an inopportune season of the year to discuss this 
 very necessary subject. 
 
 There are members here from Boards of Trade and 
 Chambers of Commerce all over the State. There are 
 members from the Boston Chamber of Commerce. Al- 
 though the by-laws of the Boston Chamber expressly pro- 
 hibit being bound by any such acts as this, they have 
 already had referendums on two subjects, and it is un- 
 likely that any action will be taken at this session which 
 cannot be fully endorsed. Secretary Eeed said: **I fully 
 intended to come, but unfortunately business matters 
 have come up which prevent me. But I wish you to pre- 
 sent my hearty wishes for the success of the meeting, and 
 tell your members that I am in full accord with this gath- 
 ering. ' ' 
 
 This meeting that is called to-day is not to antagonize 
 labor; not to favor the railroads, but to ascertain facts 
 and to act for the good of all of the people of Massachu 
 setts after receiving those facts. 
 
 When it was thought advisable — in fact, when we hoped 
 that we might have the presence of His Excellency the 
 Governor here — the President of your Board, Secretary 
 Fiel and his Honor Mayor Stacy went to the State House 
 and asked the Governor if he would come to Springfield 
 to attend this meeting. His answer was immediately 
 
**Yes.'' When we asked Mm if he would preside at the 
 afternoon meeting, again came his answer with no hesita- 
 tion, ^ * Yes. " And, gentlemen, in spite of the fact that his 
 time is limited in which to write his inaugural address — 
 for, as a matter of fact, he brought his stenographer on 
 the train with him, and has been working all the way up 
 to Springfield — he has kept his promise and he is here, 
 gentlemen ; another example of the way — one of the many 
 ways — in which he is serving this grand old State after 
 an experience of twenty years at Washington, and after 
 meeting with the governors of many other States and 
 bringing to us as he has this afternoon his broad expe- 
 rience in governmental affairs. 
 
 Gentlemen, he needs no introduction to a body of busi- 
 ness men of Massachusetts, and I have the honor of 
 resigning the chair to His Excellency Governor Samuel 
 W. McCall. (Applause.) 
 
 Governor McCall: Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen: The 
 name of the good causes that have friends in Massachu- 
 setts is legion. I did not experience until a year ago in 
 how many great social activities our people have engaged, 
 and it is impossible for one governor — I think it would 
 be impossible if the State had two governors — to be 
 present upon the occasions that are really important and 
 where some good cause is represented. But when your 
 President and the Mayor of Springfield called upon me 
 and told me the object of your coming together here 
 to-day and asked me if I would be present and show my 
 interest in it by presiding, I said without hesitation that 
 I would be glad to come, although it is with a good deal 
 of inconvenience that I am here to-day. 
 
 But I am here because I believe that there is no public 
 question that more profoundly interests the public of 
 Massachusetts than the question of transportation. Lord 
 Bacon spoke of the most interesting things in civilization, 
 and he mentioned as one of the most important the mov- 
 ing of men and of goods from one place to another place. 
 That represented the idea of commerce. But to-day com- 
 
merce from having been a mere occupation has become 
 something that is necessary to our existence. One or 
 two generations ago our communities were self -centered 
 and independent. They raised the food that they ate; 
 they raised their wheat and had their mill to make it 
 into flour. They raised their beef ; they raised the wool 
 which was spun in the households, and they were entirely 
 independent and could live among themselves. But on 
 account of the introduction of modern systems of trans- 
 portation we have emerged from that condition of affairs, 
 and no community in New England now — certainly the 
 Commonwealth as a whole — cannot live by itself alone. 
 We have to bring the flour out of which our bread is made 
 from Minneapolis ; our meat comes from Chicago, where 
 it is manufactured from cattle from Texas. The wool 
 comes from Utah and the Par Western States ; the cotton 
 comes from the South, and we are absolutely dependent 
 for our living upon what we get from distant places. And 
 so transportation has become a matter of great necessity. 
 Now Massachusetts has the sea, and' in the old times 
 before the internal commerce of the country was devel-^ 
 oped she was almost supreme among the colonies and in 
 the early days among the States of the Union, because she 
 had a hardy breed of sailors and the ships from the ports 
 of the Commonwealth went over the whole globe. Now 
 our commerce has gone by. It is unnecessary and it is 
 hardly pertinent here to-day to discuss why it has gone by, 
 but our commerce on the sea has practically become obso- 
 lete, and I trust that will not continue long, as applied to 
 Massachusetts, for from it we had such great advantages. 
 On account of our dependence upon this transportation, 
 having our source of supply in the distance from which 
 we draw our raw materials, and then after that manu- 
 facturing them, having our markets where we sell those 
 manufactured products in the distance, Massachusetts is 
 at a great disadvantage with the other States of the 
 Union. From a position of advantage, we are to-day, 
 from our location in one corner of the country, at a great 
 disadvantage, because we are farther than most of the 
 
producing centers from the source of supply of raw 
 material, and we are also farther from the markets that 
 buy the finished product. And so it is a matter of great 
 importance that we should have discussed — that the busi- 
 ness men of Massachusetts should have discussed before 
 them, for they in the last analysis are responsible for 
 public policies and for legislation — that they should have 
 this important question discussed before them. 
 
 Now this is not a meeting, as I understand it, that is 
 called in favor of any side of the question, except simply 
 the public side. I represent the public. We want to know 
 what can best be done to serve the public and to meet the 
 great ends for which these carriers were established. 
 Nobody is here in hostility to the railroads. Nobody is 
 here in hostility to the men who operate them, but we are 
 here for a common purpose — to have the subject looked 
 at from different viewpoints. And so I say that I felt 
 that the great importance of this question required here 
 to-day the presence of the chief executive of the Common- 
 wealth. Not me, but simply because of the office that I 
 happen at the moment to hold. 
 
 I think that Springfield is a good place in which to hold 
 this meeting. I was here last February when they were 
 having the preliminary meeting in order to get here the 
 National Dairy exhibition — one of the greatest exhibi- 
 tions of livestock that is held, the very greatest that is 
 held in the United States, and I believe probably the 
 greatest ever held in the world. I came to a meeting 
 where there were men from different parts of New 
 England, and it was necessary to raise a large sum of 
 money in order to have this exhibition — I think something 
 like three-quarters of a million dollars. I do not know 
 whether Mayor Stacy put that money up, but I know that 
 in an incredibly short time the public- spirited men, and 
 chiefly the men who live in Springfield and this vicinity, 
 raised that great sum of money, and as a result Spring- 
 field last fall had as great a dairy show as was ever held 
 on this continent. 
 
 And then to aid this subject, this discussion, it was 
 
 8 
 
arranged by the president of the Massachusetts Board of 
 Trade, that this discussion should take place here at 
 Springfield, and I am glad to be here in a town that is 
 establishing itself as one of the greatest civic centers in 
 the Commonwealth and in the country. (Applause.) 
 That shows a willingness to promote great objects like 
 these that are fundamental in the prosperity of the Com- 
 monwealth. 
 
 There can be no better subject discussed for the farmers 
 of Massachusetts, no better subject illustrated than the 
 exhibition of such livestock as they had here last October. 
 And, as I said, there can be no discussion of a more im- 
 portant question for the Commonwealth at large than 
 the discussion of this subject of transportation, and it 
 now becomes my pleasure, gentlemen, as your presiding 
 officer to introduce to you the Mayor of this beautiful city 
 of Springfield, who will extend a few words of welcome. 
 
 Mayor Frank E. Stacy : Your Excellency, Mr. President, 
 members of the Massachusetts Board of Trade and 
 friends : The honor that is conferred upon me this after- 
 noon in coming here and extending to you the greetings 
 of the city of Springfield is a great honor and a pleasant 
 duty, and I am very grateful. Of course, it is always a 
 pleasure for me to welcome and to bring to our governor 
 the greetings of the city. We love him up here. 
 
 We are having Shakespeare in this city this week — Mr. 
 Mantell is giving us a week of Shakespeare — and I hap- 
 pened to think that I believe it was that gentleman who 
 said *^ Brevity is the soul of wit.'' So it is up to me to 
 be brief. We had Othello last night, and I thought of a 
 little story that was told of one of the barnstorming com- 
 panies who took Shakespeare's play on the road down 
 into the Southern cities. They were playing Othello and 
 they were before one gathering. There is one place where 
 the actor says: ^^Desdemona! Desdemona! give me back 
 that handkerchief!" The actor said his line and he 
 couldn't think of the rest of his speech, so he repeated: 
 '^Desmona! Desmona! give me back de handkerchief!" 
 
But he could npt think of any of the lines that followed, 
 and he began again : * ' Desmona ! Desmona I give me back 
 de handkerchief ! * ' Some voice up in the gallery shouted, 
 **0h! wipe your nose on your sleeve and let the play ge 
 on.'' (Laughter.) 
 
 Now, gentlemen, in view of the remarks that have been 
 made, and of the program which you have here, I know 
 you feel the same way, and I would be ungrateful if I had 
 anything to offer relative to Springfield. We are glad you 
 are here. We are glad you have chosen this place, and I 
 want to thank the Governor for the kind words he has 
 said about Springfield. We appreciate them. But 
 Springfield realizes that it is a part of Massachusetts, 
 and just one portion, and we are trying here to broaden 
 ourselves, and if in broadening ourselves we are broaden- 
 ing the State we are well repaid. 
 
 Gentlemen, I know of nothing else that I could add. We 
 are simply here in this line this afternoon. We had the 
 Dairy Show. We are out for other organizations, but we 
 are glad that you have come here this afternoon. We are 
 heartily in sympathy with you, and are glad that you have 
 come here to see what we are doing. 
 
 I could tell you of many efforts, of many good things, 
 but time will not permit. Gentlemen, we are glad you are 
 here, and in behalf of Springfield I want to extend to you 
 our heartiest greetings. 
 
 President Whitcher: There is a duty to be performed, 
 and I move that a committee on resolutions, to prepare 
 resolutions for consideration of this conference, be ap- 
 pointed. 
 
 Chairman McCall : You hear the motion. 
 
 Mr. John H. Corcoran: I would suggest that the com- 
 mittee be appointed by Mr. Whitcher. (Motion seconded 
 and carried.) 
 
 Mr. Whitcher: With your permission, I will give you 
 the names of the Eesolutions Committee : 
 
 10 
 
John H. Corcoran, Cambridge, Chairman 
 Hon. Frank E. Stacy, Springfield 
 Frank D. Howard, Chicopee 
 F. Alexander Chandler, Boston 
 Everett Sntcliffe, Cambridge 
 William H. Gleason, Winchester 
 George C. Morton, Boston 
 Joseph Wing, Brookline 
 Thomas P. Anderson, Boston 
 Archie J. Osborne, Holyoke 
 George F. Willett, Norwood 
 
 Mayor Stacy: Before the President takes his seat, may I 
 make the motion that a committee of six, to be known as 
 a Follow-np Committee, to appear before the Newlands 
 Committee if necessary in support of the resolutions of 
 this conference, be appointed by the Chair? (Motion 
 seconded and carried.) 
 
 Mr. Frank D. Howard: I move a committee on ere 
 dentials be appointed. 
 
 Chairman McCall : Mr. Howard moves that a committee 
 on credentials be appointed. Possibly this should have 
 been done by the primary organization, but it can be pro- 
 ceeded with now. (Motion seconded and carried.) Shall 
 this committee be appointed by President Whitcher? 
 
 Mr. Howard : I make that a part of my motion. 
 
 President Whitcher: The Follow-up Committee, which 
 was thought advisable because of the possible assistance 
 they could render by going to Washington and appearing 
 before the committee — it was thought advisable to have 
 that committee, and I would appoint : 
 
 The Hon. Frank E. Stacy, Springfield 
 
 Mr. George L. Graham, Boston 
 
 Mr. George C. Morton, Boston 
 
 Mr. Frank D. Howard, Chicopee 
 
 Mr. Archie J. Osborne, Holyoke 
 
 Mr. Frank W. Whitcher, Boston 
 
 11 
 
Committee on Credentials: 
 
 Mr. Frank D. Howard, Chicopee 
 Mr. George L. Avery, Framingham 
 Mr. Chas. H. Stevens, Arlington 
 
 Chairman McCall: The committees will retire, as re- 
 quested. It is too bad we should have such a large com- 
 mittee who necessarily have to leave the room before 
 hearing the next and most interesting speaker. The sub- 
 ject is *^The Legislature, the Public and Transportation.*' 
 
 I would not want you to infer that the Legislature is 
 anything distinct from the public. It was established to 
 represent the public, and I believe that it has, during the 
 last year at any rate, for I have had the opportunity not 
 of reading of what they did, but I can testify as a witness 
 to what they did. I think they represented the public very 
 well, and I present to you to speak upon that subject a 
 gentleman who has had experience in both houses of the 
 Legislature, and who has presided with distinction over 
 the Senate : the Honorable Henry G. Wells of Haverhill, 
 Massachusetts. 
 
 The Hon. Henry G. Wells: Your Excellency, the Presi- 
 dent, the Mayor and friends: As was suggested by His 
 Excellency, the particular topic which I am here to pre- 
 sent to you deals with the relationship of the transporta- 
 tion problem to the public through the Legislature. 
 
 Transportation is the movement of persons and things. 
 A discussion of the transportation problem may include, 
 first, the system itself. This means in the first instance 
 purely technical problems of engineering, construction, 
 maintenance and operation of means or mechanism. Our 
 highly developed technical schools and native ingenuity 
 have placed the United States on a par with any nation in 
 this sphere of activity. This, however, is entirely outside 
 the scope of this paper. 
 
 The second phase of the transportation system may be 
 described as that of busiaess methods and management. 
 Here the United States has not always been as successful, 
 
 12 
 
depending to a certain extent upon experience and train- 
 ing, rather than upon scientific preparation, and too often 
 furnishing opportunity to thDse ready to take advantage 
 of it to serve their own ends rather than to serve the 
 railroad and through it the public. Herein is one field for 
 the interest of the public through its Legislatures. 
 
 Apart from the system itself is the transportation 
 service itself embracing the relationship of the various 
 parts of the system to the whole and the relationship of 
 the companies and inviduals performing the service to the 
 users thereof. Here again we find a field of contact be- 
 tween the common carrier and the public through the 
 Legislature. 
 
 We find in a study of this relationship that one must be 
 a student not only of political science, but also of eco- 
 nomics. Li the old days civilization was confronted with 
 a great problem, but it was largely of two factors — con- 
 sumption and production. At first the family, then the 
 community was almost self-sustaining, with a proper 
 balance between these two factors. The law of supply and 
 demand was a vital controlling incident. 
 
 To-day exchange and distribution are factors fully as 
 important. The economic growth of the nation has been 
 fostered by these transportation systems, and in turn the 
 prosperity of the nation is dependent upon the success of 
 these systems. The law of supply and demand, while 
 still a vital incident, has been deeply affected by this addi- 
 tional element. Every part of the nation is dependent 
 upon some other part of the nation, and the price of a 
 commodity depends not alone upon the relationship of 
 supply and demand, but also upon the facility with which 
 that commodity produced in abundance in one part may 
 be easily distributed to all parts. Transportation service 
 is thus of vital importance in the exchange of commodi- 
 ties, but also it fosters in this way the growth of produc- 
 tive effort. More land is utilized, more capital is put to 
 use, more chances for labor are available, productive 
 areas are not only extended, but there has been specializa- 
 tion of effort because of the possibility of distribution. 
 
 13 
 
This important phase of the question will be dealt upon 
 by others, namely, metl^ods by which this distributive 
 factor of our transportation system can be improved, not 
 only for the success of our Massachusetts industries, but 
 also that the products of our sister States necessary for 
 our welfare can be brought to us without delay at a rea- 
 sonable cost and with some degree of uniformity of deliv- 
 ery. The average individual is often more concerned over 
 a train five minutes late or an increase of two cents in 
 fare for a thirty-mile ride than he is in the effect of the 
 transportation service upon the cost of a commodity — 
 unless he has to pay twelve dollars a ton for coal. 
 
 This vital dependence of the social organization upon 
 transportation leads us to a consideration of the relation- 
 ship of government, State and Federal, to the transporta- 
 tion service and to the management of the transportation 
 system. There are four kinds of such service from a 
 political science standpoint. There is the government- 
 owned and government-operated road. There is the gov- 
 ernment-owned and privately operated road. There is 
 the privately owned and government-operated road and 
 there is the privately owned and privately operated road. 
 
 It is not within our province to discuss the relative 
 merits of these four classes. Our problem in the United 
 States is largely that of the fourth class and the degree 
 and form of supervision or control that the government 
 should exercise over it. The success or non-success of 
 that control will ultimately determine whether this class 
 will in time pass over into one of the other three classes. 
 Whether owned, operated or regulated, transportation 
 service is of a public nature and has so been determined 
 by the courts. 
 
 The corporation, that is, the agency through which the 
 railroad operates, while a private corporation, differs 
 from the ordinary business corporation in that it serves 
 the public. On the other hand, it is not a public corpora- 
 tion in the sense of a municipality. Hence there is the 
 question of both a public and a private corporation to be 
 considered. It is easy to lay down a general rule that 
 
 14 
 
the government, through its legislative body or some 
 other body to which the power has been delegated, shall 
 only regulate and supervise those functions and activities 
 of the corporation which aifect the public and shall not 
 interfere with those functions and activities which are 
 strictly private. The difficulty is to determine what func- 
 tions and activities are strictly private and what affect 
 the public. More and more are the activities of the rail- 
 road corporation of every sort affecting the public, and 
 more and more are the details of operation and manage- 
 ment coming under the supervision of the government. 
 
 The government in the first instance in granting the 
 charter of organization grants certain privileges, such as 
 locations, the right to take land by eminent domain, a cer- 
 tain monopoly of business; hence it has the right to 
 oversee the organization of the corporation. Charters 
 are usually granted by the States, and at first were with 
 few restrictions. Abuses crept in, and now, whether by 
 special act or general law, there are very strict provi- 
 sions. It is but a step from the approval of the original 
 charter to the regulation of the issuance of capital stock. 
 Massachusetts is very strict upon this point. This State 
 requires that 
 
 First: The amount of issue and purpose for which 
 issued shall be approved by the Public Service Commis- 
 sion. 
 
 Second: The proceeds of sale be applied to specific 
 purposes. 
 
 Third : No shares of stock to be issued as bonus to bond 
 purchasers or below par, and all stock to be paid for in 
 cash. 
 
 Fourth: Price above par to be approved by the Com- 
 mission. 
 
 Fifth : Bonds, notes and other evidences of indebted- 
 ness not to be issued to exceed twice amount of capital 
 stock. 
 
 Other States are not as strict in their control of capi- 
 talization and the Federal government has been slow to 
 assume any responsibility in this matter. The history of 
 
 15 
 
railroad financing in the United States, speculative stock 
 raids and poor, even fraudulent, management along this 
 line, which has led many a road to insolvency, would seem 
 to be ample reason for strict supervision of the capitali- 
 zation of roads, even though average United States capi- 
 talization per mile is about one-quarter that of the United 
 Kingdom. The basis of the limitation of railroad capital- 
 ization is still unsettled, there being strong advocates of 
 the theory of original cost as a basis, that of earning 
 capacity or the theory of the cost of reproduction. A 
 combination of the latter two as a foundation for a proper 
 valuation as the basis for capitalization seems to be the 
 more popular. 
 
 Intercorporate relations seem a proper subject of gov- 
 ernmental review. The relationship of one corporation 
 to another can very well have a vital effect upon the public 
 either in the manipulation of securities causing an in- 
 crease in rates or in the service rendered by the trans- 
 portation of people or commodities. To this end financial 
 reports and accounts ought to be subject to supervision, 
 and if a uniform system is the best method of obtaining 
 results let us have such a system. 
 
 Various functions of service, such as train schedules, 
 safety and convenience of operation, non-discrimination, 
 all vitally affect the public and should be subject to gov- 
 ernmental control. 
 
 A most important function which is and should be regu- 
 lated is that of rates. The States to-day have power to 
 regulate intrastate rates which do not affect interstate 
 rates. The Federal government regulates interstate rates 
 and can regulate such intrastate rates as indirectly affect 
 the interstate rates. For years efforts have been made 
 for a uniform classification of rates. If such a thing is a 
 practical possibility without endangering present indus- 
 tries or upsetting the balance of locality competition then 
 a big problem wiU be solved by such a method. 
 
 The whole problem of regulation, and rate regulation 
 particularly, has one bugbear, namely, the inevitable con- 
 flict between different States and between States and 
 
 16 
 
the Federal government. We shall all be glad to hear 
 what the president of the New Haven road has to oifer on 
 that subject. Many of the troubles of the New Haven 
 have been due to the fact that the laws and regulations of 
 other States permitted what Massachusetts did not per- 
 mit. Most railroads have often been embarrassed by 
 directly conflicting laws and regulations of the Federal 
 government and of the local State governments. Uni- 
 formity is to be desired even though Massachusetts may 
 have to surrender some of its functions of regulation to 
 the Federal government in order to secure it. 
 
 "We have repeatedly referred to governmental control. 
 This is vested in the State legislatures and in Congress. 
 Because of the complexity of the problem and vast amount 
 of detail required, this power has usually been delegated. 
 Here in Massachusetts we delegate authority to the Pub- 
 lic Service Commission under certain restrictions to reg- 
 ulate the railroads within the State. Having done so it 
 behooves the Legislature to keep its hands off of such 
 matters as have been so delegated. 
 
 Since the initial power is in the Legislature, it is proper 
 for the Legislature to change the rules of procedure, to 
 withdraw delegated powers or to confer new powers. It 
 seems unwise and improper, however, for the Legislature 
 to interfere or attempt to legislate along certain definite 
 prescribed lines which they have clearly delegated to the 
 Public Service Commission and to which they have given 
 ample machinery for a proper determination of such 
 questions, which machinery is not available for the in- 
 formation of the average legislator. Yet year after year 
 we are confronted by petitions from an overanxious 
 public to do the thing we ought not to do. 
 
 There is always the other side to this question. Eail- 
 roads need regulation. The past clearly shows it. Let us 
 try, however, not to interfere with the strictly private 
 functions of the railroad. Let us as a public remember 
 that in so far as we overemphasize details we hamper 
 service and increase its cost. Let us remember that rail- 
 roads are a necessity and not an evil ; that the men who 
 
 17 
 
own and control them are not all selfish or dishonest; 
 that there are men striving to solve the great transporta- 
 tion problems for the benefit of all concerned. Let us 
 remember that these great corporations must be managed 
 so that labor shall receive fair wages and proper working 
 conditions ; that capital shall receive a fair return on its 
 investment; that the service rendered shall be safe, con- 
 venient and at a return sufficient to meet those claims. 
 Eailroads are big business, but this is a big country and 
 needs big business so long as it is properly conducted. 
 Public opinion must be cultivated to the extent that busi- 
 ness of any sort shall be free from attack if properly 
 conducted, even though it be big business. 
 
 We as members of the Legislature are directors in the 
 great business of the body politic. You are the stock- 
 holders, and as such we are responsible to you. Judge us 
 by facts, even as you would judge these corporations. 
 Do not expect us continually to hamper unnecessarily big 
 business as such. Think for yourselves on these ques- 
 tions and give us credit for thinking for ourselves, and 
 do not expect us to be led blindly by a demagogic appeal, 
 simply because it happens to be a big corporation, or 
 because big corporations are affected. Be sure there are 
 evils to be corrected and that the legislation is wise and 
 proper before judging us as acting unwisely. There are 
 too many people to-day ready to condemn a corporation 
 unheard, simply because it is a corporation. Take the 
 necessary time to study the vital public questions. Do 
 you realize the extent of minority rule? The future wel- 
 fare of the Commonwealth depends not only on the eradi- 
 cation of those evils which do exist relative to big busi- 
 ness, but also depends upon a fair opportunity for big 
 business to carry on its functions properly and for the 
 benefit of the entire community. 
 
 I can close with nothing better than a quotation from 
 DeTorqueville : ^^No philosopher's stone of a constitu- 
 tion can produce golden conduct out of leaden instincts ; 
 no apparatus of senators and judges and police can com- 
 pensate for the want of an internal governing sentiment ; 
 
 18 
 
no legislative manipulation can eke out an insufficient 
 morality into a sufficient one; no administrative sleight 
 of hand can save us from ourselves.'' 
 
 Chairman McCaU: The next subject on the program is 
 * ' Co-operation, ' ' by Frederick J. Hillman. Mr. Hillman 
 is unable to be present and a distinguished clergyman of 
 Massachusetts and Springfield, Dr. Philip S. Moxom, is 
 to take part in the discussion instead of Mr. Hillman. 
 
 Dr. Philip S. Moxom : It is the first time I ever filled the 
 Mayor's chair, and I am quite embarrassed. I stand 
 before you as a frightful example of unpreparedness. 
 This afternoon, with a program full of work, a persuasive 
 and masterful voice through the telephone communicated 
 something that I did not perfectly understand, but the 
 upshot of it was I was desired to come here and speak on 
 "Co-operation" this afternoon. And when he was told 
 that I had no time he made some very complimentary 
 remarks, which I will not quote. 
 
 But I am in very good company, as you know — quite in 
 company with the entire nation. I think sometimes there 
 are men who conceive that clergymen are like certain 
 guns with which one company of a regiment to which I 
 belonged was armed. We had what was known as the 
 Spencer carbine, which by filling a tube that was inserted 
 in the butt of the gun and putting one cartridge in the 
 chamber gave eight successive shots. In those days that 
 was a remarkable weapon. On one occasion we captured 
 some Confederates, and one of them said: "When you 
 'uns come along who have guns like what we 'uns have 
 we can get away with you, but when you 'uns come along 
 who load up over night and shoot all day you are too 
 many for us 'uns." 
 
 Now, the best that I can do is listen, and I have listened 
 with a great deal of interest to the addresses of Governor 
 McCall, President Whitcher, the Mayor and Mr. Wells. 
 We are going through a marvelous change, and almost 
 
 19 
 
unconsciously. Miss Frances Power Cobb wrote many 
 years ago a book entitled ^^The Peak in Darien." In 
 that book there was an essay on secular changes in human 
 nature. Her idea was that certain changes come uncon- 
 sciously and almost involuntarily without any clear sense 
 of the forces that are producing them, and in the course 
 of a little time humanity finds itself with a new orienta- 
 tion. We are more or less unconsciously in the midst of 
 such a change. The war in Europe is bringing out the 
 deepening sense of human solidarity. We live together 
 on this planet, and we have got to find a way by which we 
 can live peacefully and helpfully. 
 
 Now everyone who thinks on this matter knows that 
 the presence of the individualistic spirit and methods in 
 any form of human enterprise makes not only for ineffi- 
 ciency, but also for controversy. There may be efficiency 
 here and inefficiency there, but the average of the whole 
 will be below what reasonable creatures have a right to 
 expect. It is only through co-operation — not competition, 
 but through co-operation — ^with mankind that we can 
 really attain to the greatest efficiency in living, and that 
 co-operation must not be merely the co-operation of cer- 
 tain interests in groups. In that case you have only 
 intensified the competition and made the conflict more 
 destructive. 
 
 We have been coming into a realization of the fact that 
 safety from the competition of definite groups is to be 
 found in the unity of one group. It is that co-ordination 
 of human society in which all interests shall work for a 
 common end ; when business and education and scientific 
 research and politics all shall be dominated by that spirit 
 which makes life a co-operative human brotherhood. 
 
 It seems to me that this is the big thing that you repre-' 
 sent here to-day, you gentlemen of the Massachusetts 
 State Board of Trade. It is back of every enterprise in 
 the fields of industry and commerce. We have got to 
 come to this philosophy at last, that it is the practical 
 union of human intelligences, human sympathies and 
 human wills that must be reached, so we may attain the 
 
 20 
 
highest efficiency in all those activities which engage the 
 hnman hand and the human heart. 
 
 Chairman McCall : I think we are all glad Dr. Moxom did 
 not have notice, because he gives such an excellent ad- 
 dress. He might have spoiled it by preparation. 
 
 President Whitcher : I have an idea, Mr. Chairman, that 
 all have not registered. You understand that all are per- 
 mitted to register, and cards will be circulated so that all 
 who have not signed may do so. 
 
 Chairman McCall: Gentlemen, there has been a change 
 in the program and two of the speakers have been trans- 
 posed from the evening exercises to this afternoon. The 
 next subject will be a discussion of the Canadian Disputes 
 Act and Other Methods, by Dr. Victor S. Clark of the 
 Carnegie Institution of Washington. Dr. Clark is a 
 scholar of eminence, and I am sure that his discussion of 
 this question will be very interesting and instructive. 
 
 Dr. Victor S. Clark: Mr. Chairman and members of the 
 Massachusetts State Board of Trade: My allotted task 
 this afternoon is to call your attention to some of the 
 methods that other countries have adopted for regulating 
 labor disputes on railways. 
 
 I presume the reason your secretary invited me to dis- 
 cuss this subject is that it has been my duty on several 
 occasions to investigate these methods for the Federal 
 government. I wish my remarks to be interpreted as 
 descriptive and not as those of an advocate of any par- 
 ticular law. I think the longer that one studies and the 
 more that one studies on the ground these various 
 methods, the less assured he becomes in advocating any 
 one of them; and especially in assuming that a method 
 successful in some other country is likely or is certain 
 to be successful in the United States. Our industrial 
 organism is so gigantic compared with some countries 
 that have adopted experimental and progressive legisla- 
 
 21 
 
tion that it is not at all certain that it could be contained 
 in the same sort of legal containers that are used in those 
 countries. 
 
 I remember an incident that my father used to tell me 
 when I was a boy of a trip he made through Yellowstone 
 Park in the very early days when it was customary to go 
 through with a military escort. He and some of the other 
 officers who were with him were standing by one of the 
 big geysers and threw their pocket handkerchiefs into it. 
 In a short time there was an eruption of the geyser and 
 the handkerchiefs were thrown out beautifully laundered. 
 A couple of soldiers had witnessed this experiment with a 
 good deal of interest. They ran away, and on their return 
 within a short time brought back with them a couple of 
 dirty army blankets, which they threw into the geyser. 
 In due time the geyser returned those garments quite as 
 well laundered as were the handkerchiefs, but separated 
 into small fragments about six inches in diameter. 
 
 Now our big industries might go into a legislative ma- 
 chine that is sufficient to deal with the railroads and the 
 industries of a small country and come out — to use the 
 soldier's remark on that occasion — in a '^chawed-up con- 
 dition, '' much the same as the army blankets. 
 
 Government ownership, compulsory arbitration and 
 compulsory investigation are the three legislative meas- 
 ures that are proposed and discussed, if not advocated, 
 at the present time. Government ownership is not a sure 
 remedy for strikes upon railroads. There have been very 
 bitter strikes, strikes of almost revolutionary bitterness, 
 on the state-owned railways of South Africa within quite 
 recent memory. There have been strikes on the railways 
 of New South Wales, although they are owned by the gov- 
 ernment and a compulsory arbitration law is enforced in 
 that state. In fact, considering the magnitude of our 
 inland commerce and of the machinery that serves it, for 
 the past twenty-two years the United States has probably 
 been freer than any other great industrial and democratic 
 country from interruptions of traffic due to labor contro- 
 versies. 
 
 22 V 
 
Compulsory investigation is best known to us through 
 the Canadian law, which it is more particularly my task 
 to discuss this afternoon. The principle of compulsory 
 investigation was advocated in the United States, and 
 officially advocated, some years before it was adopted in 
 Canada. Many of you will recall that twenty- two years 
 ago there was a great strike on the railways centering in 
 Chicago. You may recall the vast loss of property and 
 the disquieting civil disorders and the toll of death that 
 accompanied those disastrous weeks. That strike was not 
 officered and controlled by the great railway brother- 
 hoods, but it threw into confusion the entire industrial 
 organism of the country, and order was not restored and 
 traffic was not resumed without interruption until Fed- 
 eral troops had been summoned to compel obedience to 
 the laws and restore order. Following that dispute or 
 strike Congress created a commission to investigate its 
 causes and to propose some remedy against subsequent 
 occurrences of the same kind. That commission, as a 
 result of its inquiries, recommended that a public board 
 or tribunal be established to investigate the causes of 
 labor dissatisfaction based upon railroads engaged in 
 interstate commerce ; to publish a report showing its find- 
 ings ; and the commission further advocated that pending 
 this investigation and the publication of the report strikes 
 and lockouts on such railroads should be prohibited by 
 law. As you all know, these recommendations were never 
 enacted into law. Som twelve years later, however, a 
 very bitter and protracted coal strike occurred in Western 
 Canada. At that time Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Al- 
 berta were very recently settled and the prairie farmers 
 were dependent on the output of these mines for fuel to 
 heat their homes. As winter approached — a prematurely 
 cold winter with its blizzards — these prairie homes were 
 absolutely destitute of fuel. Public schools were closed 
 and industries using steam power faced an almost imme- 
 diate suspension of operation. The Dominion govern- 
 ment was forced in this crisis to send its officials to West- 
 ern Canada, and they by moral suasion and by the influ- 
 
 23 
 
ence of public opinion finally secured tlie resumption of 
 coal production. Following this occurrence the Canadian 
 government at once took steps to enact legislation that 
 would prevent another strike of that kind. The measure 
 proposed followed the lines of the recommendation of the 
 Chicago strike commission at the time of the strike which 
 I have just quoted. Mr. McKenzie King, then Deputy 
 Minister of Labor in Canada, in recommending this law 
 advocated it upon the ground that in any community 
 private rights should cease when they become public 
 wrongs, and the legislation that was enacted was intended 
 to apply only to those industries where workers in en- 
 forcing their demands inflict a greater injury upon the 
 general public than any possible compensation to them- 
 selves will outweigh. In other words, the law attempts to 
 embody in legislation the principles of the greatest good 
 to the greatest number. 
 
 The jurisdiction of the Canadian Act extends to rail- 
 ways, telegraph and telephone lines, electric light and 
 power companies and to all industries that were embraced 
 under the definition of public utilities. Coal and metal 
 mining have been brought under the Act, perhaps a little 
 illogically, but on account of the coal strike to which I 
 have just referred arose the passage of the law. In other 
 industries men are free to strike and there is no compul- 
 sory investigation, with a single exception, and that is 
 due to the present war. An order has recently been 
 issued extending the Canadian Disputes Act to munition 
 workers and others employed in similar enterprises. 
 
 In any of the industries I have mentioned, if either the 
 workers or the employers desire to change the condition 
 of employment; if the workers demand more wages or 
 shorter hours, or the employers desire to introduce any 
 new regulation that affects directly the workers, the party 
 proposing the change must notify the other party thirty 
 days before the proposed change will go into effect. There- 
 upon the other party — the workers or the employers as 
 the case may be — have the right to appeal to the Cana- 
 dian Minister of Labor for a brief investigation, stating 
 
 24 
 
in their application that a strike or a lockout, as the case 
 may be, will ensue if their demands are not satisfied. The 
 Minister of Labor thereupon assures himself of these 
 facts, and if he finds them to be as stated he orders a 
 board to be appointed. One member of this board is a 
 representative of the workers ; the other, the second mem- 
 ber, is a representative of the employers, and the workers 
 and the employers appoint a third member, although if 
 either the workers or employers refuse to appoint him 
 or cannot agree the Minister of Labor appoints him. It 
 is not a salaried board. It is paid a per diem during the 
 time it is sitting; has the powers of a court to summon 
 witnesses and to take testimony under oath; to examine 
 firm books and papers, though in practice that examina- 
 tion is usually confined to the Federal member of the 
 board and the representative of the employers and an 
 inspector in the works or premises involved in a strike; 
 and to interrogate employees. 
 
 The functions of this board are, first, if possible, to 
 conciliate the disputants. That is, to act as a friendly 
 broker between the employers and the workers and bring 
 them to a voluntary settlement. This is accomplished in 
 most cases, and perhaps if you were to single out any one 
 element of the Canadian Act that had been more valuable 
 to Canada than any other, it would be the success of these 
 members in bringing disputes to a voluntary settlement. 
 Then the board may act as a board of arbitration, pro- 
 vided the two parties, though they cannot come to a set- 
 tlement, have enough confidence to agree to abide by its 
 findings. 
 
 The board has the third important function in case it 
 cannot conciliate the parties and they are not willing to 
 arbitrate. In case a situation arose, for instance, such 
 as arose last summer on our railways. It has the author- 
 ity to investigate the grounds of the dispute and to make 
 a report to the public, stating what it considers to be a 
 fair solution of the difficulty. Pending this investigation 
 it is illegal for the men to strike, and it is illegal for the 
 employers to lock out their employees. Penalties ranging 
 
 25 
 
from $50, I believe, to a $1,000 for an illegal lockout — I 
 have got the penalties here somewhere — and from $10 to 
 $50, I believe it is, for striking, and similar penalties for 
 aiding or inciting any illegal strike can be imposed. 
 
 The number of controversies that has come before the 
 boards during the existence of the Canadian law — I am 
 not reading the paper here at all, or following the paper, 
 but I have these figures in another place — the statistics 
 are about as follows : Up to the middle of last October 212 
 disputes have been referred for adjustment under the 
 law and 21 strikes had occurred, so that about nine out 
 of ten disputes were settled w^ithout suspending work. Of 
 these 212 disputes, 167 were reported upon by boards or 
 ended through their mediation and others were ended 
 before the boards were organized. Of these disputes 85 
 were on railroads and 7 strikes occurred. There were 11 
 shipping disputes ; 3 fell upon telegraph, 2 upon telephone 
 and 4 upon light and power companies, which were settled 
 without a single loss of employment. 
 
 In metal mining only ten out of fifteen controversies 
 referred to boards were amicably settled by them. The 
 reason why the success is less in the mining field is prob- 
 ably twofold. In the first place, the Miners' Union had 
 been very hostile to the law, and miners are perhaps less 
 easily controlled by their own leaders than railway em- 
 ployees, for instance. And the second reason is that the 
 public for the most part has not been particularly inter- 
 ested in the mining disputes that have occurred since the 
 law went into force. None of them has caused the same 
 inconvenience as our big anthracite strike. 
 
 Nearly all of the strikes have been legally begun. That 
 is, they are strikes that have been entered into after the 
 boards have reported their findings, and in several cases, 
 particularly in the railway strikes — the most important 
 railway strike, I believe, was on the Grand Trunk— the 
 employers have been the parties to refuse to put in force 
 the recommendations of the board, and the men have 
 promptly struck to enforce the recommendations of the 
 board. However, there have been some strikes in open 
 
 26 
 
violation of the law. If the law is violated the Dominion 
 government, as a rule — well, in all cases, I think — has left 
 the enforcement of the law either to the aggrieved parties 
 of the dispute, who can bring action, or to the local gov- 
 ernment. 
 
 No large body of men has been put in jail for striking. 
 I believe some 100 or 110 coal miners in British Colombia 
 were imprisoned for a short time. One employer has been 
 fined for an illegal lockout and a number of union leaders 
 have been fined for advising or inciting a strike. In 
 those cases the fine is suspended and the leaders usually 
 cease their agitation. In Nova Scotia officers of the 
 United Mine Workers have been convicted, both in the 
 lower court and on appeal, for giving strike relief to mem- 
 bers of their organization who were striking against the 
 law. 
 
 A good many people in this country and a few in Can- 
 ada argue that unless the law is invariably enforced the 
 penalties are useless and that it would be better not to 
 have them. If you are to take the penalties out of the law 
 I think there would be very little opposition to it from 
 labor leaders in this country. However, even if the penal- 
 ties were enforced, neither side to a controversy vitally 
 atfecting the government dares openly to defy the law. 
 It puts too powerful a weapon in the hands of their op- 
 ponents and it prejudices their case too much in the court 
 of public opinion. There has been no great strike in 
 Canada in opposition to the law, and I think there never 
 will be. 
 
 It has been some years since I personally visited Can- 
 ada for the express purpose of investigating this legisla- 
 tion. Incidentally, I made a few inquiries while on a vaca- 
 tion trip last summer, but they were not of a kind to cover 
 the field. When I was there I went through all the 
 provinces two years in succession to study this question 
 and found the general public and practically all employers 
 backing up the law with very little reservation. It seemed 
 to me from the number of working people I interviewed 
 that the mass of the rank and file of workers favored the 
 
 27 
 
law. There was some opposition from miion officials. 
 That opposition was more marked in case of the inter- 
 national unions than in case of the Canadian unions. It 
 is very natural for the executives of the United Mine 
 Workers and the Federation of Miners, the Western Fed- 
 eration of Miners, and for the great railway brotherhoods 
 over here on this side of the border to oppose a law that 
 makes necessary a definite kind of negotiation in case of 
 a prospective strike or any effort to establish a certain 
 wage scale on both sides of the border. Of course, the 
 Canadian law makes it practically impossible for these 
 organizations to call a sympathetic strike in Canada to 
 enforce a demand on this side of the border. 
 
 I think my time will allow me, and perhaps I will go 
 more into detail if there are no objections. I am simply 
 speaking now of conditions of sentiment as I found it. 
 There was not any outspoken criticism of the law. In 
 1910 the original act was amended. At that time the 
 Minister of Labor read letters in Parliament — which yon 
 will find in the American Hansard for 1910 — ^he read 
 letters from the representatives, from the brotherhood of 
 locomotive engineers, the railway trainmen, of main- 
 tenance of way employees and from the order of railway 
 telegraphers; all commending the existing law and the 
 proposed amendment. The president of the brotherhood 
 of maintenance of way employees characterized the act 
 as *^one of the best pieces of legislation that has been 
 passed to my knowledge in the interest of industrial 
 peace. ' ' In 1912 Sir George Ashcliffe investigated this law 
 for the British Board of Trade. He was selected to make 
 this investigation because he had had a wide experience 
 as a councillor and arbitrator in Great Britain itself. He 
 was thoroughly familiar with the practical side of labor 
 arbitrations. In his report he says that the representa- 
 tives of railway labor in Canada appear to recognize that 
 the holding up of a railway system by a strike was a pro- 
 cedure justifiable only as a procedure of last resort, and 
 that it was due to the public that every possible step be 
 taken before recourse was had to a strike. The accep- 
 
 28 
 
tance of the theory that the public have a right to be in- 
 formed impartially on the merits of the question that 
 gravely threaten their welfare, and the spirit of the Dis- 
 putes Act has been so far adopted by those concerned with 
 the Canadian railway systems as to place the country in 
 almost as safe a condition against serious stoppage of 
 traffic as it is possible to reach. 
 
 This year the Trade and Labor Congress in Canada 
 passed a resolution asking for the repeal of the act. 
 There are two rival organizations in Canada, the Trade 
 and Labor Congress and the Canada Federation of Labor, 
 which is composed very largely, or perhaps entirely, of 
 all Canadian unions. The Canadian Federation of Labor 
 last year passed a resolution in support of the act. The 
 kernel of the labor hostility to the Canada law centers 
 around the prohibition of strikes, but a number of other 
 objections are made to its application in this country. 
 
 I want to emphasize the fact that the Canada Arbitra- 
 tion Law is not a compulsory arbitration act. Li boards ' 
 reports of labor meetings and in public discussions of this 
 question I have myself heard the law referred to re- 
 peatedly as a compulsory arbitration law. Of course, it 
 is no such thing. A compulsory arbitration law is a law 
 that compels parties to a dispute to submit their dispute 
 to a public tribunal and then to obey the award of that 
 tribunal for all time, and you can see from what I have 
 said that the Canadian law does neither one of these 
 things. They are compelled, it is true, to submit every 
 dispute, in a way, to a tribunal, but they are not com- 
 pelled to submit their dispute as if to arrive at a final 
 settlement. 
 
 The first objection to the Canadian law by our labor 
 leaders is that it is unconstitutional. I think the Presi- 
 dent probably disposed of that argument, so far as a 
 layman need treat of it, in his message to Congress. Per- 
 sonally I should feel as much opposed, and I think all of 
 you gentlemen would, as any labor leader, to establishing 
 compulsory servitude in this country, but a railway sig- 
 nalman cannot leave his duties in such a way as to en- 
 
 29 
 
danger life and property in transit. A sailor cannot 
 desert a vessel so as to endanger it during its voyage, or 
 even to prevent its completing its voyage. Labor unions 
 themselves limit the right of their members to accept 
 employment and to retain employment and to leave em- 
 ployment. Our labor laws, especially those relating to 
 women and children, condition the terms of employment 
 in many ways. We are constantly and increasingly hem- 
 ming around the working conditions of labor new limita- 
 tions. Now the Canadian law simply adds one more to 
 those limitations. It simply says, ^*If you accept employ- 
 ment on railways serving the general public on public 
 service railways, you may leave any time you please as 
 an individual, and individually you cannot be made a 
 slave, if you want to put it that way, but you cannot 
 organize to interrupt that traffic on those railways in 
 order to enforce a labor demand.'' Most of us know that 
 the demands last summer made by the railway brother- 
 hoods affected only a minority or a fraction of the mem- 
 bership of the brotherhoods. You know that one of the 
 objections to arbitrating the question was a fear felt by 
 the railways that they would have to submit to some out- 
 .side tribunal an eight-hour principle where they already 
 had attained it. Now, consequently, last summer the 
 brotherhoods organized and tried to enforce a demand 
 in which only a part of their members were personally in- 
 terested. That is certainly a different thing from regula- 
 ting the condition of employment of every individual on 
 the road. That is a different thing from the employees 
 being free to leave and accept employment as individuals. 
 However, the objections of labor leaders go further 
 than that, and many of them are probably very well taken. 
 Their objections to the arbitration boards established by 
 the Newlands Act apply with equal force to the boards as 
 at present constituted. They say, very properly I think, 
 that the workers are put to a very large expense to edu- 
 cate the neutral members of these boards in the ele- 
 mentary principles of railway operation. They have to 
 accumulate a lot of testimony; they have to lose a lot of 
 
 30 
 
time to inform the chairmen of the boards, who are men 
 perhaps in private life, and who know very little of run- 
 ning railways ; to inform those men upon the elementary 
 questions that are not a part of the negotiations with the 
 employers. They don't have to take into account at all 
 things that are matters of common knowledge. Then, as 
 a natural result of that, they often pronounce unworkable 
 awards. The Canadian boards cease to exist as soon as 
 they have made a settlement of a dispute or reported a 
 finding. That leaves the application of the agreement 
 that ends the dispute entirely in the hands of the railway 
 managers, and the workers complain, probably with jus- 
 tice, that this is very much as if a judge in a law suit left 
 the enforcement of the decision entirely with one of the 
 parties to the law suit. These objections, based on ex- 
 perience with arbitration boards in this country, have 
 prejudiced our labor unions against the Canadian Act, 
 and if any legislation along that line is adopted in this 
 country those difficulties should be overcome so far as 
 possible. 
 
 A few weeks ago I was present at a meeting of the com- 
 mittee of the Civic Federation to consider this legislation, 
 at which the heads of four of the largest of the brother- 
 hoods were present. They seemed favorable to the estab- 
 lishment of a commission or a committee, possibly as part 
 of the Interstate Commerce Commission, consisting of 
 men having a practical knowledge of railway operations ; 
 perhaps containing former railway managers, if they 
 could be procured and if the government would pay a 
 high enough salary to get such men on a board, to investi- 
 gate the grounds of labor controversies on railways and to 
 report a finding. Such a board ought to have the same 
 powers of summoning witnesses and of taking testimony 
 under oath, and so forth, that the Canadian Industrial 
 Disputes Boards have, but they would not need to use that 
 power to the same extent. They would not have to take so 
 much testimony, because they would already know a great 
 many things that any temporary board could not possibly 
 know — at least the Federal members could not know. 
 
 31 
 
However, the brotherhood representatives were opposed 
 to giving this board power in such a way as to make 
 strikes illegal during the investigation. Their objection to 
 making strikes illegal is that there is a psychological 
 moment for striking. They say a strike is like the assault 
 of an army corps. Unless it is made at just the right 
 moment its chances of success are very greatly impaired. 
 However, it would be impossible at the present time for 
 the railway brotherhoods to prepare for a strike without 
 giving their employees long notice beforehand of their in- 
 tention. They would have to procure authorization to 
 strike through a referendum. We know that last summer 
 as early as May or June people at all familiar with the 
 negotiations between the railways and the government 
 knew that a strike was impending, and I am informed that 
 the President of the United States several weeks before 
 the actual crisis had virtually prepared his message for 
 Congress. I have that on the authority of Judge Cham- 
 bers, who was present when that part of the message was 
 prepared. 
 
 In the case of a great railway strike or a great railway 
 dispute it is practically impossible to have a sudden 
 strike, and if the authority of a wage commission or of an 
 investigation board is limited to railways engaged in 
 interstate commerce, personally I see no great disadvan- 
 tage to labor in the legal penalties. r 
 
 Another constructive suggestion has been made in re- 
 gard to compulsory investigation, that a bureau be estab- 
 lished, a statistical bureau probably, as part of the Inter- 
 state Commerce Commission, gathering data that would 
 be pertinent to labor disputes; and gathering that data 
 continuously so that the material would always be at 
 hand. You probably know, many of you, that the railway 
 associations of the three great districts of the United 
 States have their statistical bureaus constantly gathering 
 material of this kind, and that the brotherhoods have their 
 own statistical agents in Washington who are collecting 
 data to use in future disputes, for both of these organi- 
 zations are partisan agencies, and the presentations they 
 
 3^ 
 
make of this material are avowedly partisan presenta- 
 tions. It has been suggested that if the government would 
 take over this department and have a statistician of 
 repute, an unbiased statistician, at its head with two as- 
 sistants, one appointed by the railroad interests and the 
 other by organized labor, and such a group of agents and 
 inspectors as they might need, it would be possible to get 
 these representatives of these two sides and the Federal 
 statistician to unite on mere statements of facts covering 
 a very large share of the controversial statistical material 
 presented and thus greatly economize the labor of settling 
 disputes. Those are the two principal constructive sug- 
 gestions that have been made with reference to such a law 
 as the Canadian Act if it were adopted in this country. 
 
 However, there are one or two other features of the 
 Canadian law that are objectionable from a labor point 
 of view, and probably equally objectionable from the 
 point of view of the employers. The Canadian Labor 
 Ministry has adopted the policy of artificially separating 
 railway disputes so as to limit them to particular systems. 
 In this country, you know, twenty or thirty years ago 
 strikes and labor controversies for the most part were 
 limited to a single railway line of a single railway system, 
 that since the passage of the Erdman Act they have been 
 mainly confined to the great districts, the northern, the 
 southern and the southwestern districts. Last summer 
 not only did we have the prospect of a railroad strike, but 
 the terms were made for including all the railways of the 
 United States. That is the tendency of voluntary labor 
 negotiations. That is a tendency that it is probably 
 unwise to rage against. 
 
 Now the railway leaders are afraid that if a law were 
 enacted the Administration might require them to sepa- 
 rate their dispute and require them to have twenty or 
 thirty hearings, where one hearing might do. The policy 
 of joining these disputes into a single controversy and 
 handling them all at once seems to me a very wise one 
 and one in which the Canadian bar is in error. It cer- 
 tainly makes a great deal more work for the government 
 
 33 
 
tribunals. The Canadian practice leads to unequal con- 
 ditions of employment in districts where the wages and 
 hours of labor should be the same. It also causes dif- 
 ferent conditions of employment to exist on the same 
 systems wherever they cross the international boundary. 
 Of course, as you know, the Grand Trunk, the Canadian 
 Pacific, the Great Northern and other railways operate 
 on both sides of the border. Now, it might be wise if 
 legislation is adopted upon the Canadian lines to provide 
 for joint sessions of Canadian ordinance boards and joint 
 findings in disputes that cross the border. By joining 
 these disputes, by having them apply to large systems 
 instead of single systems, one of the main objections of 
 the workingman might be overcome. 
 
 The first criticism of the Canadian Act that you hear 
 from labor officials in Canada who are opposed to it is 
 that it enables strikebreakers to be imported and prepara- 
 tion made for a conflict. Of course, it also allows the 
 union to perfect their organization. But where a contro- 
 versy covers a whole district of the country or the whole 
 United States it is impossible for employers to import 
 strikebreakers. Our contract labor laws do not permit 
 workmen to be brought over, and they do not exist in suf- 
 ficient numbers in this country. Consequently the objec- 
 tion that by postponing a strike or the ability or the right 
 to strike an injustice is done to labor in the United States 
 is very largely without foundation. 
 
 I presume there are a good many other points that a 
 professional labor man or a professional railway man 
 would suggest and many other difficulties in connection 
 with this law. That controversies between labor and capi- 
 tal on the railways have been settled so well as they have 
 in the last twenty-two years is due in part because so 
 many of our railway managers are themselves ex-mem- 
 bers of the railway brotherhoods. Mr. Willard of the 
 Baltimore & Ohio, who has figured so prominently in the 
 last dispute, I believe is a former member of the brother- 
 hood of locomotive engineers. 
 
 I remember some time ago of meeting one of the arbi- 
 
 34 
 
trators in a controversy who told me that he was talking 
 with the manager w^ho w^as representing the railways and 
 found that he was a former locomotive engineer. The 
 arbitrator told how he remarked that he supposed the 
 manager also was a former member of the brotherhood 
 of locomotive engineers. The manager smiled and said, 
 ''I never joined, and I will tell yon why. When I was 
 promoted to be an engineer I was, of course, a member 
 of the brotherhood of locomotive firemen.'' He said: 
 "I had such a grudge against the locomotive engineers 
 that I vowed that I would never join the order." 
 
 There is a great deal of advantage in having the dis- 
 putes on railways adjusted so far as possible by men who 
 know so intimately — by railway managers who know so 
 intimately at first hand — the sentiments and* feelings of 
 the workers whom they employ, and in the settlement of 
 railway troubles in this country it seems to me that so 
 far as possible effort should be made to utilize the expe- 
 rience of men of this type, and arbitration boards should 
 intervene only as a last resort. (Applause.) 
 
 Chairman McCall: Gentlemen, the next speaker is Mr. 
 John F. Tobin, president of the Boot and Shoe Workers' 
 Union, who has a great practical knowledge of the ques- 
 tions relating to labor and who is able to discuss them 
 very intelligently and fairly. He will speak upon the sub- 
 ject of labor problems. 
 
 Mr. John F. Tobin: Your Excellency and gentlemen of 
 the State Board of Trade : I think about the only qualifi- 
 cations that I can advance as a student of railway prob- 
 lems is that I have in my time owned a baby carriage and 
 a wheelbarrow. That is as near as I have ever come to 
 having any knowledge of railroad business, and I was at 
 a loss when Mr. Whitcher, the president of your associa- 
 tion, mentioned to me that he had been asked a questio;ii 
 as to what a shoe worker knows about railroad transpor- 
 tation problems. 
 
 I take it that the labor problem as applied to railroads 
 
 35 
 
does not differ materially from the problems that we have 
 in shoe manufacturing or in employment of any kind. 
 Our problem is the problem of the human relations be- 
 tween the employer and the employee, and that applies in 
 every activity in life. I was interested when I heard that 
 Dr. Clark was going to discuss the Canadian Act and 
 commonly known to workingmen as the Lemieux Act. If 
 I were a lover of warfare I should have licked my chops 
 in anticipation of disagreeing with Dr. Clark. I find 
 that he does not endorse enthusiastically the doctrine of 
 compulsory investigation or compulsory arbitration. He 
 comes nearer endorsing compulsory investigation than 
 he does compulsory arbitration. 
 
 Now there are good and sufficient reasons from the 
 workingman's point of view why compulsory investign- 
 tion and compulsory arbitration are objectionable. I call 
 your attention to some things with which you are familiar 
 which have occurred very recently. When this railway 
 brotherhood strike was impending about six hundred 
 delegates were in convention in New York. The strike 
 was almost a certainty. The President of the United 
 States summoned the delegates to Washington for the 
 purposes of conference with him, and then between him 
 and the railroad managers. They went to Washington 
 and were there several days, and then you will remember 
 that suddenly the six hundred delegates went to their 
 respective homes, and I discovered while in Baltimore a 
 few weeks ago while attending a meeting of the American 
 Federation of Labor, where the four brotherhood chiefs 
 appeared, why they were sent home. It developed that 
 in the negotiations and discussions of their problems in 
 Washington that the railroad interests were arranging 
 their affairs in such a way as to make a strike, if one 
 occurred, ineffectual. In other words, the railroad man- 
 agements were taking advantage of the fact that the 
 railroad brotherhood leaders were absent from their 
 posts and they were arranging their affairs to make any 
 strike abortive. As soon as that was discovered the rail- 
 road brotherhood chiefs who were then in Washington 
 
 36 
 
arranged a code message and then departed from there 
 to their homes. And I learned how and why this code 
 message was arranged. The brotherhood heads were to 
 remain in Washington to avoid the possibility of having 
 telegrams sent out saying that the strike was off and a 
 settlement was reached, so that the men wonld probably 
 go back to work on the strength of the forged telegrams, 
 and complications arose which made it impossible to 
 make a strike effective. This same method was being 
 practiced and the railroad heads conferred and went to 
 their homes, leaving the brotherhood chiefs engaged in 
 Washington for the settlement of the difficulty. 
 
 There is a common sentiment that the railroad brother- 
 hoods demanded the eight-hour law from the President 
 and he was obliged to yield that to them in order to avert 
 the great calamity which would befall the nation, and 
 especially the political party of which he was the head. 
 Let me tell you that nothing can be further from the truth. 
 The railroad brotherhoods did not feel and did not want, 
 nor did not demand, the eight-hour day from President 
 Wilson. They do not want the eight-hour day by legisla- 
 tion, and organized labor does not want the eight-hour 
 day by legislation, because they know that this legislation 
 might easily be followed by a change of administration, 
 and it has occurred from time to time, and one legislature 
 might enact the eight-hour day and another legislature 
 the next year might reverse that and increase the hours. 
 If you subscribe to the principle of the eight-hour day 
 you also subscribe to the adoption of a ten or twelve hour 
 day in a case of emergency or in case of a change of their 
 views. There is a psychological moment when a strike 
 may be effective, but if you allow that psychological mo- 
 ment to pass and subscribe to an investigation and the 
 period of time during that investigation is consumed by 
 the employer in preparing to make that strike abortive, 
 then you see the disadvantage to which the employees 
 are put. There is no corresponding disadvantage to the 
 employer, and any proposition which you have to con- 
 sider which involves relations between employee and 
 
 37 
 
employer and which does not give exact measure for 
 measure is going to be faulty and productive of disaster 
 in the long run. 
 
 That is the trouble with the Lemieux Act. It is not 
 workable and is impracticable. The Canadian Act does 
 not compel any obedience to a finding of a board. The 
 case in Ontario recently was a case of the employers re- 
 fusing to comply with the act, and in the case of the 
 Quebec miners, and there were five coal mining companies 
 involved in that, and they failed to agree upon a member 
 of the board of investigation and no investigation took 
 place. The dispute continued with great and disastrous 
 results. It is absolutely a faulty proposition, and the 
 Canadian Trades and Labor Congress has gone on record 
 as favoring the repeal of the law. 
 
 Dr. Clark made mention of that fact and stated that 
 the other organization was heartily in favor of the law. 
 The Canadian Trades and Labor Congress is to Canada 
 what the American Federation of Labor is on this side of 
 the line. The other organization is but a primary organi- 
 zation, of interest to employers largely, and confining its 
 operations almost entirely to the city of Quebec. They 
 are just a mere handful that holds the name of the Cana- 
 dian Federation of Labor, as distinct from the interna- 
 tional movement. The Canadian Trades and Labor Con- 
 gress is international in its character, and they have a 
 right and do speak for the workers of Canada, organized 
 and unorganized. 
 
 Now why do I say that they speak for the labor men of 
 Canada, organized and unorganized? I say that because 
 they have the best right to speak for the unorganized 
 workers of Canada. I ask you who has a better right to 
 speak for the unorganized workers than the organized 
 workers? Certainly, employers should not be classed as 
 having the right to speak for the unorganized workers. 
 Certainly, the judges and lawyers, nor even the clergy, 
 have a right to speak for the unorganized workers of 
 either Canada or the United States. They have not got 
 their viewpoint, and do not know it and could not possibly 
 
 38 
 
acquire it. Henc'e the ones who are best qualified to speak 
 for the unorganized workers are the organized workers. 
 
 Now why should the organized workers speak for the 
 unorganized workers? Because the whole future of the 
 organized labor movement depends upon the attitude of 
 the unorganized workers. They have as much to fear 
 from the unorganized workers as the employer has. The 
 greatest source of unrest in this country comes from the 
 unorganized workers that are the victims of designing 
 persons who lead them into unwise action and frequently 
 disastrous strikes have occurred, as in the city of Law- 
 rence and in many cities of this country. That is the 
 danger from which the organized labor movement suffers 
 as well as the general public. 
 
 Now we hear about the inconvenience that is thrown 
 upon the general public. Now who is the general public. 
 I remember very distinctly when we had the great coal 
 strike here a few years ago when Mr. Eoosevelt was Pres- 
 ident. Mr. Baer, president of the Eeading Railroad Com- 
 pany, was a large owner of anthracite coal mines in Penn- 
 sylvania, and he is famous for having said that they were 
 the God-given custodians of the mines, and by reason of 
 that they should determine the wages and conditions 
 under which the miners should work. Our government is 
 now engaged in the task of separating this God-given 
 custodianship from the railroads, regardless of Mr. 
 Baer's proclamation, and I think properly so. I think 
 this ownership of tlie railroad and the mines combined 
 has some relation to the price of twelve-dollar coal. If 
 we had labor organizations hooked up on lines of that 
 kind you would have every reason to offer serious criti- 
 cism and complaint against our method of managing af- 
 fairs, but fortunately we are not in that position, and I 
 want you to understand that I am one of those who is 
 opposed to giving to labor unnecessary power to impose 
 its dictum on the general public or upon the employer. It 
 is not healthful. It is not for the best interest of the 
 workers themselves that they should become intoxicated 
 with power. 
 
 39 
 
What is one of the greatest difficulties that the organ- 
 ized labor man has to contend with! What has been my 
 greatest problem in twenty-one year of experience? To 
 hold in control the raw recruits, the new members of the 
 organization, and the big problems of labor in this coun- 
 try are being faced by the organized crafts that are deal- 
 ing with raw material that goes into the organization of 
 yesterday, with their accumulated grievances of years, 
 and they come in to-day and expect that all the years* 
 accumulation of grievances must be redressed, or to-mor- 
 row morning at nine they will strike. Now an ultimatum 
 of that kind is utterly destructive to the peace of the em- 
 ployers themselves. I very frequently make mention of 
 this to our organizers who organize various industries, 
 and I often ask a man who has succeeded in organizing 
 a body of men this question: *^Have you presented a bill 
 of wages yetr* And oftentimes he answers quite se- 
 riously: **No; but we have one prepared.'* We have got 
 to handle a problem of that kind with great delicacy and 
 care. Members of a union will come to me and say: '^I 
 don't see as our condition has bettered any since we 
 joined the union.'* And after they are told that they 
 have been in the union only forty-eight hours they will 
 ask, **What did we join the union for? What do we pay 
 twenty-five cents dues for?" And they draw it out and 
 it looks like twenty-five dollars. I frequently say that 
 labor organizations return to their membership a very 
 much larger percentage than you get from the average 
 bank, and if they did not they would not very long exist. 
 
 Now in reference to compulsory arbitration and com- 
 pulsory investigation. Compulsory arbitration implies in 
 its essence compulsory servitude. You m^y sugar cover 
 it any way you like. It means compulsory servitude. The 
 excuse for compulsory arbitration is to protect the public 
 against the inconvenience that would be upon it if a gen- 
 eral strike of railway employees should take place. Well, 
 now, I started to tell you my experience in the coal strike. 
 I was out on one of my long Western trips and I got home 
 after seven weeks' absence in the month of November, 
 
 40 
 
and it was extremely cold. I found my family of little 
 ones without a piece of coal in the house, without anything 
 in the shape of fuel, and I had to do some hustling before 
 I got in anything at all. Finally I got some soft coal 
 which coked in the furnace and caused an explosion. If 
 I was asked to-day because of the inconvenience and suf- 
 fering of my family and myself would I subscribe to com- 
 pulsory arbitration I would say ^^ No,'' most emphatically, 
 because when I exchange my convenience for the sacrifice 
 of liberty I have paid too high a price for my convenience, 
 and I am not willing to pay it, and the working people of 
 this country will not subscribe to compulsory servitude 
 under the guise of compulsory arbitration. There is a 
 better and more practical way. 
 
 Dr. Clark has told you of the number of strikes that 
 have occurred under the Lemieux Act. He told you the 
 limitations of the Lemieux Act, but perhaps was not 
 familiar with the fact that it extends to almost everything 
 now. It extends to shoe manufacturing, clothing manu- 
 facturing, harness manufacturing, saddlery, and all kinds 
 of work of that kind and to all business which has any- 
 thing to do with the army. It extends that way. 
 
 Now what has been our experience in the operation of 
 the Lemieux Act in the shoe trade! Under the Lemieux 
 Act there can be no stoppage of work pending this ap- 
 pointment of an investigation commission. The investi- 
 gation commission is appointed. It continues and it is 
 weeks and months before they reach a conclusion, and 
 when they are ready to hand down their award the con- 
 tract has been completed and the award is absolutely of 
 no benefit to the workers at all. Is it any wonder that the 
 Canadian workmen are dissatisfied with the Lemieux 
 Act 1 That is the way it has worked. 
 
 Now as to my plan ; the plan which we have worked out 
 in the shoe trade. Do you know we have practically elim- 
 inated strikes in the shoe trades? You hear of strikes, 
 but they are of the unorganized variety. We are a strike 
 organization if necessary, and we have provision for it. 
 We have strike benefits and have accumulated large funds 
 
 41 
 
for defensive purposes, but we spend one hundred thou- 
 sand dollars a year for sick and death benefits and less 
 than a thousand dollars a year for strike benefits. "We 
 have factories that are operating under our contract, and 
 have been for twenty years, without the slightest inter- 
 ruption throughout the entire United States and Canada 
 since 1898. In the Dominion of Canada, where the 
 Lemieux Act is in force we have not had a single strike. 
 We have operated there continuously for the past fifteen 
 years, in which both parties to a dispute select one to rep- 
 resent th)©m, and the two select a third. They naturally 
 select men who are familiar with the shoe trade. They se- 
 lect a third, who is considered a fair and impartial umpire. 
 They gather up- the facts and they render their decision. 
 We are obliged to accept the decision. We have had very 
 few cases of arbitration in Canada. W^e are able to settle 
 our disputes by sitting down and discussing the evidence 
 based upon the facts. Brown pays so much a pair for 
 doing this operation and Jones so much, and we are will- 
 ing to pay what anybody else is paying, giving due allow- 
 ance for the amount of work and the system under which 
 it is done, and we have been able to maintain comparative 
 peace and at the same time, which is very valuable, com- 
 parative freedom of the workers in the factory. I do not 
 mean by that freedom to abuse the employer, freedom to 
 act in an arbitrary and unreasonable way. We have a 
 rule that members are not permitted to assume the func- 
 tions of the association as individuals. The employer's 
 right is recognized to hire and fire, and is not violated 
 except in cases where discrimination is shown union mem- 
 bers. 
 
 When our members used to say to us, as they did in the 
 earlier days, but very seldom mention it now, *'Why do 
 you yield to the employer the right to discharge em- 
 ployees T' we would reply that **we do it because we want 
 to preserve your right to quit. ' ' ^ ^Do you think that is an 
 equivalent right?" I say it is of more value to you to be 
 able to quit when you want to than it is for the employer 
 to be able to discharge you, because when you are earning 
 
 42 
 
fifteen dollars and you are offered twenty you would think 
 that you were badly treated because the union did not 
 allow you to leave your fifteen-dollar job and accept the 
 twenty. It was a difficult thing for our people to get to 
 understand that at first, but now they never question it. 
 
 We also have a rule that no person or persons shall con- 
 spire with another to quit work for the purpose of en- 
 forcing any demand upon the employer, and he shall not 
 then say that it is in the exercise of his right to quit as 
 an individual. They sometimes have attempted to do that 
 and have carried such a threat into effect, but we meet 
 such a situation by saying that you are fined five dollars 
 and discharged. In other words, we provide for the con- 
 tinuous operation of the factory without interference 
 from the workmen, who believe that they can best ad- 
 judicate their wrongs through the union. We have some 
 people of that kind and we deal with them in that way. 
 
 Some people say this is compulsory servitude. We say 
 '^No.'' They enter into this action voluntarily. It is a 
 voluntary act. All persons are free to quit work any time 
 they want to without a single moment's notice. They 
 are protected individually, and why! Because in the long 
 run that is the best protection for them and for the em- 
 ployer. I do not hesitate to say that in our union factories 
 operating under our contracts the wages are the very 
 highest in the shoe trade. I also make alongside of that 
 statement this other statement that, while the wages are 
 liigher, the profits to the employer are also higher and 
 more secure. The employer has the advantage of being 
 able to produce continuously, to fill his orders on time 
 when he has promised them, and there is no interruption 
 from the beginning of the year to the end because of labor 
 disputes. That furnishes a splendid avenue through 
 which increased profits flow, and we say **give us our por- 
 tion of this.'* 
 
 What is our portion? Our portion is what the competi- 
 tive rate in'the shoe trade warrants, plus the advantages 
 which you have because you are free from labor disputes, 
 and we get concessions from employers that unorganized 
 
 43 
 
employers do not yield to the unorganized shoe workers. 
 Now, this leads us to the broader consideration of the 
 railway problem. It leads also into other lines of 
 industry. There is nothing in the world to hinder rela- 
 tions of that kind being established between all em- 
 ployers and their workmen — nothing in the world! It 
 would mean to some employers an internal revolution of 
 their preconceived notion of their mission in life — to be 
 the custodians of the interests and welfare of their em- 
 ployees. There are many well-meaning employers that 
 have that viewpoint. There are men who have an ulterior 
 motive in setting up that position, and they will expatiate 
 with great glee of the things that they have done for their 
 workers and then advertise themselves in the public press 
 because of what they are doing for their employees in the 
 way of building swimming pools, tennis courts, libraries, 
 gymnasiums and many other things. If employers gen- 
 erally could see inside of the mind of the average worker 
 they would not feel so much pride in their welfare 
 schemes, and I have only got to call their attention to 
 this phase of the question : How many employers do you 
 know of who practice welfare work who would permit 
 their employees to impose welfare activities upon them! 
 If a swimming pool and a library and a gymnasium and 
 a lot of other things that certainly concerns them are 
 good for the workers in the works, what is the objection 
 against the same thing being provided for the employer! 
 Perhaps the employer will say, ^'Oh, I have no need of 
 them; I have them in my home.'' Well, if it is so that 
 indicates the difference between his position and the em- 
 ployee. Is there any good reason why a bathroom should 
 not be provided in any worker's house, from the stand- 
 point of public health, cleanliness and right? If the em- 
 ployer has a library in his own house why don't you pro- 
 vide the necessary wages so that the workman can also 
 have a modest library in his house! You charge him with 
 ignorance and you contribute to his ignorance by with- 
 holding from him the necessary means to remedy that 
 condition. I know of employers that would absolutely 
 
 44 
 
resent and throw back in the face of their employees if 
 the employees subscribed and furnished it to the em- 
 ployer ; if they undertook to set up a swimming pool or a 
 tennis court, so that they might conserve his health, so 
 that he might be an employer for many years, he would 
 resent that. (Laughter.) And if the employees should 
 select a physician and say, ^^You ought to be carefully 
 looked after, and we will provide for you a physician witli- 
 out expense, '^ how many employers would stand for it! 
 They would say, *'That is different." A gentleman was 
 telling me about the benefits of his welfare system and he 
 said, ^^I have a physician who looks after the welfare of 
 the employees all the time that my factory is running, and 
 I am going to extend that work to care for the wives and 
 families of my employees." ^^What is the name of 
 your physician?" I asked. "Dr. So and So." "And 
 what is the name of your employees^ physician?" "Dr. 
 So and So," mentioning a man of another name. It oc- 
 curred to me that if his physician was good enough for 
 him he ought to be good enough for his help. 
 
 Now I call your attention to these things for the pur- 
 pose of trying to draw your minds into the right channel 
 as employers of labor, speaking generally; not to you in 
 particular, but to employers of labor. The first necessary 
 thing for them is to get the viewpoint of the worker, and 
 after you have gotten the viewpoint of the worker stop 
 right there and attend to your own viewpoint, let the 
 worker look after his viewpoint, and if you get him to 
 depend upon himself he will look after his viewpoint 
 without the necessity of your assistance. He will make 
 mistakes, a lot of them, but the mistakes will lead him 
 eventually and finally into the right channel. Do not 
 waste your time in looking after the welfare of your em- 
 ployees. Convert all this welfare activity into a little 
 advance in wages. Give them something every week, not 
 once a year in the shape of a bonus, or a bathtub, or tennis 
 court, or gymnasium, which many of them don't like and 
 never use, because they don't like them. (Laughter.) 
 
 I know some people who curry favor with the employer 
 
 45 
 
subscribe to those things, just as some people subscribe to 
 the Lemieux Act in Canada. I have known employers to 
 write resolutions of commendation of an employer's good- 
 ness to his workers and his generosity, hand to some par- 
 ticular employee and have it published as the spontaneous 
 act and expression of gratitude to the employer. Do you 
 suppose that those things are calculated to inspire a 
 proper respect for the employer? Not at all. It makes 
 such employees easy food for the demagogue who comes 
 along and bellows upon the rights of labor. ^'Eise up, 
 men, and rebel against your chains Throw them oif and 
 follow me!'' 
 
 The legitimate organizations are on guard every min- 
 ute, guarding you and the general public against that kind 
 of thing. The labor man is not dangerous, is not in 
 defiance of the courts, but he very frequently expresses 
 himself very strongly on some of the decisions of the 
 courts. To give you an example ; just one, because I do 
 not want to take much more time. A recent strike oc- 
 curred on one of the railroads in our good old Common- 
 wealth and, as you know, there is a law which provides 
 that where a strike exists and an employer advertises for 
 help he must state that there is a strike in progress. If 
 he fails he is amenable to the law. This particular rail- 
 road was haled into court because they had violated the 
 law in that way. They came before the judge and the 
 defendant's lawyer pleaded that there was no strike 
 within the meaning of the law. The judge decided that 
 there was no strike within the meaning of the law because 
 it was not accompanied by violence. Then you blame 
 workingmen because they go on strike, and then in order 
 to make it a strike they commit some breach of law in 
 order to make that a legal strike within the meaning of 
 the law. 
 
 I mention this as an instance as to how the law is ad- 
 ministered on the bench. It is no wonder then that you 
 find labor men who are not quite in accord and sympathy 
 with court decisions — with a great many others that I 
 might cite along the same lines. 
 
 46 
 
Now you want to know what you are going to do. Many 
 of the workers who are now unorganized are unorganized 
 because the employers have made diligent effort to pre- 
 vent their being organized. They spend thousands upon 
 thousands of dollars every year in keeping a system of 
 spies in their works to report and prevent organization. 
 Wasted money ! They get reports that do not contain a 
 thread of truth in many cases, because those detective 
 agencies are interested in continuing their employment 
 and they must furnish information which convinces the 
 employer that their services are valuable. 
 
 The best way to solve the labor problem from the em- 
 ployers^ point of view is for them to come out flat-footed 
 and recognize the human right of their workers to be 
 represented by and through their organization. No mat- 
 ter how mismanaged at the beginning! Experience and 
 direct dealing with them across the table over the prob- 
 lems that come up in your works, making them responsible 
 to the general public for what they do, is the best preser- 
 vation of the welfare and convenience of the public that 
 I know of. Instead of compulsory arbitration I would 
 say, compulsory organization. Compulsory organization 
 will establish the machinery by which negotiations can be 
 carried on. 
 
 We heard a great deal during this railroad squabble 
 about the enormous wages the brotherhoods were receiv- 
 ing as compared with other branches of the railways in- 
 terested. They got those wages because of this organiza- 
 tion. Instead of that being an argument against the 
 brotherhood it was an argument in their favor and a 
 suggestion for them to organize. They only secured those 
 wages because of organization. 
 
 Now let the other branches of the trades be organized. 
 Let it be a compulsion to organize and to have representa- 
 tion to deal with such cases, and let them pay a reasonable 
 wage, based upon the cost of living, cost of competing 
 employment and every other element that may enter into 
 the problem. Abandon entirely any suggestion of com- 
 pulsory servitude, and I think you have made a long step 
 
 47 
 
in putting ns where we belong, in advance of all the 
 nations on top of the earth. We have the driving power ; 
 we have the efficiency; and the duty we owe to ourselves 
 and nation is not to drive beyond the speed of an ordinary 
 man, the average man. 
 
 This talk of efficiency and of the arguments made in 
 favor of efficiency means in its final analysis that one man 
 will do all the work and everybody else will be idle. That 
 is its logical conclusion, no matter how you reason it out. 
 It means that five hundred men can do the work of a thou- 
 sand by increasing the size of the shovel. 
 
 The arduous labors in many industries make it impos- 
 sible for every man to be physically perfect. Many em- 
 ployees are physically weak, and we must provide for 
 them through employment or through charity. They have 
 got to live, and if we devote ourselves to finding more em- 
 ployment at higher wages for shorter hours to make 
 everybody able to consume more products from more 
 factories, that is what means progress. 
 
 There is nothing measures the prosperity of the coun- 
 try more than when everybody is employed. When every- 
 body is out of employment or nearly everybody we have 
 a condition of panic, and everybody is down in the mouth. 
 Now let us build up a condition which makes not for 
 greater production, for more wages for a few, but greater 
 production for a larger number working more leisurely 
 and shorter hours, so that everybody can enjoy and have 
 an opportunity to enjoy the good things of life. I do not 
 believe the Creator intended us on this earth to work at 
 top speed through long hours that some might roll in 
 luxury and idleness. It would make it unnecessary for 
 me to have the job that I have had for twenty-one years. 
 
 Some of our members have said that I have never 
 worked for twenty-one years. But I have worked, and 
 I know what it is, and I became at one time one of the 
 speed merchants, as they call them. I set myself out to 
 get the reputation and I got it. I did turn out an 
 enormous amount of work. It was followed very shortly 
 by a suggestion that there should be a readjustment of 
 
 48 
 
wages, which convinced the employer after I again 
 speeded up that he was right, only with the exception that 
 he did not take off enough at first. (Laughter.) All at 
 once I woke .up and said, ' ' I am not going to do this any 
 more.'^ And I said a fair day's work is about twenty-one 
 dollars a week, and you could not drive me beyond that 
 possibly, and that stopped the reduction in wages. 
 
 We have in this country a very large element of farm 
 workers that have been under the lash for so many years 
 that they are the easy prey for designing employers who 
 impose upon them and add to their burdens. Those 
 fellows are not as ignorant as we believe they are. Those 
 gentlemen are going to make in this country a serious 
 situation unless we deal with the labor situation in an 
 intelligent way and do something. Every time an attempt 
 is made to destroy organized labor, organized labor 
 grows. Organized labor does not fear it at all, because 
 it emphasizes its need. 
 
 Now meet them on a common ground. That is the 
 essence of the whole subject. I thank you for your atten- 
 tion. 
 
 Member in the Audience : Are any questions in order ! 
 
 Chairman McCall : It is suggested by the President, Mr. 
 Whitcher, that that should be postponed until afterwards. 
 Mr. Fish desires to return to Boston on the 5.55 train, 
 and he has barely time now to make his speech. 
 
 The next speaker will be, gentlemen, Mr. Frederick P. 
 Fish, who is a distinguished lawyer, president of the 
 Massachusetts Commission on Education, president of 
 the National Industrial Conference Board, and he has had 
 a wide experience in industry as well as in his profession. 
 He will speak upon the value of our industries to the 
 public. 
 
 Mr. Frederick P. Fish : Your Excellency and gentlemen : 
 After the strong meat of the afternoon I am not sure but 
 that what I shall say is very mild and uninteresting, but if 
 
 49 
 
it in any degree serves to soothe the minds of the audience 
 before the dinner begins I shall be satisfied. 
 
 We live from day to day and almost all the time in such 
 a systematic and orderly fashion that we have to stop 
 and think before we realize the tremendous complexities 
 of the industrial agencies which are at work supplying to 
 us the things that we need. Here we are, a hundred mil- 
 lion people in this country, of all grades, classes and 
 characteristics, and yet although we live, some in the 
 cities, some in the country, some in the wilderness, under 
 all possible conditions, we all of us have the opportunity 
 to get substantially everything that we want, need or 
 wish, if we can pay for it, of course. It is available for 
 us, and it is available for us because the industries have 
 been so developed that production and distribution bring 
 to us everything for which there is a market. 
 
 And it is a really wonderful thought when you come to 
 analyze it, when you think what that means, and if you 
 will stop for a moment and think what has lead up to this 
 result I think you will feel a pride in the achievements of 
 the human race. It is not so many thousand years ago 
 that we were savages, and each man for himself, and now 
 see what is the situation ! 
 
 There are three general departments of industry. The 
 first is that which gets the raw material from the earth. 
 The miners, the agriculturists, the lumber men and the 
 fishermen are types of those who work to get the raw 
 materials. Another class is those who take these raw 
 materials and produce something from them that people 
 need, and, as we know, there are many hundreds of thou- 
 sands and millions of things produced. The third class is 
 the transportation class, the distributing class, of workers 
 which takes the raw material or the finished product, as 
 it may be, and carries it to the point where it is to be used 
 or consumed. In each and every one of those three classes 
 we have, as I say, the results of those thousands of years 
 of progress. 
 
 And in considering that progress there is one thought 
 that it seems to me must come more strongly to the minds 
 
 50 
 
than most of them together, and that is that while all this 
 time labor has been at work in one way or another to deal 
 with these raw materials, that during all this time there 
 has been that saving from production that is useful for 
 further production and which we call capital ; that labor 
 would have been fruitless, that capital would have been 
 ineffective if it had not been for the brains, the intelli- 
 gence, the imagination and the capacity of men who have 
 directed the operations of labor and capital in production. 
 
 That to me is a very striking thought, and if you will 
 stop for a moment you will see how important that 
 element has been, and yet it is one that is largely over- 
 looked. We hear of capital and of labor things that ought 
 not to be regarded as in the slightest degree antagonistic, 
 ])ut we rarely hear of the third element in the trinity, 
 which to my mind is the most important. That is, in the 
 methods of getting from the earth those things that we 
 Avant ; of the brains, the imagination and the intelligence 
 and the capacity of the men who have preceded us in this 
 world and of the men who are working to-day. 
 
 In the first place, the scientific men who have studied 
 pure science and have mastered its laws, found out how 
 those laws operate and how they may be applied; the 
 inventors and the discoverers who have taken the raw 
 materials of the earth and subjected them to the laws of 
 nature, who have invented the great contrivances by 
 which distribution is effected about us ; as compared with 
 fifty years ago that difference is marvelous. As com- 
 pared with one hundred years the difference is stu- 
 pendous. 
 
 Then come a class between that have contributed as 
 much, almost, as the discoverers, the inventors and the 
 scientific men to the wealth and success of our country 
 and the whole world. I refer now to the administrators, 
 the business men and the teachers who have organized the 
 methods ; who have utilized in practical form the discov- 
 eries and the laws that the scientific men have worked 
 out ; that have educated the laboring man who, as a labor- 
 ing man, has nothing except his muscle and his deftnesis 
 
 51 
 
of hand ; wlio have tramed the community in such a way 
 that everywhere there is that strong and definite co-opera- 
 tion leading to the great administrative efficiency of our 
 system of production and of distribution. 
 
 Now, gentlemen, I have taken the liberty of reminding 
 you of this situation of .which you, of course, all know, 
 because it seems to me that whenever we reflect upon it 
 that we ought to feel that the public as a whole, every 
 member of the public, should recognize the importance of 
 this great productive efficiency to which we have attained 
 and should respect the record of the past which has led 
 up to the present condition of things, and should recog- 
 nize the absolute necessity of dealing fairly and sympa- 
 thetically with the men who are now in business in this 
 country who have taken upon their shoulders not only the 
 burden of carrying out the aspirations and the activities 
 of our forefathers who were working in a relatively small 
 way and under very simple conditions, and doing the work 
 well enough for their time. 
 
 Not only have the men of to-day assumed that burden, 
 but their situation has been enormously complicated by 
 the tremendous changes that have come by the methods of 
 distribution and in the methods of work. Factory sys- 
 tems, the development of machinery, electricity in its 
 various applications is a great servant of man, and the 
 ten thousand other things we have among us the last fifty 
 years have made the work of the men of to-day infinitely 
 more difficult than that of their predecessors in the olden 
 times. 
 
 There is a feeling in the community of respect and 
 gratitude toward them, but during the last few years, as 
 President Wells has said, there has developed one other 
 feeling, one of hostility, and the time has come when that 
 feeling of hostility should be ended and that men — all of 
 us, those who directly produce, those who get by through 
 service like the lawyers, the doctors and the clergymen, 
 they themselves not being producers, the laborers and the 
 capitalists, and everybody else — should appreciate how 
 important it is that our industries should be promoted and 
 
 5^ 
 
that our industries cannot be promoted unless the men 
 who are conducting those industries are recognized as 
 sound and reputable public servants, as they are, taking 
 them generally. And unless the entire community get 
 behind them in their efforts to produce more efficiently 
 in order that there may be a larger product in the form of 
 wages to be hoarded, in order to be the basis for further 
 production and generally increase the wealth of the world 
 for the benefit of all the people in the world. 
 
 Now everybody is in the same boat in this matter. 
 Everybody must recognize the desirability of making our 
 business, our industries, as effective as possible, and in 
 the industries everybody should recognize that they have 
 the same common underlying interests — that is, that the 
 industries, large and small, should be promoted and 
 should be helped. 
 
 It is not so very long ago when it was very common to 
 charge the smaller manufacturers and tradesmen with 
 dishonest practices. The wooden nutmeg, putting sand 
 in sugar, and things of that sort. That has altogether 
 disappeared at the present time and trade to-day in the 
 smaller departments is conducted upon a high ethical 
 basis. It is not so very long ago, but later than the other 
 time, when great industries were charged with evils of 
 the most serious character, and they had evils which were 
 exaggerated, as were the evils of the small firms at an- 
 other period, and I am just as certain that there has been 
 the needed reform in the big business as there has been 
 in the methods of small business to which I have referred, 
 and that the time has come when it is the duty of every 
 man in the community to undertake to promote by giving 
 to the industries and the men in the industries that fair, 
 strong, sympathetic support to which they are entitled. 
 
 And as to you men who are in the industries, large and 
 small, it is of the utmost importance that you should pull 
 together to work for that result, for whatever there is in 
 this day and generation that is hostile to large business 
 is hostile to small business, and if the people are not 
 directed in such a way as to lead to fairness in their rela- 
 
 63 
 
tions with business, business will suffer and the people 
 will suffer, too. 
 
 Now there are two or three things to which I would like 
 to call specific attention. The anti-trust laws were aimed 
 at what was an undoubted evil. I think they failed to 
 meet the evil with which they were intended to deal and 
 that they brought about reactions through the business 
 systems which have been most unfortunate. It was an- 
 other instance where the dirty army blankets were thrown 
 into the geyser, and it is possible that they were cleaned, 
 but there were reactions which were never suspected and 
 which have done incalculable harm. And as to small 
 business, there has been legislation in regard to small 
 business ; this legislation which enforces the fixing of our 
 prices and the legislation which by means of the parcel 
 post is to a very large extent financing certain types of 
 mercantile establishments, such as the department store, 
 at the expense of the government, and which is so hostile 
 to the interest of the retail store throughout this country, 
 is another instance of legislation which, well intended, has 
 certainly resulted in harm. If the logic of development 
 means that the country store is to be sacrificed to the mail- 
 order house, well and good, but the government should 
 not have unconsciously got into a system where they were 
 practically financing the mail-order business by a system 
 of rebates. 
 
 I would call your attention to this one fact, that we 
 have many laws that are well intended, that are aimed at 
 a certain specific evil in business — I am confining myself 
 to business methods now — which when applied lead to 
 reactions, lead to consequences in other parts of our com- 
 plicated and difficult social system which were unexpected 
 and likely to be most destructive. 
 
 It is the fundamental duty, first, of the business men 
 acting suggestively; second, of the members of the com- 
 munity who wish well for the community, and thirdly, it 
 is the duty of the public to study these great questions 
 without prejudice ; to see that your legislators are prop- 
 erly instructed; that they approach the subject in the 
 
 54 
 
same spirit in which Mr. Wells approached it in his 
 paper, of benefiting the whole community, because, gentle- 
 men, unless business is prosperous there isn't the fund 
 for the development of the higher things of life and there 
 isn't the fund produced that will lead the gentlemen repre- 
 sented by the last speaker in getting what they want; 
 that is, an increased amount out of production. They 
 might theoretically get an increased share even if there 
 was not good business, but an increased share of a smaller 
 production is not nearly as good as an increased share of 
 a larger production such as we ought to work for and 
 for which we should all stand together to see that the law 
 and the public sentiment supported business, because it is 
 the industries in all forms which are the root of all things 
 of value in life. 
 
 There is one other thing I want to say a word about ; I 
 want to urge that you gentlemen co-operate with your- 
 selves and with the rest of the community as a recogni- 
 tion of the necessity of supporting the industries and at 
 the same time of supporting the underlying fabric of our 
 society. We are on the verge of a constitutional conven- 
 tion which is to be held next spring. In that convention 
 there will be prepared and submitted to the people amend- 
 ments to the Constitution which will be the organic law 
 under which we will live and our children will live for 
 many hundreds of years to come. Near as is the time 
 when you have got to go through the spasm of an election 
 and of a primary for the delegates to that convention, I 
 have only heard of one organization which has taken up 
 the matter of endeavoring to prepare the voters for the 
 tremendous responsibilities that will devolve on them 
 when they elect the three hundred and twenty members to 
 represent them. Every thought and every shade of opin- 
 ion of everybody in this Commonwealth ought to be repre- 
 sented, and I hope that they will be represented. But 
 there is nobody thinking about this great subject, and I 
 urge this association, and I urge the constituent associa- 
 tions and the individual men in those associations to sup- 
 port the industries and to support the social organization 
 
 55 
 
under which we live. And the way to go Into it is to have 
 every man study the questions tliat are coming to the 
 front in that convention ; to, first of all, go into his com- 
 munity and organize and pick out delegates to the con- 
 vention; men who are strong, who are honest, who are 
 able, who are capable, who are broad-minded. They will 
 have to have opinions and, as I have already said, prac- 
 tically all shades of opinion will be represented in that 
 convention. But keep out of that convention the man 
 who is so weak that he is willing to forfeit his convictions 
 for a threat. Keep out of the convention that type whom 
 you would not put in business. But pick out the good, 
 strong Massachusetts man who will do his duty; and with 
 the result as I hope that at the end of that convention we 
 may have a Constitution that will protect and promote 
 our business, so that every class in the community may 
 be better off in the affairs of this life, and one which will 
 be a safe and solid organization for our social fabric, 
 under which we may all live and with better results. 
 
 President Whitcher : Gentlemen, I know that I am carry- 
 ing out the wishes of this meeting when I extend to the 
 Governor our most hearty thanks for the effort he has 
 made in coming up here. Unfortunately, he was obliged 
 to leave on a recent train. I also thank the others who 
 have given us so much valuable information. 
 
 This meeting now stands adjourned until seven o'clock, 
 and I hope that you will all be here as promptly as pos- 
 sible to go on with the work. 
 
 7.00 P. M. SESSION 
 
 Chairman Frank W. Whitcher : The Chair wishes to make 
 two announcements liefore we go on with the work of the 
 evening. One is that the special train will leave at eleven 
 o 'clock, and if there are any who have not secured accom- 
 modations they should see Mr. Lund, who is in the rear 
 of the room. You may arrange for them now and the 
 
 56 
 
Chair will wait for a moment or so. I am also pleased to 
 amioimce that Dr. Victor S. Clark and Mr. John F. Tohin 
 are prepared to answer questions after the program of 
 the evening. We have been obliged to change the pro- 
 gram simply for the convenience of onr speakers, and yet 
 I think we will have time to hear them all and to listen 
 to them as we wish. 
 
 It happens that my name appears to answer for the 
 Massachusetts State Board of Trade, but it is not my 
 intention to inflict upon you any special talk, or to take 
 any of your time, or much of any of your time, further 
 than to say a few words in connection with the Board of 
 Trade, and we will then go on with the speaking. 
 
 The Massachusetts State Board of Trade was organ- 
 ized to concentrate the power and usefulness of the 
 various associations over the State in one corporate body, 
 in order to secure prompt unity and harmony of action 
 in the particular consideration of subjects pertaining to 
 the financial, commercial and industrial and material 
 interests of our State at large, as well as to assist the 
 constituent bodies as far as possible, in order to create 
 more of a public sentiment over the State, and it is just 
 a few words, gentlemen, on the question of public senti- 
 ment and public opinion which I wish to speak to you 
 before going on. 
 
 We have come to Springfield not only to consider the 
 railroad problem from every angle, but to rub elbows with 
 the gentlemen here, because of the splendid public spirit 
 evinced in this section of the State, and because of the 
 encouragement it is giving to both business and agricul- 
 ture. 
 
 We have learned how business has been oppressed and 
 penalized by unfair laws, and as an illustration of the 
 attitude of Congress toward business interests, when I 
 was in Washington two years ago to appear before the 
 Judiciary Committee I was told that if I represented 
 a manufacturer or any large interests I would receive 
 scant attention, and when I went before that committee I 
 was asked many questions pertaining to the association 
 
 57 
 
which I represented and upon making a statement that 
 ^^all the business men asked was to be let alone/' Judge 
 Carlin of Virginia replied, ^^that is all the highwayman 
 asks^ — to be let alone/' and this 1 understood was the 
 treatment accorded many business men who took the time 
 to go to Washington to represent associations, having 
 representatives all over the country, and I assure you it 
 was not pleasant to have the requests of our association 
 compared with the requests of the highwayman. 
 
 The question of public opinion is one affecting votes. 
 It deals with every employee in your business ; employees 
 in the grocery store, the hardware store and all lines of 
 business. You must get votes to send men to Congress 
 or your State Legislature who will see to it that business 
 has fair play and that the industries and railroads of 
 the State, with all of the handicaps which are put upon 
 them, are favored just as far as possible. 
 
 We have heard of the handicap caused by the necessity 
 of bringing seventy-five per cent, of our food supplies and 
 raw materials from other sections of the country. We 
 have learned of the higher freight rates which we are 
 obliged to pay. We have also heard of higher prices of 
 labor caused in part by nearly fifty per cent, higher cost 
 of living over the State, because of the necessity of bring- 
 ing food supplies from long distances, and it is time that 
 we began to educate our employees by taking them into 
 our confidence and showing them as far as we reasonably 
 can how very detrimental to business interests many of 
 the laws are which have been enacted. 
 
 This can be well illustrated by the statement made only 
 a short time ago by Mr. Edward N. Hurley, chairman of 
 the Federal Trade Commission, namely, that the investi- 
 gation of that commission showed that, leaving out of 
 consideration the banking, railroad and public utilities 
 corporations and referring only to those that have to do 
 with trade and industry, we find that there are about two 
 hundred and fifty thousand business corporations in the 
 country. The astonishing thing is that over one hundred 
 thousand of these report no net income whatever. In 
 
 58 
 
addition, ninety thousand make less than five thousand 
 dollars a year, while only the sixty thousand remaining, 
 the more successful ones, make five thousand dollars a 
 year and over. 
 
 Is it not, therefore, time, and particularly so now, that 
 our New England industries had the favor of the bright 
 sunshine of an upbuilding, constructive policy of legisla- 
 tion and that they be assured of a continuity of such a 
 policy for a long period of years, instead of the policy 
 which has prevailed for the past ten years of oppression 
 and penalizing, which tends to pull down and destroy the 
 business fabric, which has done so much by invention and 
 discovery of new improved methods to give to the masses 
 of the people of the world the comforts and even luxuries 
 which only royalty could afford one hundred years ago? 
 
 It is only through co-operation with your employees 
 and the encouragement of business by people in every 
 walk of life that the industries of our State can continue 
 to prosper and expand, and it is time that we said to each 
 other : 
 
 Up ! Up ! from your slumber, ye men of New England, 
 
 Out from Old Lethargy's fold. 
 Never wilt thou become a back number 
 
 If thou thy courage and energy hold. 
 
 Just as the forest warden in the forest is alert to 
 prevent forest fires, so should our boards of trade and 
 chambers of commerce constantly be on the watch to pre- 
 vent incendiary laws being enacted to injure business. 
 We should create such a public opinion favorable to busi- 
 ness that the fame of New England will resound from the 
 shores of the Atlantic to the confines of these States, 
 echoing from hill to hill, from valley to valley, pene- 
 trating every nook and corner, until every fiber of our 
 being vibrates with the cry: 
 
 Hurrah! for New England's industries! 
 
 Glorious wealth of brains and skill. 
 Through knowledge, power and activities. 
 
 Ever at the front their place shalh fill. 
 
 51) 
 
Gentlemen, I charge you with the necessity of spread- 
 ing the gospel of protection for our New England indus- 
 tries, in order that they may be able to compete with those 
 of the great States of New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, In- 
 diana and Illinois, which are so much more favorably 
 situated regarding both food supplies and raw material. 
 
 Spread the gospel that New England business needs 
 favorable conditions and a continuity of a helpful up- 
 building policy from the government, and if any man is 
 sent to the Senate or Congress or our State Legislature 
 who attempts to introduce and put through legislation 
 antagonistic to business interests he should be indicted 
 and convicted at the Bar of Public Opinion of a crime 
 against business and relegated to the oblivion of his home, 
 never to receive a position of public trust again. 
 
 Our Massachusetts State Board of Trade welcomes to 
 its membership all trade and commercial organizations of 
 the State, and we appeal to you for your assistance. 
 (Applause.) 
 
 Gentlemen, our first speaker of the evening is one who 
 has had a very wide experience all over the country; is 
 thoroughly familiar with the railroad situation and every 
 part of it. He is known in Massachusetts as one of the 
 best, if not the. best, informed men in the country upon 
 railroad statistics and information, and everything per- 
 taining to that subject, and I consider it a great privilege 
 to introduce to you to-night the president of the New 
 York, New Haven & Hartford Eailroad, Mr. Howard 
 Elliott. (Applause.) 
 
 Mr. Howard Elliott: Mr. President and gentlemen: I 
 am afraid that Mr. Whitcher's introduction is too compli- 
 mentary. I try to know something about the transporta- 
 tion question, but it is a very large one. I will try to tell 
 you something of the work, some of the conditions, that 
 we in the railway world have been trying to confront, 
 and are still facing. 
 
 The last serious freight congestion or lack of transpor- 
 tation facilities in the country was in 1906 and 1907. I 
 
 60 
 
do not think it was quite as severe as at the present time, 
 although it was bad enough. I was at that time living in 
 St. Paul. There were very serious conditions all over the 
 country from Chicago to the Pacific Coast, and from 
 Chicago to New York as well. Since then the railways 
 have been through a period, as all industries have, of ups 
 and downs. Suddenly we came, in 1916 and 1917, into a 
 period when the transportation facilities of the United 
 States were inadequate for the increased population and 
 the larger business of the country. 
 
 The difficulty is not entirely local. The complaints are 
 from all parts of the United States. This you doubtless 
 know as your business ramifies in so many directions. 
 
 So serious did the problem become a month ago that 
 the railways called a meeting at Louisville to discuss the 
 general situation. The company that I represent sent 
 three representatives to the meeting for the purpose of 
 presenting to it the rights and needs of New England and 
 the obligation of the entire country to realize that New 
 England is a market for countless things brought in 
 here, and for countless articles shipped out. I think we 
 did a little good, but not as much as we hoped for. As a 
 result of that meeting the subject was taken up by a com- 
 mittee of presidents of railways in New York, of which I 
 happened to be one. They are known as the American 
 Eailway Association, which covers the whole United 
 States. A special committee was then formed of five 
 executives to sit in Washington with the Interstate Com- 
 merce Commission, or its representatives, to see what 
 could be done to make the best use of all present railway 
 facilities, and that committee sits daily from early in the 
 morning until evening, and oftentimes late at night, 
 making an earnest effort to better conditions. How long 
 that committee will have to sit we do not know. 
 
 One outcome of the situation may be the passage of a 
 bill through Congress to put the Interstate Commerce 
 Commission in absolute control, as to rules and prices for 
 cars, of the entire freight car equipment of the United 
 States. This would give the Commission power to order 
 
 61 
 
cars in different directions and to make charges for de- 
 murrage and per diem and other features of detail in rail- 
 way operations. Whether that will go through or not no 
 one knows. 
 
 But, as I say, it is a nation-wide problem. We know 
 and you know it is bad here in Massachusetts. It is bad 
 in Pennsylvania, in Ohio — in many other places. In fact, 
 not long ago there was a convention of business men in 
 Baltimore, and one very prominent business man wrote 
 a letter on the subject in which he spoke of the breakdown 
 of the transportation facilities of the United States. The 
 writer gave as one reason for present conditions the 
 present situation as to the regulation of these great in- 
 struments of commerce. The fact that wages and many 
 elements of cost are beyond railway control through State 
 and Federal laws, and the further fact that the prices for 
 which they sell their transportation are also fixed and 
 controlled by many laws, both State and Federal, had 
 been, in the opinion of the writer, having an accumulative 
 effect in preventing the development of the railway plant 
 to the extent that it could not adequately serve the 
 country. 
 
 Then there is another committee of railway executives, 
 known as the Managers' Conference Committee, who are 
 dealing with the problems arising from the so-called 
 Adamson Bill. They are trying to elucidate the law and 
 arrange a platform upon which we can live pending the 
 decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. 
 
 I merely mention those things not as an excuse for the 
 company that I happen to represent, but to show that 
 railway difficulties are nation-wide and in order to em- 
 phasize the importance of looking at. the problem in a 
 broad and national way, and the further importance of 
 having a great deal of patience and courage in handling it. 
 
 Now, what do the public really want from the transf)or- 
 tation companies? What do you really want? Time was 
 when the agitation between the patron of the transporta- 
 tion lines and the managers had most to do with rates. 
 The transportation companies had, perhaps, a surplus of 
 
product to sell. The discussion was, therefore, naturally 
 about rates, and it was not unnatural for the buyer of 
 transportation to work constantly for the lowest possible 
 rates. That's human nature. There was plenty of trans- 
 portation, and the question of adequate facilities was not 
 so important. For many years rates was one of the chief 
 topics. Then there was the question of discrimination — 
 discrimination between localities, discrimination between 
 markets — and that question still exists to a more or less 
 extent. 
 
 Now both of these questions have been somewhat rele- 
 gated to the rear; the rate question particularly. Dis- 
 crimination between individuals is almost gone, although 
 there is still some discrimination between commodities 
 and localities. 
 
 What you really want — ^what the railway executives are 
 struggling over — is service. 
 
 What New England wants is service, so that we may 
 bring in raw materials and ship out our manufactured 
 products. 
 
 I happen to have interests in the Far West, and I know 
 the Western railways are having a great deal of trouble 
 over inadequate service. The lumber business is almost 
 crippled for lack of service. With 100,000,000 population, 
 a population bound to grow, for it will not be many years, 
 measured in the economic life of the nation, before we 
 have 150,000,000, we ought to have fifty per cent, more 
 transportation facilities in order to be prepared so that 
 the railways will be able to carry the business of this 
 growing population not only in a time of peace, but also in 
 a time of war. We have got it to do, and why not now? 
 
 Just look at the situation for a moment ! In 1915 there 
 was less new mileage built in the United States than in 
 any year since 1864 — fifty years ago — and there have 
 been only three years since 1848 when there was less rail- 
 way construction than there was in 1915. The expansion 
 of the railway plant stopped, although everybody knew 
 that our country was growing. And in that same year, 
 1915, the number of freight cars built was the smallest 
 
 63 
 
since 1904, except in 1911 ; the passenger cars, the smallest 
 in number since 1902, except 1908; the locomotives, the 
 smallest since 1908 ; and the construction was only 65 per 
 cent, of the smallest since 1893. Yet in spite of these 
 facts the railways have done a great deal. 
 
 I have here a circular. No doubt some of you have 
 seen it. It is issued by the American Eailway Associa- 
 tion, which gives the statistics about car shortage. It 
 shows that from July 1, 1907, to July 1, 1916, there were 
 570,298 cars built, which represented a capital of 
 $527,000,000 — an enormous sum of money on which to 
 pay interest, and on which depreciation is pretty rapid. 
 This same circular shows that for a period of eight years 
 preceding the middle of August, 1916, there had been a 
 continuous net surplusage of cars — cars not in use — ex- 
 cept for about one month in 1909, three months in 1912, 
 one month in 1913, and March, 1914 ; and then a shortage 
 from September 1, 1914, on until this year. At one time 
 there were 414,000 cars idle in the United States. 
 
 I am simply giving you these figures to show you that 
 the railway owner and railway manager are confronted 
 at times with the serious problem of a very large idle 
 investment, and yet who are now confronted with insuf- 
 ficient facilities. 
 
 Now to make this great railway plant adequate — ^to 
 furnish the service that you and the country must have, 
 and which New England sadly needs — a great deal of 
 money is necessary. 
 
 It is claimed that the general wealth of the country 
 increases from 8 to 9 per cent, a year. We as good Amer- 
 icans hope that kind of progress is going on and that 
 the country is to continue to grow, but it is obvious that 
 transportation facilities must increase in the same rela- 
 tive proportion ; otherwise all business is checked. 
 
 We have a very careful tabulation made recently in 
 Washington by an expert who was formerly connected 
 with a Western state railway commission. He figures 
 that the country should spend annually in order to make 
 our transportation facilities adequate for the people's 
 
 64 
 
use $1,250,000,000 for the next ten years, and that approx- 
 imately $250,000,000 is needed to pay off additional obli- 
 gations, or a total of $1,500,000,000 a year that should go 
 into this great instrument of commerce and equip it so 
 that it can adequately serve you and the whole country 
 — a very large sum of money. 
 
 I don't believe this expert has overestimated the case. 
 The same matter was taken up in 1907 after the serious 
 congestion at that time by a committee of business men of 
 the Chamber of Commerce of the State of New York. 
 They made a very careful study of the situation and made 
 a report in 1912. This committee then thought it would 
 take $8,500,000,000, or $1,700,000,000 a year, to make the 
 railway plant adequate. They were not very far wrong, 
 but the railways could not or did not spend that much 
 money. They did, however, spend $650,000,000 a year 
 for the seven-year period ending June, 1914, and I esti- 
 mate, counting 1915, there has been $5,000,000,000 of new 
 capital put into the railway plant of the country in the last 
 eight years. But you and I know from our daily expe- 
 rience that that is not enough. 
 
 I feel that what has discouraged the railways and the 
 man with money is that after putting the $4,500,000,000 
 of new capital into the giant in that seven-year period 
 the increased return on the property was only $8,550,000, 
 or less than two-tenths of one per cent. — a return, of 
 course, that frightens the man with money. 
 
 I think all must admit that the present problem of the 
 railways is a most serious one. I know those of us who 
 are trying to deal with it, under very difficult circum- 
 stances, feel so. It is a subject similar to many others, 
 much easier to criticize and suggest than to construct and 
 to perform. That is true about any business. I think it 
 is very necessary for public opinion, of which your Chair- 
 man spoke so well, to crystallize, if possble, along broad 
 and constructive national lines, and to avoid forming 
 judgments based on half truths or some misconceptions 
 of the real facts of the situation. 
 
 There certainly are, I think, misconceptions in the pub- 
 
 65 
 
lie mind, altbougli I believe the feeling is clarifying some- 
 what. There have been a few great fortunes made in 
 the railway business. You can count the names of the 
 gentlemen who have made these fortunes on your two 
 Jiands practically. There have not been as many great 
 fortunes made in the railway business as in lumber or 
 steel or banking, or as in many other lines of business. 
 Then, too, there has been a feeling in the public mind that 
 these great instruments of commerce are owned by a few 
 individuals — controlled by a few individuals — and that 
 the profits finally all go to a few individuals. I think that 
 misconception has had a most serious effect in delaying 
 the time when we will be able to solve the broad general 
 question of how to treat the American railways. 
 
 Very likely you have heard the figures, but I want to 
 emphasize to you that the railways of to-day are not 
 owned or controlled by a handful of our citizens. There 
 are at least 600,000 individual railway stockholders. 
 There are probably an additional 600,000 holders of bonds 
 and notes and evidences of debt; there are 30,000,000 
 holders of insurance policies, and part of the security back 
 of those policies is $1,500,000,000 of railway securities; 
 there are 11,000,000 depositors in savings banks, and part 
 of the securities back of their deposits are American rail- 
 way securities. Thus all these people are naturally in- 
 terested either as indirect or direct owners of railway 
 securities. And there is no small clique which controls 
 the railways. The interest in their ownership, as I have 
 pointed out, is widely distributed. In addition to the 
 owners, there are about 1,800,000 employees, and another 
 1,000,000 who depend upon the purchasing power of the 
 railways. 
 
 It is therefore apparent that when the railways do not 
 succeed just a few rich people are not hurt, but a lot of 
 people of very modest means are hurt, and you, and 
 people like you, who must have adequate service for your 
 welfare are hurt. 
 
 As I say, I have sometimes thought that the misconcep- 
 tion in regard to railway ownership has been one of the 
 
 GG 
 
things that has delayed a final heart-to-heart discussion 
 of this great subject on a true basis. There is another 
 thing that has delayed it. There has been, and I think 
 there may be some to-day, a distrust of railways and of 
 railway management and of railway managers and direc- 
 tors. That grew up in part because some railway man- 
 agements, some directors, did things in the past that were 
 not right ; but it is a mistake to-day to condemn the rail- 
 ways and managers because in the past some have been 
 bad, just as it is a mistake to condemn all physicians 
 because some doctors have been bad; or clergymen, or 
 editors, or lawyers or business men. Whatever may have 
 been the conduct of railway directors in the past, I believe 
 to-day that railway executives and managers and railway 
 directors have as high a sense of public duty, as great a 
 desire to do their duty as citizens, as great a desire to be 
 faithful to the trust imposed upon them as any class of 
 business men in the United States. They are keenly alive 
 to their responsibilities, to the difficulties that confront 
 them, and I think they are greatly disturbed because of 
 their inability to produce those things that are necessary 
 for the country's welfare and what the country wants 
 them to produce, and I believe a body like this can do 
 much to help straighten out the feeling over these mat- 
 ters. If you really believe what I say is true — that the 
 railway men as a rule are as good as any other class of 
 men — it is your duty to lend a helping hand in this direc- 
 tion. 
 
 Five or six years ago there was formed the Kailway 
 Executives' Advisory Committee, a body of railway men 
 who have been devoting the best brain talent to the rail- 
 way problem. We have been studying it in the hope that 
 we could suggest to the public and Congress and the Pres- 
 ident some idea that would help to put and keep this great 
 transportation machine in a better condition. That com- 
 mittee is national in character. You may be interested 
 in its personnel. Mr. Frank Trumbull, who is chairman 
 of the board of the Chesapeake & Ohio, is chairman of the 
 committee ; Mr. B. F. Bush of the Missouri Pacific is on 
 
 67 
 
the committee representing the Southwest; myself, now 
 representing part of the East ; Mr. W. J. Harahan of the 
 Seaboard Air Line, who represents south of the Ohio 
 Eiver; Mr. Eobert S. Lovett of the Union Pacific repre- 
 sents all of the country from Omaha to Portland and 
 Seattle ; Mr. C. H. Markham of the Illinois Central down 
 to New Orleans ; Mr. A. H. Smith of the New York Cen- 
 tral system, Mr. F. D. Underwood of the Erie, Mr. H. 
 Walters of the Atlantic Coast Line, Mr. Daniel Willard 
 of the Baltimore & Ohio, Mr. Walker D. Hines of the 
 Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe; Mr. Samuel Kea of the 
 Pennsylvania, Mr. L. F. Loree of the Delaware & Hudson, 
 Mr. Hale Holden of the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy, 
 and Mr. A. J. Earling of the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. 
 Paul. 
 
 That committee has done a great deal of work in the 
 last three or four years in an effort to find some solu- 
 tion, if possible, of the general situation, or to make sug- 
 gestions that would lead to a solution. Nearly all realize 
 the situation is serious. President Eoosevelt spoke about 
 it in one or two of his messages. President Taft did in 
 one or two of his and President Wilson did in his message 
 of December 7, 1915. As President Wilson's is the latest 
 utterance, I will take the liberty of reading it to you : 
 
 ' ^ In the meantime may I make this suggestion ? The 
 transportation problem is an exceedingly serious 
 and pressing one in this country. There has from 
 time to time of late been reason to fear that our rail- 
 ways would not much longer be able to cope with it 
 successfully, as at present equipped and co-ordinated. 
 I suggest that it would be wise to provide for a com- 
 mission of inquiry to ascertain by a thorough canvass 
 of the whole question whether our laws as at present 
 framed and administered are as serviceable as they 
 might be in the solution of the problem. It is ob- 
 viously a problem that lies at the very foundation of 
 our efficiency as a people. Such an inquiry ought to 
 draw out every circumstance and opinion worth con- 
 
 68 
 
sideling, and we need to know all sides of the matter 
 if we mean to do anything in the field of Federal leg- 
 islation. No one, I am sure, would wish to take any 
 backward step. The regulation of the railways of 
 the country by Federal commission has had admir- 
 able results and has fully justified the hopes and ex- 
 pectations of those by whom the policy of regulation 
 was originally proposed. The question is not what 
 should we undo. It is whether there is anything else 
 we can do that would supply us with effective means, 
 in the very process of regulation, for bettering the 
 conditions under which the railways are operated and 
 for making them more useful servants of the country 
 as a whole. It seems to me that it might be the part 
 of wisdom, therefore, before further legislation in 
 this field is attempted, to look at the whole problem of 
 co-ordination and efficiency in the full light of a fresh 
 assessment of circumstances and opinion as' a guide 
 to dealing with the several parts of it. ' ' 
 
 Now whatever our political faith may be, it seems to 
 me that business men and all should get behind the Presi- 
 dent of the United States and help him in any constructive 
 work, or constructive plan, that he may have that will help 
 to put this great transportation business on a better basis. 
 In the same spirit we ought to get behind him for any 
 reasonable plan for the reasonable regulation of the men 
 who work on the great transportation systems. 
 
 Now this committee of ours has done, as I say, a great 
 deal of work. It has presented some results of that work 
 to Congress, and Congress has appointed a special com- 
 mittee, headed by Senator Newlands to take up the whole 
 subject. The Newlands Committee asked us to present 
 our views, and we have done so, and if the Newlands Com- 
 mittee is to continue its work we hope to present them in 
 greater detail. 
 
 In giving our views we did not present them at all with 
 the idea that we are trying to avoid regulation. The 
 modern railway officials feel that regulation is necessary 
 
 69 
 
and desirable, and we are not trying to find any twilight 
 zone where we can ^'duck," as between state and inter- 
 state. We believe it to be for the interest of the country 
 that some system of regulation should be developed that 
 will be national in its scope, to be sufficiently flexible to 
 meet the changing conditions of business, and meet them 
 promptly, and a regulation that shall be free from par- 
 tisan and political bias, and furthermore, a regulation 
 that will attract the investors to put in the necessary in- 
 vestment of $1,000,000,000 and more a year. The regu- 
 lation of railways can no longer be local, because the 
 interests affected are nation-wide. We have therefore 
 felt after two or three years ' work that it would be better 
 for the development of these instruments of commerce 
 to have national regulation and thus avoid conflict be- 
 tween state and nation. 
 
 National regulation in the interest of all the people 
 would avoid friction and conflict between the several 
 states themselves and between the states and the United 
 States, because we know in our experience there have 
 been conflicts as to rates; there have been conflicts as to 
 the use of cars; conflicts about securing them; conflicts 
 about hours of service, and a great many differences. 
 There have arisen cases where one state has taken action 
 that was in direct discrimination against the interest of 
 the people of another state. The American system of 
 transportation is so intricate that sooner or later there 
 must be national standards set up for the conduct of the 
 business. 
 
 We also believe it would be well to have national super- 
 vision as to the issuance of securities and thus avoid the 
 possibility of improper or conflicting issues. 
 
 The Department of Agriculture is spending millions of 
 dollars. Why? To encourage the farmer to produce 
 more food so that you and I and all may be sure of ade- 
 quate food supplies. Now a little encouragement of sim- 
 ilar character is very essential to the good of the general 
 life of the railways and the plan for national regulation. 
 I think the Interstate Commerce Commissioners are real- 
 
 70 
 
izing the situation, but it will be helped along if such 
 organizations as you represent would say : 
 
 We want a broad, constructive, upbuilding policy 
 for the great transportation interests of the United 
 States, just as much as we want a broad, constructive- 
 policy for the manufacturing or agricultural inter- 
 ests. 
 
 In suggesting national regulation the railways have not 
 done so for the purpose of eliminating state commissions 
 — there is lots of work for them to do. We all try to meet 
 their views just as far as we can, but this divided author- 
 ity is one of the very serious things that embarrasses the 
 railways in their forward progress. 
 
 We have suggested that the Interstate Commerce Com- 
 mission be relieved and helped. We believe that the 
 Commission should go on and take care of the very large 
 and broad questions of judicial and constructive character 
 and that a second commission should be created which 
 should have the business of the supervision of details and 
 the prosecution for the failure of carriers to do what they 
 should, and so on — a lot of work that does not really be- 
 long to a body that is acting as judge and, to a certain 
 extent, a law maker, too ; and by such a subdivision much 
 prompter results would be obtained for you and everyone. 
 
 Then we also suggest that in order to get prompt action 
 all over the country that there be regional commissions. 
 By this plan regional commissions could take up certain 
 local difficulties and shippers would not have to go to 
 Washington for every single thing. In that way a shipper 
 out in St. Paul or Houston, Texas, or up in New England 
 would have a body that he could go to without going to 
 Washington. If that change should be made we feel that 
 these six New England States should by all means have 
 one of those regional commissions. In making these sug- 
 gestions the railways are not trying to escape supervision, 
 but are only asking for a plan that will tend to a uniform 
 practice and a prompt disposition of all questions of in- 
 terest. 
 
 n 
 
Then we have also suggested that the commissions have 
 the power to make minimum rates, because it is absolutely 
 essential to conserve the revenues of these carriers if 
 they are to give you the service that you want and need. 
 
 The reasonable rate is a very difficult thing to define. 
 The old-fashioned dealing of the railway with the patron 
 was to get as much out of the patron as possible. In 
 arriving at the reasonable rate the commissions ought to 
 consider not only the cost of the service, but the value of 
 the service ; ought to consider all the constantly increasing 
 expenses of maintenance and operation of the property 
 and of keeping the property adequate at all times to carry 
 the big load. The public should be vitally interested in 
 having the principles of a reasonable rate embody those 
 conditions, because it is to your interest that the railways 
 be sustained, so that they will have sufficient earning and 
 borrowing power to add to their facilities, and this has 
 not been the case, take it year in and year out. 
 
 What can you do to help? You have very wide powers. 
 You represent very large interests. You are having many 
 of the same troubles that the railways are having. Of 
 course, there is this difference : you are not limited by law 
 as to your selling price and profits, while the railways 
 are. You can do various things to help. While the rail- 
 ways have been more prosperous in the last year, we are 
 already coming to a period of very greatly increased ex- 
 penses, and these expenses have already begun to show. 
 You can use your influence to help get a better regulatory 
 system in the United States. You can use your influence 
 to help settle the great labor problem. We are asking 
 for some broad, comprehensive, national, sane platform 
 upon which to build the general structure of the organi- 
 zation of these great carriers, supervised in the broadest 
 way ; a great piece of machinery that will reflect the will 
 of the people as to putting rates up or down, or making 
 rules for service, and of making that regulation such that 
 the credit of these carriers will be sustained at all times, 
 so that you will get the service that you want. 
 
 You can help in those ways, not because you love the 
 
 72 
 
railways or the railway securities" owners, but simply be- 
 cause it is to your own interest to do so as business men. 
 And it is very much to your interest here in New England 
 to try to get the transportation problem worked out be- 
 cause for one reason and another New England railways 
 are in a serious condition. You can help and you have a 
 large influence through your members of Congress and 
 others, as your Secretary has said. 
 
 One encouraging thought is that the public interest in 
 this railway subject is growing. People have come to the 
 conclusion that whether they like the railways or not, the 
 railways must be helped, if they are to avoid government 
 ownership. I do not believe to-day people want the rail- 
 ways to go to governmental ownership. Give them 
 enough earnings so they can spend the $1,000,000,000 and 
 more a year in giving you what you want. 
 
 I am glad to have a chance to come here and talk to you. 
 Perhaps I have given you some information that may be 
 of value in trying to make up your minds regarding the 
 problem that I think is now before us; how to regulate 
 these great carriers and how to keep them at all times 
 adequate to do the work of the United States. (Ap- 
 plause.) 
 
 Chairman Whitcher : President Elliott says that if there 
 is anyone who would like to ask any questions he would 
 be pleased to answer them. 
 
 President Elliott: If I can. 
 
 Chairman Whitcher: Are there any questions? I don't 
 think we shall accept that amendment, because I believe 
 he can answer all questions that might be put to him. 
 
 Mr. Guyer of Hyannis: I would like to ask President 
 Elliott whether or not he thinks that government owner- 
 ship would have a tendency to equalize salaries of the 
 various employees and managers, and also tend to pre- 
 vent managers or manipulators getting more than their 
 share of the profits. 
 
 73 
 
President Elliott: 1 don't know whether 1 can answer 
 that, gentlemen, because that is in the realms of conjec- 
 ture. I think there is no doubt if the railroads were 
 owned by the government they would make very rigid 
 rules as to the distribution of any earnings. But my own 
 feeling is that this country has not yet come to a point 
 where it could take over 2,000,000 employees with safety 
 to the Eepublic. I think there are other dangers which 
 would flow from it that would be very serious. 
 
 Chairman Whitcher: Are there any other questions 
 which the gentlemen wish to ask? 
 
 Mr. George C. Morton: I would like to ask President 
 Elliott, if it is not asking too much, whether orders have 
 been placed for new motive power equipment, cars, and 
 so forth, that he thinks will be adequate to meet the in- 
 creased business, or if such equipment have been deliv- 
 ered. 
 
 President Elliott: Some have been placed, but not as 
 many as we hope to place. We have bids in now for a 
 large amount of equipment, but the prices are very, very 
 serious — more than double what they were two years ago 
 — and they have got to be looked up very carefully. The 
 plans and specifications have been out for some time on a 
 number of things. 
 
 Mr. P. C. Headley, Jr. : I would like to know if President 
 Elliott would give us some suggestion as to what is in 
 sight in the release of the embargo on eastbound freight, 
 for instance, in the cotton belt and the West. 
 
 President Elliott : It is all in the hands of the Interstate 
 Commerce Commission, and we hope very much it is 
 going to be eased up. We had dispatches to-day that 
 looked very hopeful. It is all a part and parcel of this 
 national car question that I tried to explain to you. It 
 looked a little better to-day. The requests that the com- 
 
 74 
 
pany had for relief on the so-called embargo have 
 dropped down to a very small volume — very few a day — 
 indicating that cars are coming through much more freely. 
 We are trying to relieve every individual case that we 
 can, but that general subject is one that is largely now in 
 the hands of this committee in Washington working with 
 the Interstate Commerce Commission. We hope the em- 
 bargo is going to be taken oif. 
 
 Mr. P. C. Headley, Jr. : Do I understand that preference 
 is given to munition plants! 
 
 President Elliott: Nothing of that kind. It all comes 
 through in its proper order. 
 
 Chairman Whitcher: Are there any other questions! 
 
 Gentlemen, knowing as I do that President Elliott has 
 been suffering from the effects of a cold and is not feeling 
 up to his usual condition, and that he left his duties to 
 come here, it is a pleasure to assure President Elliott that 
 we appreciate highly the sacrifice he has made in coming 
 here and giving us such an exhaustive statement as he 
 has made, and to thank him for the courtesy he has ex- 
 tended to us in answering these questions which we have 
 put to him. 
 
 Member in the Audience : Is it competent for this gather- 
 ing to pass a constructive motion! I was thinking w^hether 
 it was best to have some action in regard to the sugges- 
 tions made by President Elliott, so that from constituent 
 bodies represented here there might be some special pres- 
 sure brought to bear, through publicity and otherwise, 
 upon Washington. And if it is competent I should move 
 that a committee of nine be appointed by the Chair to see 
 that these suggestions be very carefully considered and 
 that their purport be put into action. 
 
 Chairman Whitcher: The Chair would be glad to state 
 that these matters were referred to the Committee on 
 
 76 
 
Resolutions, which will be heard from after the next 
 speaker, and if those resolutions are not complete in that 
 resolution the matter should be referred to the committee 
 for their attention. 
 
 The next speaker is to tell us of the application of the 
 Panama Canal Act relating to the lake lines, as affecting 
 the industries of Massachusetts and New England, and 
 we are favored in having the traffic manager of the Na- 
 tional Association of Wool Manufacturers of Boston with 
 us. I will introduce to you Mr. George L. Graham. 
 
 Mr. George L. Graham: Mr. President and gentlemen: 
 You have heard about the railroads. I want to give you 
 a little suggestion of a period. I want to tell you of some 
 of the conditions of New England; some of our advan- 
 tages; some reasons why we should hang onto those ad- 
 vantages. I want to make it clear that I do not disagree 
 with President Elliott in what he has said regarding the 
 rates, helping to some extent the textile manufacturers 
 of New England, the backbone of the industry of New- 
 England. They cannot disagree with the railroads. We 
 have, however, certain advantages that have been ours 
 for a great many years in rail and water transportation — 
 advantages in service; advantages in rates. The New 
 England manufacturers are too far from their source of 
 supply to have those advantages materially interfered 
 with. 
 
 This question of rail and water transportation has been 
 under consideration by the Industrial Conference of New 
 England, and the following committee, of which I am a 
 member, appointed by that organization. I am giving you 
 the names of this committee so that you may recognize the 
 interests, the localities, the commodities: 
 
 Mr. E. K. Porter of the Carter Ink Co. of Cam- 
 bridge. 
 
 Mr. E. L. Van Dyke of the American, Thread Co., 
 with interests in Fall Eiver, New Bedford, Holyoke 
 and other points in New England. 
 
 76 
 
Mr. A. L. Rice, representing Lawrence & Co., a 
 large textile concern. 
 
 Mr. W. P. Libbj, representing the Plymouth Cord- 
 age Company of Plymouth, Mass., and formerly pres- 
 ident of the Traffic Club of New England. 
 
 That is the type of committee which has undertaken to 
 present some of their views to you on the question of rail 
 and water transportation. These men represent various 
 commodities, sections and interests in Massachusetts and 
 New England, and these men agree that there is no more 
 important transportation affecting New England and 
 Massachusetts than the solution of the problems pre- 
 sented by the necessity for rail and water transportation 
 and the application of the Panama Canal Act to establish 
 rail and water lines. 
 
 You, gentlemen, may not be clear as to what we consider 
 rail and water transportation. From a traffic standpoint 
 it is through rates, through routes, through control of 
 operating conditions. The combination of rail carriers 
 into large companies was accomplished under the law, and 
 these combinations generally included some control of 
 water lines where individual rail lines had found bene- 
 ficial water routes and had thereby extended their rail 
 lines, increasing their tonnage. 
 
 Now I hope you see the application of that, both to the 
 lake lines and to our New England lake and water lines. 
 Industries which we represent ship to Boston by rail and 
 thence by boat; to New Bedford by rail and thence by 
 boat ; to Fall River and thence by boat. 
 
 And, gentlemen, the members of this committee believe 
 that there is no other way to get our New England prod- 
 ucts to New York except by rail and boat. The history of 
 the various lake lines carrying package freight particu- 
 larly, and controlled or operated by rail carriers is clearly 
 set forth in the evidence submitted to the Interstate Com- 
 merce Commission by the principal lake and rail carriers 
 in their application under the Panama Canal Act for ex- 
 tension of time during which their interest in and opera- 
 
 77 
 
tion of certain boats plying on the Great Lakes might be 
 completed. This case was submitted to the Commission 
 on December 17, 1914, decided May 17, 1915, and the appli- 
 cation of certain commercial interests for a rehearing of 
 the case denied by the Commission December, 1915. 
 These petitions were filed in accordance with the provi- 
 sion of Section 5 of the Acts to Eegulate Commerce, 
 August 24, 1912. 
 
 I am just going to sketch briefly the history of one of 
 those lake lines, and I might say that our New England 
 rail and water lines have approximately the same history. 
 This is an abstract of evidence presented by the Pennsyl- 
 vania Eailroad in their brief. Docket No. 6381, I. C. C, 
 organization of the Anchor Line in 1865, up to the year 
 1900, when, after operating on the Great Lakes, its cap- 
 ital stock was acquired by lines leased by the Pennsyl- 
 vania Eailroad. 
 
 The Anchor Line commenced operations in 1868 by 
 chartering a few boats and operating them between Erie 
 and Lake Michigan ports. In 1870 it purchased addi- 
 tional boats and commenced the construction of other 
 boats for use in both freight and passenger service, and 
 gradually developed this fleet so that in 1900 it possessed 
 a fleet of sixteen vessels, three of which were engaged in 
 the passenger business and the total tonnage of which 
 aggregated 33,800 tons. 
 
 The line of railroad of the Philadelphia and Erie Eail- 
 road Company, which is now leased to the Pennsylvania 
 Eailroad Company, was constructed for the latter com- 
 pany in 1864, and in conjunction with various other rail- 
 roads and the Anchor Line, established a through service 
 between New York, Philadelphia and Baltimore on the 
 one hand and various points on the Great Lakes and west 
 thereof. 
 
 In 1881 the Pennsylvania lines east of Pittsburgh en- 
 tered into an agreement with the Anchor Line for the 
 establishment of a through route via Erie, Pa., for 
 the movement of rail and lake traffic east and west- 
 bound, the railroad company agreeing to furnish a cer- 
 
 78 
 
tain number of package freight and grain eastbound from 
 Brie. 
 
 The Pennsylvania Eailroad purchased in 1900 the cap- 
 ital stock of the Western New York and Pennsylvania 
 Railroad Company and the Northern Central Railway 
 Company purchased the capital stock of the Erie and 
 Western Transportation Company. At that time the 
 fleet of the Anchor Line consisted of sixteen vessels with 
 a tonnage of 33,800 tons. 
 
 During the thirteen years of railroad ownership of the 
 Anchor Line twelve old and antiquated boats with a ton- 
 nage of 21,800 tons were replaced with modern steel ves- 
 sels, so that on December 31, 1913, the Anchor Line fleet 
 consisted of twelve vessels with a total tonnage of 47,700 
 tons and operating under a schedule two days faster than 
 that formerly existing. 
 
 Prior to the decision of the Interstate Commerce Com- 
 mission under the Panama Canal Act of May 17, 1915, 
 there were a great many vessels in operation on the Great 
 Lakes. 
 
 These lines were controlled or managed by railroads, 
 and they were acquired by railroads, so far as we can 
 learn, legally. The Interstate Commerce Commission's 
 interpretation of that act has destroyed a great deal of 
 that beneficial service, which interpretation the Commis- 
 sion felt it was warranted in giving, and I want to call 
 your attention a little later to the fact that the Commis- 
 sion has now thrown a ray of light on the situation, and 
 that is one reason why we are here to-night to ask you 
 gentlemen to look for that ray of light ; to open the door 
 for the textile interests of New England. 
 
 I will not read this list of names of lines which is avail- 
 able to your committees, if they would like to look at it, 
 but they gave us over the Great Lakes a wonderful trans- 
 portation instrumentality, which we do not have at the 
 present time. These lines were very generally open to 
 New England manufacturers, and the service referred to 
 above was maintained and constantly augmented. 
 
 That is the same condition with the Sound lines. The 
 
 79 
 
service each year has been maintained. We testified be- 
 fore the Interstate Commerce Commission in Boston that 
 we were satisfied with the operation of that line because 
 it had better control over its own operating conditions. 
 The railroad train rims down to New Bedford or Fall 
 Eiver or Providence and runs onto the wharf, where you 
 can throw the cargo from the boat onto the wharf, and the 
 railroad has made a schedule so as to have the boat in 
 New York and unloaded by seven o'clock the next 
 morning. 
 
 Another question is the question of differential rates. 
 The all-rail rate from Boston rate points to New England 
 generally and Chicago and Duluth, first-class basis, is 
 78.8 cents per hundred pounds. The standard rail-and- 
 lake rate, first-class basis, is 62 cents per hundred pounds, 
 a saving in lake rail transportation on first-class goods 
 of 16.8 cents per hundred pounds, or approximately 23 
 per cent. This saving runs through all class and com- 
 modity rates. The sixth-class rate on all rail being 26.3 
 cents is standard line and 21 cents for the standard rail 
 and lake lines, a saving of 5.3 cents per hundred 
 pounds on the Boston- Chicago rate basis. The first-class 
 rate, for example, from Boston to Duluth, Minn., via the 
 all-rail routes is 118.8 cents per hundred pounds. The 
 standard lake-and-rail rate, first-class basis, Boston to 
 Duluth, Minn., is 62 cents per hundred pounds, or an 
 advantage of 56.8 cents per hundred pounds, which the 
 New England manufacturer has enjoyed for a great many 
 years. That 56.8 cents is more than the rate from Boston 
 to Buffalo, and we enjoyed that advantage because of this 
 natural waterway. On our business going West we have 
 the same advantage in rates and service ; of the New York 
 service via our rail and water connections out of New 
 England through the Sound lines. 
 
 The sixth-class all-rail rate from Boston to Duluth, 
 Minn., is 39.3 cents per hundred pounds. The sixth-class 
 standard lake-and-rail rate for the same transportation 
 is 21 cents, an advantage of 18.3 cents per hundred 
 pounds. On the first-class rate from Boston to Duluth, 
 
 80 
 
Minn., the all-rail route is 118.8 cents per hundred pounds, 
 the standard lake-and-rail rate, Boston to St. Paul, Minn., 
 83 cents per hundred pounds first-class, or an advantage 
 of 35.8 cents per hundred pounds. 
 
 These rates quoted have an advantage also, because 
 they apply to shipments destined to points beyond Duluth 
 and Superior, in Minnesota, North Dakota, Montana and 
 beyond, where the rates are based on Duluth. 
 
 With regard to the eastbound rate situation, most of 
 the traffic moving eastbound is moved under commodity 
 rates, and while the difference in some cases would not be 
 as great in the aggregate, the advantage of shipments 
 moving via the lakes eastbound as well as westbound is 
 decidedly in favor of the lake routes. 
 
 In dealing with the question of the effect of the lake 
 routes on New England industries, the first and most im- 
 portant thing to be taken into consideration is the fact 
 that the success of any manufacturing district is largely 
 dependent upon the cheapness of the cost of transporta- 
 tion of raw materials used in such manufacture. 
 
 To enable the manufacturer to take advantage of cheap 
 transportation, such transportation must of necessity be 
 of such a nature that he can afford to take advantage of 
 it ; that is, it must be adequate in all respects to meet the 
 demands of the volume of traffic involved ; it must be per- 
 fected to such an extent as will provide for good and reg- 
 ular service. Without these essentials it would not mat 
 ter much as to how cheap the transportation was, as the 
 manufacturer could not afford to use it. 
 
 The Lake lines in the past have provided the manufac- 
 turers of New England this character of cheap transpor- 
 tation. They having provided ample capacity to care for 
 the entire volume of traffic moving at all times during the 
 season of lake navigation. The equipment used by them 
 in this service has been modern up to the fullest extent of 
 the word. Their officials and employees operating and 
 handling the lines have been especially trained as regards 
 this particular feature of transportation, with the conse- 
 quent result of giving to the New England manufacturers 
 
 81 
 
the benefit of a most Mghly perfected character of trans- 
 portation at the very lowest possible maximum cost. This 
 feature alone demonstrates the great value of the Lake 
 transportation afforded the New England industries in 
 the past. 
 
 In 1902 there were seventy-five package freight vessels 
 operating between the lower lake ports and Lake Michi- 
 gan and Lake Superior ports, not including Canadian lake 
 lines, with a total carrying capacity for package freight 
 for those seventy-five vessels of 197,000 tons per trip, and 
 in 1912 the number of vessels employed in this same trade 
 was sixty-five, with a carrying capacity of 236,000 tons of 
 package freight per trip, or an increase per trip of 39,000 
 tons capacity. 
 
 Li New England we make the package freight on Lake 
 lines carry a lot of ore bulk, and their facilities in that 
 respect may not have been impaired, but our package 
 freight business from New England is what I am speak- 
 ing of in these boats having a capacity of 236,000 tons of 
 package freight. 
 
 We are creditably informed that during the season of 
 Lake navigation for the year 1917 there will be no regular 
 dependable package freight carriers in the lake transpor- 
 tation from Eastern lake ports to Lake Michigan ports 
 like Chicago and Milwaukee, with the possible exception 
 of one Canadian line and possibly one American line. 
 
 I have explained to you that these lake and rail lines 
 carry differential rates. There are three sorts of rates 
 known to a traffic man: all-rail transportation, which is 
 the most expensive ; rail-and-water transportation, which 
 is a combination of rail transportation and of water trans- 
 portation; and all- water transportation, which is, of 
 course, the cheapest. The rail and lake and Sound lines 
 have given that intermediate rate, and with a one hundred 
 per cent, efficiency service. We wonder that they were 
 able to do businesB as long as they did as cheaply as they 
 did. We do not know how they can carry goods from 
 Boston to Duluth for sixty-two cents. New England 
 doesn't want to lose the advantage of that spread of rates. 
 
 82 
 
It may be necessary to raise that sixty-two cent rate, but 
 there is a decided advantage to the New England manu- 
 facturer in the cheapness that comes with rail-and-water 
 transportation. We fear that that service in 1917 will 
 be taken away from us. 
 
 Now we have that same differential rate basis from 
 New England through another channel. The fact that the 
 rate is established on the Great Lakes gives the Baltimore 
 and Ohio Eailroad opportunity to establish a differential 
 rate basis from the city of Baltimore and Norfolk, Va. 
 We get via that route through the ports of Boston and 
 Providence the same differential rate basis that we get 
 over the Great Lakes. The Baltimore and Ohio Eailroad 
 had to have our New England tonnage when they started 
 railroading in 1831. There was not tonnage enough orig- 
 inating in Baltimore to operate the seventy-two miles of 
 road they were operating at that time and they had to 
 reach out in order to get more business. They came to 
 New England and said, **We will equalize the rates.'' In 
 fact, the Baltimore and Ohio Eailroad has always been 
 the great rate equalizer because of their natural disad- 
 vantages. It is not until recent years that the city of 
 Baltimore has been able to get a sufficient amount of 
 tonnage. When the lakes close up in winter the Balti- 
 more rates go up. 
 
 The trade boards of Milwaukee, Kansas City, Mo. ; St. 
 Louis, Mo., and other cities have recently passed resolu- 
 tions expressing the necessity to those communities of the 
 continuation of this rail-and-lake service and this differ- 
 ential lake basis. The Interstate Commerce Commission 
 in its last annual report issued December 1, 1916, had indi- 
 cated on pages 63, 64 and 65 the possible benefit which 
 may come from these combinations, and suggested that 
 certain facts quoted should be brought to the attention 
 of Congress. 
 
 I want to quote only one paragraph from that report, 
 because that paragraph contains the essence of what you 
 gentlemen may be able to do for the New England manu- 
 
 83 
 
facturers, and I think as well for the New England rail- 
 roads. This is the quotation : 
 
 **We think that these facts should be brought to 
 the attention of the Congress, so that in the light of 
 those facts it may determine whether or not authority 
 shall be conferred upon the Commission to permit, in 
 such cases and under such circumstances, a continu- 
 ance of the railroad ownership, control or operation 
 of the water lines, subject to such further and dif- 
 ferent orders as the Commission may subsequently 
 enter upon a further hearing and a showing of sub- 
 stantially changed circumstances and conditions/' 
 
 I am very pleased to offer these few remarks to you, 
 and I trust that I may leave with you the thought that we 
 need in New England more transportation, as President 
 Elliott has said. We- must not lose what we have. 
 
 Chairman Whitcher: Mr. Graham says that he will be 
 glad to answer any questions. 
 
 Captain White : I would like to ask the speaker if there 
 have been other advantages in the rail-and-water route 
 in regard to the expeditious handling of freight. That is 
 of even more value than the difference of route. 
 
 Mr. Graham: I would like to answer that question. As 
 I said, the Sound lines — I testified under oath that the 
 Sound lines gave us one hundred per cent, service. They 
 gave us good service until last year, when they were 
 changed by order of the Commission acting under the 
 authority of the Panama Canal Act. Prior to the season 
 of lake navigation they gave very excellent service. Our 
 Sound lines have always given the New England manu- 
 facturers excellent service. 
 
 Mr. Wing of Boston: I think I can state that so far as 
 wool is concerned that business from Duluth to Buffalo 
 
 84 
 
has proved more expeditious than the all-rail route, and 
 that the best time on wool shipments has either been by 
 the Merchants & Miners or by the Lake lines. That is to 
 say, up to the time the Commission divorced the Mer- 
 chants & Miners from the New Haven control. In fact, 
 so far as the wool trade is concerned, it has been under 
 embargo all the last season, and so far as eastbound wool 
 is concerned, we had no rate eastbound via Chicago. In 
 other words, we lost that differential over all that middle 
 territory from Montana as far as St. Louis. 
 
 Chairman Whitcher: Mr. Graham occupies the position 
 of traffic manager of the American Woolen Company, so I 
 think we may easily see that he speaks from experience. 
 
 The chairman of the Committee on Credentials, Mr. 
 Frank D. Howard of Chicopee, gentlemen. 
 
 Mr. Howard: It hardly seems necessary at a gathering 
 of this kind for a committee on credentials, except that it 
 is of interest to the body to know that in one hundred 
 and fifty cards that were signed, people representing 
 forty-six cities and towns are here representing business 
 men's organizations, boards of trade and chambers of 
 commerce, and the territory represented is all the way 
 from Cape Cod on the east to the Berkshires on the west. 
 
 Chairman Whitcher: I think we may congratulate our- 
 selves that so many gentlemen from all over the State 
 give of their time to come here to discuss this very vital 
 subject, and I know that the members of our board of 
 trade appreciate very much their doing so. 
 
 I would ask the chairman on the Committee of Eesolu- 
 tions if it is ready to report. 
 
 Mr. Corcoran : If I may suggest, I think it must be pleas- 
 ing to the members of the various boards of trade, and 
 likewise I would congratulate the State Board of Trade 
 upon the fact that we have read in the morning's paper 
 that the War Department has referred to Congress the 
 
 85 
 
widening and deepening of the Merrimac River as far as 
 Lowell, at a cost of $7,000,000, and recommended that the 
 work be finished within four years. As you know, the 
 State Board of Trade sent a committee to help forward 
 that project, and we hope that it will be but a short time 
 when we can congratulate Springfield in opening up the 
 Connecticut River. 
 
 Preamble and resolutions favor Federal regulation 
 of railway rates, interstate and intrastate Federal 
 control of railway securities issues. Proposed rail- 
 way strikes or lockouts should be subject to investi- 
 gation by the Interstate Commerce Commission. 
 
 The New Haven should retain control of its boat 
 lines. 
 
 Favor increase of Interstate Commerce Commis- 
 sion membership to nine. 
 
 The Massachusetts State Board of Trade, com- 
 prising fifty-three commercial bodies representing a 
 membership of 15,000 substantial business men, in 
 convention assembled at Springfield, December 28, 
 1916, preamble the Congress and the President of 
 the United States as follows : 
 
 Within the past few years the banking laws of the 
 country have been thoroughly remodeled and a cen- 
 tral agency established whereby the merchandizing 
 of credit has been put upon a sound economic basis 
 and the incongruities of the past done away with. 
 
 Not so with the railways. They are subject to 
 forty-nine masters — the Federal government and 
 forty-eight individual State governments. 
 
 Despite the fact that the railway business has 
 grown essentially national in scope, railway regula- 
 tion has remained local in character. It is true that the 
 government, through the Interstate Commerce Com- 
 mission, controls the railways insofar as interstate 
 traffic is concerned, and that State regulative com- 
 missions assume control merely of intrastate busi- 
 ness. But the distinction between the two — inter- 
 
 86 
 
state and intrastate — has become more artificial than 
 real, and serious conflicts have become more and more 
 frequent. 
 
 Probably the most serious charge to be made 
 against the dual system of regulation as employed 
 in the United States is its inefficiency. It is unneces- 
 sarily costly, both to the government and the rail- 
 ways, and consequently to the people. Conflicting 
 regulations and laws are passed by the various States 
 through which the railways run, and it is often diffi- 
 cult, and sometimes impossible, for a railway to obey 
 the law of one State without conflicting with the regu- 
 lations of another. A prodigious waste of energy 
 has resulted, and a corresponding loss of power to 
 serve the public. 
 
 The railways and the public suffer from present 
 conditions. Railway development has come to a 
 standstill practically. The future of the country, and 
 particularly during the next fiw years, demands a 
 more enlightened policy. In the interest of New 
 England, as well as in the interest of the whole coun- 
 try, we offer the following : 
 
 Resolved, By the Massachusetts State Board of 
 Trade in convention assembled in the city of Spring- 
 field, December 28, 1916, that the act to regulate com- 
 merce shall be so amended as to confer upon the In- 
 terstate Commission final authority over all rates 
 and regulations which affect interstate commerce, 
 whether such rates apply to interstate or intrastate 
 shipments ; and that in the event of conflict of juris- 
 diction between the Interstate Commerce Commis- 
 sion and the Railway Commissions of the several 
 States that the jurisdiction of the Interstate Com- 
 merce Commission shall be final and conclusive. 
 
 Resolved, That in order to attract the necessary 
 capital and to provide for the development of trans- 
 portation facilities to meet the rapidly growing com- 
 mercial needs of the country, and to develop its re- 
 sources, Congress should enact such legislation as 
 
 87 
 
will restore the confidence of the investing public and 
 guarantee the transportation service required to 
 meet the needs of the public, and that this confidence 
 can only be secured by giving to the Interstate Com- 
 merce Commission final and conclusive authority in 
 the matter of issuance of all railway securities. 
 
 Eesolved, That we favor an increase in the mem- 
 bership of the Interstate Commerce Commission 
 from seven to nine members, as provided for in the 
 bill which has passed the House of Eepresentatives 
 and is now before the United States Senate for final 
 passage. The Interstate Commerce Commission, in 
 a report just submitted to Congress, says : 
 
 '*The New York, New Haven & Hartford Eailroad 
 system is made up of various formerly independent 
 lines of rail and water carriers. By purchases and 
 consolidations the New Haven Company has become 
 the owner of various water lines, operated mainly 
 between New England points and New York harbor, 
 which compete directly with its rail lines between the 
 same points. There is no question as to the competi- 
 tion, but the record is replete with evidence from 
 shippers and representatives of communities in New 
 England to the effect that the service is in the inter- 
 est of the public, is of advantage to the convenience 
 and commerce of the people, and if the present own- 
 ership and operation is discontinued there will be no 
 reasonably adequate service to take its place and the 
 communities will be deprived of the benefits of the 
 water transportation and the competing routes, thus 
 inflicting irreparable injury and benefiting no one. 
 
 We think that these facts should be brought to the 
 attention of the Congress, so that in the light of those 
 facts it may determine whether or not authority shall 
 be conferred upon the Commission to permit, in such 
 cases and under such circumstances, a continuance of 
 the railroad ownership, control or operation of the 
 water lines, subject to such further and different 
 orders as the Commission may subsequently enter 
 
 88 
 
upon a further hearing and a showing of substan- 
 tially changed circumstances and conditions,'' 
 
 There is no need to add to the statement of the In- 
 terstate Commerce Commission, which discloses that 
 the sentiment of the New Englaiid public is in favor 
 of ** giving to the Interstate Commerce Commission 
 the power to continue the present situation of rail- 
 road control both of the Sound lines and the Lake 
 lines as well. ' ' Therefore, be it 
 
 Eesolved, That the Massachusetts State Board of 
 Trade urge the Congress to pass the following 
 amendment to the fourth paragraph of Section 5 (as 
 amended August 24, 1912) of the Act to regulate 
 commerce, as follows: 
 
 If the Interstate Commerce Commission shall be of 
 the opinion that any such existing specified service 
 by water other than through the Panama Canal is 
 being operated in the interest of the public and i^ of 
 advantage to the convenience and commerce of the 
 the people, or that such extension will neither ex- 
 clude, prevent nor reduce competition in the route by 
 water under consideration, the Interstate Commerce 
 Commission may, by order, extend the time during 
 which such service by water may continue to be oper- 
 ated beyond July first, nineteen hundred and four- 
 teen. 
 
 Resolved, That a copy of this preamble and these 
 resolutions be forwarded to each member of the 
 House of Eepresentatives and the United States Sen- 
 ate and to the President of the United States. 
 (Signed) John H. Cokcoran, 
 
 Chairman. 
 
 Other members of Committee on Resolutions as 
 follows : 
 
 William Henry Gleason, Winchester, Mass. 
 
 Representing Associated Industries. 
 Joseph Wing, Brookline, Mass. 
 
 Representing National Wool Mfgrs. Ass'n. 
 
 89 
 
George F. Willett, Norwood, Mass. 
 
 Representing Norwood Board of Trade. 
 Honorable Frank E. Stacy, Springfield, Mass. 
 
 Representing Springfield Board of Trade. 
 F. Alexander Chandler, Boston, Mass. 
 
 Representing New England Hardware Dealers 
 Ass'n. 
 George L. Avery, Framingham, Mass. 
 
 Representing Framingham Board of Trade. 
 George C. Morton, Boston, Mass. 
 
 Representing Paint and Oil Club of New Eng- 
 land. 
 
 Chairman Whitcher : It is moved that these resolutions 
 be adopted. 
 
 Mr. Corcoran: In considering this whole matter your 
 committee has been guided by this one thought, of accom- 
 plishing something. If we reach out after too much we 
 are apt to fall short. If it goes into effect and we find 
 that these State commissions do not act, then we should 
 surely favor regional commissions. But the thought of 
 the committee was that we had better take one step at a 
 time and progress slowly and surely. We do not want to 
 take over from the State Commission all authority, for 
 we know that it would be an impossibility to get through 
 Congress an amendment to the Constitution for Federal 
 incorporation. We have omitted that, but if it is the con- 
 census of this meeting that it should be included the com- 
 mittee have no objections. 
 
 Chairman Whitcher: If Mr. Corcoran has no objections, 
 the Chair would prefer to have action first on the ac- 
 ceptance of the report of the committee and afterward 
 upon the adoption of the resolution, and with your per- 
 mission, gentlemen, as Mr. Corcoran makes that motion, 
 if it is seconded. 
 
 Mr. Gleason: I rise to second that, and to say that we 
 felt that we wanted to leave out anything that might lead 
 
 90 
 
to discussion or contention. We wanted to draw a set of 
 resolutions that will include the opinion of every man in 
 the audience, and we think we have done so. 
 
 Chairman Whitcher: Are you ready for accepting the 
 report of the committee? Those in favor say *^aye." 
 (Motion carried.) The motion is carried and you have 
 accepted the report. 
 
 Now, upon the adoption of the resolutions, Mr. Cor- 
 coran made the motion that the resolution be adopted. Is 
 that motion seconded? (Motion seconded.) Shall we 
 adopt them as a whole, or in any other form? 
 
 Member of Audience : As a whole. 
 
 Chairman Whitcher: Are there any remarks? Are you 
 ready for the question ? As many as are in favor of adop- 
 ting the report of the Eesolutions Committee as read say 
 ^*aye.*' (Motion carried.) It is a unanimous vote in 
 favor of the adoption of those resolutions. 
 
 Mr. Corcoran : This work has only begun, and I sincerely 
 hope that the fifty-three affiliated bodies will take this 
 matter up in their respective boards of trade. You 
 gentlemen are well aware that the local board of trade 
 has more effect on the Congressmen than any resolution 
 we might offer, and we know we are sincere in this matter 
 and I sincerely hope that the Secretary will take action 
 and see if we of New England cannot accomplish some- 
 thing for our own field. If we cannot accomplish some- 
 thing with twelve Senators from New England it is New 
 England's own fault and the fault of her business men. 
 
 91 
 
f">-<^ ■> ">*< 
 
 Mm 
 
 m 
 
 i 
 
 
 ii 
 
 ll! 
 
m 
 
 YC 8961