LIBRARY 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA 
 RIVERSIDE 
 
 J13HS
 
 LIBRARY 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA 
 RIVERSIDE 
 
 THE DOUBLE EDGE 
 OF LABOR'S SWORD 
 
 Discussion and Testimony 
 00 
 
 Socialism and Trade-Unionism 
 
 before the 
 
 Commission on Industrial Relations 
 BY 
 
 MORRIS HILLQUIT 
 SAMUEL GOMPERS 
 and MAX J. HAYES 
 
 Price, 25 Gents 
 
 CHICAGO 
 Socialist Party, National Office
 
 THE DOUBLE EDGE 
 OF LABOR'S SWORD 
 
 Discussion and Testimony 
 
 on 
 
 Socialism and Trade-Unionism 
 
 before the 
 
 Commission on Industrial Relations 
 BY 
 
 MORRIS ^ILLQUIT 
 SAMUEL GOMPERS 
 and MAX J. HAYES 
 
 Price, 25 Gents 
 
 CHICAGO 
 Socialist Party, National Office
 
 HS5
 
 CONTENTS 
 
 PAGE 
 
 INTRODUCTION 5 
 
 FIRST SESSION: 
 
 Aims and Methods of the Socialist 
 Movement 9 
 
 SECOND SESSION: 
 
 Socialist Attitude Towards Trade 
 Unionism 35 
 
 THIRD SESSION: 
 
 The Aims and Methods of the 
 
 American Federation of Labor ... 86 
 
 FOURTH SESSION: 
 
 The Conflicts between Capital and 
 Labor 133 
 
 FIFTH SESSION: 
 
 Socialism and Trade-Unionism .... 153 
 
 Why Victor Berger voted against that 
 
 "Rider" to the Sundry Civil Bill . . 191
 
 INTRODUCTION 
 
 On the 23rd day of August, 1912, Congress passed 
 an act creating a commission known as the Commis- 
 sion on Industrial Relations. The act provided among 
 other things that "the Commission shall inquire into 
 the general condition of labor in the principal indus- 
 tries of -the United States, including agriculture, and 
 especially those which are carried on in corporate 
 forms; into existing relation between employers and 
 employes * * * into the growth of associations of 
 employers and wage-earners and the effect of such 
 associations upon the relations between employers and 
 employes * * * into any methods which have been 
 tried in any state or in foreign countries for maintain- 
 ing mutually satisfactory relations between employes 
 and employers * * *. The Commision shall seek to 
 discover the underlying causes of dissatisfaction in 
 the industrial situation and report its conclusions 
 thereon" 
 
 It was one of the most striking measures of modern 
 legislation involving, as it did, an official recognition 
 of the existence of a general and chronic industrial un- 
 rest and representing the first attempt at a general 
 stock-taking of industrial conditions and relations in 
 the United States. 
 
 The act specified that the Commission "shall be 
 composed of nine persons, to be appointed by the 
 President of the United States, by and with the advice 
 and consent of the Senate; not less than three of whom
 
 shall be employers of labor and not less than three of 
 whom shall be representatives of organized labor." 
 
 On June 26, 1913, President Wilson named the 
 following persons as members of the Commissions. 
 On the part of the public: Frank P. Walsh, a well- 
 known lawyer of Kansas City, Missouri, to serve as 
 President of the Commission; Professor John R. Com- 
 mons, the noted sociologist of Madison, Wisconsin, 
 and Mrs. J. Borden Harriman of New York; On the 
 part of the employers: Frederick A. Delano, railway- 
 president of Chicago, Illinois ; Harris Weinstock, mer- 
 chant, author and social worker, of Sacramento, Cali- 
 fornia, and S. Thurston Ballard, capitalist, of St. 
 Louis, Missouri. On the part of organized labor: 
 John B. Lennon and James O'Connell, both officers 
 of the American Federation of Labor and" Austin 
 B. Garretson, President of the Order of Railway Con- 
 ductors. 
 
 The Commission was given wide powers, including 
 the power of holding public hearings in all parts of 
 the United States and compelling the attendance of 
 witnesses. It has held many interesting hearings and 
 has brought to light much valuable information on the 
 relations and struggles between the employing and the 
 working classes in the United States. But the hearing 
 which will probably remain most memorable in the 
 annals of the American labor movement was that held 
 in the City of New York on May 21, 22 and 23, 1914, 
 and which had for its object the study of the aims, 
 methods and mutual relations of the main divisions of 
 organized labor. The Socialist Party, the American 
 Federation of Labor, and the Industrial Workers of 
 the World, were each requested to designate spokes- 
 men for their respective organizations, and the rep- 
 resentatives so chosen were as follows: For the So- 
 cialist Party Morris Hillquit, Chairman of its Na- 
 tional Committee; for the American Federation of 
 Labor Samuel Gompers, its President; for the In-
 
 dustrial Workers of the World Vincent St. John, 
 its Secretary-Treasurer. Additional witnesses at the 
 hearing were: Max S. Hayes, a prominent member 
 of the Socialist Party as well as of the American 
 Federation of Labor; Mr. Joseph Ettor, a representa- 
 tive of the Industrial Workers of the World, and Mr. 
 F. G. R. Gordon, a former Socialist, who appeared 
 at the hearing in behalf of the American Federation 
 of Labor. Mr. Gordon's "testimony" was brief and 
 had practically no relation to the subject under dis- 
 cussion. The testimony of Vincent St. John and 
 Joseph Ettor was entirely confined to the aims and 
 methods of the Industrial Workers of the World, and 
 contributed little, if anything, to the study of the mu- 
 tual relations between Socialism and trade unionism in 
 the United States. These relations were treated by 
 Messrs. Hillquit, Gompers and Hayes, and their 
 "testimony" represents the most exhaustive discussion 
 of the subject ever published. For the first time au- 
 thoritative spokesmen of the two great divisions of 
 the American labor movement, the political and the 
 economic, met face to face under official auspices to 
 compare their views, aims and methods. No limits 
 were set by the Commission; the "witnesses" spoke 
 frankly and freely, without restraint or reserve. The 
 proceedings were particularly enlivened by the mutual 
 cross-examination of Messrs. Hillquit and Gompers, 
 which occupied the better part of the hearing and 
 held the audience in unabated, almost spell-bound at- 
 tention from start to finish. It was not a hostile en- 
 counter, nor was it purely a battle of wits. On the 
 whole it was an earnest search for the truth punc- 
 tured now and then by good-natured mutual thrusts. 
 Mr. Samuel Gompers, as one. of the most typical rep- 
 resentatives jof the old-line,' pure-and-simple trade 
 unionists attempted to disclaim any connection, physi- 
 cal or spiritual, between the trade union movement and 
 the Socialist movement, between the economic and the
 
 political organizations of the workers. Mr. Morris 
 Hillquit, taking the official stand of the Socialist Party, 
 endeavored to prove the identity of aims and interests 
 of both divisions of the labor movement, and the neces- 
 sity of their mutual co-operation on the fields of 
 political as well as economic battle. The numerous 
 involuntary concessions made by Mr. Gompers on his 
 cross-examination are among the most amusing and 
 significant features of the discussion. 
 
 The succeeding pages contain a stenographic account 
 of the "testimony" and cross-examination of Messrs. 
 Hillquit, Gompers and Hayes. A number of insignifi- 
 cant corrections have been necessitated by stenogra- 
 pher's errors and by occasional lapses or loose wording 
 of statements on the part of witnesses. But these 
 corrections are purely verbal. The publishers have 
 been careful to preserve the form as well as the spirit 
 and substance of the discussion without adding or 
 subtracting anything and with all the directness and 
 spontaneity with which it was presented before the 
 Commission. 
 
 It is the sincere conviction of the publishers that 
 the reading of this unique discussion will contribute 
 materially to a better understanding between the So- 
 cialists and the trade unionists of the country, and 
 this booklet is published for the equal benefit of both. 
 
 New York, September, 1914.
 
 FIRST SESSION. 
 
 Aims and Methods of the Socialist 
 Movement 
 
 The First Session was held in the City Hall, in the 
 City of New York. Mr. Frank P. Walsh, Chairman 
 of the Commission, presided, and the following mem- 
 bers of the Commission were present, besides the 
 chairman: John B. Lennon, Mrs. J. Borden Harri- 
 man, Austin B. Garretson, James O'Connell, S. Thurs- 
 ton Ballard and Frederick A. Delano. 
 
 Mr. William O. Thompson, counsel to the Com- 
 mission, conducted the examination. 
 
 The first meeting was opened at 10 A. M. 
 
 CHAIRMAN WALSH : The Commission will please 
 come to order. Mr. Thompson. 
 
 MR. THOMPSON : Mr. Chairman and members of 
 the Commission : In the Act creating this Commis- 
 sion you are directed by Congress, among other 
 things, to inquire into the existing organizations 
 of labor, and also into their effect on the industrial 
 situation. In obedience to that direction, we have 
 for our public hearings, in the next two days, the 
 subject of the American Federation of Labor, the 
 Socialist Party, and the Industrial Workers of the 
 World. These have been selected as being three 
 representative organizations of labor, in this coun- 
 try, and we have thought it wise to hear them 
 together. 
 
 In the hearing on this subject it has been thought 
 best to put on the principal representatives of the 
 respective parties, who may state, as we might say,
 
 their platform ; and as these organizations cover, 
 as we know, a good deal of the same field, to recall 
 these representatives and give them an opportunity 
 to comment upon the reasons for their existence, 
 which may call for some comments on the part of 
 the other parties. It is the desire, as I understand, 
 of this Commission, to permit these witnesses this 
 opportunity. For that reason, Mr. Chairman, 1 
 would like to call on Mr. Gompers for a statement 
 of the principles and purpose of the American Fed- 
 eration of Labor. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of 
 the Commission : I have not heard the entire state- 
 ment of Mr. Thompson as to the procedure con- 
 templated in the special investigation that is about 
 to be undertaken. I have seen statements published 
 in the public press as to the nature of the investiga- 
 tion about to be undertaken ; and if there be any 
 proper inferences to be drawn from those state- 
 ments, it seems to be that the Federation is to be 
 made the subject for analysis and for dissection. 
 So far as I am concerned, as the President of the 
 American Federation of Labor, I have no hesitancy 
 in saying that we welcome any attack or criticism 
 or abuse, that any one may care to launch against 
 the Americn Federation of Labor; and I shall en- 
 deavor then to answer it. I am free to say this, 
 now, that I come in answer to the subpoena of this 
 Commission with the intention of playing the game 
 open and fair, and with the cards upon the table. 
 But I do not want to have it appear upon the record 
 that I have introduced matters which may seem to 
 be extraneous to the investigation. And yet these 
 same themes are the subject of general discussion 
 among the opponents of the American Federation 
 of Labor, those who do not understand, and those 
 who may understand it and have some peculiar kink- 
 in their reasoning powers, and consequently are 
 
 10
 
 scarcely responsible for their utterances regarding 
 the American Federation of Labor. But be they 
 as they may, I think that the existing organizations 
 of the American working people to-day are entitled 
 to know what we are officially called upon to meet. 
 I feel that it is a matter of right which I owe to 
 the American Federation of Labor, an organization 
 which has been in existence for more than 33 years, 
 to know what the organization has to meet by way 
 of criticism or antagonism from its opponents. As 
 I say, I may not have the right to bring in here 
 matters which, unless they are on the record, 
 would be regarded as extraneous, and as having 
 been simply thrust in on my part. And I have no 
 hesitancy in believing that the opponents of the 
 American Federation of Labor will only welcome 
 the opportunity of launching all their attacks and 
 criticisms against us. 
 
 CHAIRMAN WALSH : I will try to reply to your 
 suggestions, Mr. Gompers. I will state, as Judge 
 Thompson started out to say, and state properly 
 the program for to-day : 
 
 Morning session : Samuel Gompers, statement of 
 purposes and methods of the American Federation 
 of Labor, forty minutes. 
 
 Morris Hillquit, statement of purposes and methods 
 of Socialist Patrty, forty minutes. 
 
 Vincent St. John, statement of purposes and 
 methods of Industrial Workers of the World, forty 
 minutes. 
 
 Afternoon session: Vincent St. John (recalled). 
 
 Criticism of the other organizations : 
 
 Joseph Ettor, extension of Mr. St. John's criticism, 
 on the basis of practical experience. 
 
 F. R. G. Gordon, statement 6n behalf of the Amer- 
 ican Federation of Labor. 
 
 Friday, morning session: Max Hayes, state- 
 ment from the point of view of a prominent member 
 
 11
 
 of the Socialist Party, who is also active in the sup- 
 port of the A. F. of L. 
 
 Joseph W. Sullivan, statement on behalf of the 
 American Federation of Labor. 
 
 Afternoon session: Morris Hillquit, Vincent St. 
 John, Samuel Gompers, recalled in rebuttal. 
 
 The proposition is this, Mr. Gompers, that if you 
 haven't already been informed that there is, of course, 
 a difference of opinion, not only among the various 
 organizations that are mentioned and called here, but 
 there is a lack of information on the part of the 
 'public as to the aims and purposes of all of these or- 
 ganizations. Now, the Commission has attempted to 
 put this in as concise and good a form as they possibly 
 can, to develop in the time they have at their command, 
 a statement as to the aims and purposes of each. You 
 are called on first, as I understand the Committee on 
 these public hearings, because you represent this old 
 organization what might be called the standard or- 
 ganization of labor in this country, and inasmuch as 
 this is the definite organization, the Committee thought 
 well to let you make your statement of the aims and 
 purposes, together with these gentlemen, Mr. Sulli- 
 van and Mr. Gordon, and to let those who might have 
 criticisms come in between and then to give you an 
 opportunity of rebuttal. Now, whether that has been 
 wisely or properly laid out, that plan, nevertheless, 
 is the plan. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Mr. Chairman, pardon me, you 
 say I am permitted forty minutes for the presenta- 
 tion of that for which the American Federation of 
 Labor stands.. I have not had any previous notice 
 that I should be required to do that, and it is not 
 an easy matter for a man to attempt offhand to state 
 before an official body the aims and purposes of the 
 American Federation of Labor. 
 
 CHAIRMAN WALSH : Well, if there is any reason 
 sufficient to you, on account of which you do not 
 
 12
 
 desire to be heard, or if the rules laid down by the 
 Commission are such that you do not want to be 
 heard under them, of course we will excuse you, 
 though we do not like to do it, but this is the way 
 we have laid down our plans. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: That is intended as a curt request 
 for me to retire? 
 
 CHAIR,MAN WALSH : Why certainly not. If that 
 sounded curt I am very sorry, as it was not so in- 
 tended. I did not mean to be curt. I tried to state 
 my proposition in a business-like and concise way, 
 and we would be delighted to have your views. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: I will submit to the Commission's 
 order, whatever it is. 
 
 CHAIRMAN WALSH : Take the chair, then. 
 
 MR. THOMPSON: I would say, Mr. Chairman, that 
 if it is agreeable to Mr. Gompers, and if Mr. St. John 
 and Mr. Morris Hillquit are here, we may hear from 
 them first and give Mr. Gompers the opportunity of 
 collecting his data on that subject. 
 
 Mr. Gompers thereupon left the stand, and the 
 Commission heard Mr. Vincent St. John, Secretary- 
 Treasurer of the Industrial Workers of the World. 
 Mr. St. John's testimony as well as that of Mr. Joseph 
 Ettor, who was heard later, have no direct bearing on 
 the relations between Socialism and Trade-Unionism, 
 and have therefore been omitted from this volume. 
 
 Mr. Morris Hillquit was called as the next wit- 
 ness, and testified as follow r s : 
 
 MR. THOMPSON : For the purpose of the record, 
 will you kindly give us your name and address? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Morris Hillquit, 246 West I39th 
 Street, New York City. 
 
 MR. THOMPSON: And your occupation? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Lawyer. 
 
 MR. THOMPSON : Are you a member of the So- 
 cialist Party? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: I am. 
 
 13
 
 MR. THOMPSON': What is the name of the party? 
 
 MR. Hiii.oriT: Soriali-t Party of tlu- I'lntol 
 States. 
 
 MR. THOMPSON: If YOU know, how long has that 
 party been in existence as a party? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: In its present form and under its 
 present name, since 1900. 
 
 MR. THOMPSON :Were there any prior organizations 
 which were merged into the party? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Yes, sir. There was the Socialist- 
 Labor Party, organized in 1877; there was the Social- 
 Democratic Party, organized in 1898, and several local 
 organizations. The greater part of the Socialist- 
 Labor Party, all of the Social-Democratic Party, and 
 some independent organizations were merged in the 
 present Socialist Party. 
 
 MR. THOMPSON : What is the present form, Mr. 
 Hillquit, of that organization? 
 
 MR,. HILLQUIT: The Socialist Party is a political 
 body, consisting of state organizations within each 
 state of the Union. The state organizations in 
 turn are comprised of local organizations, county, 
 city or town. The Socialist Party has an enrolled 
 dues-paying membership, as distinguished from other 
 political parties. The dues-paying membership of the 
 Party at the present time comprises about 115,000 
 men and women. 
 
 MR. THOMPSON : What form of control or govern- 
 ment has the Party, its officers, committees, etc.? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: It has a national committee com- 
 posed of representatives from each state organization, 
 representation being based on dues-paying member- 
 ship. 
 
 The National Committee meets in 'session once a 
 year, and elects a National Executive Committee com- 
 posed of five members. 
 
 There is a National Secretary, who conducts the 
 
 14
 
 practical business of the Party throughout the year, 
 at Chicago, with a staff of assistants. 
 
 MR. THOMPSON: This Executive Committee of five 
 members that you mentioned, Mr. Hillquit, is the 
 committee that designated you as the representative 
 official of the Party here? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: It is. 
 
 MR. THOMPSON : What, first, are the powers of 
 the larger committee, and next, the powers of those 
 smaller committees and of the officers? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: The National Committee practi- 
 cally acts as a convention of the Party between regu- 
 lar nominating conventions. It meets once a year, 
 receives reports of officers, lays out plans of work for 
 the coming year, elects the executive officers, and 
 recommends amendments to the Constitution of the 
 Party. 
 
 The National Executive Committee is practically 
 vested with the powers of the National Committee 
 between sessions. It meets at frequent intervals, 
 about once in every two or three months, and between 
 meetings transacts business by correspondence. 
 
 The National Committee, as well as the National 
 Executive Committee, and the National Secretary, are 
 subject to directions of the membership expressed by 
 referendum from time to time. 
 
 MR. THOMPSON : Has the Socialist Party a con- 
 stitution ? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT : It has. 
 
 MR. THOMPSON: A written constitution? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Yes, sir. 
 
 MR. THOMPSON: Have you got a copy of it? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: I have. 
 
 MR. THOMPSON : Would you mind filing it with 
 the Commission? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Not at all. 
 
 (The Constitution and By-Laws were marked 
 "Hillquit, Exhibit I.") 
 
 15
 
 MR. THOMPSON: Mr. Hillquit, I would like you to 
 state in your own way the reason, as you see it, for 
 the existence of the Socialist Party and its purposes 
 and plans. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: I will start out with the purposes 
 and plans first, and follow up with the reasons for 
 its existence as I see them. 
 
 The object of the Socialist Party and of the So- 
 cialist movement may be summarized in a few words 
 the nationalization of the industries. The Socialist 
 Party believes that the principal and most important 
 industries of the country, such upon which the life 
 and welfare of the community depend, should be 
 owned, managed, and controlled not by individuals, 
 or private corporations, for their personal benefit and 
 profit and without regard to public welfare, but that 
 they should be conducted as a social function, prim- 
 arily for the benefit of the community, by responsible 
 agencies of the people organized for that purpose. 
 
 Concretely stated, Socialism stands for the col- 
 lective ownership of the principal tools, sources and 
 resources of wealth production. 
 
 When I say collective ownership, I do not mean 
 by that national ownership of all industries in the 
 country. The Socialists would abolish private, irre- 
 sponsible ownership and would substitute social 
 ownership in such form as is, in each case, best 
 adapted to a given industry. For instance, we advo- 
 cate national ownership of, say, interstate railroads, 
 telephones, telegraphs and other means of interstate 
 communication and transportation. We may also 
 conceive the propriety of national ownership and man- 
 agement of mines, or of such industries as are 
 already organized on a national scale, such, for 
 instance, as the great trustified industries of the 
 country. We may, on the other hand, conceive of 
 certain industries wholly located within one state 
 and best managed by the state government. 
 
 16
 
 Then, there is the large area of municipal indus- 
 tries, such as street cars, water works and gas works, 
 which should be operated, and could be operated 
 most economically and to the Lest advantage, by the 
 city. 
 
 We may also conceive of certain other industries 
 so unorganized, and perhaps unorganizable in their 
 nature, as to be incapable even of municipal opera- 
 tion. Such industries, small industries, might be con- 
 ducted by co-operative groups, under certain govern- 
 ment, supervision and control, for the protection of 
 the workers and consumers alike. 
 
 The system of Socialism, as we understand it, does 
 not necessarily exclude the private ownership and 
 management of purely individual industries, such as 
 the various arts and crafts, and other industries not 
 based upon the exploitation of labor, but purely on 
 personal efforts. 
 
 Now, this Socialist program is by no means an 
 arbitrary or ingenious device of a new social scheme. 
 It is nothing but an attempt at the solution of certain 
 social problems which have arisen but recently, and 
 to which, the Socialists believe, it is the only answer. 
 
 I suppose the Commission here, in going over its 
 very large and interesting task, has come across a 
 number of social problems and social evils, and one 
 of its objects is to find suitable remedies for them. 
 
 That is precisely what the Socialists have been doing 
 for the last half a century, and very few persons real- 
 ize that the social problems we are encountering are 
 new; that they have arisen within the last century, 
 and that they require a solution such as would grow 
 out from their very nature. 
 
 The Socialists find that all or most of the indus- 
 trial, political, and largely also social problems of the 
 day are due to the private ownership of the tools and 
 other instruments of wealth production, and that these 
 problems have arisen with the system of private owner- 
 
 17
 
 of the social tool. Here, again, the general con- 
 ception that this is a condition that has confronted 
 mankind practically always is entirely erroneous. 
 
 The point which I wish to make, and which is 
 important for a comprehension of the Socialist philos- 
 ophy, is this: The conditions of a century ago or 
 more do not exist to-day. Wealth is produced dif- 
 ferently. In olden times wealth was produced on an 
 individual basis. That is, it was produced by means 
 of simple, inexpensive, individual tools. The workers 
 or wealth producers were mostly independent mechan- 
 ics who did not need large capital, machinery, or 
 factories for their work. They depended largely on 
 their individual skill. They required a small tool, 
 which they possessed. They worked in a small work- 
 shop or in their homes. They produced the entire 
 commodity from beginning to the end. They worked 
 for a specific consumer; they suited his tastes. The 
 commodity, when produced, was their own in every 
 sense of the term, legally, as well as morally, and 
 the question of division of the product could not pos- 
 sibly arise under such circumstances. There was no 
 division of the product. The product rightfully, 
 logically, belonged to the producer. Then, within the 
 last century, imperceptibly and steadily a tremendous 
 change, amounting to a veritable revolution, occurred 
 in our methods of producing wealth. We are all 
 familiar with it. The individual tool underwent a 
 gradual evolution. It developed into the more in- 
 volved, complex tool, then into the primitive machine, 
 until by slow stages it reached the condition of the 
 modern huge machine, propelled by steam or elec- 
 tricity, and doing the work of thousands of hands. 
 
 Now, this change necessarily entailed a number of 
 corresponding changes. In the first place, a machine 
 requires a factory for its housing. It requires it on 
 account of its great bulk; and it requires it also on 
 account of the fact that a machine in its essence, j.ro- 
 
 18
 
 duces a mere particle of the product, instead of the 
 entire product. So that, in order to have the whole 
 product, a set of machines is always required. A set 
 of machines, on the other hand, can only he economi- 
 cally maintained if operated by a large number of 
 employees, and if it produces large quantities of prod- 
 ucts. So that the factory began to congregate large 
 numbers of individual workers under its roof. 
 Gradually the independent mechanic or artisan 
 of old times lost his independence. Gradually 
 the worker drifted into the factory. Gradually he 
 became a mere cog in the wheel instead of being the 
 principal factor. It was no more a question of indivi- 
 dual skill or ability on his part. In order to work, he 
 must have the modern instruments of production. 
 He cannot work unless he uses modern machinery, 
 and he cannot own modern machinery. He cannot 
 own it, first, because it represents a very large outlay 
 of capital. It means not only the purchase of one 
 machine but of a number of machines, and it pre- 
 supposes a factory and raw material. Besides, if 
 the worker could own the machine, that would not 
 help him. Suppose you take an individual worker 
 to-day and give him one of the great modern ma- 
 chines, he would still be an industrial fraction. All he 
 could do would be to produce one uniform particle 
 of some commodity, meaningless in itself. 
 
 The transformation means that we have passed from 
 individualism in production to socialized production. 
 In other words, the worker has become a social ser- 
 vant, as the machine has become a social tool, and the 
 factory a social workshop. 
 
 In keeping with this change, it would have been 
 logical, just and equitable to transform the ownership 
 of the machine into social ownership. In other words, 
 if society, by this process of industrial evolution, has 
 deprived 1,000 individual workmen of 1,000 individual 
 tools by which they have been in the habit of making 
 
 19
 
 a living for themselves, and has substituted for those 
 i, OCX) individual tools, say, ten great machines, to 
 be operated by the same 1,000 men, the equitable 
 arrangement would have been to place these 1,000 
 men, properly organized, in possession of the com- 
 plexity of new machines taking the place of the for- 
 mer tools, and to allow them to continue operating 
 them collectively for their own uses and purposes. 
 The evolution, as a matter of fact, took a differ- 
 ent direction. While the methods of production be- 
 came social, and the workers became social servants, 
 the ownership of the machine remained individual. It 
 drifted into the hands of, say, a lucky mechanic who, 
 for some reason or other was enabled to make the 
 first start, or perhaps into those of a person who never 
 had anything in common with the industrial process 
 at all, but happened to have the capital to secure the 
 new machine and to equip the factory to work in. 
 
 This separation of function and ownership has re- 
 sulted in the creation of economic classes, and there 
 is something which, I believe, every social investigator 
 and every social worker should bear in mind first of 
 all, the comparatively recent origin of social and eco- 
 nomic classes in the United States. 
 
 If you go back to the period before the introduc- 
 tion of modern machinery, there practically were no 
 permanent economic class divisions in the United 
 States. There were those that were better off than 
 others, but fixed and permanent economic classes did 
 not exist. 
 
 The helper or apprentice of a century ago always 
 considered his dependent position transitory, and he 
 had a good right to, for, after his apprenticeship was 
 over, he could set up for himself, and when land was 
 abandoned and practically free, he could well go out 
 and take up farming. However, with the introduc- 
 tion of machinery the laborer to-day, with rare ex- 
 ceptions, is a laborer forever, and he breeds and pro- 
 
 20
 
 duces a generation of laborers. A workingman in 
 several thousands may succeed in breaking into the 
 ranks of wealth, but that is always an exception. 
 
 The vast majority of workers receive just enough 
 to sustain their lives, perhaps a little less occasionally ; 
 and they can never expect to save up sufficient capital 
 to undertake independent work with modern methods 
 and- on a modern scale. And, furthermore, it is 
 physically quite impossible for every worker to be 
 a factory owner, for there must be somebody in the 
 factory also to operate the machine. Consequently, 
 for a majority of the workers, the condition of de- 
 pendence has become permanent and hereditary. We 
 have for the first time in our history a fixed and 
 hereditary working class. And by the same token, 
 we have permanently with us a capitalist class. 
 
 When I speak of a capitalist class, I mean the 
 class of men or women who own the tools of pro- 
 duction which the workers need for their work. They 
 are capitalists only to the extent to which they own 
 such tools of production. Their, ownership may be 
 direct or indirect; it may be represented by stocks or 
 bonds, but it is still ownership. A capitalist may 
 even be a hard worker, but that does not change the 
 situation. If a capitalist is an active worker in his 
 industry he earns only as much as his work is worth. 
 But inasmuch as he derives also a workless income, 
 an income from the ownership of the machinery of 
 production, whether it be a railroad or a mine or 
 anything else, to that extent he is a capitalist, and 
 in that sense the capitalists are a permanent and here- 
 ditary class. Here also there are exceptions. There 
 are the capitalists' sons who dissipate their fortunes, 
 and perhaps sink to the level of the laborer, but these 
 are likewise the exceptions, and as the fortunes grow 
 larger the relapses become rarer and rarer. The capi- 
 talist class tends to become permanent and hereditary 
 just as much as the laboring class. 
 
 21
 
 We claim that the origin and existence of those 
 two classes account for most of the evils for which 
 we seek remedies. And that for the following rea- 
 sons: The ecenomic interest of the two classes are 
 opposed to each other; they are antagonistic. By 
 that I do not mean that there always exists a per- 
 sonal hostility between the worker and the employer. 
 Their relations may be very friendly, very cordial, 
 but their interests are of necessity opposed to "each 
 other. The capitalist deriving this income from 
 profits, that is, from the portion of the product which 
 goes to him by virtue of his ownership of the means 
 of production, and the worker receiving wages, which 
 means that part of the product which the capitalist 
 leaves to him after deducting his own share, it is 
 natural that the capitalist will always endeavor to 
 make his share of the product as large as possible, 
 and the worker likewise. 
 
 . The capitalist is in business for profits. The worker 
 is in business for wages. Each depends upon a share 
 of the same general product. The smaller the wages 
 under normal circumstances, the larger the profits, 
 and the smaller the profits the larger the wages. 
 
 So we have this economic conflict which expresses 
 itself in a variety of ways. It works under the sur- 
 face; it is not even always conscsiously perceived by 
 the workers or the capitalists. If you tell some 
 workers to-day that their interests are opposed to 
 those of the employer, they will say, "No. they are not. 
 They are perfectly harmonious." At the same time. 
 during their work, they will instinctively act en the 
 opposite assumption. They will try to conserve their 
 labor power, the sole source of their living. They 
 will strive to secure a raise of a dollar or two. or as 
 much as they can. They will bicker with their employer 
 at all times, and their employer with them. It may 
 all be done in a good-natured way, but there is the 
 unconscious manifestation of the class struggle. Some- 
 
 22
 
 times it will flare up; there will be a strike, or there 
 will be a lockout; sometimes it will assume a very 
 violent character, such, for instance, as the present 
 labor struggles in Colorado. But all these manifesta- 
 tions are simply different forms and different degrees 
 of the struggle. It is always the struggle for economic 
 advantages between the employer and the employee, 
 whose interests are opposed to each other. 
 
 We claim, then, that this class struggle is at the 
 bottom of the greatest number of our present indus- 
 trial problems, and we claim that this problem cannot 
 be solved unless we abolish the very system which 
 has produced it. We may preach harmony between 
 employers and employees, or we may have organiza- 
 tions especially formed for the promotion of such 
 harmony, such, for instance, as the National Civic 
 Federation, but, as a matter of fact, so long as the 
 economic interests of the two classes remain con- 
 flicting, so long will no actual harmony exist between 
 them. 
 
 The Socialists claim that by abolishing the system 
 of private ownership in the instruments and tools of 
 production, and by substituting for it a system of 
 collective ownership, the classes and class distinctions 
 ' and class antagonisms will disappear, and that other- 
 wise they cannot. If you take all other problems 
 which are kno\vn as special industrial problems, such 
 as the problem of child labor, or the problem of woman 
 labor, you find in them an application of the same 
 theory. So long as the modern machinery makes the 
 labor of women and children profitable, and so long 
 as it is in the interest of the employer to get his labor 
 as cheap as possible, and so long as the workers them- 
 selves are not paid sufficiently to maintain their 
 families in decent comfort, so long will child labor 
 and cheap woman labor prevail. Some restrictions, 
 some mitigations of the evil are possible, but the root 
 of it is in the private ownership of the .machine by 
 
 23
 
 the individual capitalist, and will remain so long as 
 the system prevails. 
 
 I could go over the list of all other social prob- 
 lems. I could take up the question of the unemployed, 
 for instance, and bring that back to the capitalist 
 system. Under normal and rational economic condi- 
 tions there should be no unemployment in the United 
 States. For, what does unemployment mean? It 
 is not that we do not stand in need or that we have 
 a superfluity of commodities too much food or too 
 much clothing or furniture, and that for this reason 
 we cannot allow our entire working population to 
 continue working. We still need all that their work 
 can produce. There are millions of citizens who stand 
 in need of food, clothing, shelter, furniture, books, 
 and so on, but we do not produce them, although we 
 have the facilities to do so. We have the natural re- 
 sources for it. We have the requisite skill for it, 
 and w.e have millions of workers ready and eager to 
 do the work required for their own sustenance. But 
 the present system of production is not based upon 
 social needs. It is not a social function. It is a case 
 where a number of individuals manufacture for profit 
 in a haphazard fashion. They produce a certain 
 quantity ; they employ a certain number of men ; they 
 employ them for as many hours a day as they can 
 exact from them, and they are guided by the require- 
 ments of a market which is made by the ability of 
 men to pay for what they need, not by what they 
 need. Consequently, under the capitalist system, there 
 always remains an army of unemployed workers. 
 Some of them are unemployed temporarily, others 
 become permanently unemployed, others lose the 
 capacity for work by long idleness, others become old 
 and disabled, and so we get the hobo and tramp and 
 the unemployable. 
 
 We could even take the problem of crime and vice, 
 and we would find that a good deal of it, by no means 
 
 24
 
 all of it, may be brought home directly to the present 
 economic system. 
 
 The Socialists say the only way to cure all these 
 evils and maladjustment is by placing the ownership 
 of the means of production in accord with its man- 
 ner of their operation. In other words, making the 
 process of wealth production social instead of in- 
 dividual ; making it serve the people instead of serv- 
 ing the capitalists; producing for use instead of pro- 
 ducing for profit. 
 
 The Socialists do not contemplate a complete 
 change of the system in one day. We fully realize 
 that social evolution is gradual ; that social institutions 
 are products of historical growth and development; 
 that no system of society can be changed in a day 
 just because a certain number of individuals think it 
 ought to be changed; and, for that reason, the So- 
 cialists work towards the gradual introduction of the 
 Socialist system, and also with a view to steady and 
 gradual improvement of present social conditions, 
 particularly the conditions of the workers. 
 
 The current of Socialist reform aims in two direc- 
 tions. We strive for the gradual socialization of the 
 ownership of industries. We advocate national and 
 municipal ownership of certain industries to-day, and 
 we also advocate every measure calculated to improve 
 the condition of the workers. Such, for instance, as 
 better wages, shorter hours, abolition of child labor, 
 state and national insurance of the workers against 
 old age, sickness, disability, and so on. 
 
 And in doing that, we are guided by a dual con- 
 sideration. In the first place the immediate benefits 
 of the working class are not to be neglected; they 
 must be recognized. It would be poor policy, if noth- 
 ing worse, to say to the ten or twelve million of 
 industrial workers: "Why, if you men and women 
 will continue suffering and working for starvation 
 wages and continue crippling your children in the 
 
 25
 
 factories, morally and physically; if you will be patient 
 enough for another generation or so. a better social 
 system will be introduced. But you must wait and 
 suffer in the meantime." The workers of to-day are 
 entitled to relief to-day, and to as much of it as they 
 possibly can secure. 
 
 On the other hand, we also know that in order to 
 bring about the ultimate and radical change which 
 the Socialists propose, it will require a better class 
 of workers ; a class of workers physically better fitted, 
 mentally better trained, and politically and economi- 
 cally better organized. In other words, we assume 
 that Socialism, as any other proposed change, politi- 
 cal, social or economic, can only be brought about 
 when the conditions are ripe for it and when the men 
 are ripe for it, and when the machinery for the ac- 
 complishment of the transformation is properly or- 
 ganized. We do not expect the capitalists to arise 
 one fine morning and to say: "After all, we have 
 considered the situation, and have come to the con- 
 clusion that we have been unjust and iniquitous. We 
 now abdicate our political and economic power, and we 
 will turn over our industries to the collectivity of the 
 nation." We expect that Socialism will be introduced 
 when a majority, or well-nigh a majority, of the 
 population is ready to do so, and when it has 
 power enough including political power to force 
 that change, just as every other social reform is 
 introduced. So that the practical program of Social- 
 ism, or the practical problem before the Socialists 
 is to increase their numbers sufficiently to secure that 
 power. They expect to increase their numbers prin- 
 cipally through accretions from that part of the popu- 
 lation who are interested in their proposed change, 
 and who would be economically benefitted by it, in 
 other words, by accretions from the working class. 
 And for this reason, also, the Socialists have a direct 
 motive in striving to elevate the physical and mental 
 
 26
 
 conditions of the workers. If you take a worker who 
 is badly underpaid and underfed, overworked and ill- 
 housed, you cannot expect him to develop a social 
 idealism. You cannot expect him to grasp a social 
 philosophy, or to develop the mental independence, 
 and the courage to battle for a cause and a principle 
 more or less idealistic. 
 
 The worker who may be interested in such a move- 
 ment is the one who has some leisure, some time .to 
 read, to study, to think, and to cultivate the fine sides 
 of life. We find in the Socialist movement here, as 
 well as everywhere else, that our main support comes 
 from the better situated and more intelligent part 
 of the workers. We do not mean to say by that we 
 encourage a class distinction of workers, but there 
 is a certain stratum of the working class which has 
 been exploited to such an extent that it has fallen 
 below the level of average working-class culture or 
 intellect. And that class, the slum proletariat, so- 
 called, is rarely accessible to the teachings of So- 
 cialism or of any similar movement. On the other 
 hand, the better situated and more intelligent workers 
 constitute the bulk of the Socialist Party members and 
 voters, here and abroad. 
 
 The Socialist Party thus has every reason to en- 
 courage and support the economic organizations and 
 the struggles of the labor movement in all its forms. 
 It does so in this country, it does so in every other 
 country. It does so for the reason that it realizes the 
 economic organization of labor is the main prop <5f 
 the worker under the present conditions ; that it serves 
 very largely to raise the standards of the worker's 
 life in every direction, and to ma:ke it better and 
 healthier and happier. It supports, for similar rea- 
 sons, the co-operative movement of the working class, 
 and it supports every other radical reform movement 
 based upon actual economic needs, and aiming at 
 actual economic improvement. 
 
 27
 
 The Socialist platform, which sets forth the aims, 
 ultimate and immediate, of the Socialist Party, con- 
 tains a large number of what we call "immediate 
 demands," that is, practical propositions for immedi- 
 ate reform. 
 
 MR. THOMPSON : I would like to ask you, Mr. 
 Hillquit, a question or two right there. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT : Yes, go ahead. 
 
 MR, THOMPSON : In reference to the present 
 method, or present industrial situation of the workers, 
 is the program of the Socialist Party limited to such 
 pronouncements as, say, a program of legislation for 
 the national and state legislators? Has it in addition 
 to that any other concrete machinery or organization 
 for the carrying out of immediate redress in indus- 
 trial matters? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT : Yes, we have the pronounced views 
 of the Party on these various problems contained, 
 not only in the platform, but in a number of other 
 resolutions and similar instruments. The practical 
 instruments for the carrying out of our program are 
 as follows : In the first place, we have in the national 
 office of the Party, an Information Department, con- 
 sisting of the head of the department, and certain 
 assistants, whose duty it is to assist all elected members 
 of our Party in city councils and state assemblies, in 
 practical matters. For instance, a new Socialist coun- 
 cilman may be elected in some town for the first time. 
 Spme measures will come up before the city council, 
 and he will write to the Information Department and 
 inquire : "What do you think of this measure, or 
 what stand do you think I should take, and what 
 should I propose on this or that question, in con- 
 formity with the Socialist program," and he will 
 receive suggestions and information, and, perhaps, 
 model bills to be introduced, or model ordinances. 
 
 MR. THOMPSON: Are the suggestions that may 
 28
 
 be given to him made obligatory upon him by the] 
 Party platform? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: No, they are purely voluntary, just 
 in the nature of suggestion and advice, nothing more. 
 
 MR. THOMPSON : Relating particularly now to the 
 industrial organization of the workers? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Yes. 
 
 MR. THOMPSON : Has the Socialist Party a program 
 or organization for dealing with them as actually en- 
 gaged in industry, for instance, in the shops and 
 factories ? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: No, we don't engage in the eco- 
 nomic struggles of the workers, except where such 
 struggles assume a political or general aspect. We 
 do not consider it part of our mission, function or 
 power to interfere with the details of the economic 
 labor organizations, in the shop or in the unions. We 
 would consider that meddling. If the relation of 
 the Socialist Party to the economic labor organiza- 
 tions is of interest to you, I have here a brief resolu- 
 tion adopted by the convention of the National 
 Socialist Party in 1912, and if you wish me to, I will 
 read it to you. 
 
 MR. THOMPSON: Will you read it? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: It is very short. 
 
 MR. THOMPSON : I think we might hear it, then. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: It is not a page (reading) : "Poli- 
 tical organizations and economic organizations are 
 alike necessary in the struggle for working class 
 emancipation. The most harmonious relations should 
 exist between the two great forces of the working 
 class movement the Socialist Party and the labor 
 unions. The labor movement of the United States 
 has of recent years made marvelous progress in all 
 directions. It is steadily increasing in numbers, and 
 has reached trades and industries which were before 
 unorganized. It has in many instances concentrated 
 its power and increased in efficiency by the amalga- 
 
 29
 
 mation of related trades into federations and indus- 
 trial unions. Many unions have opened their meet- 
 ing before adjournment to the discussion of vital 
 social and political problems of the working class, and 
 have repudiated the demoralizing policies represented 
 by the National Civic Federation. The organized 
 workers are rapidly developing an enlightened militant 
 class consciousness. The reality of this progress is 
 attested by the increasing virulence with which the 
 organized capitalists wage their war against the 
 unions. This improved economic organization is not 
 a matter of abstract theory, but grows out of the 
 experience of the wage workers in the daily class 
 struggle. Only those actually engaged in the struggle 
 in the various trades and industries can solve the prob- 
 lems of form of organizations. The Socialist Party, 
 therefore, reaffirms the position it has always taken 
 with regard to the movement of organized labor: 
 
 First, that the party has neither the right nor the 
 desire to interfere in any controversies which may 
 exist within the labor union movement over plan or 
 form of organization or technical methods of action 
 in the industrial struggle, but trusts to the labor or- 
 ganizations themselves to solve those questions. 
 
 Second, that the Socialists call the attention of their 
 members in the labor unions to the vital importance 
 of the task of organizing the unorganized, especially 
 the immigrants and the unskilled laborers, who stand 
 in greatest need of organized protection, and who con- 
 stitute a great menace to the progress and welfare 
 of organized labor if they remain neglected. The 
 Socialist Party will ever be ready to co-operate with 
 the labor unions in the task of organizing the unor- 
 ganized workers, and urges the labor organizations 
 which have not already done so, to throw their doors 
 wide open to the workers in their respective trades 
 and industries, abolishing all onerous conditions of 
 membership and artificial restrictions. In the face 
 
 30
 
 of the tremendous powers of the American capitalists 
 and their close industrial and political unions, the 
 workers of the country can win their battle only by 
 strong class conscious and closely united organiza- 
 tions on the economic field, and a powerful and mili- 
 tant party on the political field, and by joint attack 
 of both on the common enemy. 
 
 Third, that it is the duty of the party to give moral 
 and material support to the labor organizations in 
 all the defensive or aggressive struggles against capi- 
 talists' oppression and exploitation for the protection 
 and extension of the rights of the wage workers, and 
 the betterment of their material and social conditions. 
 
 Fourth, that it is the duty of the members of the 
 Socialist Party who are eligible to membership in 
 the unions to join and be active in their respective 
 labor organizations. 
 
 MR. THOMPSON : Going back to the original ques- 
 tion again, while the Socialists appreciate that the 
 underfed and underpaid and overworked people are 
 not apt to develop that intelligence that is necessary 
 to understand a rather elaborate social philosophy or 
 program such as the Socialist Party has, vet, when 
 it comes to dealing with the subject of greatly shorten- 
 ing the hours, increasing the pay, bettering the work- 
 ing conditions, they have no definite organization of 
 their own, and do not go directly and specifically into 
 industry, but leave that to the trade unions whose 
 general purposes they, as a party, endorse? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Yes, sir. 
 
 MR. THOMPSON : And rather keep to the field of 
 political action as it may present itself for the carry- 
 ing out of the general program, such as the munici- 
 palization of a gas plant or street railroad? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Principally, bat not exclusively. 
 That is, the Socialist Party is a political party, prim- 
 arily, but it is not a political party in the sense in 
 which the old parties are. It is not exclusively politi- 
 
 31
 
 cal. The Socialist Party is also an educational or- 
 ganization. And, in addition to that, it does take 
 an active part in the economical struggles of the 
 workers where they assume a general character, for 
 instance, in cases of a large and extensive strike, the 
 Socialist Party actively supports the strikers. It sup- 
 ports them by means of money contributions, by means 
 of speakers, and also by its press. Here is a point 
 which is perhaps not generally appreciated: The So- 
 cialist Party has better facilities, probably, for reach- 
 ing the non-English speaking workers of the coun- 
 try than any other social organization. We have 
 papers printed in almost every language spoken in 
 the United States, over 30 in number, and we have 
 speakers in all of those languages. In a strike of 
 miners, for instance, where perhaps a dozen differ- 
 ent nationalities are involved, one of the great prob- 
 lems is to keep them together. Of course, we don't 
 manage the strike. But we very cheerfully send 
 speakers in all those languages to the strike region, 
 if requested or consented to by the organization having 
 charge of the strike. We send our literature there, 
 and, of course, we take a strong position in support 
 of the strike in all of our publications. We also render 
 active financial, moral and other support in other 
 cases of labor struggles, as, for instance, in cases like 
 one that was presented by the Moyer-Haywood trial, 
 or similar legal prosecutions against labor leaders, 
 arising out of their connections with labor struggles. 
 When such fights become pretty general, the So- 
 cialist Party will join in the movement for defence 
 of the accused. It has done so time and time again. 
 
 COMMISSIONER GARRETSON : Is it not true that the 
 declared position of the Socialist Party to-day is it 
 not true that the attitude you have described is the 
 only one which you could consistently take, because 
 active effort by committees or otherwise to perform 
 functions would be by you regarded as only a tetn- 
 
 32
 
 porary makeshift until a reversal of the system had 
 been effected? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT : I must confess I don't quite under- 
 stand the question. 
 
 COMMISSIONER GARRETSON: In other words, that 
 on the declaration that was laid down as the basic 
 one of the Socialist Party, you could not consistently, 
 from the standpoint of the Party, deal under the pres- 
 ent methods on any other than a makeshift basis ; you 
 would only regard it as patchwork, and not as real 
 betterment ? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT : I would not s_ay that. I would say 
 that I consider every real betterment as a real better- 
 ment, and often also as leading to the final solution and 
 to the radical cure, but I do not consider it as a com- 
 plete cure: In other words 
 
 COMMISSIONER GARKETSON: (Interrupting) It would 
 only be grafted upon the present system? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: I don't say that at all. It might 
 change the present system gradually into a new and 
 better system. It is not grafting upon it. Real and 
 lasting reform, such as proper factory legislation, 
 proper protection of workingmen by social insurance, 
 and similar measures, is not a makeshift in our eyes. 
 We consider it as very valuable, very .substantial. 
 
 COMMISSIONER GARRETSON : You very evidently 
 misunderstood the scope of my question. Only to 
 wage and working conditions is what I intended to 
 apply it to. In other words, yoii work for the aboli- 
 tion of the wage system? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Well, we work to-day for the im- 
 provement of labor conditions, and we work ultimately 
 for the abolition of the wage system. 
 
 COMMISSIONER GARRETSON: And therefore you 
 would regard betterment in those things just as of a 
 temporary character until you attained the whole 
 object? 
 
 33
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Oh, no, by no means. We would 
 consider it as one step in the direction of our aim. 
 
 COMMISSIONER GARRETSON : Helping it along? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: We would consider it in this way, 
 Mr. Garretson: If I have set out to earn a hundred 
 dollars, and if I had done part of my work and earned 
 ten dollars, I would not consider that as a makeshift 
 or patchwork, but would consider it as a part realiza- 
 tion of my ultimate object. 
 
 COMMISSIONER GARRETSON: Part of the $100? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Yes. 
 
 CHAIRMAN WALSH: At this point the Commission 
 will adjourn until 2 o'clock. Return here at 2 o'clock 
 sharp, without further notice. 
 
 34
 
 SECOND SESSION. 
 
 Socialist Attitude Towards Trade 
 Unionism 
 
 CHAIRMAN WALSH : The Commission will please 
 come to order. Mr. Thompson, it is the conclusion of 
 the Commission that in this one particular case, they 
 would waive the ordinary rule and let Mr. Gompers 
 examine Mr. Hillquit, and Mr. Hillquit examine Mr. 
 Gompers. 
 
 MR. THOMPSON : I assume now that I am substan- 
 tially through with the questions I have to ask Mr. 
 Hillquit in regard to the application of Socialism to 
 the present-day industrial propositions. In other 
 words, I am through with the direct examination. 
 
 CHAIRMAN WALSH: If it is convenient, then, Mr. 
 Gompers, you may proceed. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Mr. Hillquit, in your statement this 
 morning you said that the purpose of the Socialist 
 Party is to help the trades union movement in the 
 achievement of its purposes, that is, in the material 
 improvement of the condition of the working people. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: I did. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Has that been the policy of the So- 
 cialist Party, of which you are a member, and with its 
 immediate predecessor, the Socialist Labor Party? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: It has been the uniform policy of 
 the Socialist Party. It has also been the policy, in 
 principle, of the Socialist Labor Party, although I am 
 inclined to think that the principle was not properly 
 applied by the Socialist Labor Party for a time. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: You said, Mr. Hillquit, it has been
 
 the policy of the Socialist Party, and substantially its 
 purpose, to work for factory legislation, and legisla- 
 tion of that character. Will you tell the Commission 
 in which instances your Party has been active to secure 
 such legislation? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: The Party has been active in that 
 direction wherever it has had an opportunity to be 
 active, and more specifically in the following way: 
 Where the Party has no representation in the State 
 Legislatures, its activity was necessarily limited to the 
 advocacy of such measures, through the Party press, 
 the adoption of proper resolutions, and the support of 
 such measures in other ways. 
 
 Where the Party has had representatives in the Leg- 
 islatures of the various states, such attempts have been 
 made by introducing bills for efficient labor legislation. 
 In the State of New York we have had one important 
 movement for a measure of labor legislation, one over- 
 shadowing all others. That was the movement for 
 the adoption of a proper Compensation Act. As soon 
 as the agitation sprang up, the Socialist Party initiated 
 a joint conference between the labor organizations of 
 the City, including the Central Federated Union of 
 New York, the Central Labor Union of Brooklyn, and 
 several local trades councils, and the Socialist Party. 
 It was this joint conference which was, I believe, in- 
 strumental, at least as much as any other factor, in 
 making the movement for a Workmen's Compensation 
 Act effective ; and it was the Socialist Party represen- 
 tatives in that conference who led in the propaganda 
 and in the drafting of the proposed Compensation Act. 
 We had for one term only, a member in the New York 
 State Legislature, and that member, elected in the 
 county of Schenectady, submitted bills along all im- 
 portant lines of factory and social reform, including 
 measures for State insurance against sickness, indus- 
 trial accidents, old age pensions, limitation of 'child 
 labor, and many more measures along the program 
 
 36
 
 advocated by the Socialist Party, and also the Amer- 
 ican Federation of Labor. In Wisconsin we have had 
 representation in the Legislature for a number of 
 years, and I am free to state that there is not a gen- 
 eral measure advocated by the organized labor move- 
 ment in this country, including the American Federa- 
 tion of Labor, which has not found concrete expres- 
 sion in some proposed measure submitted by the 
 Socialist representatives in that assembly. The same 
 holds true of every other state in which we have had 
 representation. Even the State of Washington, 1 
 noticed recently a statement of all the measures pro- 
 posed or supported by the Socialist representatives, 
 and they cover almost the whole range of labor legis- 
 lation. The same holds true, of course, in a larger 
 measure of all countries on the European continent, 
 where Socialism is a strong political factor.* 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Are you through? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: I am through. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: The Workmen's Compensation Bill, 
 now a law of the State of New York, did the So- 
 cialist Party have a hand in the framing of that Bill? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT : The Socialist Party had at that time 
 no representation in the Legislature. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: I am asking you whether you took 
 any part, whether the Socialist Party took any part in 
 the framing of that Bill. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT : It did not and could not, and if it 
 
 * According to a compilation made by Miss Mills under 
 the direction of the Information Department of the So- 
 cialist Party, Socialist representatives in the Legislatures 
 of nine states have introduced within the seven-year 
 period, 1907-1913, a total of 895 measures for social re- 
 form, of which 141 have been enacted into laws. Of the 
 bills so introduced 207 were measures of labor legislation 
 and 35 of these were actually passed. (See Legislative 
 Program of the Socialist Party by Ethelwyn Mills. 
 Chicago, 1914.) 
 
 37
 
 could have done so, the law would have been very 
 much better and more efficient than it is. (Laughter.) 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Do you know that the Workmen's 
 Compensation Law of the State of New York is the 
 most comprehensive and generous of any law on the 
 statute books of this or of any other state and of any 
 country on the face of the globe? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: No, not of any other country, Mr. 
 Gompers. It is, I believe, one of the very best in thi^ 
 country. It is far from doing social justice to the 
 workers, in my opinion. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: It has not established the co-oper- 
 ative commonwealth ? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Nor has it established a proper 
 Compensation Act. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Now, then, do you know that the 
 Workmen's Compensation Act was drafted by author- 
 ity and direction of the New York State Federation 
 of Labor? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Yes, after the New York State Fed- 
 eration of Labor had received a good deal of valuable 
 instruction on the subject from the Socialists. I know 
 something about it, Mr. Gompers. (Laughter in the 
 audience.) 
 
 CHAIRMAN WALSH : We must keep order, ladies 
 and gentlemen, and it will not be proper to make any 
 demonstration at any time. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Who gave that instruction? What 
 did that instruction consist of? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Why, when we first met the rep- 
 resentative of the State Federation of Labor, Mr. 
 Gompers, we found that the majority of the members 
 did not even know what workmen's compensation 
 stood for, and we have had a sort of study class there. 
 I remember it very well. The first draft prepared by 
 them was so dolefully inadequate, that we urged Mr. 
 McDonough, who then represented the American Fed- 
 eration of Labor to withdraw it, and to re-draft and 
 
 38
 
 remodel his bill. Nothing passed at that session of the 
 legislature. Then the bill passed which was declared 
 unconstitutional by the Court of Appeals, and when 
 finally the present bill was prepared, it came very much 
 closer to our original draft. 
 
 MR,. GOMPERS : Do you know that there was a meet- 
 ing in the Assembly Hall of the New York Legislature 
 where the joint committees of the legislature had hear- 
 ings and investigations in regard to the Workmens' 
 Compensation Bill, now a law? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT : I appeared in one of those hearings 
 on Workmens' Compensation. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: I refer to the hearing by the Joint 
 Committee of both houses of the legislature. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Appointed by Governor Hughes. 
 It was the first and only one. The Wainwright Com- 
 mission, is that it ? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: No, sir, you are quite in error, Mr. 
 Hillquit. That is, pardon me; I have no right to say 
 that. But I refer to the Workmens' Compensation 
 Bill when Mr. Sulzer was Governor. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: If there was such a commission,* I 
 know nothing about it, for I was abroad at that 
 time. I know that the subject as originally taken up 
 by the Wainwright Commission, and that before 
 that Commission, the Socialist Party was officially rep- 
 resented by your humble servant, and one or two other 
 representatives. We urged our views on the Commis- 
 sion in favor of an effective and broad compensation 
 act, and I believe they received some consideration. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Was the Wainwright Commission 
 created by an act of the legislature of the State of 
 New York? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT : Yes. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Was that urged by the Socialist 
 Party? 
 
 * As a matter of fact there was no such commission. 
 39
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Was what urged by the Socialist 
 Party? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: The creation of this Commission? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT : The Socialist Party was very much 
 in favor of the creation of such Commission. It did 
 not happen to be in power, and could not appoint a 
 committee. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Do you know that the American 
 Federation of Labor has gone on record for more than 
 ten years in favor of a workmens' compensation law 
 for the States and for the Federal Government ? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: I have no fault to find with the 
 American Federation of Labor in its attitude on work- 
 mens' compensation. I think that is one of the things 
 that the American Federation of Labor did properly. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Do you know what the Socialist 
 Party contributed toward that end ? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: I know it has contributed a good 
 deal along the lines on/which it could contribute. I 
 know that the Socialist Party had expressed itself in 
 favor of workmens' compensation or State insurance 
 of workers in case of accidents, much longer than 10 
 years ago, and even before the American Federation 
 of Labor had taken it up, and I should not be surprised 
 if the American Federation of Labor was directly in- 
 fluenced by that Socialist propaganda in taking it up. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Do you know of the efforts of the 
 Socialist Party to secure workmens' compensation for 
 the government employes of the United States ? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: I would not specify government 
 employes. The Socialist Party of the United States 
 pronounced itself in favor of workmens' compensation 
 generally, drafted a model Workmens' Compensation 
 Act, sent it to all State Secretaries of the organization 
 and to all its locals, with the recommendation to make 
 special propaganda for it, and in 1910,- I believe, it 
 passed a resolution urging the various local organiza- 
 
 40
 
 tions of the Socialist Party to concentrate their efforts 
 upon workmens' compensation.* 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Mr. Hillquit, I have no desire to 
 curb you in any way, but where you can answer Yes 
 or No, that does no violence to your position, it would 
 be proper; and if exemplification or amplification is 
 necessary, why, it would be better to do it then. 
 
 CHAIRMAN WALSH: Wherever an answer Yes or 
 No can be given, give it first, Mr. Hillquit, and then 
 take all the time you need to explain your answer. 
 
 MR,. HILLQUIT : I am perfectly well satisfied. I did 
 not know my friend, Mr. Gompers, was so legally 
 technical. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: I would like to have some definite 
 answer to a definite question. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Very well, Mr. Gompers. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: What assistance, if any, was given 
 by the Socialist Party to the creation of a Bureau of 
 Mines for the protection of the lives and health and 
 conditions of the miners? 
 
 HILLQUIT: The same assistance as the assist- 
 
 * The resolution is as follows : 
 
 "The Congress strongly advises all state and local organ- 
 izations of the party to give careful study to the subject of 
 workmen's compensation laws, to train a corps of speakers 
 and writers qualified to deal with the campaign for the enact- 
 ment of such laws and for their improvement in any cases 
 where they may be enacted in an unsatisfactory form. 
 
 "The Congress instructs the National Executive Committee 
 to assume the duty of correlating the efforts of the various 
 state and local organizations on this line, assisting them in 
 the collection and exchange of information, the training of 
 speakers and writers, the publication and distribution of liter- 
 ature, so as to give the movement a nation-wide scope. 
 
 "The Congress invites the labor unions of all trades and 
 industries to join with the Party in the prosecution of this 
 work, and urges the Party organizations in every industrial 
 center to enter into conference with the local central labor 
 bodies for that purpose." 
 
 41
 
 ance given in other similar measures, that of propa- 
 ganda for it. 
 
 MR. (ioMi-KKs: Did the Socialist Party aid in secur- 
 ing the enactment of a law for uniform couplers on 
 cars on railroads? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: I do not think that specific question 
 ever came up before the Socialist Party. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Did the Socialist Party ever take 
 any part in securing vestibules for the street railway 
 men ? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: The Socialist Party never took part 
 in propaganda for special legislation affecting certain 
 special trades. It considers that to be within the pro- 
 vince of the organized workers within the particular 
 trades or industries. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Did I understand you correctly to 
 say this morning that the Socialist Party always was 
 and is now in favor of the trade union movement, the 
 labor union movement? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT : You understood me correctly. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Do you recall or do you know that 
 at the convention of the American Federation of Labor 
 in Detroit the Socialist Party insisted upon represen- 
 tation in that convention as a political party? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: That was when, Mr. Gompers, 1890, 
 was it? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: About that time. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: I know that the Socialist Labor 
 Party that then existed claimed the right to represen- 
 tation in the convention of the American Federation 
 of Labor through membership in the Central Labor 
 Federation of New York, and such representation was 
 not granted. The Socialist Party never claimed such 
 representation. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: They felt outraged at such an ex- 
 clusion ? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: The Socialist Party did not feel 
 
 42
 
 outraged at such an exclusion because the Socialist 
 I 'arty never sought representation. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Did the Socialist Party ever inau- 
 gurate a movement to supplant or to be in rivalry with 
 the American Federation of Labor? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: The Socialist Party very emphati- 
 cally did not. The Socialist Labor Party at one time 
 conceived the notion of forming an organization of 
 trades unions in opposition to the American Federation 
 of Labor, and constituting a distinct Socialist economic 
 organization. This act on the part of the Socialist 
 Labor Party brought about a split within the Party, 
 and the Socialist Party of to-day was organized largely 
 on that issue and because it did not agree with that 
 policy. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: The Socialist Party which you now 
 represent before the Commission is the successor of 
 the Socialist Labor Party as it existed? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: It is the successor of that part of 
 the Socialist Labor Party which rebelled against the 
 labor policy just mentioned by you. Those who were 
 opposed to the policy seceded and formed the new So- 
 cialist Party. 
 
 MR.. GOMPERS: The Socialist Labor Party is still in 
 existence ? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: The Socialist Labor Party is still 
 nominally in existence. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Do you think the members of the 
 Socialist Labor Party would agree with you in saying 
 it is still nominally in existence? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: I don't know. They represent the 
 same proportion in the Socialist movement as the 
 I. W. W. represents in the American labor movement. 
 
 CHAIRMAN WALSH : In round numbers how many 
 members are there in the United States of the Social- 
 ist Party? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: About 115,000 dues-paying mem- 
 bers. 
 
 43
 
 CHAIRMAN WALSH : And how many in the Socialist 
 Labor Party, do you know? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: I estimate about 1,500. 
 
 CHAIRMAN WALSH : Where do you get that .esti- 
 mate? 
 
 MR HILLQUIT: Pretty much from the Socialist 
 Labor Party. The last time they gave OJL** a statement 
 of membership, it was between 2 and 3 thousand, and 
 they have since fallen off as may be noticed by their 
 referenda and other indications. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Who was the candidate of the So- 
 cialist Party for President of the United States 
 in 1912? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Mr. Eugene V. Debs. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Who was in 1908? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT : Likewise. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: And in 1902? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: 1902? There was no Presidential 
 candidate in 1902, when you come to think of it. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: 1904? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT : It was Debs. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS : Is it unfair to assume that the can- 
 didate of your Party for the Presidency of the United 
 States expresses the views of the Party? Is he the 
 Party spokesman and standard bearer? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT : It is entirely unfair to assume that, 
 in view of the expressed position of the Party itself. 
 In other words, Mr. Gompers, when the Socialist 
 Party, in convention assembled, officially takes a stand 
 on its relation to organized labor, no individual mem- 
 ber of the Party, no matter what his position, can 
 nullify or modify that stand. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Do you know that Mr. Eugene V. 
 Debs was present at the First Annual Convention of 
 the organization which formed the so-called Industrial 
 Workers of the World? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: I do. 
 
 44
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Have you read any of his speeches 
 during that convention? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: I have read some. 
 
 MR. GOMPER.S: Do you regard his expressions as 
 being friendly or in favor of the trades union move- 
 ment, the American Federation of Labor? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT : . As I understand his position, his 
 attitude is not friendly toward the leaders of the Amer- 
 ican Federation of Labor. His attitude is more 
 friendly toward the members of the American Federa- 
 tion of Labor. But these are his personal views to 
 which he is entitled. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS : When Mr. Debs says : "The Amer- 
 ican Federation of Labor has numbers, but the capi- 
 talist class do not fear the American Federation of 
 Labor. Quite the contrary." Do you regard that 
 utterance as a friendly expression for the American 
 Federation of Labor ? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: I do not, nor do I regard it as an 
 authorized utterance of the Socialist Party. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Speaking of the American Federa- 
 tion of Labor and of some Socialists, he says : "There 
 are these who believe that this form of unionism can 
 be changed from within. They are very greatly mis- 
 taken." Do you agree with Mr. Debs on that utter- 
 ance? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT : I do not agree. I think, on the con- 
 trary, the American Federation of Labor is being 
 forced, and will be forced more and more to gradually 
 change its form of organization, to adjust itself to the 
 forms of modern industrial conditions. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: I read this, and ask you for your 
 opinion. Mr. Debs says in that speech : "There is but 
 one way to effect this change, and that is for the work- 
 ingman to sever his relation with the American .Fed- 
 eration." 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: I do not agree with that, nor does 
 the Socialist Party agree with that. And, to make our 
 
 45
 
 position clear once for all, Mr. Gompers, I will say 
 that it will be quite useless to quote Mr. Debs on his 
 attitude to the American Federation of Labor. Mr. 
 Debs took part in the organization of the Industrial 
 Workers of the World. I think he has now lived to 
 regret it, but whether he does or not, the fact is that he 
 acted entirely on his own accord and on his own re- 
 sponsibility ; that the Socialist Party at no time ap- 
 proved, directly or indirectly, of that stand, and at no 
 time have endorsed the Industrial Workers of the 
 World as against the American Federation of Labor. 
 And I will say further that the Socialist Party at no 
 time made fundamental criticisms against the Amer- 
 ican Federation of Labor, although I am just as frank 
 to add that the Socialist Party, or at least the majority 
 of its members, do believe that the present leadership 
 of the American Federation of Labor is somewhat 
 archaic, somewhat antiquated, too conservative and not 
 efficient enough for the objects and purposes of the 
 American Federation of Labor. That is the general 
 Socialist position. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Of course as to the leadership, that 
 must be determined. The leadership of the American 
 Federation of Labor, I assume, must be determined by 
 the membership of the organization, as it can best give 
 expression to its preference. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Entirely so. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Are you aware that the leadership 
 to which you refer, has been elected and re-elected by 
 practically unanimous vote for several years past ? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: We do not contest the election nor 
 the legitimacy of office of the officials of the A. F. of 
 L. We only wish they were a little more abreast of 
 the time, and that they would keep pace with industrial 
 developments. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Reverting to Mr. Debs, he does not 
 oppose the leadership only. In his speech 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: If you will read all, you will find 
 
 46
 
 that his opposition is largely, if not exclusively, directed 
 against the leadership as he sees it. And I reiterate 
 once more that it is his individual stand. 
 
 MR,. GOMPERS: You have said that it is his individ- 
 ual stand, yet the speech to which I refer and in which 
 he asks and urges the workmen to leave the American 
 Federation of Labor, was made some time in June or 
 July, 1908, and Mr. Debs was twice made the standard 
 bearer of the Socialist Party as candidate for Presi- 
 dent of the United States since that time. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT : Yes, sir. He was. There was ab- 
 solutely no reason why he should not be, in view of 
 the fact that the Party itself had at the same time very 
 explicitly declared its stand on organized labor, and 
 it did not have to apprehend that any of its represen- 
 tatives might misrepresent its attitude. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Do you know that Mr. Debs has, 
 within these past weeks, issued a document in whicn 
 he urges the secession of two of the largest organiza- 
 tions from the American Federation of Labor, for the 
 purpose of destroying the American Federation of 
 Labor? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: I do. May I add, Mr. Gompers, that 
 this likewise was wholly and fully done by his own 
 initiative and on his own responsibility, and is in no 
 way approved of or condoned by the Socialist Party. 
 We allow liberty of expression and opinion within the 
 Socialist Party, you know. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Do you regard that as the individua! 
 expression of opinion, when a man thrice the candidate 
 of a political party, urges that a movement be inau- 
 gurated to dissolve the only general federation of or- 
 ganized workmen that ever existed for a period of 
 time, such as the American Federation of Labor ? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: I regard it purely as the individual 
 expression of the man. The Socialist Party never 
 places its program or views into the hands of an in- 
 dividual candidate. It speaks for itself in conventions. 
 
 47
 
 MR. GOMIM.RS: And the candidate for the Presi- 
 dency of your party does not express, then, the senti- 
 ments and the views of the Party itself, is that the in- 
 ference to be drawn from your answer ? 
 
 MR. HII.LQUIT : You may draw this inference, that, 
 whenever a candidate of the Socialist Party for the 
 Presidency or otherwise, deviates from the declared 
 principles of the Socialist Party, he does not speak for 
 the Party, but speaks entirely on his responsibility. 
 
 Are you still quoting Mr. Debs? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS : Perhaps. Would you hold the same 
 line of conduct to apply to, say, Mr. Taft, who was the 
 candidate for President of the United States, nomi- 
 nated by the Republican Party ? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT : No, sir. The Republican Party has 
 no declaration of general principles; no expressed 
 attitude towards labor unions ; no general social philos- 
 ophy, and no social views of any kind. Its candidate 
 for President therefore necessarily acts as the spokes- 
 man of his party. The Socialist Party is entirely dif- 
 ferent in this respect. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Would you say the candidate of 
 the Prohibitionists, the candidate for President, if he 
 were to make a declaration that was inconsistent with 
 what his party would hold, would you regard that as 
 simply his individual expression of opinion ? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: If the candidate for President of 
 the Prohibition Party were to take a drink, I would 
 not say that the Prohibition Party was committed to 
 the drink evil. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: 1 prefer not to bring in the personal 
 habits of any man. I don't know that that is illumi- 
 nating or contributory to the discussion. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT : I did not mean to be personal, Mr. 
 Gompers. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: The question as to the candidate for 
 President of the Prohibition Party is nothing to me. 
 I was speaking of personal declarations. Supposing I, 
 
 48
 
 as President of the American Federation of Labor, 
 were to go upon the platform and give expression in 
 a speech, or were to write an editorial in the American 
 Federationist, urging the dissolution of the American 
 Federation of Labor, 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Of the Socialist Party, you mean, 
 to apply your analogy. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Evidently you want to bandy words 
 with me rather than to answer the question. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Go ahead. 
 
 CHAIRMAN WALSH : Wait until the question is fin- 
 ished and then answer, if you can. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Supposing Mr. Gompers, President 
 of the American Federation of Labor, were upon a 
 public platform or in articles contributed to the Labor 
 Press, to advocate the dissolution of the American Fed- 
 eration of Labor, would you regard that as a personal 
 expression of my own ? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: I would, decidedly. If you, as the 
 President of the American Federation of Labor, were 
 to advocate a dissolution of the American Federation 
 of Labor, without such' a resolution having been passed 
 by the Federation, I certainly should not say that you 
 voiced the sentiments of the organization. 
 
 Furthermore, with all due respect to you, your 
 analogy does not apply, Mr. Gompers. Mr. Debs, a 
 leading member of the Socialist Party, advocates cer- 
 tain changes in the American Federation of Labor. If 
 you, as the President of the American Federation of 
 Labor, were to advocate a change or dissolution in or 
 of the Socialist Party, you would be in an analogous 
 position, and I certainly would not regard that as an 
 official expression of the American Federation of La- 
 bor. Furthermore, you, Mr. Gompers, have very often 
 taken a stand hostile to the Socialist Party. I do not 
 regard that as the official expression of the American 
 Federation of Labor, for I know that the membership, 
 or a very large portion of it, hold very different views 
 
 49
 
 on the subject. That does not come within your 
 domain as President of the American Federation of 
 Labor, although you, as an' individual, are at liberty 
 to hold such opinions, and the Federation does not 
 in any way discipline you for holding them. There *s 
 your analogy. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Mr. Hillquit, these speeches which 
 you have made a thousand and one times 
 
 CHAIRMAN WALSH : I would not get into any argu- 
 ments, Mr. Gompers, with the witness, but just ques- 
 tion him. When you go on the witness stand, he is 
 going to ask you questions, and I suppose you can 
 make some when you come to go on there. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: All right, Mr. Chairman. Now, , of 
 course, Mr. Hillquit, you understand that the articles 
 or editorials which I have written and published in 
 the American Federationist, all of them have been 
 caused by the defensive attitude which the American 
 Federation has been forced to take against the aggres- 
 siveness and hostility of the Socialist Labor Party and 
 the Socialist Party? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: I don't think. so at all, Mr. Gompers. 
 If you ask me about my understanding of it, my under- 
 standing is that those articles have been caused by your 
 fear of the increasing growth of Socialism in the ranks 
 of the Federation. That is my understanding of it. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Well, of course, you would not at- 
 tribute to me very great fear of anything, would you ' 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Of anything? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Of anything. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: If you want my opinion, Mr. Gom- 
 pers, I should say you are a very brave man. but you 
 do hate to see the American Federation of Labor turn- 
 ing Socialistic. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: The reason I do so is the result of 
 conviction 
 
 CHAIRMAN WALSH : Mr. Gompers, please do not 
 get into an argument with the witness now. You can 
 
 SO
 
 go on the witness stand and he will examine you and 
 you will have the same latitude of stating your views. 
 But just ask him questions, please. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Mr. Debs, in his speech, to which I 
 have referred before, said: "I appeal to you to ally 
 yourselves with the economic organization which em- 
 braces your entire class." He referred to the Indus- 
 trial Workers of the World, organized in 1905. Will 
 you give me your judgment as to the extent to which 
 that organization embraces the entire working class? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Of the world? Not very much, 
 Mr. Gompers. It was the fond hope of the organizers, 
 which I never shared, that it would; but it does not. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: He says further: "I would appeal 
 to you to declare yourselves here and now, to be for 
 once and forever true enough to yourselves to join 
 the only industrial union that is absolutely true to you 
 the I. W. W." And the stenographer put "Loud 
 Applause." Will you give your opinion of that state- 
 ment? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT : My opinion is the same that I have 
 given you before. I think Mr. Debs was carried away 
 by his enthusiasm, when he thought he could create an 
 artificial organization to embrace all the workers 
 joined in one great industrial union. I think his views 
 of trade unionism are not sound. At any rate, they 
 are not those of the Socialist Party and they are not 
 mine; and you might just as well read 200 quotations 
 from his speeches on that subject as five. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Mr. Debs then said: "Now, we, the 
 Socialists, who have organized the Industrial Workers, 
 have had enough of this kind of experience. We have 
 quit the old unions." 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT : I presume he has had enough, Mr. 
 Gompers. He does not speak for others. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Isn't it true that at the last con- 
 vention of the Socialist Party, held at Indianapolis, 
 Mr. Karl Legien, of Germany, was urged to be in at- 
 
 51
 
 tendance in order that he might help prevent the intro- 
 duction and passage of a resolution hostile to the trade 
 union movement? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: It is not. Mr. Legien was asked 
 to be present as a prominent Socialist, and as the In- 
 ternational Trades Union Secretary, in order to de- 
 liver an address on the experiences of the Socialists 
 of Germany and the organized workers in their mutual 
 co-operation, which he did and did very well. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Do you know at the time when the 
 Socialist Party convention was about to be held Mr. 
 Legien was lecturing under the auspices of the Amer- 
 ican Federation of Labor? 
 
 MR,. HILLQUIT: Yes, that was about the most pro- 
 gressive thing the American Federation of Labor ever 
 did. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: And do you know that he asked per- 
 mission from the American Federation of Labor that 
 he might cancel a few engagements already made, so 
 that he could attend the Socialist Party convention for 
 the purpose I indicated by my first question? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: I don't know his specific engage- 
 ments. I know that Mr. Legien came here primarily 
 on the invitation of the American Federation of Labor, 
 in which the Socialist Party joined; and the under- 
 standing was that he was first to lecture for the Amer- 
 ican Federation of Labor, and then for the Socialist 
 Party. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: The New York Call is one of the 
 official journals of the Socialist Party, is it not? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT : Not official. But it is a Socialist 
 paper. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: A recognized Socialist paper? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Yes. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Speaking with some degree of au- 
 thority ? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Editorially, mostly speaking with 
 some degree of authority. 
 
 52
 
 MR. GOMPERS : This appeared in it in the issue of 
 December i6th, 1909: "Don't like the I. W. W.? 
 Well, don't kill the kid. He will grow, and we shall 
 need him in our business by and by, and possibly 
 sooner than many of us believe." 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Now, Mr. Gompers, did that ap- 
 pear as an editorial or as a contributed letter by some 
 reader ? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS : I can't say, sir. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: I can help you out, Mr. Gompers. 
 It was never part of an editorial. That was one of the 
 many letters sent to the Call by all sorts of writers, 
 which the Call publishes, just as the Evening Globe 
 does, without taking any responsibility for them. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: In a work entitled "Industrial 
 Union Movement," the preface is written by C. H. 
 Kerr, a prominent American Socialist, a member of 
 the Party, and a large publisher of Socialist literature. 
 In it he says : "As Marxian students of evolution, we 
 (Socialists) recognize that economic concentration has 
 made trade unions obsolete, and that the principle of 
 industrial unionism must be adopted in the near 
 future." 
 
 MR,, HILLQUIT: What do you want to know with 
 reference to that, Mr. Gompers? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Is that a Socialist expression in 
 favor of the American labor union movement? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT : Why, it might be. The expression 
 comes from Mr. Kerr, I believe, in a preface to "In- 
 dustrial Socialism." "Industrial Socialism was a 
 pamphlet, written by Mr. Haywood and Mr. Bohn, 
 and indirectly led to Mr. Haywood's recall from the 
 National Executive Committee of the Socialist Party. 
 It never represented the accepted views of the So- 
 cialist Party. It seems to me that the passage that 
 you read, while it may be crude, contains a good deal 
 of sound truth. In other words, what it means is that 
 the industrial evolution in this country has been such 
 
 53
 
 as to bring to the front ever larger and closer indus- 
 trial organizations of capital, and the trade union;-, 
 evidently will have to adjust themselves to the new 
 situation and reorganize on an industrial basis. The 
 American Federation of Labor might not say it in so 
 many words, but I think it has felt it, and I think it is 
 undergoing a process of change in its organization 
 just now in that very direction. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: You read. the proceedings of the 
 American Federation of Labor fairly carefully, don't 
 you, Mr. Hillquit? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Yes, fairly so. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Did you read the proceedings of 
 the Rochester convention of the American Federation 
 of Labor, held in that city, in 1912? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT : Yes, I did, Mr. Gompers. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Did you read the declaration of the 
 Executive Council of the American Federation of 
 Labor on the subject of Industrial Unionism? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: I believe so, but I don't recall it. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: It didn't make sufficient impression 
 upon your mind that you can now recall it? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT : No, but if you will be kind enough 
 to focus my attention on the point you have in mind. 
 I suppose I shall remember it. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS : I hand you a copy of that report. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Thank you. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: And which, Mr. Chairman, I hope, 
 may be marked as an exhibit now, or when I am a 
 witness before the Commission I shall have the oppor- 
 tunity of presenting it in my own evidence. 
 
 CHAIR.MAN WALSH: What is it? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: A report made by the Executive 
 Council of the American Federation of Labor to the 
 Rochester Convention of that Federation, November, 
 1912. I ask Mr. Hillquit whether he had kept in- 
 formed upon the work of the American Federation of 
 Labor, and he said that he did. 
 
 54
 
 CHAIRMAN WALSH : And do you recognize that as 
 being the paper described? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Yes. 
 
 CHAIRMAN WALSH : And you can testify that it is 
 authentic? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Oh, yes, it is that. 
 
 CHAIRMAN WALSH : Very good, let it go in evidence 
 at thte time. 
 
 (Received and marked "Hillquit's Exhibit A.") 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: And I think I remember the con- 
 tents pretty well now, Mr Gompers, after looking it. 
 over. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Mr. Hillquit, you have seen that 
 pamphlet which I handed you, and which is a reprint 
 of the report of the Executive Council to the Roches- 
 ter American Federation of Labor Convention. You 
 will find also a reprint in that same pamphlet of the 
 report of the committee to which this declaration was 
 referred and the action of the convention thereon. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Yes. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Now, as an advocate of industrial 
 unionism, will you point out to the Commission that 
 from which you dissent? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Why, but Mr. Gompers, I don't 
 dissent. I stated, on the contrary, that the American 
 Federation of Labor is rapidly and irresistibly drifting 
 into industrial organization, and I am very glad to 
 notice the process. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Of course, we are all, when there is 
 anything good done, no matter how or by whom or 
 under what circumstances, it affords us all satisfaction, 
 but that is not the question. 
 
 CHAIRMAN WALSH: What was the question, 
 whether or not, he disserited from anything said in 
 there ? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: From what view I dissented. 
 
 CHAIRMAN WALSH : Do you dissent? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT : I do not dissent. 
 
 55
 
 CHAIRMAN WALSH : That answers it. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Then, sir, if you don't dissent from 
 the declaration of the American Federation of Labor 
 upon the subject of Industrial Unionism, will you 
 please tell the Commission how it comes that Mr. Debs 
 and many other Socialists, whose names I can mention 
 at this time, advocate the dissolution of the American 
 Federation of Labor on the question of Industrial 
 Unionism ? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: I cannot answer for the operation 
 of the mind of Mr. Debs or anybody else, but I may 
 point out the following, first: That the first declara- 
 tion on Industrial Unionism promulgated by Mr. Debs 
 and his comrades, when organizing the I. W. W., was 
 adopted in 1905, and the declaration of the Federation 
 of Labor was adopted in 1912, seven years later. That 
 is, the American Federation of Labor once more fol- 
 lowed in the wake of the Socialist agitation. The next 
 point, Mr. Gompers, is that I understand the differ- 
 ence between the industrialism advocated by you and 
 the industrialism advocated by the I. W. W., and par- 
 ticularly by Mr. Debs, to be that the industrial form 
 of organization which you advocate consists of a fed- 
 eration of similar crafts or trades within one industry, 
 not organically united to co-operate with each other in 
 matters of common interest, and that the industrial 
 form of organization advocated by Mr. Debs is an or- 
 ganic union of all crafts embodied within one industry. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: You know, I had already questioned 
 you upon the declarations made by Mr. Debs in 1905 ? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Yes. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: My last question has reference to 
 the article written by Mr. Debs, appealing to the 
 unions within these past two weeks to secede and sup- 
 plant the American Federation. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: You have asked me that before, Mr. 
 Gompers, and I have answered before that the So- 
 cialist Party does not stand sponsor for those plans. 
 
 56
 
 The Socialist Party is no more responsible for them 
 than the American Federation of Labor would be for 
 an expression of an executive member of its Board on 
 the subject of religion. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: In that article addressed to the 
 United Mine Workers of America, and to the Western 
 Federation of Miners, he says that the American Fed- 
 eration of Labor as an aggregation of craft unions has 
 outlived its usefulness. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: I don't agree with this opinion. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS : I want to call your attention to the 
 fact that the same article is published in the United 
 Mine Workers Journal and in the Western Federa- 
 tion of Miners' official magazine, the Miners' Mag- 
 azine. In the latter it is published without comment. 
 
 In the United Mine Workers' Journal it is published 
 with an introductory editorial note strongly dissent- 
 ing from that view. That editorial, on page 4 of the 
 United Mine Workers' Journal of Thursday, May 
 1 4th, 1914, bears the heading, "Secession Not the Way 
 to Unity." Do. you agree with the view expressed by 
 the editor of the United Mine Workers' Magazine in 
 that heading? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Yes. The United Mine Workers' 
 Journal, of course, which prints a comment, and the 
 magazine of the Western Federation of Miners, are 
 your organs ; that is, both organizations belong to the 
 American Federation of Labor. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Yes, and Debs advocated the seces- 
 sion of both those organizations from the American 
 Federation of Labor, they to call a convention of all 
 organizations and to form what he calls an industrial 
 union, one big union to take the place of the American 
 Federation of Labor. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: I am inclined to agree, Mr. Gom- 
 pers, with the editorial you mention. I don't believe 
 secession from the Federation is the way to reform. 
 I think the A. F. of L. is fully capable of progress and 
 
 57
 
 enlightenment, and I believe it is one of the functions 
 of the Socialist Party to carry on such education as 
 possible within the ranks of the A. F. of L., and I 
 have no doubt at all that ultimately the members of 
 the A. F. of L. will be just as enlightened and pro- 
 gressive as members of any other organization. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Of course, those who are so thor- 
 oughly educated that they can learn nothing, know 
 it all, and we are not of that character. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: The leaders of the A. F. of L. are 
 not of that character. 
 
 CHAIRMAN WALSH : That is not a question and 
 really has no place in the record. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Mr. Chairman, nor was that an an- 
 swer, nor was the statement made by Mr. Hillquit a 
 pertinent answer to my question. 
 
 CHAIRMAN WALSH : I don't think so either. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Pardon me. The Chairman of 
 the Commission having agreed with the ques- 
 tioner, I must take exception to it. The question 
 was, if you will recall, "Do you agree with this edi- 
 torial or the thought expressed in it?" That cer- 
 tainly called for an answer as to whether or not I 
 agreed with those views, and upon what grounds, and 
 I do not see why my answer was not perfectly re- 
 sponsive. I would be, if tested by the strictest rules 
 of evidence, and I think it should be before this Com- 
 mission. 
 
 CHAIRMAN WALSH : I may be wrong. I made an 
 off-hand decision there to get through with it. It is 
 generally leading to an argument of a rather ex- 
 traneous nature. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Yes, but when an opinion is called 
 for, it must be expressed. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: I say just this. This may appear 
 as rather long drawn out, but I think that since the 
 Commission has entered into this domain, it will ob- 
 tain more fundamental information upon the construe - 
 
 58
 
 tive work of the American Federation of Labor 
 and the destructive tactics employed by other 
 elements than can be obtained in any other way. If 
 you did not care to have this discussion opened up 
 wide, it might have been better then that it had not 
 been opened up at all. I am perfectly willing to sub- 
 mit myself to the examination of Mr. Hillquit. He is 
 a lawyer ; I am not. I have no parchment nor diploma 
 of which I can boast. Simply the plain, ordinary ex- 
 perience of a workingman, who has tried to learn 
 something, and, as I have said this morning, when I 
 am on the stand, I play this game with my cards down 
 and face up, nothing to hide, nothing to equivocate, 
 nothing to evade, and everything that this Commis- 
 sion will want to know in connection with the Amer- 
 ican Federation of Labor will be spread before you. 
 
 CHAIRMAN WALSH : You may proceed. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Conceding the fact that the Amer- 
 ican Federation of Labor and its rank and file and its 
 officers are learning a bit, now, in view of the declara- 
 tion on industrial unionism adopted by the convention 
 of the American Federation of Labor in 1912, I ask 
 you what dissent you have to make, as a Socialist be- 
 lieving in industrial unionism, what dissent you have 
 to make against this declaration ? 
 
 CHAIRMAN WALSH : Without in any way undertak- 
 ing to limit this examination, or to shorten its scope in 
 any way, I am going to rule that the question has been 
 fully answered by the witness, that he dissents in no 
 way whatever, and he gave an explanation, if I am 
 correct. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: May I reply to that, Mr. Chairman? 
 
 CHAIRMAN WALSH : Unless there is some dissent 
 from the Commission, I will rule that that question has 
 been asked and answered. You may proceed now to 
 another question. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Mr. Chairman, I must yield, of 
 course, even if I desire not to. 
 
 59
 
 CHAIRMAN WALSH : Certainly. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: And I yield, and I hope I may do so 
 gracefully. May I suggest this to Your Honors, that 
 after the witness has said that he has no dissent to 
 express from the declaration, he then said further that 
 upon this very subject we need education from him 
 and his associates. 
 
 CHAIRMAN WALSH : I have passed upon that. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Do you know Mr. William English 
 Walling? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Slightly. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: How slightly? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: I have met him, spoken to him 
 several times. I am not intimately acquainted with 
 him. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: But you know of him? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Oh, yes. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: And you have read some of his 
 writings, have you not? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Yes. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: He is a member of the Socialist 
 Party? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT : He surely was. Whether he is now 
 I don't know. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: You don't 'know now? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT : No. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS : Do you know that in the New York 
 Call on December n, 1909, he said: "The Socialist 
 Party has become a hissing and a by-word with the 
 actual wage earners of America. It is becoming the 
 party of two extremes: On the one side are a bunch 
 of intellectuals like myself and Spargo and Hunter and 
 Hillquit; on the other is a bunch of never-works, 
 demagogues and would-be intellectuals, a veritable 
 'lumpen proletariat.' The average wage earners, the 
 men who are really doing the class struggle, are out- 
 side. Above all else we must have the union man. 
 No one has denounced the efforts of the American 
 
 60
 
 Federation of Labor more than I, but I am forced to 
 recognize that it comes much nearer to representing 
 the working class than the Socialist^ Party, and unless 
 we are able to shape our policy and our organization so 
 as to meet the demands and incarnate the position of 
 the workers, we will have failed of our mission." Do 
 you assent or dissent from the expression of Mr. Wall- 
 ing on that subject? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: With a few qualifications I assent 
 But first a correction, Mr. Gompers. You got mixed 
 up in your text somewhat. That is not an expression 
 by Walling. It is an expression by A. M. Simons, 
 contained in a private letter to Walling, which Walling 
 published, although he had no business to. It is a 
 heart-to-heart talk, such as perhaps you might have 
 with an intimate friend on the A. F. of L. Board. 1 
 believe the reference to the "lumpen proletariat' is 
 grossly exaggerated, and that the reference to the "in- 
 tellectuals" is somewhat unjust. I think, however, 
 that the statement that the Socialist Party must seek 
 the support of the working class of this country is 
 absolutely correct. The Socialist Party has been work- 
 ing along these lines for a number of years and has 
 so far succeeded fairly well. I suppose it will succeed 
 still more. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS : Do you recall a statement appearing 
 in the New York Call of November 28th, 1909, made 
 by Mr. John Spargo, in which he said: "In further- 
 ance of the ambitions of a few men of small minds, 
 and even smaller hearts, the whole movement is being 
 dragged into the mire, and the heart of every sincere 
 Socialist sickens with shame at the spectacle. No 
 depth of degradation and dishonor has been reached by 
 any capitalist party in its sordid strivings, which has 
 not also been attained by American Socialists." ? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT : I recall that passage. I think it is a 
 bit rhetorical, but we always do practice self-criti- 
 
 61
 
 cism, which results in a process of purification and 
 improvement. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: What was the attitude of the So 
 cialist Party then in existence toward the American 
 Labor Union formed by Mr. Debs? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: The American Labor Union, if you 
 will permit me to correct you, was not formed by Mr. 
 Debs. The Socialist Party's attitude toward the 
 American Labor Union was no different than its atti- 
 tude toward the I. W. W. The Socialist Party as 
 such did not take any sides in the quarrel between the 
 American Labor Union and the A. F. of L. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Did not Mr. Debs and his associ- 
 ates of the American Railway Union form the Amer 
 ican Labor Union? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT : They did not. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Are you quite sure of that? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT : I am, and I am surprised that you 
 are not. The American Labor Union was formed by 
 the United Association of the Hotel and Restaurant 
 Employees, the Western Federation of Miners, and 
 the Western Labor Union at a convention of those 
 organizations.* The American Railway Union 
 merged with the Brotherhood of the Co-operative 
 Commonwealth which published a paper of its own, 
 and later developed into the Social Democracy of 
 America. 
 
 MR. GOMPF.RS: This morning you expressed views 
 which seemed to indicate that you believed in the con- 
 stant, gradual, material improvement of the conditions 
 of the working people as a thing which should be en- 
 couraged for the attainment of the ultimate ends of 
 your party or your philosophy? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Yes, sir. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Is it your opinion, then, that the 
 declaration is true, that "the present social system is 
 
 'Held in Denver in 1902. 
 
 62
 
 inevitably converting the workers into a propertyless 
 proletariat, possessing nothing but their labor powers ; 
 is productive of an increase of misery, oppression, en- 
 slavement, debasement and exploitation"? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Why, I think the passage in the 
 main is correct. It was written about 50 years ago 
 by Marx. It has been the subject of many contro- 
 versies, the question turning on just what he meant by 
 "misery, debasement," and so on. But it is the gen- 
 eral consensus of Socialist opinion that the number of 
 the propertyless class of workers is on the increase, 
 and that the working class, on the whole, gets pro- 
 portionately a lesser share of the general national 
 wealth from year to year. At the same time there is 
 a noticeable and absolute improvement in the condi- 
 tion of at least a large section of the working class. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: In your explanation as to the con- 
 dition of society under Socialism, you spoke of the 
 industries which have practically become socialized 
 and may be taken over in their operation and control, 
 and you said that smaller industries, with smaller 
 tools, owned by the individual, would not come under 
 collective control and ownership 1 and management, but 
 that they would be left to the individual did you not? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: I said, there is nothing in the So- 
 cialist program requiring collective ownership of 
 purely individual industries, not based upon hiring or 
 exploitation of labor. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: How long since has that distinction 
 been made as between all the means of production and 
 distribution and the definition which you now give? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT : A very long time ago, Mr. Gompers. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: I mean, authoritatively? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: I think authoritatively there never 
 has been any different conception. It was first clearly 
 expressed, as I believe, by Karl Kautsky, about a 
 dozen years ago, or so. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: How long has it been since that 
 
 63
 
 declaration has been made by the American Socialist 
 Party? 
 
 MR. PIiLLQuix: There has not, at any time, to my 
 knowledge, been a specific or formal declaration made; 
 but my understanding is that it has always been the 
 theoretical conception of the American Socialist Party. 
 
 MR. GOMPER.S: The American Socialist Party has 
 always declared, until quite recently, for the national- 
 ization of all of the means of production and distribu- 
 tion, has it not? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT : I don't think the word "all" occurs 
 in any authoritative exposition of the principles of 
 the Party. 
 
 MR.. GOMPERS: But by the omission of the word 
 "all," and without any qualification, nevertheless no 
 other inference could be drawn from that declara- 
 tion, could it? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: I would not say that was true. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS : Suppose I should say that this court 
 room belonged to the State of New York or the City 
 of New York, it would not be necessary for me to 
 say that all the entire court room belonged 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: No, not in that connection, but I 
 should think that the 'comparison is somewhat unfor- 
 tunate. If I should say that Mr. Gompers can be 
 heard by the people in the audience, it would not 
 necessarily imply that he could be heard by all. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: For instance, if you put it this 
 way: "The Socialist Party demands the nationaliza- 
 tion of the means of production and distribution." 
 The absence of the word "all" there would not at nil 
 minimize the extent, would it? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: In my conception of it, Mr. Gom- 
 pers, and I can give you only my understanding of it, 
 I should say that the Socialist Party has always stood 
 for the collective ownership of social tools of produc- 
 tion and distribution. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: As a matter of fact, isn't it so? 
 We need not quibble 
 
 64
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: (Interrupting) : I am not quibbling. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Isn't it so that it has been only 
 within the past two or three years that the Socialist 
 Party has made that distinction? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT : No, Mr. Gompers. You may have 
 noticed it within the past two or three years, but the 
 entire Socialist philosophy has always been based upon 
 the conception that the tools of the work have become 
 social in character and consequently Socialism always 
 dealt with the social tool and never with the 
 individual. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: I refer to the declaration excluding 
 any private property. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: There was no such exclusion ?.t 
 any time. Private property in articles of consumption 
 has always been recognized and sanctioned by the 
 Socialists; and as to the means of production, it is 
 not my understanding and I think I am more or 
 less conversant with the literature on the subject 
 that it ever was intended to embrace within that cate- 
 gory the individual tool or the individual industry. 
 
 MR,. GOMPERS : Take, for instance, the boot and 
 shoe industry. There are shoemakers and bootmakers 
 who are engaged in artistic shoemaking and make the 
 whole shoe, using but few tools. If the boot and shoe 
 industry became socialized, and owned and controlled 
 collectively, would there be a seperate arrangement for 
 the artistic boot and shoemaker? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Now, Mr. Gompers, I don't see 
 any reason in the world why the artistic boot and shoe- 
 maker should not continue to be an artistic boot and 
 shoemaker under Socialism. I don't believe there 
 would be any socialization of the individual shoe; at 
 least, I should not wear it, if it were. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: The answer, of course, is quite 
 germane. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: To the question. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Do you regard it as a fact that in 
 
 65
 
 the United States "the bourgeoisie has converted the 
 position of the lawer, the priest, the poet, the man of 
 science into its paid wage laborers"? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Why, it is somewhat exaggerated, 
 but substantially true. I can speak for the lawyers. 
 (Laughter.) 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Do you believe that the statement, 
 quoting again from Socialist authority: "Chattel 
 slavery is dead, a greater slavery has grown up in its 
 place. Wage slavery is so much greater than chattel 
 slavery as the white people in this country are more 
 numerous than the black people"? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT : I think that is substantially correct. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Do you agree with the estimate that 
 in the United States the number of men out of work 
 are more than five million? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT : At some time or another. I believe 
 the census of 1900 gives the number of partially un- 
 employed during the year at 6,000,000. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Which authority? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: The 1900 census. The figure is 
 based on the total of workers unemployed during all 
 or part of the year. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Do you regard the Communist 
 Manifesto of Marx and Engels as on the whole cor- 
 rect, as correct to-day as ever? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: That was published in 1848. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Do you regard the general prin- 
 ciples laid down in that manifesto as on the whole 
 as correct to-day as ever? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: The general principles, yes. The 
 details, perhaps not. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS : Do you accept or repudiate the term, 
 or the idea of communism? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: The term "Communist" as used 
 in the Communist Manifesto signified something en- 
 tirely different from what it signifies now. What the 
 authors of the Communist Manifesto meant by the 
 
 66
 
 term "Communist" is what we mean to-day by the 
 term "Socialist." 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: I should judge from the testimony 
 you gave this morning that you do not accept the 
 theory of cataclysm as a means to bring about the 
 co-operative commonwealth ? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: I do not believe in the cataclysm 
 theory. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Your answers would indicate that 
 the Socialist predictions of several years ago have 
 scarcely been verified, including the inability of any 
 government, either to destroy or regulate the corpor- 
 ate existence of capital, such as trusts? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: The question is, whether I admit 
 that this prediction was wrong? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: I simply want, if I can, to have you 
 verify, or rather, re-state, by yes or no, or in such a 
 way as you may care to whether there is to be in our 
 society an evolutionary continuous improvement in the 
 condition of the workers up to the point that may be 
 regarded as a goal or a constant improvement ? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: You asked two question, there, 
 Mr. Gompers. As to the ability of the Government 
 to regulate or destroy business corporations or trusts, 
 I still believe that the Government is quite incapable 
 of doing so. 
 
 As to the process of gradual improvement, I be- 
 lieve in it. But whether such process of gradual im- 
 provement will eventually lead up to Socialism with- 
 out violent, social or political disturbance, or civil 
 war, I don't know. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Do you not see a departure from 
 Marx' conception in the development of the joint 
 stock company? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Decidedly not. On the contrary a 
 verification of his theory of concentration of capital. 
 
 MR,. GOMPERS: Then you think that the growth and 
 ownership of the joint stock company is a refutation 
 
 67
 
 of the theory of the development of the capitalist 
 classes, or Marx' theory of the capitalist class? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: I don't think so. On the contrary 
 I think, as I said, it is a verification of it. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Do you regard the population of the 
 I'nited States, as divided into a small master class 
 and a vast servant class? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: No such conception was ever ex- 
 pressed by any authoritative Socialist author. What 
 you read in the Communist Manifesto is an assertion 
 that the population tends to develop into such two 
 classes. That condition has by far not been reached 
 in the United States. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS : Do you believe that the children 
 of the working class are doomed to ignorance, drudg- 
 ery, toil and darkened lives in the United States? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Very largely, Mr. Gompers. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: When you say that we have 
 secured, or are securing, a material improvement in 
 the general conditions of the working people, and the 
 people generally, it does not conform to your latest 
 answer. \Yhicii is true, your latest answer or your 
 answer this morning? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Both are absolutely true. We have 
 improved conditions somewhat, but our achievements 
 are as nothing compared with what is still to come. 
 I presume that, as president of the American Federa- 
 tion of Labor, you know that we still have the evil of 
 child labor with us in an abominably large extent. 
 
 MR. GOMTERS: I have been admonished that I must 
 not argue with you, and I have no desire to do so. 
 But I want to call your attention to the fact that you 
 said just now that you agreed largely with this state- 
 ment : "The children of the working class are doome-i 
 to ignorance, drudgery, toil and darkened lives." If 
 you say that this is a fact, how does it conform with 
 your statement this morning as to the general gradual 
 
 68
 
 improvement of the conditions of the working class, 
 which, of course, includes the children? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: If you will read the document fur- 
 ther, you will get your answer. The children of the 
 working class are doomed to the lives described un- 
 less something very radical is done to relieve them 
 from it. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Do you believe, Mr. Hillquit, in col- 
 lective bargaining between workmen and their em- 
 ployers ? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: I do. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: During the pendency of an agree- 
 ment, it may prevent workmen from honorably asking 
 for an increase in wages in the event of industrial 
 conditions improving. It also has the tendency, does 
 it not, to prevent reduction in wages in the event of 
 a falling off in the trade ? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: I think it does both, but the prin- 
 cipal consideration, in my mind, is that the practice of 
 collective bargaining causes the workers to unke and 
 to act collectively, and the employers likewise. The 
 struggles between them are thus better organized. It 
 also tends to strengthen the solidarity of the workers. 
 
 MR. GOMPER,S: Do you know that several sections 
 of the Socialist Party and labor papers, their official 
 papers, encouraged and aided a small organization 
 known as the United Boot and Shoe Makers, in op- 
 position to the Boot and Shoe Workers' International 
 Union ? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: I think you are going back again 
 to the old days of the Socialist Labor Party. Is that 
 when the struggle occurred? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: I asked you whether you had no- 
 ticed it within these past three months? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT : No, sir. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS : It could have occurred without your 
 knowing it? 
 
 69
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Oh, yes. I cannot follow or con- 
 trol the 300 Socialist papers we have in this country. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Is it not true, Mr. Hillquit, that the 
 radical movement in Europe has been greatly changed 
 in the past 20 years? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: You mean the Socialist movement? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Let me put the question in th<V 
 form : Is it or is it not a fact that the radical move- 
 ment in Europe has been greatly changed in the past 
 20 years, mainly in these respects I want to read the 
 questions and then if you should desire that I read 
 them separately, I shall be very glad to do so. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Yes, sir. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: I. In the general recognition of 
 the necessity to work for democratic rule as the firbt 
 step for the welfare of the masses. 
 
 Would you prefer to answer now? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: I would rather hear all questions. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: 2. Consequently, in concentrating 
 political efforts on obtaining uniform suffrage for 
 male citizens, with just representation in legislative 
 bodies, and an influence in administration proportion- 
 ate to the powers of the people in general. 
 
 3. In conducting the struggles of the masses in 
 European countries to obtain rights long exercised by 
 the citizens of the United States. 
 
 4. In abandoning the theory of the inevitable social 
 cataclysm predicted by Marx, and falling into line with 
 the labor movement of Great Britain and the United 
 States, the first step being toward trade union organ- 
 ization, which in Germany has come to dominate all 
 great branches of the social movement of the masses, 
 in the adoption and energetic promotion of the plan of 
 voluntary co-operation, the necessary function of 
 which is independence of the state. 
 
 If you prefer, I shall halt here. 
 
 MR,. HILLQUIT: You may. The Socialist movf- 
 ment abroad has not changed or modified its program 
 
 70
 
 within the last 20 years. It has changed its practical 
 methods somewhat. It always does. It learns from 
 experience. It is not any more conservative to-day 
 than it was 20 years ago. It has struggled for politi- 
 cal rights and universal suffrage ever since the ex- 
 istence of an organized Socialist movement in Europe. 
 Some of its political demands are for rights which we 
 in the United States already possess. Others are for 
 rights which we do not possess, as for instance, pro- 
 portional representation. 
 
 On the economic field, the Socialist parties in 
 Europe are, as a rule, considerably in advance of the 
 labor movement here, for the simple reason that they 
 have accomplished more than we have accomplished 
 here. The co-operation of the Socialist parties with 
 the trade unions is by no -manner of means a novel 
 feature. It always has existed, and, in Continental 
 Europe, most of the trade unions were directly cre- 
 ated, organized and called into life by the Socialist 
 parties. The German trade union movement does not 
 dominate the labor movement of Germany. It is co- 
 ordinate with the Socialist movement, except that the 
 voice of Social Democracy is somewhat more author- 
 itative in the joint counsels of the two wings of the 
 labor movement. 
 
 What else have you there, Mr. Gompers? Have 
 you any other questions that I have not answered? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: I want to ask you: You say that 
 the demands of the organized workers of Germany 
 are far in advance of those of the United States. Are 
 the material conditions of the working people of Ger- 
 many better than they are in the United States? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: I think they are decidedly better, 
 because they are more secure. The worst feature of 
 the labor conditions in America is the worker's in- 
 security of existence, the dread of the morrow, and 
 I think that has been largely obviated in Germany 
 through a comprehensive system of social insurance, 
 
 71
 
 which takes care of the workers in case of sickm . 
 permanent disahility, accident and old age. 
 
 The problem of unemployment is also not as acute 
 among German workmen as it is among American 
 workmen. And, taking it all in all, I think that the 
 German workman is considerably better off than the 
 American workman. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS : Supposing the representatives of the 
 German workmen disagree with that view, would you 
 think you would have cause to revise your judgment? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: No, sir. That alone would not 
 cause me to revise my judgment, because it would 
 imply that those German labor representatives had a 
 better knowledge of the conditions of workers, both 
 in Germany and the United States, and until I were 
 sure of that, I would not revise my judgment. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Have you read Mr. Legien's book 
 which he has recently published? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Yes, sir. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: As to the rights of German workers, 
 do you know that public meetings, when held in Ger- 
 many, must be under police authority? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Yes, sir; all political meetings of 
 any kind and it is very objectionable, but it is not 
 half as bad 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Now, you are arguing with me. 
 
 MR,. HILLQUIT: No, sir, I am answering. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS : I am asking you as to the conditions 
 in Germany. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: It is a broad question, Mr. Gom- 
 pers, and I cannot always answer just so as to please 
 you. Your question was about the conditions of the 
 German workman with reference to the right of suf- 
 frage and free speech, was it not ? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Yes, sir. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: My answer to that is, that in Ger- 
 many the workers, not as workers, but as citizens, are 
 subject to certain police supervision in all of their 
 
 72
 
 political meetings. And I say, with all that, they ex- 
 ercise on the whole, greater freedom of speech and 
 greater personal security than the workers here. Ger- 
 many has never had a case like Colorado or West 
 Virginia. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS : Do you know that in Germany they 
 permit no language to be spoken at any meeting other 
 than the German language ? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: I don't think they know any other 
 language but German. But, really, Mr. Gompers 
 
 MR. GOMPERS : I suppose that we, all of us, can be 
 facetious, if we want to. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Occasionally. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: But I asked you this question, 
 whether it is a fact? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: I understand that the police au- 
 thorities are present at every political meeting in Ger- 
 many, and have the right to close the meeting in case 
 of certain utterances, and that for that purpose they 
 must be familiar with the language the speaker uses. 
 The German police have the right to prohibit the use 
 of foreign languages at public meetings. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS : I agree with you in your remarks 
 as to Colorado, but I do not as to the German propo- 
 sition. Do you know that 'the German trade -unions 
 are forbidden by law to deal with any political 
 question ? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Not any political question, as far 
 as my knowledge goes. I know that the trade unions 
 do deal with political questions in Germany. They 
 support the Socialist Party of Germany officially. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: If, for instance, I say to you, sir, 
 that quite recently the American Federation of Labor 
 asked a representative of the German trade union 
 movement to transmit a communication for Interna- 
 tional Peace to other countries, and the officer of that 
 organization could not comply with the request with- 
 out violating the law and endangering the existence 
 
 73
 
 of the organization, do you regard that as evidence 
 that larger liberties have been attained in Germany 
 than in the United States? 
 
 MR,. HILLQUIT: I would not regard those instances 
 as evidences of political liberty by any manner of 
 means. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Would it not be an infringement 
 upon the liberty of the German workmen, the Ger- 
 man citizen? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: It would be. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Supposing I tell you that actually 
 occurred ? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: I will be very much interested. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: I will tell you that it did. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: I thank you. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: In Germany there is considerable 
 immigration from surrounding countries, particularly 
 from Italy, and I think the Balkans, this last year or 
 so. The police have encouraged employers to import 
 strike breakers into Germany. The police have given 
 them permits which are required to be renewed peri- 
 odically, and when one of those men becomes con- 
 verted to the cause of the workmen on strike, his 
 permit is revoked, and he is deported to his country. 
 Do you see the influence that this must have upon 
 the class struggle among the workmen in Germany? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Yes, sir, decidedly. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Inasmuch as the speaking of a for- 
 eign language at any public meeting is forbidden, do 
 you see the effect it must have upon poor workmen 
 who have been brought into Germany and held in that 
 benighted position? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: I see that, Mr. Gompers. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: You would not icgard that as a 
 very great liberty? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: I would infer from that that they 
 still have capitalists in Germany, also. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Of course, we have not forgotten 
 
 74
 
 that fact I don't suppose we can be permitted to for- 
 get that or that you will permit us to forget that fact. 
 I do not want you, Mr. Hillquit, to imagine that by 
 my questions I am making comparisons that are in- 
 viduous to any other country, or that I am purblind 
 to the wrongs or the outrages committed here, but I 
 would ask you, as the authorized representative of the 
 Socialist Party, to bear in mind that when you speak 
 of greater liberty and better conditions of the German 
 workmen as the result of the movement of Germany's 
 workmen, that you ought to have these facts in mind, 
 and I ask you whether you have? 
 
 MR,. HILLQUIT: I have this in mind, that when I 
 spoke of better conditions, it was a question of ma- 
 terial conditions. That was what you asked. When 
 you go into the question of political institutions, and 
 political liberty, you must not forget that you deal 
 with Prussia, which is a Kingdom, and Germany, 
 which is an Empire, and the United States, which is 
 a Republic. But I do wish to reiterate the statement 
 that with the Socialist representatives in the Reichstag, 
 in of them, and the Socialist trade unions in Ger- 
 many, the unspeakable outrages we have 'had here 
 and I do not have to mention them again could not 
 have occurred in Germany. That is all. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Haven't they occurred in Germany? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: They have not. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: The right of meeting is forbidden, 
 and the workmen yield. When they do that there is 
 no conflict? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: They have not killed women and 
 children in labor conflicts in Germany, and the Gov- 
 ernment of Germany has not tolerated it. When an 
 assault was committed on the part of some soldiers 
 upon one crippled workman, the entire nation was 
 aroused, and the Socialist faction in the Reichstag 
 almost brought about the fall of the ministry on that 
 account. 
 
 75
 
 I 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: The incident to which you refer has 
 an entirely different application, and the person in- 
 volved was a public official and not a workman. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: A shoemaker, sir. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS : Isn't this the fact, that in the United 
 States, the workman having become impregnated with 
 the fundamental principles of liberty, propose to exert 
 those rights and, as compared to the willingness of 
 workmen of other countries, to yield rather than to 
 assert 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: It is not a fact, because the work- 
 men you refer to have not had time to become im- 
 pregnated with any so-called fundamental principles 
 of American liberty. They were Bohemians, Hun- 
 garians, Italians, Austrians and foreigners of all kinds, 
 a very short time in" the country. The attitude of the 
 militia they began resenting when they began being 
 burned alive and clubbed to death. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: There is nothing in resenting a 
 wrong and an outrage. Apart from the establish- 
 ment of the Co-operative Commonwealth wherein 
 does the purposes of your movement practically dif- 
 fer from the social reform movement which is effect- 
 ing corrections and improvements in the present social 
 system, and which aims at complete social justice, and 
 a maximum liberty and happiness for mankind, such 
 as the American labor movement? The American 
 trade union movement, the American Federation of 
 Labor ? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Mr. Gompers, I am not trying to 
 establish any differences between the Socialist move- 
 ment and the labor movement. On the contrary, it 
 seems to me, you have been trying to establish them, 
 and vainly. The Socialists see a difference in degree 
 only, but they see absolutely no antagonism between 
 the activities of the Socialist movement and the eco- 
 nomic labor movement. We claim that they go very 
 well hand in hand; that each of them can exist and 
 
 76
 
 thrive with the support of the other, and we are per- 
 fectly willing to lend our part of the support, Mr. 
 Gompers. Whatever criticism we have of leaders or 
 methods are purely in the nature of friendly sugges- 
 tions, and we are not here, or anywhere else, to criti- 
 cise the organized lahor movement of this country, 
 particularly as against the public at large. We con- 
 sider ourselves as a part of th'e labor movement. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Now, Mr. Hillquit, permit me to 
 say this may I, Mr. Chairman. 
 
 CHAIRMAN WALSH : If it is any statement other 
 than a question, I wish you would defer it until such 
 time as you take the witness stand, Mr. Gompers. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS : What is your opinion, Mr. Hillquit, 
 upon the general strike for the subversion of the 
 present system? 
 
 MR,. HILLQUIT: I think it is Utopian. I do not 
 believe it is a feasible or realizable proposition at all. 
 
 Whenever the workers of this country are ready for 
 a general strike in order to change the present system, 
 they will be intelligent enough and sufficiently well 
 organized to change the system directly by legislative 
 methods. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Legislative methods? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: If they are strong enough to win 
 out by a general strike, they will be strong enough to 
 take hold of the machinery of government, and effect 
 the change of system without a general strike. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS : What do you mean by legislation 
 the enactment of law ? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: The enactment of a law, a decree, 
 an ordinance, or any other mandate which can be 
 executed. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Expropriating all who may own 
 property and turning it over to the Government or the 
 Co-operative Commonwealth ? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT : I have not said, "Expropriate." It 
 may be accomplished by method of purchase. 
 
 77
 
 MR. GOMI-ERS: Well, say take hold- 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT (Interrupting): Take hold take 
 control and possession of. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Well, by revolution? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT : Oh, I suppose it would probably be 
 called a revolution anyhow, but it may be a very peace- 
 ful one, I don't know. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: By confiscation? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Not as we are inclined at present. 
 At present we are in the market for buying out the 
 capitalists. 
 
 MR,. GOMPERS: By compensation? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: By compensation. However, again, 
 Mr. Gompers, I do not guarantee the acts of the next 
 generation. The capitalists may become naughty and 
 the people may be displeased with them and take 
 things, just as we took the negro slaves from their 
 owners. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: You have an idea that the taking 
 might be for compensation ? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: It might be, yes. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Have you an idea how such a propo- 
 sition could be financed? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: How it could be financed? We 
 haven't reached that point yet, Mr. Gompers 
 
 MR. GOMPERS (Interrupting) : No? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT (Continuing) : I suppose that if 
 paid, it will be paid in some Government securities. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: I take it that you are not in favor 
 of what is generally known as State Socialism? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT : I am not. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Not even as a step towards a demo- 
 cratic Socialism? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: If it were State Socialism, it would 
 not be a step towards democratic Socialism. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Are not the present differences 
 within the Socialist parties in the United States sig- 
 
 78
 
 nificant of fatal differences in the management of a 
 revolutionary society? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: No, there are no fatal differences, 
 Mr. Gompers. We have some differences of opinion 
 within the Socialist Party, sometimes lively ones. I 
 hope you' have them in the American Federation of 
 Labor. But we, nevertheless, manage to keep our 
 organization and to work for a common purpose. I 
 presume there will be strong differences of opinion, 
 and some fights, even under Socialism. I should not 
 want it to be otherwise. 
 
 MR, GOMPERS: I mean as to liberty. Under So- 
 cialism will there be liberty of individual action, and 
 liberty in the choice of occupation and refusal to work ? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Plenty of it, Mr. Gompers. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS : I take it that you have no apprehen- 
 sion that under a democratic Socialist management, 
 the administrators could or would attempt to exploit 
 the workers under them, and one set of laborers would 
 exploit another set; the lazy office-holders, the indus- 
 trious artisans ; the strong and bolder, the weaker and 
 more modest ones, and the failures, the economically 
 successful. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT : I think it quite likely that there will 
 be some abuses of that kind. Even under Socialism 
 men will still remain human, no doubt. But, Mr. 
 Gompers, we have every reason to believe that they 
 will be small and insignificant as compared with pres- 
 ent abuses, for the system will be based on a greater 
 democracy and self-government, and will thus provide 
 for proper means of remedy. Furthermore, there 
 will be no great incentive to corruption such as we 
 have in private gain under capitalism. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: In the event that the Co-operative 
 Comonwealth should be established, taking it for 
 granted for the sake of the question, that it is possible, 
 it would have for its present purpose the highest ma- 
 terial and social and moral improvement of the con- 
 
 79
 
 dition of the workers attainable at that time, would 
 it not? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: I think so. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: And would there be-any higher aim 
 after that is established? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Oh, there will be plenty more. 
 There will be new aims coming every day. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Still more? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Still further. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Still higher? 
 
 MR. HILLQUTT: Still higher. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Now, if that is so, isn't it a fact that 
 it is not at all a goal, but simply a transitory ideal? 
 
 MR,. HILLQUIT : Sure. It is our goal to-day. It is a 
 transitory goal. There will be a movement toward a 
 higher goal to-morrow. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: In other words, you think even if 
 that condition of affairs should be possible, it, like the 
 conditions of to-day, is transitory and continually tend 
 ing toward improvement ? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Yes. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS : And not a goal ? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Not an ultimate goal. There is no 
 such thing as an ultimate social goal. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: In the Socialist state, would you 
 have each worker rewarded by the full product of his 
 labor, or by an apportionment of the product accord- 
 ing to his demands? In other words, would the rule 
 be, to each according to his deeds, or to each accord- 
 ing to his needs? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: I think neither, strictly speaking. I 
 don't suppose his Socialist regime would at once radi- 
 cally change established standards of compensation. 
 I think it would have to grow up and be built up on 
 the existing basis. And I think it will largely be a 
 system of salaries and wages, as nearly as possible, in 
 proportion to the usefulness of the service but they 
 
 80
 
 will be larger than they are to-day, because they will 
 include the profits now paid to the idle capitalists. 
 
 MR. GOMPKRS: So, as a matter of fact, then, if the 
 Co-operative Commonwealth is not a goal, is not an 
 end, then why term it Socialism, and why not term it 
 the ordinary, natural development of the human race 
 to a higher and better state of society ? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: We rrmy term it the ordinary and 
 natural development of the human race to the point 
 of Socialism. In other words, Mr. Gompers, we 
 divide the history of mankind pretty arbitrarily into 
 certain periods. We speak of the period of Slavery, 
 the period of Feudalism, the period of Capitalism. 
 Now we foresee the next steo in development, and 
 call it the period of Socialism. We cannot draw a 
 line of demarcation where it starts or where it van- 
 ishes. It will certainly not be permanent. There will 
 be something superior to it some time. In the mean- 
 time every stage of development is superior to the 
 preceding stage; and by the same token as Capitalism 
 is superior to Feudalism, Socialism is superior to 
 Capitalism. That is all. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: You simply apply it as a term, and 
 not an end? . 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT : Not an ultimate end in social de- 
 velopment, no. 
 
 CHAIRMAN W T ALSH : Any members of the Commis- 
 sion desire to ask Mr. Hillquit any questions? 
 
 COMMISSIONER BALLARD: I should like to ask him a 
 question or two. 
 
 CHAIRMAN WALSH: Mr. Ballard, Mr. Hillquir, 
 would like to ask you some questions. 
 
 COMMISSIONER BALLARD: You were speaking of the 
 conditions of Socialism and of the conditions of the 
 workers under it being different from the present. If 
 we had an ideal condition of Socialism, would not 
 there be some of the people who would be workers, 
 some of the people who would still be managers? 
 
 81
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: They would all be workers. Some 
 would be engaged in management and supervision, 
 some in manual \vork and some in the mental work. 
 No doubt there would be a division of functions. 
 
 MR. BALLARD: But you would not allow any, no 
 matter what their division was, to acquire or have 
 larger advantages than the lowest worker? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: I would -not put it that way. We 
 would not permit anybody to enjoy a workless income 
 by virtue of his private ownership of the tool which 
 society needs for its wealth production. But we cer- 
 tainly recognize that human nature is diversified ; that 
 we have different attitudes and different abilities. The 
 work would be organized and the functions divided 
 
 COMMISSIONER BALLARD: And different rewards? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: And different rewards, no doubt, 
 would be allowed for services of differing importance 
 at least for some time. 
 
 COMMISSIONER BALLARD: You spoke this morning 
 of the American Federation of Labor and of its being 
 somewhat antiquated in its methods. Could you, in 
 a short time, tell us what changes you would suggest 
 that should come over the American Federation of 
 Labor in order to make it more suitable to the needs 
 of the present time? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: I think those changes are corning 
 anyhow. The changes, to my mind, are these: The 
 tendencies towards closer alliance and amalgamation 
 of the organizations in kindred trades and crafts. I 
 think the political attitude of the American Federa- 
 tion of Labor also stands in need of a change. The 
 American Federation of Labor does not take advan- 
 tage of the great inherent political powers residing 
 within that organization. I believe that by throwing 
 itself on one chimera after another, and by following 
 the policy of "punishing friends and rewarding 
 enemies," it dissipates a good deal of the very great 
 power which the organized workers of all other coun- 
 
 82
 
 tries use with excellent effect ; and I think the direction 
 of further progress of the American Federation of 
 Labor lies in the line of greater solidarity within 
 the organization, and in the political independence of 
 the workers. 
 
 COMMISSIONER HARRIMAN : I want to ask a question 
 or two there, Mr. Hillquit. It has been partially asked 
 by Mr. Ballard. but I did not quite get the answer. 
 Isn't it inevitable that some men, who have superior 
 mentality and driving force, will always get ahead of 
 other men? And if that is so, how are you going to 
 prevent the capitalist class from forging to the front 
 and getting into power? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Mrs. Harriman, there is no objec- 
 tion to a person of superior quality or merit getting 
 ahead of the man of inferior merit, or getting larger 
 reward or compensation. The Socialist objection is 
 to the men of inferior quality or intellect getting 
 ahead of the brainy man by reason of his ownership 
 o'f the tools, by reason of his capital. To-day, any 
 person who happens to be lucky enough to be born to 
 wealth and who inherits a good deal of stocks and 
 bonds, may be devoid of any brains, of any intellect, 
 but will get a princely income nevertheless, while a 
 foreman or other employe may be a very much wiser 
 man, and yet get a mere pittance. That is the So- 
 cialist objection. 
 
 COMMISSIONER HARRIMAN: Then you do not object 
 to the whole capitalist class only to individuals of the 
 class who are wealthy ? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: No, we object to the capitalist class 
 as a class that derives its income without work from 
 the ownership of capital. If any member of the capi- 
 talist class can or will render useful services to so- 
 ciety, he is entitled to compensation for such services ; 
 but we object to any compensation being given to him 
 for his good fortune of being born to wealth and to 
 
 83
 
 his getting dividends, whether he is good or b:t<l. 
 capable, or incapable, productive or otherwise. 
 
 COMMISSIONER LENNON: Mr. Hillquit, I want you 
 to answer a question a little more elaborately than you 
 have, or than I have understood you. I understood 
 you to say that the coming of Socialism must be 
 through growth, through evolution, through the de- 
 velopment of the human race to higher and better con- 
 ditions, and that the workers must strive to attain 
 better conditions, so far as their industrial life is con- 
 cerned, and social life, and their mental activity. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Yes. 
 
 COMMISSIONER LENNON : Then you do not believe 
 in the theory that you must grind a man's nose to the 
 extreme before he will rebel and help to bring about 
 better conditions ? 
 
 MR. HILLQUTT: By no manner of means; just the 
 contrary. 
 
 COMMISSIONER LENNON: Has that not been the 
 theory expressed by a very large number of Socialists 
 up to recent times? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: It has not. The distinguishing 
 feature between the Socialists, or as we may term it 
 more accurately, the Social Democrats, and the Anar- 
 chists, is that the Anarchists adopt as their motto, "The 
 worse, the better." Whereas, the Socialists' motto is, 
 "The better, the better." 
 
 COMMISSIONER BALLARD: I would like to ask you, 
 if you please, one other question. As I gather, you 
 want the tools to be owned by the commonwealth. 
 Would you allow any man by his own efforts, to ac- 
 quire property, and allow him to enjoy the use of 
 that himself? 
 
 MR,. HILLQUIT: Yes. 
 
 COMMISSIONER BALLARD: Would you require that 
 his children should start out the same as any other 
 person's children, or would you allow him to pass 
 on to them the dollars and cents that he had acquired ? 
 
 84
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: In other words, would we allow 
 inheritance under Socialism? Personally I think we 
 probably would. Understand, I have no warrant to 
 speak for the future, but under Socialism there would 
 be no private ownership of industries, machinery, or 
 any other means of exploiting a fellow man. There 
 would be private ownership only in the means of con- 
 sumption and enjoyment. And society at large is not 
 very much concerned whether you consume your un- 
 productive savings in a year, or preserve them for ten 
 years later, or pass them on to your children. So 
 long as there is no possibility for the exploitation of 
 your fellow men by the ownership of the social tool 
 of the instrument of labor, so long I do not see any- 
 thing in the Socialist program that would prohibit the 
 use and enjoyment of private property and its trans- 
 mission to posterity. 
 
 COMMISSIONER GARRETSON : Mr. Hillquit, your 
 theory is then, I want to get myself straightened 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Get it. 
 
 COMMISSIONER GARRETSON : In regard to this ques- 
 tion started by Mrs. Harriman, your theory is that it 
 would be impossible, under the system, to misuse the 
 ability to accumulate, is that it ? 
 
 MR.- HILLQUIT : Yes, sir. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: In other words the incentive would 
 be gone for dishonest exploitation? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Exactly, dishonest exploitation or 
 exploitation of any kind would become impossible. 
 
 COMMISSIONER GARRETSON : I was simply accenting 
 exploitations with the other adjective. 
 
 CHAIRMAN WALSH : The Commission will now 
 stand adjourned until to-morrow morning, at ten 
 o'clock. 
 
 85
 
 THIRD SESSION. 
 
 The Aims and Methods of the American 
 Federation of Labor 
 
 CHAIRMAN WALSH : The Commission will please 
 come to order. All right, Mr. Counsel, we are ready 
 to proceed. / 
 
 Samuel Gompers, called as a witness, testified as 
 follows : 
 
 MR. THOMPSON : For the purposes of the record, 
 give us your name, address and occupation. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Samuel Gompers, President of the 
 American Federation of Labor, residing in the City 
 of New York. The headquarters of the American 
 Federation of Labor are at Washington, D. C. 
 
 MR. THOMPSON : How long, Mr. Gompers, have you 
 been President of the American Federation of Labor? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: The American Federation of Labor 
 was formed in 1881, in Pittsburgh, when I was elected 
 its first president, and with the exception of two 
 terms, I have been President of the American Federa- 
 tion of Labor from that time. 
 
 MR. THOMPSON : Mr. Gompers, what trades, gen- 
 erally speaking, does the American Federation of 
 Labor include? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: It covers practically the field of in- 
 dustry throughout the country. 
 
 MR. THOMPSON : And there are no limitations as to 
 membership in it on the part of any body of workers' 
 
 MR. GOMPERS : There are none. The only require- 
 ment, in so far as the American Federation is con- 
 cerned, is that it shall be composed of wage-earners. 
 
 86
 
 MR. THOMPSON : If you can, Mr. Gompers, I would 
 like you to state the trades which are, as a matter of 
 fact, affiliated, and if you cannot, I would like to have 
 you submit that at some time to the Commission in 
 written form. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: I have it in print, sir. The Amer- 
 ican Federation of Labor prints a directory of all the 
 organizations affiliated with it and a list of the organ- 
 izations which are not affiliated, but which are regarded 
 by the American Federation of Labor as having com- 
 mon policies and common polity, even though unaffi- 
 liated. I shall submit to you a copy of that directory 
 for such purposes as you may desire. 
 
 MR. THOMPSON : Mr. Gompers, what is the form of 
 the organization of the American Federation of 
 Labor ? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS : The American Federation of Labor, 
 as its name implies, is a federation. It is not, as it is 
 often mistakenly called, an organization, but a federa- 
 tion. It is a federation of organizations, each of which 
 has its own government and determines its own needs 
 and requirements in the light of the experience of the 
 members of the organization. This right in the be- 
 ginning has been proclaimed and has been adhered to 
 as consistently as possible in the history of the Amer- 
 ican Federation of Labor. The Federation has no 
 power except that which is yielded and conceded to it 
 by the organizations which make up the Federation. 
 
 MR,. THOMPSON: Has the Federation of Labor got 
 a Constitution, so-called, or Articles of Organization? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: It has. 
 
 MR. THOMPSON : Have you those p'resent, Mr. 
 Gompers ? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: I have, sir. 
 
 MR. THOMPSON : Would you mind giving a copy 
 to the Commission ? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS : Very glad to hand you one now, sir. 
 It is the Constitution as amended and adopted at the 
 
 87
 
 last convention of the American Federation of Labor 
 at Seattle, November, 1913. 
 
 1 can now, sir, give you a list of the affiliated organ- 
 izations. There are 1 10 national and international 
 unions. There are five industrial departments. There 
 are 42 State federations of labor. There are 623 citv 
 central bodies, or local city federations of the local 
 trades unions in the cities or towns, and there are 642 
 local trade and federated unions, directly attached to 
 the American Federation of Labor as local unions, and 
 whose chartered existence to the American Federation 
 of Labor will continue until such time as there will be 
 a sufficient number in each particular calling or trade 
 so that a national union may be formed from these 
 locals, and set- up in business as a sovereign entity in 
 the trade or the calling or the industry covered by these 
 local unions. 1 hand you here, sir, a copy of this 
 directory, issued on January the I2th, 1914, containing 
 the names and addresses of the executive officers of the 
 National Trade Union, the department, the State fed- 
 eration, the central body or the local and federal labor 
 unions. 
 
 MR. THOMPSON : Mr. Gompers, how does the or- 
 ganization of the American Federation of Labor ex- 
 press itself? Does it hold convention, or has it got 
 officers ? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: It has. 
 
 MR. THOMPSON : What conventions does it hold, and 
 what officers has it? 
 
 MR GOMPERS: The conventions are held annually, 
 and have for many years been held in the month of 
 November of each year. The officers consist of i 
 President, eight Vice-Presidents, a Secretary and a 
 Treasurer. The eleven officers constituting the Execu- 
 tive Council. 
 
 MR. THOMPSON : What jurisdiction and authority 
 does the convention have? Is it the supreme law- 
 making body of the Federation? 
 
 88
 
 MR. GOMPERS: It is, to the fullest limit; and yet. 
 within the limitations of the authority and power con- 
 ceded to the Federation by the constituent or federated 
 sovereign organizations. If I may be permitted to use 
 the simile we have formed our American Federation 
 of Labor practically after the make-up of the Govern- 
 ment of the United States, both in its Federal jurisdic- 
 tion and State sovereignty, and in the system by. which 
 the Federal Government exercises only such powers 
 as are conceded to the United States by the States. 
 
 MR. THOMPSON: The right of secession, Mr. Gom- 
 pers, however, remains with the local union, does it 
 not? 
 
 MR,. GOMPERS : With the affiliated unions. No one 
 can question the legal right within the Federation of 
 an organization to secede or withdraw. There is a 
 moral obligation, a spirit of comraderie, a spirit of 
 patriotism, a spirit of endeavoring to be of mutual 
 assistance. 
 
 MR. THOMPSON : In case of the withdrawal or 
 secession of an international union which has been am 
 Hated with the American Federation of Labor, are any 
 coersive methods used by the American Federation 
 of Labor to cause the International Union to withdraw 
 its secession ? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS : None, sir. As a matter of fact, the 
 Western Federation of Miners, for instance, withdrew 
 from the American Federation of Labor about 1896. 
 There were many efforts, many ' suggestions made, to 
 have local unions belonging to the Western Federation 
 of Miners become part of the American Federation of 
 Labor as local unions. Not only was that discour- 
 aged, but the proposal was repudiated. And that is 
 equally true with national organizations which are not 
 affiliated with the American Federation of Labor. We 
 feel that it ought to be the duty of every wage worker 
 to belong to the union of his trade or his calling, and 
 that it is the duty of a local union or a trade or calling 
 
 89
 
 to belong to the national or international union of that 
 trade and calling, and that it is equally the moral duty 
 of every organized body, bona fide organized body of 
 workmen, to belong to the American Federation of 
 Labor; but as to coersive methods, they are not em- 
 ployed. 
 
 MR. THOMPSON : Where an international union, Mr. 
 Gompers, has joined the American Federation of 
 Labor, and, at the convention resolutions are passed 
 relating to the trade of that international union, and 
 the international union refuses to carry out the order 
 of the convention, what is done then? What power 
 has the American Federation of Labor? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: It has no powers to enforce its 
 judgment. There is but one instance that I recall, in 
 which an organization, having agreed in advance to 
 abide by the decision of the Executive Council sitting 
 as a board of arbitration in a dispute between it and 
 two other organizations, refused to abide when the 
 decision was rendered against it. It was then decided 
 that the organization's charter, or its chartered rela- 
 tions with the American Federation of Labor would 
 cease, and it did upon a certain date, but the organiza- 
 tion, a year after, re-affiliated upon a declaration in 
 the convention to that effect. 
 
 MR. THOMPSON : And* the only actual power outside 
 of the moral power that the A. F. of L. has, is the 
 power of expulsion from membership, is that right ? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: From membership in the American 
 Federation of Labor. 
 
 MR. THOMPSON: In the American Federation of 
 Labor? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Yes, sir. And I ought to say, sir, 
 that that can only be accomplished when, upon roll 
 call at the convention of the American Federation of 
 Labor, two-thirds of the votes are cast for such revo- 
 cation of charter or disassociation of that organization 
 from the Federation. 
 
 90
 
 MR. THOMPSON : Mr. Gompers, you have spoken 
 about the moral force of the American Federation of 
 Labor, and the allied organizations. Have you found 
 that to be effective in the dealings of the international 
 union, one with another? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS : The most effective of any influence 
 and power. As a matter of fact, the experience of the 
 men in our movement has shown one fact standing out 
 in bold relief, that every movement of workmen which 
 has had a system of government by which force or 
 compulsion have been attempted to be practiced, has 
 aroused the resentment and repudiation of the masses 
 and has led to dissolution, while the efforts to exert 
 a moral influence upon the doings of men and of 
 women has led to magnificent results. In other words 
 the workers are just human beings. And when men 
 are told that they must do something at the peril of 
 their organized existence, or that they must do some- 
 thing at the. peril of their personal existence, there is 
 a spirit aroused in them to say : "I shall try to do the 
 very contrary to that you command me to do." If men 
 are appealed to their better judgment, their better 
 feeling, to a righteous course of conduct, they are 
 more ready to yield and to do the best that they can. 
 
 MR THOMPSON : Mr. Gompers, it is true that, un- 
 der the law of the land, no man, a member of no or- 
 ganization, has a right to force another to take certain 
 action. Isn't that true? I say, that no trade union 
 has a legal right to force a member to go on a strike, 
 for instance? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: It has not. 
 
 MR,. THOMPSON : The sole force, then, that any 
 organization in this country has, yours as well as 
 others, is the moral force to induce its members to 
 take concerted action, isn't that true? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS : Yes, sir, it is. 
 
 MR. THOMPSON : And that that rule applies in every 
 
 91
 
 phase of labor organization, and particularly in your 
 organization? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Particularly in the Federation. 
 
 MR. THOMPSON: You have spoken, Mr. Gompers, 
 of the officers and Executive Council of the American 
 Federation of Labor. You have told of its member- 
 ship. Where are its powers? 
 
 MR. GOMTERS: They are an executive committee, 
 an administrative committee, if you please, for the 
 purpose of carrying into effect the conclusions reached 
 at the conventions, and to take such initiative in regard 
 to any matter, particularly legislation upon which the 
 convention not had an opportunity to express itself; 
 to be helpful in any and in every way to any sphere 
 of human activity, contributing to the protection, the 
 benefit, the welfare of the people, and particularly of 
 wage earners. 
 
 MR. THOMPSON : Are the powers of this council 
 set forth? '. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Yes, sir. In the constitution, a copy 
 of which I handed you, sir. 
 
 MR. THOMPSON : Now, Mr. Gompers, in a general 
 way, if you know, what is the total membership of the 
 unions affiliated or federated with the American Fed- 
 eration of Labor? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: In the report which the Executive 
 Council of the American Federation of Labor sub- 
 mitted to the Seattle convention last November, was 
 incorporated the report of the Secretary of the Federa- 
 tion, Mr. Frank Morrison, and his report is based upon 
 the reports made to his office by the affiliated organ- 
 izations, and upon which these organizations pay the 
 per capita tax for their respective memberships. 
 
 The average membership for the year 1913 that Mr. 
 Morrison reported and upon whom the per capita tax 
 was paid,was 1,996,004. I ought to explain that. Be- 
 cause we aimed to avoid any padding of membership 
 by any organization in the last month just preceding 
 
 92
 
 the conventions, and thereby increasing the voting 
 power of the delegates of any organization, in 1895 
 the convention made the change that the representa- 
 tion and voting power in the convention should not be 
 based, as theretofore, upon the last month's payment, 
 but upon the average payment of the organization 
 during the year. 
 
 MR. THOMPSON : Have you made any comparison, 
 Mr. Gompers, between the growth of the membership 
 of the Federation of Labor and the growth of the 
 population of the United States? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: I have made no accurate compari- 
 son. The answer to the question needs elucidation. 
 The membership of the organizations affiliated with 
 the American Federation of Labor are composed of 
 adults, and they are principally men, but there are some 
 women. Therefore, a comparison as to the member- 
 ship in the American Federation of Labor and the 
 population of the United States is hardly a fair com- 
 parison. If you figure five to a family, it is only fair 
 to assume that in the American Federation we have 
 about eleven million. 
 
 MR. THOMPSON : My question was not directed to 
 that which you state, but directed to the proportion of 
 the increase whether the percentage of increase had 
 gone on with the increase in population. Now, if you 
 don't know, that is all right. We can figure that out. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: I think the percentage of increase 
 of the American Federation of Labor has been greater 
 than that of the population of the United States. 
 
 MR. THOMPSON : Mr. Gompers, now, will you please 
 tell us in your own language the object and purposes 
 of the American Federation of Labor? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Recognizing the fact that associated 
 effort is of greater influence and power to secure any 
 given object over that of individual effort, the first 
 purpose to which the American Federation of Labor 
 directs its efforts, is the encouragement or formation 
 
 93
 
 of trade and labor unions, and the closer federation of 
 such unions that, in. local, state, national and inter- 
 national unions, industrial departments, central bodies, 
 etc., to encourage these organizations to aid and assist 
 each other to the fullest extent in any of the struggles 
 in which they may be engaged ; to protect the rights 
 and the interests of the membership and the working 
 people; to promote and advance their interests and 
 rights economically and politically, legislatively and 
 socially; to make life the better for living in our day, 
 so that the workers may be in a better position to 
 meet any problem with which the future generations 
 may be confronted. In a word, to let no eftort go by 
 untried by which the working people may find better- 
 ment upon every field of human activity. There is 
 no limit to any course which may be pursued by our 
 American Federation of Labor that is calculated to 
 be of advantage to the people of our country and 
 primarily to the working people. Of course I could 
 enter into detail ; but the omission of any one factor 
 might lead to the inference that the Federation's ac- 
 tivity was in so far limited. It takes in the sum total 
 of human activity upon whatever field that may be, 
 which may aid, promote, advance and protect the rights 
 and the interests of the working people and may tend 
 to establish better conditions and to make for the 
 greatest sum total of human happiness. At no part 
 of their scheme or in the process of evolution, is there 
 a limit placed upon the work and the activities of the 
 American Federation of Labor. 
 
 CHAIRMAN WALSH : Now, Mr. Hillquit, you may 
 cross-examine Mr. Gompers. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Mr. Gompers, you have stated that 
 the general objects of the Federation are to better the 
 conditions of the workers in all fields of human ac- 
 tivity. By that you mean, I presume, economic better- 
 ment in all directions first, don't you? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: First. Yes, and in every other. 
 94
 
 MR. HILLQUIT : Including political and social ? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: In every particular. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: That would include, would it not, 
 Mr. Gompers, improvement in political rights and in 
 social standing, as well as in economic conditions? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS : Beyond question. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Does your Federation formulate 
 definite programs of such improvements from, time 
 to time? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Yes, the American Federation of 
 Labor has concerned itself with first questions first. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: And it has passed various resolu- 
 tions recommending concrete ameliorative measures, 
 has it not? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: I has. 
 
 MR,. HILLQUIT: Has the American Federation of 
 Labor expressed itself in favor of the shortening of 
 the work day in keeping with the increased produc- 
 tiveness of machinery? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: It has, and I should say that the 
 movement for a shorter workday has been going on 
 for nearly 50 years twenty years prior to the organ- 
 ization of the American Federation of Labor. It 
 received more concrete form and expression since 
 the American Federation of Labor was formed. For 
 instance, in 1884, the American Federation of Labor 
 declared that a concrete effort should be made by the 
 working people of the United States to secure the 
 eight-hour working day on May 1st, 1886. And the 
 Federation offered its services to the organizations in 
 the establishment of the eight-hour workday by con- 
 ferences between workmen and employers, by corre- 
 spondence, by publications, by agitation and education 
 and, if it is responsive to the question, I may be per- 
 mitted to say right here that upon the recommenda- 
 tion of the American Federation of Labor, two trades, 
 piece-work trades, enforced the eight-hour workday 
 on May ist, 1886, and they have maintained the 
 
 95
 
 eight-hour workday in the industry from that day 
 until this; and that, as a result of the declaration of 
 the American Federation of Labor, the movement to-.k 
 impetus so as to reduce the hours of labor in many 
 trades and callings from the 1 8-hour day, the i6-hour 
 day, not to the 8-hour day, but to the 10 and to the 
 Q-hour day. Now, I suppose, at some other stage of 
 the proceedings I may refer to the hours of labor 
 now generally prevailing in the industries. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: You may. At any rate, Mr. Gom- 
 pers, the American Federation of Labor is unequivo- 
 cally in favor of a shorter workday, and a progres- 
 sive decrease of working hours in keeping with the 
 development of machinery and other productive forces, 
 is it not? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Yes, and in addition, the need, the 
 recognized need of our day is for greater rest oppor- 
 tunities and time for rest and leisure and cultivation. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Quite so. Then, the American 
 Federation of Labor is also in favor of a rest of not 
 less than a day and a half in each week? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Yes. I would say that we insist 
 upon the one rest day, an entire day in each week. 1 
 may say that it was my great pleasure to have been 
 the President of the New York State Federation of 
 Labor when the Legislature of the State of New York, 
 the first one in America, made Saturday afternoon 'i 
 legal holiday. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: You are, then, Mr. Gompers, in 
 favor of the rest period of a day and a half, at least, 
 in each week? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: I am, sir. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT : And are you also in favor of secur- 
 ing a more effective inspection of workshops, factor- 
 ies, and mines? 
 
 MR, GOMPERS: Mr. Hillquit, if I may, I should 
 prefer that you would address me, not as to my per- 
 sonal wishes and preferences. I am here as President 
 
 96
 
 of the American Federation of Labor, and I should, 
 if you can, like to have you address your questions as 
 to what the attitude of the American Federation of 
 Labor is, rather than my own. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT : Mr. Gompers, it will be understood 
 that whenever I refer to you, I refer to you as the 
 head and representative of the American Federation 
 of Labor, and addressing you in such capacity I now 
 repeat that question: Are you or is the American 
 Federation of Labor in favor of more efficient in- 
 spection of workshops, factories and mines? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: It is, it has always been, and has 
 worked to the accomplishment of the purposes which 
 you have just now read as being declared. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT : And does the Federation also favor 
 forbidding the employment of children under sixteen 
 years of age? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: It does, and it has worked toward 
 the accomplishment of that purpose. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Does the Federation favor forbid- 
 ding the interstate transportation of the products of 
 convict labor, and the product of all uninspected fac- 
 tories and mines? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Yes, sir; that is merely an instru- 
 mentality. One of the instrumentalities for the ac- 
 complishment of the results mentioned in the ques- 
 tion you asked me just now. It is not in itself the 
 thing; it is only an instrumentality to accomplish the 
 thing. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: But as such instrumentality, the 
 Federation favors the measure, does it not ? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Yes, sir. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: And do you also favor direct em- 
 ployment of workers by the United States Govern- 
 ment, State Governments, and Municipal Govern- 
 ments, without the intervention of contractors? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Yes, sir; and to a large degree have 
 accomplished that. 
 
 97
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Very well, sir. And does the Fed- 
 eration also favor a minimum wage scale? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: That question is general, and does 
 not admit of an intelligent answer. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Well, does the Federation favor 
 the fixing by legal enactment of certain minimum 
 wages below which the employer should not be per- 
 mitted to pay? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: The American Federation of Labor 
 is not in favor of such a proposition, but, on the con- 
 trary, is very much opgosed to it, and it is necessary 
 to say 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT (Interrupting) : Can you state your 
 reasons why, Mr. Gompers? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: The attempts of Government to 
 establish wages at which workmen may work is in 
 the experience of history the beginning of an era, and 
 a long era, of industrial slavery. There was a time 
 in history where Governments and courts, at quarter 
 sessions, established wages. During periods where 
 there was a dearth of workmen, and when employers 
 offered higher wages, the workmen and employers 
 were brought into court and both punished, punished 
 by imprisonment and physical mutilation, because the 
 one asked, received or demanded and the other was 
 willing to offer, or did pay higher wages. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: May I interrupt you, Mr. Gom- 
 pers, because I think you misunderstood me? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: I think I will anticipate what yon 
 want, with the next five or six words. The proposi- 
 tion upon which I am questioned is as to minimum 
 wages. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Correct. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: I thought I anticipated you. I 
 think I know the operations of men's minds a bit, par- 
 ticularly in the differences which you and I have both 
 the honor to represent. 
 
 This is a proposition, presumably, to determine a 
 
 98
 
 minimum wage. It is a maxim in law, although I am 
 not a lawyer, that once a court has jurisdiction over 
 an individual, it has the power to exercise full au- 
 thority in the field of that jurisdiction. I fear the 
 Greeks even when they bear gifts. Any attempt to 
 entrap the American workmen into a species of slavery 
 under the guise of an offer of this character is re- 
 sented by the men and women of labor in the Amer- 
 ican Federation of Labor. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: In other words, Mr. Gompers, if 
 a law were proposed in the State of New York to the 
 effect that no women be employed in factory indus- 
 tries at a wage less than, say, nine or ten dollars a 
 week, you would object to such a measure on the 
 ground that it might tend to enslave the women 
 workers of the State of New York. Is that your 
 proposition ? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS : Let me say this, that cannot be an- 
 swered in a categorical anwser Yes or No. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT : Answer it in your own way. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: When that question was up for in- 
 vestigation and discussion before the Executive Coun- 
 cil, and subsequently before the American Federation 
 of Labor, there was quite a diversion of views. I am 
 betraying no confidence when I say that. The con- 
 vention decided that the subject was worthy of fur- 
 ther study and consideration, and that is the official 
 action of the convention of the American Federation 
 of Labor. 
 
 If you desire to have my personal views upon that. 
 I shall be perfectly willing to express them. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: You may voice your own views or 
 the views of the Federation, as you please. All I want 
 is a clear answer. My last question was: Assuming 
 that a law was proposed in this State, fixing a mini- 
 mum wage rate for women employed in factories at, 
 say, nine dollars or ten dollars a week, would you in- 
 
 99
 
 dividually or as the representative of the American 
 Federation of Labor, oppose such a law ? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: I would not be authorized nor war- 
 ranted in opposing it since the American Federation 
 of Labor has characterized the question of a minimum 
 wage as a subject worthy of further study and inves- 
 tigation. Personally, of course, I would prefer in 
 general, not to do that, but in this I shall be very glad 
 to volunteer my opinion. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Go ahead, Mr. Gompers. 
 
 MR,. GOMPERS: I say that in my judgment the pro- 
 posal, though well-meaning, is a curb upon the natural 
 rights and the opportunity for development of the 
 women of our country and of the industry. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Then your idea is, Mr. Gompers, 
 if the Legislature once fixed a minimum wage, the 
 machinery of the State would be set in motion to en- 
 force work at that rate, whether the worker desired 
 to render the service or not? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: I am very suspicious of the activi- 
 ties of governmental agencies. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: And your apprehensions are, then, 
 in that direction, that once the State is allowed to fix 
 a minimum rate, the State would also take the right 
 to compel women or men to work at that rate, is 
 that it? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: That is my apprehension. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Mr. Gompers, you are in favor of 
 a maximum workday established by law, are you not ? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: I am. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Wouldn't you, by analogy, say that 
 there is an equally justifiable apprehension that if 
 the Legislature once is allowed to establish a maxi- 
 mum workday it might, by putting its machinery in 
 motion, compel workmen to work up to the maximum 
 allowed ? 
 
 MR. GOMPF.RS: I think that my answer has not 
 been sufficiently intelligent or comprehensive when I 
 
 100
 
 answer by the two monosyllables, "I am." I ought to 
 say I am in favor of legal enactments for the maxi- 
 mum hours of labor for all workmen in direct Govern- 
 ment employment, and for those who do work that 
 the Government has substituted for Governmental 
 authority. I am in favor and the Federation is in 
 favor of a maximum number of hours for children, 
 for minors, and for women. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Then do I understand you to say, 
 Mr. Gompers, that the Federation does not favor a 
 legal limitation of the workday for adult men workers? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS : Not by law of the State. As a mat- 
 ter of fact, the unions have. established very largely 
 the shorter workday by their own initiative, power 
 and influence; they have done it for themselves. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: I know that, Mr. Gompers, but is 
 the Federation opposed to similar legal enactments? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: For adult workmen? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Exactly, limiting their hours of 
 work? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: By legal statutory authority? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Yes. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS : It is. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: It is opposed? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Yes, sir. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT : Has it, in any of its conventions, 
 or otherwise officially, declared itself as opposed io 
 such legal enactment? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Such propositions have been up -at 
 several times and they have been negativecj. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: From all of that, you infer that 
 the Federation is opposed to such legal enactments ? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: I do not think it is a question of 
 inference. It is a question of fact. When a propo- 
 sition is made and it is defeated, that shows that the 
 body is opposed to it. It may be that the question 
 was set aside because the Federation did not desire 
 
 101
 
 to commit itself, but the grounds upon which such 
 rejection has occurred were as I have stated. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Then, Mr. Gompers, will you tell 
 me what line you draw between child labor, woman 
 labor, and adult male labor in hazardous industries? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: For instance, I favor of the meth- 
 ods by which the United Mine Workers of America 
 have established the eight-hour day in the bituminous 
 coal field by their own action rather than I would be 
 for the enactment of a law. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: One does not exclude the other, 
 does it, Mr. Gompers? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Except as I have stated, that the 
 American Federation of Labor has some apprehen- 
 sions as to the placing of additional powers in the 
 hands of the Government which may work to the detri- 
 ment of working people, and particularly when the 
 things can be done by the workmen themselves. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Then, Mr. Gompers, as I under- 
 stand you, the American Federation of Labor is in 
 favor of a uniform shorter workday and would en- 
 force it by means, say, of collective bargaining, or 
 other methods employed by labor unions ? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: I may say, Mr. Hillquit, that you 
 have evidently a misapprehension of the functions of 
 the American Federation of Labor. As a matter of 
 fact, the unions themselves undertake the work of 
 accomplishing the shorter workday. For instance, 
 the International Typographical Union undertook a 
 movement giving employers more than a year's notice 
 in advance that from, a certain day on they would 
 work no more than eight hours in each day. Almost 
 immediately a large number of employers acceded. 
 Others refused. The men struck. Covering a period 
 of more than a year, a number of organized employers 
 and individual firms came to an agreement acceding 
 to the 8-hour day, and enforcing it, and finally the 
 eight-hour day has been established, not only for the 
 
 102
 
 printers, the International Typographical Union, but 
 the 8-hour day prevails now generally in the printing 
 trades; and that is true in many other trades. It did 
 not require any law for the printers; it did not re- 
 quire any law for the granite cutters ; it did not re- 
 quire any law for the Cigar Makers' International 
 Union, of which I have the honor to be a member. 
 There was not any requirement in the law in the 
 building trades, and many others, to introduce the 
 eight-hour workday. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: I fully understand that, but you 
 have stated before that tire American Federation of 
 Labor, as such, at its annual conventions, adopted a 
 resolution as early as 1884, approving the movement 
 for an eight-hour day, and that it has since co-oper- 
 ated with the various affiliated organizations for the 
 attainment of the eight-hour day. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Yes, but it was necessary for the 
 organizations themselves to take the initiative. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Granted. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: For instance, I think it was in 1890, 
 or in 1889, when the American Federation of Labor 
 again took up the movement to encourage the inau- 
 guration of a shorter workday the eight-hour work- 
 day; and the Executive Council was given authority 
 by the convention to extend all the help it could to 
 any organization making application to be selected 
 to make the movement. The carpenters were among 
 the organizations then making application, and they 
 were selected by the Executive Council to make the 
 fight. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Now, Mr. Gompers, to save fur- 
 ther misunderstanding and explanation, I will say to 
 you that whenever I mention the American Federa- 
 tion of Labor, I mean not only the Executive Council, 
 but mean also the unions affiliated with and constitut- 
 ing that body. Now, Mr. Gompers 
 
 MR. GOMPERS (Interrupting) : Mr. Hillquit, pardon 
 
 103
 
 me again. In any question and answer appearing 
 without that distinction being made, the student of 
 history now and hereafter is not likely to go back to 
 your qualification and find the interpretation of the 
 question upon that basis ; and for that reason I must 
 insist that each time you refer to the specific thing, 
 rather than to the general. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Very well, Mr. Gompers. As you 
 know, Mr. Gompers, the United Mine Workers, and 
 the Western Federation of Miners, both affiliated 
 with the American Federation of Labor, have been 
 very active in establishing in the several states of their 
 operations, a minimum workday of eight-hours. Is 
 not that a fact? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: In the Western states, for workmen 
 who are employed beneath the surface of the earth. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT : Now, is the Federation, as a whole, 
 in favor of such legislation as the Western Miners 
 have obtained, say, in Colorado ? 
 
 MR,. GOMPERS: The organized labor movement of 
 Colorado and of Utah have accomplished that, sir 
 But the American Federation of Labor, as such, has 
 not taken any action upon that subject. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT : From your knowledge of the senti- 
 ment and position of the American Federation of 
 Labor as such, would you say that the Federation 
 approves or disapproves of the efforts of its affiliated 
 unions to obtain a legally established maximum work- 
 day? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: I think that the Federation, if called 
 upon to approve the course, would say that the or- 
 ganization acted within its rights, and if it deemed 
 it for the best. We would not oppose it, but rather 
 approve it. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Notwithstanding the apprehension.- 
 you express? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: The fact of the matter is that some 
 
 104
 
 men unconsciously and with the best of intentions get 
 to rivet chains on their wrists. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Now, Mr. Gompers, the Federa- 
 tion would encourage the practice of its various affi- 
 liated organizations in endeavoring to secure a shortei 
 workday by means of a collective agreement with 
 certain groups of employers in a certain industry, 
 would it not? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: It would. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: And the ideal state would be to 
 have each of your affiliated organizations secure such 
 shorter workday by such means, would it not? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: No, sir. I nave a very different 
 conception from what you have, as is quite evident, 
 as to ideals. It is desirable, but it is not ideal. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Yes; but it would be desirable. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Yes, sir. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Now, if the same proposition 
 should come by means of a law forcing an 8-hour 
 workday upon all employers in a given state, or, for 
 that matter, throughout the Union, then the Federa- 
 tion, as I understand, would not approve it. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: It would oppose it. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: It would oppose it? 
 
 MR, GOMPERS: If I understand and correctly in- 
 terpret the views of the American Federation of 
 Labor, it would oppose it. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Now, let's understand that well, 
 Mr. Gompers, for the record. Your opinion is that 
 if there were a movement and a possibility of estab- 
 lishing a shorter workday, say an eight-hour workday 
 by legal enactment throughout the land, and a mini- 
 mum wage in the same way, the Federation would be 
 opposed to such measures? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: It would, because it has in a large 
 measure accomplished it and will accomplish it by the 
 initiative of the organization and the grit, the courage, 
 
 105
 
 the manhood and womanhood of the men and women 
 in the American Federation of Labor. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT : And if that grit and courage should 
 express itself by forcing the legislatures of the various 
 states to enact such a law, and if the execution of the 
 law were backed by a strong labor organization in each 
 state, with the same grit and courage, you would still 
 object to it? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Well, your hypothesis is entirely 
 groundless. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Why, Mr. Gompers? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: When the organizations of labor, 
 as I have already said, have accomplished that to a 
 large extent, and propose to accomplish it further on 
 their own initiative and by their own voluntary asso- 
 ciation, it precludes the question of having a legal 
 enactment for that purpose. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: I just wanted to know why it pre- 
 cludes it. You say that many of the unions affiliated 
 with you propose to secure a shorter workday; that 
 means they have not done so yet. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Unfortunately that is so. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Yes, unfortunately that is so. 
 Now, Mr, Gompers, my question is this : Assume that 
 the workers had a chance to accomplish this end by 
 methods of legal enactment brought about through 
 their influence and surrounded by precautions satis- 
 factory to the labor organizations, then I want you 
 to say whether or not the American Federation of 
 Labor would be opposed to such measure. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: It would, for the reasons I have 
 already stated, and for the additional reason that the 
 giving of the jurisdiction to government and to gov- 
 ernmental agencies, is always dangerous to the work- 
 ing people. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: I understand you rightly. Now, 
 Mr. Gompers, does the American Federation of Labor 
 
 106
 
 favor a system of non-contributing old-age pensions 
 for workers? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Yes, sir. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT : And that, of course, by legal enact- 
 ment and governmental machinery? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS : Yes. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: And does the Federation likewise 
 favor a general system of state insurance against un- 
 employment, sickness, disability, and industrial ac- 
 cident ? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: There is some doubt as to some of 
 the propositions. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Which ones? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Particularly state insurance against 
 unemployment. 
 
 MR. HILLOUIT: Is there anv doubt about state in- 
 surance against sickness or accidents? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: I think not. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: There is not? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: I am sure not. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: In other words, the Federation 
 supports such measures? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Yes, sir. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: As measures .of legal enactment? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Yes, sir. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: What does the Federation propose 
 to do with the problem of unemployment? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: To shorten the workday of the em- 
 ployed ; to share with the unemployed workmen the 
 work that is to be performed; to constantly work to- 
 wards the elimination of unemployment and through 
 the refusal of the American workman to regard un- 
 employment as a permanent status in the industrial 
 and economic forces of our country. 
 
 MR,. HILLQUIT : Just what do you mean, Mr. Gom- 
 pers, by refusal of the workman to regard it as an 
 institution in our industrial system ? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: To constantly make for a reduc- 
 
 107
 
 tion in the hours of labor to share the work with 
 those who are unemployed, and thereby find work 
 help to find work for the unemployed, and to en- 
 courage and stimulate the workmen in their effort for 
 a constantly increasing share in the production of 
 wealth the consumption and use of things produced 
 and thereby giving employment to unemployed. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Then, Mr. Gompers, your only 
 remedy is practically the shortening of the workday 
 and the increased power of consumption on the part 
 of the workers that would follow as a consequence, 
 is it not? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: You are employing the word 
 "only," which is scarcely a proper characterization of 
 my answer. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Then what else? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: I have already enumerated. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Well, then whatever you have enu- 
 merated constitutes the entire program of the Amer- 
 ican Federation of Labor with reference to the un- 
 employed ? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: No. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: What else did you wish to add? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Just as I mentioned a short while 
 ago, when one begins to particularize, anything un- 
 mentioned may seem a limitation. But the sum total 
 of the activities of the organized workers to meet 
 the problem of unemployment is not encompassed in 
 what I have already said. We favor the undertaking 
 of great public works. Again, I am particularizing, 
 without wishing to limit. If you should ask me 
 whether I favor this or the other proposition to meet 
 and solve the problem of the unemployed, it would 
 enable you to question me on my answer, limiting or 
 extending, just as the case may be. But I don't be- 
 lieve that I should be placed in the position of having 
 my entire curriculum on the subject limited and short- 
 ened by a statement made on the spur of the moment. 
 
 108
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Now, Mr. Gompers, the methods 
 you mentioned would naturally involve a rather slow 
 process, wouldn't they, a question of several years, 
 anyhow ? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: As a matter of fact, the existence 
 of the organized labor movement in 1907, as well as 
 the existence of the organized labor movement to-day, 
 has been and is the most potent force in our country 
 to prevent conditions that would act to the great, 
 detriment of the working people of our country. In 
 1907, when the financial panic came upon the work- 
 ing people, the expressed determination of the Amer- 
 ican labor movement to prevent, to resist at all 
 hazards any attempt to reduce wages was a clarion 
 call to the workers, and a warning to the employers 
 that they must not apply in our time the old method 
 of visiting on the workers the defects or the faults 
 of their own planning or misplanning. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: I fully appreciate it, Mr. Gompers, 
 and fully accept it. But, does your Federation have 
 any program in the face of the present momentary 
 condition of unemployment any program of im- 
 mediate, even though partial, alleviation of that 
 condition ? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: The American Federation of Labor 
 and the bona fide organized labor movement, have 
 less to do with setting forth programs than with 
 actual work. It is the easiest thing in the world for 
 people to promulgate programs which mean simple, 
 idle, elusive words, and nothing substantial to the 
 working people. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Does not any plan of action, Mr. 
 Gompers, a plan of systematic, thought-out action, 
 constitute a program? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: If, Mr. Hillquit, you want me to 
 say that the American Federation of Labor is not a. 
 perfect Federation, or that our organizations are not 
 perfect if you want me to say that these organiza- 
 
 109
 
 tions and our Federation has not promulgated a theory 
 or a program for the elimination of every human ill, 
 I will admit it. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Now, Mr. Gompers, that was very 
 far from my thoughts. I wanted to get at facts. I 
 wanted to know how the Federation stands in the face 
 of this acute problem in the labor conditions. Does 
 the Federation favor Government relief of unem- 
 ployed by extension of useful public works ? 
 
 MR. GOMPER: Yes, sir. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT : And does it also favor a provision 
 to the effect that all persons employed on such work 
 shall be engaged directly by the Government and work 
 not more than eight hours, and at not less than the 
 prevailing union wages? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Yes. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Does the Federation favor a plan 
 by which the Government should establish employ- 
 ment bureaus and loan money to States and munici- 
 palities without interest for the purposes of carrying 
 on useful public works? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS : It has not declared itself upon that 
 subject, except as I have already stated in the blanket 
 answer; that is, it favors any tangible, rational propo- 
 sition that would help to meet and solve the question 
 of unemployment. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Then you, individually, Mr. Gom- 
 pers, would not object to such a plan? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Oh, no, I think not. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Now, Mr. Gompers, you also men- 
 tioned that the American Federation of Labor tried 
 to improve the political status of the workers; that is 
 correct, is it not? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: I should like to be quoted accur- 
 ately : To improve the condition of the working people 
 in every human field of activity; to protect, promote 
 and advance their rights and interests. 
 
 110
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Exactly. Now, "every field of 
 human activity" includes the political field? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: It does. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT : And every right of the worker in- 
 cludes his political rights? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: It does. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Now, then, Mr. Gompers, is your 
 Federation in favor of the absolute freedom of press, 
 speech and assemblage? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: It is. May I amplify that answer? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: You may. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: I wish to say that the American 
 Federation of Labor has, in the effort to stand for 
 the freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and 
 freedom of assemblage, undertaken great risks, and 
 has asserted it and maintained it. In addition to this, 
 the American Federation of Labor looks askance upon 
 any effort to curb the inherent, as well as the constitu- 
 tional rights of free press and free speech and free 
 assemblage, and holds that, though these rights may 
 be -perverted, may be improperly exercised, exercised 
 for an unlawful purpose, yet these rights must not, 
 in advance, be interfered with. The right of assem- 
 blage, the right of expression through speech or press, 
 must be untrammeled if we are going to have a Re- 
 publican form of government. If anybody utters that 
 which is libellous or seditious or treasonable, they 
 must be made and may be made to answer for those 
 transgressions, but the right of expression must be 
 unimpaired, and the American Federation of Labor 
 has stood and will stand unalterably and unequivocally 
 in favor of free assemblage, free speech and free 
 press. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: So will the Socialist Party. We 
 are one there. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS : I did not know that the Socialist 
 Party was to be injected into this. 
 
 Ill
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Why, we have had the two inter- 
 jected all along. 
 
 CHAIRMAN WALSH : If you will leave out the com- 
 ment or the assertion 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Very well. Mr. Gompers, is your 
 Federation in favor of unrestricted and equal suffrage 
 for men and women ? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: It is, it has been, and has done 
 much to advance that cause. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Does your Federation favor the 
 initiation, referendum and recall ? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: It not only advocates it and has 
 advocated it, but one of the members of an affiliated 
 organization was the author of the first book upon 
 direct legislature, initiative and referendum in the 
 United States Mr. James W. Sullivan. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Mr. Gompers, does your Federa- 
 tion also favor the system of proportional represen- 
 tation ? 
 
 MR, GOMPERS: It has not, as an organization, taken 
 affirmative action on that subject. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: But it practices it in its own con- 
 ventions? Your vote is based on membership? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Proportional representation, as that 
 term is usually applied, is not the proportional rep- 
 resentation to which you refer in the voting in the 
 conventions of the American Federation of Labor. 
 The proportional representation that is, I want to 
 know whether I am right? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: I will define it, Mr. Gompers. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Yes. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: I use the term "proportional rep- 
 resentation" as denoting a system by which votes are 
 cast and rights are exercised by representatives in pro- 
 portion to the numerical strength of the constituents? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Yes, I favor that. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: You do? 
 
 112
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Yes, sir. The American Federation 
 of Labor does. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT : Does the Federation favor the elec- 
 tion of the president and vice-president of the United 
 States by direct vote of the people without interven- 
 tion of the electoral college? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS : It does, and has so declared. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Does your Federation favor a re- 
 striction upon the powers of judges to nullify laws cr 
 to set them aside as unconstitutional ? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: It does. 
 
 MR,. HILLQUIT : Does your Federation favor a 
 measure to make the constitution of the United States 
 amendable by a majority vote of the people? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Amendable by an easier method 
 than at present prevails. As to the specific proposi- 
 tion that you have just asked, I am not so sure. I 
 don't know. No expression has been made on the 
 subject. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Personally, Mr. Gompers, you 
 would think a simpler method of amending the con- 
 stitution would be a step in advance? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: The present method is very cum- 
 bersome and slow, and, being a written constitution, 
 while it ought not to be subject, to changes at every 
 ebb and flow of the tide, changes ought to be much 
 easier than now. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Now, Mr. Gompers, are you in 
 favor of curbing the powers of the court to punish 
 for contempt in labor disputes, or to regulate that 
 power? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: If I may adopt the tactics of the 
 Yankee, I might say, "Do you doubt it?" Yes, sir. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Are you in favor of the enactment 
 of further measures for general education, and par- 
 ticularly for vocational education in useful pursuits? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Yes. Here is a fact -not generally 
 known : That to the organized labor movement of 
 
 113
 
 Massachusetts belongs the credit of having established 
 the public schools of Massachusetts. Prior to that 
 time there were schools which the children of indigent 
 parents could attend, but the child that did attend car- 
 ried with it the stigma of the poverty of its parents, 
 and it was a stigma then. The labor movement of 
 Massachusetts secured the enactment of a law remov- 
 ing the requirement by which the parents had to de- 
 clare that they were indigent and could not afford to 
 pay for the tuition of their children. Thus came into 
 vogue the first public school system in the world. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT : So that the Federation is committed 
 to and favors an extension of the educational system, 
 and the vocational training? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: In all of its highest and best phase?. 
 And say that the American Federation of Labor has 
 had a Committee for the past ten years, a Committee 
 composed of many of its own representative men and 
 women and a number of public educators acting for 
 the American Federation of Labor, yet independent 
 of it, that has worked out a system of vocational train- 
 ing in industrial and agricultural vocational training, 
 household economy and civic duty, so much so that 
 the report of that committee was made a public docu- 
 ment by the Senate of the United States. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT : Is your Federation in favor of the 
 free administration of justice? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: It is. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT : I have enumerated to you all politi- 
 cal and industrial demands in the platform of the 
 Socialist Party, and find that your Federation adopts 
 them with the exception of two points of difference 
 on the question of a maximum workday and the mini- 
 mum wage. You would accomplish that by pure eco- 
 nomic action ; the Socialist Party advocates it through 
 legal enactment, is that correct? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: It is not correct. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Why? 
 
 114
 
 MR. GOMPERS: As a matter of fact, the Socialist 
 Party has purloined the demands and the vocabulary 
 of the American Labor movement, and has adopted 
 them as its own, and now you ask the American Fed- 
 eration of Labor whether it favors them. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Then, Mr. Gompers, whether we 
 have purloined our program or not, the American Fed- 
 eration of Labor, as the original inventor or other- 
 wise, fully approves of it with the exception of the 
 small differences I mentioned, is that correct? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: I would like to hear the question. 
 
 (The question was read by the stenographer.) 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Suppose we waive that answer? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: No, don't waive the answer. Just 
 amend your question so that it is comprehensible. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: It is merely in the nature of a 
 summary, Mr. Gompers. I have read to you point 
 by point the working program of the Socialist Party 
 with reference to economic and political measures, 
 and I have asked you in each instance whether your 
 Federation approves of such measures. Your answer 
 has been in the affirmative, uniformly, except on the 
 questions of the minimum wage and the maximum 
 workday. As to those questions we agreed on the 
 principle, but you would secure it by purely economic 
 action and the Socialist Party by legal enactment. It 
 is in the nature ot a summary. I want it on the 
 record. You may answer or not, as you please. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: What did you want me to answer? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Is it so or is it not so? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS : I say that these demands which- you 
 have enumerated have been promulgated, declared and 
 fought for, and in many instances accomplished, by 
 the American Federation of Labor and the organized 
 labor movement of the country. Your question would 
 indicate that you claim the adhesion of the American 
 labor movement to original propositions when, as a 
 
 115
 
 matter of fact, they have been put into your platform 
 simply as vote-catchers.* 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Then you admit the identity of 
 the program but you deny priority on our part ? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: And I question the purpose. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT : Now, Mr. Gompers, let me ask you. 
 has the Republican Party or the Democratic Party 
 purloined from you the same demands? 
 
 MR. GOMPER^: Not all of them, but many of them 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Any of them? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Yes, sir. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: How many. And which? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Will you give me a few minutes' 
 time, Mr. Chairman? 
 
 CHAIRMAN WALSH: Do you wish to be excused? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: No, sir; only a few minutes' time, 
 that I may answer. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Do you want to consult with me? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: No, I don't need advice from you, 
 Brother Hillquit. 
 
 I may say, Mr. Chairman,, that because my friend, 
 Mr. Gordon, did me the kindness of looking up and 
 handing to me a copy of the American Federationist, 
 
 * Historically this assertion is entirely wrong. Some of the 
 most important measures discussed in the preceding pages, 
 such as the reduction of workhours, the fixing of a minimum 
 wage, the abolition of child labor and the freedom of the 
 press, were first formulated by the International Workmen's 
 Association under the leadership of Karl Marx, in the sixties 
 of the last century, and the Socialist Labor Party of this coun- 
 try had a full program of industrial and political reform five 
 years before the American Federation of Labor was organ- 
 ized. -It is true, however, that the Socialist Party makes it 
 a rule to incorporate in its platform all new progressive de- 
 mands of organized labor as soon as they are formulated. 
 That is its mission in politics as a working class party. To 
 speak of "purloining" such demands for the purpose of 
 "catching" the votes of the workers for the cause of the 
 workers, shows a singular misconception of the object and 
 methods of the labor movement. 
 
 116
 
 it would be erroneous to place the construction upon 
 that that he has prepared my questions or my answers, 
 or that he has helped me in any other way than I have 
 stated. The significance of this remark may be outside 
 of the record rather than in. 
 
 CHAIRMAN WALSH : It is really lost upon me. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: I am sure it is not lost upon my 
 c'ross-examiner. Is it? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Nothing is lost on me, Mr. Gom- 
 pers, that comes from you. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: In answer to the question pro- 
 pounded by Mr. Hillquit, I think I ought to say that 
 among the demands which the labor movement of 
 America makes is the limitation of the powers of the 
 President of the United States in the exercise of his 
 veto upon the legislation of the representatives of the 
 people. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: That is contained in our platform 
 likewise, Mr. Gompers. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: The only member of Congress the 
 Socialist Party has ever had sustained two vetoes of 
 the President of the United States. 
 
 We also have secured the election of United States 
 Senators by the direct vote of the people. 
 
 I have here, Mr. Chairman, the report which I made 
 to the International Secretariat, ic., the organized 
 expression of the labor movement 01 the civilized 
 world. It bears the general caption : "President 
 Gompers' Report to the International Secretariat," 
 and the sub-captions: 
 "i. National Legislative Gains for 1912. 
 
 2. State Legislative Gains for 1912. 
 
 3. National' Economic Gains for 1912." 
 
 It would take me about half an hour to read the 
 report but I submit that I have no desire to bore the 
 Commission or to take up unnecessary time of the 
 Commission and counsel. If it can be incorporated 
 
 117
 
 here as my answer to the question of the gentleman, 
 you will find it comprehensive. 
 
 CHAIRMAN WALSH : As I understand Mr. Hill- 
 quit's question, he has asked you to call attention to 
 the places in the platforms of the Democratic or 
 Republican Parties where demands are made for the 
 same social measures as he read to you this morning, 
 is that correct? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: That is correct. 
 
 CHAIRMAN WALSH : Can you do that by referring 
 to your notes, just read into the record when and 
 where the demand was made by either one of the 
 parties ? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: I cannot do that just now from 
 memory. I have not the platform declarations of the 
 State Committees. 
 
 CHAIRMAN WALSH : Then it is impossible to do 
 it on account of the comprehensive nature of the 
 question at this time? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: I supplement this answer by saying 
 that I here submit to the Commission a report of the 
 legislative gains secured at the hands of Congress and 
 the several legislatures composed of Republicans and 
 Democrats and Prohibitionists and Progressives. 
 
 CHAIRMAN WALSH : Very well. That may be 
 made a part of the record then, and not read in ex- 
 tenso. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT : Now, Mr. Gompers, to take up an- 
 other subject, is it your conception or that of the 
 Federation, that workers in the United States to-day 
 receive the full product of their labor? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: I think, but I am not quite so sure, 
 that I know what you have in mind. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Do you understand my question? 
 
 MR GOMPERS: I think I do. In the generally ac- 
 cepted sense of that term, they do not. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: In any particular sense, yes? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: No. 
 
 118
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Then the workers of this country 
 do not receive the whole product of their labor? Can 
 you hazard a guess as to what proportion of the pro- 
 duct they do receive in the shape of wages? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: I am not a good guesser, and I 
 doubt that there is any value in a guess. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: You have no general idea, have 
 you, on the subject? 
 
 MR, GOMPERS: I have a most general idea, but I 
 am not called upon to guess. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT : No. Will you please give us your 
 most general idea? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: As to what proportion? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: As to the approximate proportion 
 of their product which the workers, as a whole, get. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: I will say that it is impossible for 
 any one to definitely say what proportion the workers 
 receive as a reward for their labor; but it is a fact 
 that, due to the organized labor movement they have 
 received, and are receiving, a larger share of the 
 product of their labor than they ever did in the his- 
 tory of modern society. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Then one of the functions of or- 
 ganized labor is to increase the share of the workers 
 in the product of their labor, is that correct ? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Yes, sir. Organized labor makes 
 constantly increasing demand upon society for reward 
 for the services which the workers render ;tO society, 
 and without which civilized life would be impossible. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT : And these demands for an increas- 
 ing share of the product of labor continue as a grad- 
 ual process all the time? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: I am not so sure as to gradual 
 process. Sometimes it is not a gradual process, but 
 it is all the tfrne. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: All the time? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Yes, sir. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Then, Mr. Gompers, you assume 
 
 119
 
 that the organized labor movement has generally suc- 
 ceeded in forcing a certain increase of the portion of 
 the workers' share in the general product, do you? 
 
 MR,. GOMPERS: Yes, sir. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: And it demands more now? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Yes, sir.. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: And if it should get, say, 5 per 
 cent, more within the next year, will the organized 
 labor movement rest contented with that, and stop? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Not if I know anything about hu- 
 man nature. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Will the organized movement stop 
 in its demands for an ever greater share in the pro- 
 duct at any time before it receives the full product, 
 and before complete social justice, as it sees it, is 
 done? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: The working people are human 
 beings as all other people. They are prompted by 
 the same desires and hopes of a better life, and they 
 are not willing to wait until after they have shuffled 
 off this mortal coil for the better life. They want )t 
 here and now. They want to make conditions better 
 for their children so that they may meet the newer 
 problems in their time. The working people are press- 
 ing forward, making their claims and presenting those 
 claims with whatever power they have. Pressing for- 
 ward to secure a larger, and constantly larger share 
 of the products. They are working towards the high 
 est and best ideals of social justice. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Now, "the highest and best ideals 
 of social justice," as applied to distribution of wealth, 
 wouldn't that be a system under which all the workers, 
 manual, mental, directive and executive would together 
 get the sum total of all the products of their toil ? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Really, a fish is caught by a tempt- 
 ing bait; a mouse or a rat is caught in a trap by ;i 
 tempting bait. The intelligent, common-sense work- 
 men prefer to deal with the problems of to-day, the 
 
 120
 
 problems with which they are bound to contend if 
 they want to advance, rather than to deal with a pic- 
 ture and a dream which has never had, and I am sure 
 never will have, any reality in the actual affairs of 
 humanity, and which threaten, if they could be intro- 
 duced, the worst system of circumscriptional effort 
 and activity that has ever been invented by the human 
 mind. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Mr. Gompers, I would like to get 
 an answer. In your experience with the labor move- 
 ment and its forward march towards ever greater im- 
 provement, and greater measure of social justice, can 
 you locate a point at which the labor movement will 
 stop and rest contented so long as the workers will 
 receive less than the full product of their work? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: I say that the workers, as human 
 beings, will never stop at any point in the effort to 
 secure greater improvements in their conditions and a 
 better life in all its phases. And wherever that may 
 lead and whatever that may be in my time and at my 
 age, I decline to permit my mind or my activities to 
 be labeled by any particular ism. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: I do not try to attach any ism to 
 you, but the question I ask is whether the American 
 Federation of Labor and its authorized spokesman 
 have a general social philosophy, or work blindly from 
 day to day. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: I think your question is 
 
 MR,. HILLQUIT (Interrupting) : Inconvenient? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: No. I will tell you what it is it is 
 a question prompted to you, and is an insult. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT : It is not a question prompted to me. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: It is an insult. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Why, Mr. Gompers? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: It insinuates that the men and the 
 women in the American Federation of Labor move- 
 ment are acting blindly from day to day. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT : I have not insinuated 
 
 121
 
 MR. GOMPERS (Interrupting) : Your question im- 
 plies it. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: I am giving you an opportunity 
 to deny. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: If a man should ask me whether 1 
 still beat my wife, any answer I could make would 
 incriminate me. If I answered that I did not, the 
 intimation would be that I had stopped. If I an- 
 swered that I did, the inference would be that I was 
 continuing to beat her. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: But, Mr. Gompers, my question 
 bears no analogy to that story 
 
 MR. GOMPERS (Interrupting): Your question is an 
 insult, and a studied one. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Now, will you state whether you 
 will or will not answer my question? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Will you repeat the question? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: My question was whether the 
 American Federation of Labor, as represented by its 
 spokesman, has a general social philosophy, or whether 
 the organization is working blindly from day to day. 
 Now, that is a plain question. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Yes, it is a plain question it is a 
 plain insult. 
 
 CHAIRMAN WALSH : Do you refuse to answer it on 
 the ground that it is insulting? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Yes, sir. 
 
 CHAIRMAN WALSH : That is all, then. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT : Then inform me on this : In its 
 practical work in the labor movement is the American 
 Federation of Labor guided by a general social philos- 
 ophy, or is it not? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: It is guided by the history of the 
 past, drawing its lessons from history. It knows the 
 conditions by which the working people are sur- 
 rounded. It works along the line of least resistance 
 and endeavors to accomplish the best results in im- 
 proving the condition of the working people, men, 
 
 122
 
 women and children, to-day and to-morrow and to- 
 morrow's to-morrow and each day, making it a better 
 day than the one that had gone before. The guiding 
 principle, philosophy and aim of the labor movement 
 is to secure a better life for all. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: But in these efforts to improve 
 conditions from day to day, you must have an under- 
 lying standard of what is better, don't you? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS : No. You start out with a given 
 program, and everything must conform to it; and 
 if the facts do not conform to your theories, then your 
 actions betray the state of mind "so much the worse 
 for the facts." 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Mr. Gompers, what I ask you js 
 this : You say you try to make the conditions of the 
 workers better every day. In order to determine 
 whether the conditions are better or worse, you must 
 have some standards by which you distinguish the 
 bad from the good in the labor movement, must you 
 not? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Certainly. Does it require much 
 discernment to know that a wage of $3.00 and a 
 workday of 8 hours a day in sanitary workshops are 
 all better than $2.50 and 12 hours a day under perilous 
 conditions of labor? It does not require much con- 
 ception of a social philosophy to understand that. 
 
 MR,. PIILLQUIT: Then, Mr. Gompers, by parity of 
 reasoning, $4.00 a day and 7 hours of work, and truly 
 attractive working conditions are still better? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS : Unquestionably. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT : Therefore 
 
 MR. GOMPERS (Interrupting) : Just a moment. I 
 have not stipulated $4.00 a day or $8.00 a day or any 
 number of dollars a day or 8 hours a day or 7 hours 
 a day or any number of hours a day. The aim is to 
 secure the best conditions obtainable for the workers. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Yes; and when these conditions 
 are obtained 
 
 123
 
 MR. GOMPERS (Interrupting) : Why, then we want 
 better 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT (Continuing) : You will still strive 
 for better? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Yes. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Now, my question is, will this ef- 
 fort on the part of organized labor ever stop before 
 the workers receive the full reward for their labor? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS : It won't stop at all at any particular 
 point, whether it be that towards which you have just 
 stated, or anything else. The working people will 
 never stop in their effort to obtain a better life for 
 themselves, and for their wives and for their children 
 and for humanity. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Then the object of the organized 
 workmen is to obtain complete social justice for them- 
 selves and for their wives and for their children? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: It is the effort to obtain a better life 
 every day. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Every day, and always 
 
 MR,. GOMPERS (Interrupting) : Every day. That 
 does not limit it. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Until such time 
 
 MR. GOMPERS (Interrupting) : Not until any time. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: In other words 
 
 MR. GOMPERS (Interrupting) : In other words, we 
 go farther than you. (Laughter and applause in the 
 audience.) You have an end; we have not. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Then, Mr. Gompers, you want to 
 go on record as saying that the American Federation 
 of Labor goes farther in its endeavors than the So- 
 cialist Party. If the Socialist Party has for its pres- 
 ent purpose the abolition of the system of profits and 
 wages, and seeks to secure for the workers the full 
 product of their labor, if this is the purposes which 
 it seeks to obtain by gradual steps then I under- 
 stand you to say that the American Federation of 
 Labor goes beyond that. 
 
 124
 
 MR. GOMPERS: I have said this, and I say that no 
 categorical answer, Yes, or No, can be given to that 
 question. As just indicated, as' to the abolition of 
 private profits and wages there are a number of 
 employers who quite agree with you ; they would 
 reduce wages or take wages away entirely. The ques- 
 tion of the co-operative commonwealth and the owner- 
 ship of the means of production and distribution is 
 implied by it. Now, let me say - 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT (Interrupting) : It is not, Mr. 
 Gompers. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Well, all right. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: I am not proposing any system. I 
 want your aims and the limits of your aims. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: By your question, you want to 
 place me in the position of saying that I am for the 
 system of society which some of you dreamers have 
 conceived of, and then say that I go beyond it. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: I do not, Mr. Gompers, you in- 
 terrupted me 
 
 MR. GOMPERS (Interrupting) : Well, you inter- 
 rupted me, so we are even. And I say that the move- 
 ment of the working people, whether under the Amer- 
 ican Federation, or not, will be simply following the 
 human impulse for improvement in their condition, 
 and wherever that may lead, they will go, without hav- 
 ing a goal up to yours or surpassing yours. It will 
 lead them constantly to greater material, physical, 
 social and moral well-being. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Then, Mr. Gompers, you would 
 not say that the difference between the program of 
 the American Federation of Labor,' and that of the 
 Socialist Party is a quantitative one that the Socialist 
 Party wants more than the American Federation of 
 Labor. You would not say that, would you? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: I don't know that it is necessary 
 that I should make the comparison. It is not inter- 
 
 125
 
 esting at all, nor is it a contribution to the subject 
 which the Commission desires to examine. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: You decline to answer? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: The question is not germane to the 
 subject under inquiry, and is not necessary. 
 
 CHAIRMAN WALSH : I would like to hear it an- 
 swered if possible, Mr. Gompers. If it is not possible 
 for any reason, very well. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: May I hear the question read? 
 
 (Question read.) 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Socialism is a proposition to place 
 the working people of the country and of the world 
 in a physical and material straight- jacket. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Pardon me, Mr. Gompers, I have 
 not asked you your opinion about the effects of the 
 co-operative commonwealth. I am speaking merely 
 about the aim to abolish the wage system and the 
 program to secure for the workers the full product 
 of their labor; and I am asking you whether on these 
 points we demand more than the American Federation 
 has ultimately in view. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: I think you demand something lo 
 which the American labor movement declines to give 
 its adherence. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Then do I understand you to say 
 that the American labor movement would discounte- 
 nance the abolition of the wage system and the return 
 of the full reward of labor to the workers? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Your question is an assumption, and 
 is unwarranted, for as a matter of fact we decline to 
 commit our labor movement to your species of specu- 
 lative philosophy. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: I have not introduced speculative 
 philosophy, Mr. Gompers. If I cannot make myself 
 clear, please tell me so. 
 
 CHAIRMAN WALSH : May I be permitted here to 
 ask the stenographer to read that last question? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Certainly, Mr. Chairman. 
 
 126
 
 (The question read as follows) : I am speaking 
 merely about the aim to abolish the wage system, and 
 about the program to secure to the workers the full 
 product of their labor, and I am asking in this respect 
 whether we demand more than the American Federa- 
 tion of Labor has ultimately in view. 
 
 CHAIRMAN WALSH : That is with reference to get- 
 ting the full product of labor alone ? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Yes. 
 
 CHAIRMAN WALSH : Now, can you answer that 
 directly, Mr. Gompers? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: No; that is impossible to answer by 
 a Yes or No. 
 
 CHAIRMAN WALSH : Then let it stand there, be- 
 cause that implies that it is impossible to answer it. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Mr. Gompers, when you stated 
 first that the workingmen of to-day do not get the 
 full reward for their labor or the full product of 
 their toil, will you tell me who gets the part which 
 is withheld from 'the workers ? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Investment, superintendence, the 
 agencies for the creation of wants among the people, 
 and many others. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Well, then, in your opinion those 
 are legitimate factors in industry entitled to reward? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Many of them, yes; many of them 
 are being eliminated. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Which ones are entitled and which 
 ones are not entitled to reward? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Superintendence, the creation of 
 wants, administration, return for investment 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Return for investment? Does that 
 include every kind of capital invested in industry, 
 regardless of origin? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: No, sir. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Then what do you mean by return 
 for investment? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: For honest investment. I don't 
 
 127
 
 mean watered stocks or inflated holdings, but honest 
 investment. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Honest stock investment? 
 
 MR,. GOMPERS: Honest investment. I did not say 
 "stock investment." 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Well, I am talking about stock 
 investment, Mr. Gompers. Do you consider dividends 
 paid by corporations as distinguished from salaries 
 paid for superintendence and so on do you consider 
 that a'legitimate charge on the products of labor? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: That depends entirely as to the 
 character of the services performed. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Now, I assume that no service is 
 performed. So far as services are performed are 
 concerned, we have classified those under the head 
 of superintendence, management, initiation, and so on. 
 Now, I am referring to the dividends on stock, which 
 is paid to stockholders by virtue of stock ownership, 
 and regardless of any activity on the part of the stock- 
 holder. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: I am speaking of honest investment, 
 too, which you did not include. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Will you please answer that ques- 
 tion with such qualifications as you may deem proper 
 to make? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: I have already replied, and I now 
 repeat, upon honest 'investment, yes. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Mr. Gompers, assume that I pur- 
 chase to-day in the open market and pay the full price 
 for, say, 100 shares of Steel Corporation stock. The 
 next quarter year I get my dividends on it. Am I en- 
 titled to such dividends? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Mr. Chairman, I suggest that if Mr. 
 Hillquit is going to permit this investigation to de- 
 generate into a question of high finance, why, we had 
 better get a high financier here. 
 
 CHAIRMAN WALSH : I think that is a proper ques- 
 
 128
 
 tion and germane to this inquiry, but if you cannot 
 answer it, you may say so. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: I wish respectfully, Mr. Chairman, 
 to differ from that remark of the Chair 
 
 CHAIRMAN WALSH : Then you don't care to an- 
 swer? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS : I decline to answer it on the ground 
 that it is not material to the question, and purely a 
 question of a financial character. It is not a question 
 upon which proper interrogation can be made. 
 
 CHAIRMAN WALSH : I have ruled that it was, but 
 we are not going to compel Mr. Gompers to reply to it. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT : No, of course not. 
 
 CHAIRMAN WALSH : Go ahead. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Will you please define what you 
 call honest investment as distinguished 
 
 MR. GOMPERS (Interrupting) : An honest man finds 
 no difficulty in determining what is honest. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Now, Mr. Gompers, that is really 
 not an answer. You. have made that statement, and 
 I presume you mean something by it; I should like 
 to know what you mean? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: I mean honest, actual physical in- 
 vestment. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Now, I am asking you, does the 
 purchase of stock with real physical money, at the full 
 price constitute such an honest investment? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: First let me say, in answer to that 
 question, that with the manipulations of stocks and 
 of the stock market, I am out of harmony. I am 
 opposed to it, and have done and will do 'whatever I 
 can to eliminate that speculation involved in the fun- 
 damentals of stock jobbery and stock sales. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Mr. Gompers, you are familiar 
 with industrial conditions as few men in this country. 
 You know perfectly well that the most important in- 
 dustries in the United States are managed and oper- 
 ated by corporations, and you know that th'e income 
 
 129
 
 from such industries is distributed very largely in the 
 form of dividends on stocks and interest <m bond-, 
 don't you? 
 
 MR. ( io.\i i-KKs: Yes, sir. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Now. I am asking you this ques- 
 tion: As the President of the American Federation of 
 Labor do you consider that the vast sum of money 
 paid annually by industry in the" shape of such divi- 
 dends on stock and interest on bonds in the various 
 industries are a legitimate and proper charge upon 
 the product of labor, or do you not ? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: I do not. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT : That is an answer. Then the stock 
 holders or bond bonders of modern corporations re- 
 ceive a workless income from the product of the 
 workers who have produced it. Is that your opinion ? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Unquestionably. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT : And the efforts of the American 
 labor movement to secure a larger share are directed 
 against that class who gets such improper income? 
 MR. GoMpER f s: Against all who 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT : Against all who obtain a workless 
 income which comes from the product of labor. Is 
 that correct? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Well, all who illegitimately stand 
 between the workers and the attainment of a better 
 life. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT : Which means, or does it not mean, 
 all those who derive an income without work by virtue 
 of their control of the industry? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: No. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Whom do you except? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: I except, as I have before called 
 attention to, honest investment, honest enterprise. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT : Have the efforts of the workers ni 
 the American Federation of Labor and in other labor 
 organizations to obtain a larger share of the product, 
 
 130
 
 met a favorable reception from those who obtain what 
 we may call the unearned part of the product? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: If you mean the employers 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Employers, stockholders, bond-, 
 holders, the capitalist class generally. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS : As a matter of fact, there has been 
 very much opposition to the efforts of the working 
 people to secure improved conditions. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: And that opposition is based upon 
 the desire of the beneficiaries of the present system of 
 distribution to retain as much as possible of their pres- 
 ent share or to increase it, is it not? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: I suppose it is not difficult to de- 
 termine that that is one of the reasons. But one addi- 
 tional reason is that there are employers who live in 
 the 2oth century and have the mentality of the i6th 
 century in regard to their attitude toward working 
 people. They still imagine that they are the masters 
 of all that serve, and that any attempt on the part 
 of the working people to secure improvement in their 
 condition is a species of rebellion a rebellious spirit 
 which must be bounded down. But we find this, Mr. 
 Hillquit, that after we have had some contests with 
 employers of such a character, whether we have won 
 the battle or lost it, if we but maintain our organiza- 
 tion, there is less difficulty thereafter in reaching a 
 joint agreement or a collective bargain involving im- 
 proved conditions for the working people. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: That is, if you retain your organ- 
 ization ? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS : Yes, sir. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: And the stronger the organization, 
 the more likelihood of securing such concessions, is 
 that correct ? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS : . Unquestionably. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Then it is not on account of the 
 changed sentiment of the employer, that he is ready to 
 
 131
 
 yield, but on account of greater strength shown by the 
 employes, is that correct? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Not entirely. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: No, why not? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Not entirely, for, as a matter of 
 fact, the employer changes his sentiment when he is 
 convinced that the workingmen have demonstrated 
 that they have the right to have a voice in determining 
 the questions affecting the relations between them- 
 selves and their employers, as evidenced, if you please, 
 by the late Mr. Baer, who, you may recall, once de- 
 clared that he would not confer with the representa- 
 tive of the miners or anyone who stood for them ; that 
 he and his associates were the trustees of God in the 
 administration of their property, and appointed to take 
 care of the rights and interests of the working people. 
 Well, he lived to revise his judgment, as many other 
 employers live to revise their judgments, and have 
 come to agreements with their workmen. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Now, Mr. Gompers, the employers 
 as a class, being interested in retaining their share of 
 the general product or increasing it, and the workers 
 as you say, being determined to demand an ever 
 greater and greater share of it, would you say that 
 the economic interests between the two classes are 
 harmonious or not? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: I say they are not, and as I am 
 under affirmation before this Commission, I take this 
 opportunity of saying that no man within the range 
 of my acquaintance has ever been so thoroughly mis- 
 represented on that question as I have. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: State your actual position. 
 
 CHAIRMAN WALSH : At this joint the Commission 
 will adjourn until 2 o'clock. 
 
 132
 
 FOURTH SESSION. 
 The Conflicts between Capital and Labor 
 
 CHAIRMAN WALSH : The Commission will now 
 come to order, please. You may proceed, Mr. 
 Hillquit. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Mr. Chairman, I desire to finish 
 the answer which I was about to make to the question 
 upon the recess being taken. 
 
 The question propounded essentially was whether I 
 believed that the relations betwee the employers and 
 employes are harmonious. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Economically harmonious. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: I answered No, and I stated that I 
 have been misrepresented by Socialist writers and 
 orators upon that subject so many times that they 
 themselves finally believe it, and no amount of em- 
 phatic repudiation of that statement, and no matter 
 how often that repudiation was expressed by me, has 
 made any change in the assertion that my position is 
 contrary to the one I have stated here. 
 
 MR,. HILLQUIT: Then you want to go on record 
 now, Mr. Gompers, as stating that, in your opinion, the 
 economic interests of the employing classes, and those 
 of the workers are not harmonious ? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: I have no desire to particularly go 
 on record here upon that subject. That record has 
 been made from my earliest understanding of the con- 
 ditions which prevail in the industrial world. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT : And that is your answer now ? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: That has been my position ever 
 since, and has not been changed in the slightest. There 
 
 133
 
 are times when there are, for temporary purposes, 
 reconcilable conditions, but they are temporary only. 
 When a fair and reasonable opportunity presents it- 
 self for continued improvement in the condition of the 
 workers, that movement must necessarily go on, and 
 will go on. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: And that movement, Mr. Gom- 
 pers, must be a movement of the workers as workers, 
 is that correct? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Yes, sir, undominated by the so- 
 called intellectuals or butters-in. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: In other words, the movement for 
 the working class improvement must be conducted by 
 the workers as such in order to be effective? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: To be the most effective. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: And it must be necessarily con- 
 ducted against the employing classes? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: It is conducted for the working 
 people. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: And is it or is it not conducted 
 against the interests of the employing people? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: It is conducted for the interests of 
 the employed people. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Now, Mr. Gompers, you have 
 stated before that the interests of the working people 
 are not harmonious with those of the employing 
 classes. You have also stated that in order to secure 
 lasting and valuable improvements, the workers as 
 such must conduct their own battles. Are not such 
 battles conducted against somebody? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: They are primarily conducted for 
 somebody. 
 
 MR,. HILLQUIT: But can a battle be conducted for 
 somebody which is not also conducted against some- 
 body? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: As to those who stand in the way 
 and are hostile to the advance of the conditions of the 
 
 134
 
 working 1 people, it is conducted against them, whoever 
 they may be. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT : Who are they, as a matter of fact, 
 in 'your opinion ? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS : Those employers who refuse to un- 
 derstand modern industrial Conditions and constant 
 needs for advancement of the working people. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT : In other words, those employers 
 who refuse to accede to the demands of organized 
 labor, is that correct? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Yes, sir. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Is that class of employers limited 
 to only such who have a narrow social vision? Or 
 does it extend pretty largely to the entire employing 
 class, in your experience. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS : It is growing less and less so. As 
 a matter of fact, there are more employers to-day 
 who live under collective bargains with their organ- 
 ized working people than at any time in the history of 
 the industrial world. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: And as to those employers who 
 have agreements for collective bargaining with em- 
 ployes, do they, as a rule, and within your experience, 
 volunteer improvements to their employes, or are such 
 improvements forced from them either by method of 
 collective bargaining, or by strikes or other weapons 
 of the labor movement? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: That is usually in the initiative 
 stages of the altered relations between workers and 
 employers. Later, there is a realization on the part 
 of the employers that it is more costly to enter into 
 prolonged strikes or lockouts, and they are willing to 
 concede demands rather than to have the industry in- 
 terrupted. This grows in extent and alters the vision 
 of the employer. It changes his attitude toward the 
 workmen. So that his sentiment and views are often 
 in entire accord with the organization of the working 
 people. 
 
 135
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Now, taking the relations of the 
 employer and employes as a whole, would you say 
 that the gains made by the organized labor movement 
 in this country have to any large extent been the 
 result of a free gift on the part of the employing 
 classes ? Or would you say that they have been wrung 
 from the employing classes by organized labor? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: There is no question as to the fact 
 of the latter alternative in your question being the 
 correct one. What the workingmen of America have 
 obtained in improved conditions, higher wages and 
 shorter hours of labor, were not handed to them on 
 a silver platter. They had to organize, they had to 
 show their teeth, they had to strike, and they had to 
 go hungry and make sacrifices in order to impress upon 
 the employers their determination to be larger sharers 
 in the production of wealth. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT : Then, as a whole, the achievements 
 of the American labor movements have been accom- 
 plished in organized struggles of the workers against 
 their employers. Is that correct ? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: As a rule, but 
 
 MR,. HILLQUIT: There are exceptions? 
 
 Mr. GOMPERS: There are exceptions. For in- 
 stance, you might say there have been a number of 
 workmen who were unorganized, or nearly unorgan- 
 ized. The instance comes to me just now of the coal 
 miners. In their first strike, in 1897, there was not 
 3 per cent, organized. And yet upon the initiative of 
 the union and the recommendation of the officers of 
 the American Federation of Labor, a movement was 
 inaugurated to present a scale to the mine operators 
 in the bituminous fields with a warning that unless 
 the proposed increase in wages and other demands 
 were granted upon a certain day, there would come a 
 call urging the miners to lay down their tools. The 
 employers realizing the unorganized condition of the 
 miners never for a moment imagined that the small 
 
 136
 
 union would have any influence upon their so-called 
 "independent workers," the workingmen over whom 
 they had exercised domination for a long time. As 
 a matter of fact, however, the miners responded and, 
 though they were unorganized, there was a group- 
 patriotism to which I referred in the early part of my 
 testimony, a camaraderie, an understanding of their 
 common interests, and they received the assistance 
 of their fellow workmen in other industries, the full 
 assistance of the American Federation of Labor, until, 
 finally, it resulted in the regeneration of the miners. 
 They won, and they established the 8-hour day, the 
 right to make purchases of their necessities wherever 
 they chose; the right to be at least like any other 
 ordinary citizens and men, and the spirit and influence 
 spread until it reached the anthracite coal fields and 
 the entire competitive fields in the bituminous coal 
 fields in other States and so on. The same is true in 
 the garment trades, in the needle trades and in several 
 others. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT : Mr. Gompers, in all those instances 
 the workers organized during the fight? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: After the fight. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT : But it was collective action on their 
 part, anyhow? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS : Yes. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: And there is no exception to the 
 rule that in order to obtain lasting improvements, the 
 workers must collectively struggle for it, as workers? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: All workers, yes, sir. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT : And in such struggles, the workers 
 cannot possibly be aided by the employing classes, 
 can they? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: That is not entirely so, because 
 it frequently occurs that the competitive interests of 
 the employers may impel some of them to aid the 
 workingmen in the establishment of what has become 
 
 137
 
 known as standardized conditions in the trade a mini- 
 mum of standardization. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Just incidents in the struggles of 
 the workers, and of which the workers take advantage 
 when the occasions arise? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Yes, sir. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: But on the whole, the American 
 Federation of labor recognizes that the struggle for 
 improvement of the conditions of the workers is a 
 struggle of the workers, and principally the organized 
 workers, does it not? 
 
 MR. COMPERE: Yes. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: You don't tolerate within your 
 unions employers as members ? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: We do not. That is, our affiliated 
 unions do not. In the directly affiliated locals, those 
 locals which have no national bodies of their own, we 
 don't permit employers to become members. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Can you conceive of any scheme 
 by which the interests of the employer and those of 
 the employes could be made harmonious and their co- 
 operation could lead to the same beneficent results 
 as the independent struggles of the workers? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: I know of no means by which the 
 interests of the employers and the workingmen can 
 be made harmonious in- the full and broad sense of 
 that term. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: And do you concede that a labor 
 leader is most useful to his organization and to his 
 movement when he devotes his time and his thought, 
 single-mindedly, to the interests of the labor organ- 
 izations ? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: And to the working people. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: To the working people? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Yes, sir. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT : And do you consider a labor leader 
 who combines with a number of prominent employers 
 in an alleged effort to improve the condition of the 
 
 138
 
 workers to be doing useful work for the labor move- 
 ment ? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: I maintain that it is the duty of 
 such men whom you designate as labor leaders to 
 carry the word and message and to preach the doc- 
 trine and the gospel of justice to labor, to any place 
 on earth, and to any people on earth; to defend that 
 doctrine; to promote a better understanding among 
 any and all. It is the duty of every leader to make 
 his cause known wherever the opportunity presents 
 itself. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: For the benefit and advantage of 
 the working class, is it not? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Absolutely and alone. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT : And is it not likewise in the inter- 
 ests of the large employers of labor to carry the gospel 
 of their interests wherever they can, and particularly 
 into the camp of labor? 
 
 MR,. GOMPERS: Whether it is their interests I am 
 not prepared to say, but I judge from my own ex- 
 perience that that is not the truth, and it is not the 
 fact. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT : Mr. Gompers, do you know of the 
 existence of the National Manufacturers' Association ? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: I do. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Do you think that the National 
 Manufacturers' Association has no interest in carrying 
 the antMabor gospel or, if you want, the employers' 
 gospel, to all four quarters of the earth? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS : I know that the National Associa- 
 tion of Manufacturers is absolutely hostile to the labor 
 movement and everything it represents, but that is 
 not such an association in which a labor leader is 
 either accepted or tolerated. He therefore cannot 
 bring the doctrine and the message of labor there. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT : Yes, but the National Association 
 of Manufacturers is an association of employers.. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Yes, it is. But, Mr. Hillquit, don't 
 
 139
 
 let us lose unnecessary time, because you haven't got 
 that association. in mind. 
 
 .MR. HILLQUIT: We will come to it if you will just 
 wait. When I referred to the National Association 
 of Manufacturers, I meant to bring out the point that 
 it is in the interests of the employers to actively organ- 
 ize a warfare against organized labor. Do you agree 
 with that? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Primarily that is its avowed pur- 
 pose. It has a greater purpose, and that is to prevent 
 organization of working people to protect themselves 
 or to promote their interests. As a matter of fact the 
 president of that organization, only a few days ago, 
 declared that he was going to form a new union 
 over our heads. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT : That new union, in this case, was 
 not to be a bona fide labor union, but a scab union, 
 as you understand it. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: I might say it is treason to the 
 labor movements and treason to the interests of labor. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Now, Mr. Gompers, isn't that, .at 
 any rate, to your mind a manifestation of the fact that 
 employers in their relation to employes and to the 
 labor movement, will be guided by their economic in- 
 terests ? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS : Generally speaking, yes ; but the 
 largest number of employers are not members- of that 
 organization, and are not in accord with that associa- 
 tion. In addition, let me say, that I know that there 
 are quite a number of employers who belong to the 
 National Association of Manufacturers because of the 
 trade advantages which are secured through the other 
 features and branches of the activity of the National 
 Association of Manufacturers. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Admitting that the employing 
 classes have certain economic interests opposed to the 
 working classes, would you think it natural to expect 
 
 140
 
 that they would organize in defense, of their interests 
 and against the organized labor movement? 
 
 MR,. GOMPERS : If they organized at all for the con- 
 sideration of that subject, that would be the purpose. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Mr. Gompers, do you know the 
 history and origin of the National Civic Federation? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: I do. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: By whom was it organized? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: By Mr. Ralph M. Easley, together 
 with some businessmen and publicists and a few work- 
 men in the City of Chicago. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT : When it became a national institu- 
 tion was it not the late Mark Hanna who was its first 
 leading spirit? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: No, sir, that is a Socialist misrep- 
 resentation of the facts. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Was Mr. Mark Hanna connected 
 with the organization at all, so far as you know? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Many years after its first formation. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: When it became an institution of 
 national scope was Mr. Hanna connected with it? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: After it had become an institution 
 of national scope, and a considerable time after. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: And while he was so connected, 
 was not he rather a leading figure in the Federation? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS : He was for two years its president 
 President of the National Civic Federation. May 
 I suggest at 'the start that when you speak of the 
 American Federation of Labor you designate its 
 name, and when you speak of the Civic Federation 
 you designate it by its name, and you do not confuse 
 the record by the indefinite word "Federation" as 
 applied equally to both. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: You would not want to have the 
 American Federation of Labor mistaken for the Na- 
 tional Civic Federation? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Oh, I would not want by your in- 
 directions and insinuations to create such confusion. 
 
 141
 
 Mi:. HILLQUIT: Mr. Gompers, were not and are 
 not some of the leading members of the National 
 Civic Federation very well known capitalists ? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Yes, sir. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Will you name some of them? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Mr. Hanna, Mr. Seth l.-.u. Mr. 
 Andrew Carnegie, Mr. Belmont 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Mr. Schwab? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: No. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Was Mr. Schwab never a member 
 of the National Civic Federation? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Not to my knowledge Mr. Brown, 
 of the New York Central Railroad and I think Mr. 
 Delano no? Mr. Delano says he was not. Oh, 
 quite a number of large employers of labor. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: And the object of the Federation, 
 among other things, was to adjust certain labor dis- 
 putes, was it not? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: It was not. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Doesn't the Civic Federation main- 
 tain a department of Mediation, Arbitration, and other 
 instrumentalities for the adjustment of labor disputes . J 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: It has a department of Mediation. 
 It makes no efforts at arbitration, unless called upon 
 to do so voluntarily by both sides. It has brought to- 
 gether employers and workingmen engaged in tremen- 
 dously important disputes, who, it seemed, could not 
 be brought together for the purpose of discussing their 
 diverse points of view and diverse interests; and the 
 result has been that agreements have been reached 
 between large bodies of workers and large employers, 
 the terms and conditions of labor being improved, to 
 the mutual satisfaction at least temporarily to the 
 mutual satisfaction of both parties to the dispute. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Mr. Gompers, has not the Civic 
 Federation also taken a stand on various other prac- 
 tical problems of the labor movement and labor legis- 
 lation? 
 
 142
 
 MR,. GOMPERS: Never, unless it was adhered to 
 by the representatives of the working people. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Yes, sir, but with such adherence 
 the Civic Federation has undertaken such work, has 
 it not? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Not undertaken it, but aided in it. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Aided in it? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Aided the working people in their 
 organized capacity to accomplish it. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT : Foe instance, in the propaganda for 
 a Workmen's Compensation Act? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Yes, and since you have mentioned 
 the Workmen's Compensation Act, it is due to the 
 American labor movement to say that immediately 
 upon the close of the session last evening, I called up 
 on the 'phone Mr. Daniel Harris, President of the 
 New York State Federation of Labor, and asked him 
 as to the connection of yourself and the Socialist 
 Party in the work of securing a Workmen's Compen 1 
 sation Act for the State of New York, and he in- 
 formed me and showed me the record, that the bill 
 which you advocated was one which was impossible 
 of enactment by the Legislature of the State of New 
 York. It required specifically that there should be 
 an appropriation of one million dollars ; that a mem- 
 ber of the Commission shall be a Socialist, and it con- 
 tained such other provisions as were not only impos- 
 sible of enactment, but repugnant to the interests of 
 the working people of the State of New York ; that 
 they could not and would not stand for the bill and 
 that, as a matter of fact, it was a species of assistance 
 such as we find in Legislatures and which, under a 
 pretense of kindliness for the legislation under con- 
 sideration will kill and defeat the very object of the 
 bill ; and that now there is upon the statute books of 
 the State of New York the best and most compre- 
 hensive and generous Workmen's Compensation Law 
 
 143
 
 that prevails in any State or in any country on the 
 face of the globe. 
 
 CHAIRMAN WALSH : The question was, in this case, 
 Mr. Gompers, whether or not the National Civic Fed- 
 eration advocated the last Workmen's Compensation 
 Act. Is that it? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT : A Workmen's Compensation Act. 
 
 CHAIRMAN WALSH: Did it or not? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: It did. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Then, Mr. Gompers, your belief 
 is that the capitalists who hav come into the Civic 
 Federation and have led its movements for solution of 
 certain labor problems, have done so for the benefit of 
 the working class? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Your assumption is wrong when 
 you say that they have led the National Civic Fed- 
 eration. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT : They have participated in its work, 
 have they? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Yes, sir. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT : Now, Mr. Gompers, have they done 
 so, in your opinion, for the benefit of organized labor? 
 
 M.R. GOMPERS: I think they have done it in an at- 
 tempt to secure some improvement in the conditions 
 of the working people. I should say, for instance, that 
 in the matter of workmen's compensation, the Civic 
 Federation had a committee for over a year studying 
 that subject. Among them, Mr. Tecumseh Sherman 
 and others. They had experts from all over the coun- 
 try, and they formulated a bill. When the New York 
 State Federation of Labor declared that it would not 
 stand for that bill, the Civic Federation immediately 
 withdrew it from consideration. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Mr. Gompers, I thought we were 
 agreed on brief questions and brief answers for the 
 little time we still have. Your answer, then, is that 
 the men you named did work in the Civic Federation, 
 with a desire to help labor ? 
 
 144
 
 MR. GOMPERS: I did not say that. 
 MR. HILLQUIT: What did you say? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: I said they endeavored, in so far as 
 they could, to help in the formulation of a bill on 
 workmen's compensation that would be helpful and 
 beneficial. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Pardon me. I am not referring 
 to workmen's compensation alone. I am referring to 
 the motives of the capitalists you have named and T 
 am asking you whether you believe that these capi- 
 talists have been giving their time and their work 
 of the Civic Federation for the benefit of the working 
 classes. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: I will say that I don't know their 
 motives. I simply know their acts, and I say that 
 there has never been an action taken by the National 
 Civic Federation that was hostile to the interests of 
 the working people. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: You have stated before, Mr. Gom- 
 pers, that you believe there is no harmony between the 
 interests of the employing classes and those of the 
 workers, and that you believe that the workers must 
 depend upon their own efforts as workers, without 
 the interventions of "intellectuals," or others, to 
 secure improvements. Now, I ask you: Do you be- 
 lieve that they can secure such improvements through 
 the intervention of capitalists of the type that you 
 have named in the Civic Federation? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: First, when you speak of the "in- 
 tellectuals" to whom I referred, I say that I mean 
 the intellectuals who undertake to dominate our move- 
 ment. The National Civic Federation have never at- 
 tempted to dominate the affairs of our movement. 
 And, second, I do not know what motives they have. 
 I simply know their acts. It is most difficult for any 
 one to determine even your motive or my motive. I 
 only can judge of people's acts, and I know their acts 
 
 145
 
 in the Civic Federation have never been hostile lo 
 the interests of the working people. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Then you think it is perfectly 
 proper for an official representative of the American 
 Federation of Labor to co-operate with well-known 
 capitalist employers for common ends? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: There is no such thing as that upon 
 which your question is predicated. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Answer the question, whether you 
 think it proper or not. 
 
 MR. GOMPER.S: This is another one of those ques- 
 tions the answer to which will convict. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: It might, Mr. Gompers. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Yes, and it will. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: You think so? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Mr. Hillquit, I may not be quite so 
 clever, but at least I shall try to be truthful and assume 
 nothing unless I have a basis for it. There is no such 
 thing as co-operation between the leaders of the labor 
 movement and the leaders of the National Civic Fed- 
 eration. So far as I am concerned, I can go anywhere 
 where men assemble, and where they consider ques- 
 tions affecting the working people. 1 can meet with 
 them and bring the message of labor to them, and 
 argue and contend as best I can with them for the 
 rights of the working people, and if I can influence 
 them to an act of helpfulness toward any one thing in 
 which the working people are interested, I have ac- 
 complished something. I have never felt that I have 
 come away with my skirts besmirched, or my char- 
 acter impaired, or my determination to toil and 
 struggle for the working people impeded or impaired 
 in any way. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: And you think it is perfectly feas- 
 ible and possible for a labor leader to influence the 
 large employers and capitalists in the National Civic 
 Federation to take measures for the benefit of organ- 
 ized labor? 
 
 146
 
 MR. GOMPERS: That is not the question. I will ap- 
 peal to the devil and his mother-in-law to help labor 
 if labor can be aided in that way. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: And will you co-operate with them? 
 
 CHAIRMAN WALSH : Please proceed to some other 
 question. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Mr. Gompers, do you not think 
 there is a contradiction between your previous state- 
 ment to the effect that there is an antagonism between 
 the interests of employers and of employes; that the 
 struggles of the workers are directed against the 
 employers, and that those struggles must be con- 
 ducted by themselves as workers and your activities 
 in the National Civic Federation? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: No. As a matter of fact the Na- 
 tional Civic Federation is quite as emphatically damned 
 by the National Association of Manufacturers as it 
 is by you and your associates, because the National 
 Association of Manufacturers say that it is dominated 
 by the labor leaders. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Do you agree with them, the Na- 
 tional Manufacturers' Association? 
 
 MR. GOM PERS : I should prefer not to say. I would 
 not care to weaken such influence as T might have with 
 the National Civic Federation by claiming that I do 
 dominate it. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT : Mr. Gompers, you are familiar with 
 the trade union movement in other countries of the 
 world ? 
 
 MR. COMPELS : Yes, sir, fairly well. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Can you name a single instance in 
 any country of the world where representatives of 
 the trade union movement have any affiliation similar 
 to that existing between some of the leaders of the 
 American Federation of Labor and the National Civic 
 Federation ? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: As a matter of fact, there is no such 
 affiliation here as that which you refer to. 
 
 147
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: You hold membership in the Na- 
 tional Civic Federation? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: I do not, sir; there is no such thing 
 as membership. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Aren't you an officer of the Civic 
 Federation? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: I am. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: But not a member? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: There is no such thing. It is a 
 voluntary association of men who are willing to give 
 aid or to secure aid. They simply attend. The officers 
 are simply a matter of administrative what is it they 
 perform ? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Whatever it is. Does anybody ap- 
 point or elect the officers of the National Civic Fed- 
 eration ? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Those who may come to the annual 
 meetings. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Those who happen to come in? 
 
 MR. GOMPER^: Yes. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: And they elect? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Yes. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: And you are such elected officer? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Yes. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: I would like to ask whether you 
 know any analogous example anywhere in the world 
 of where the officers of a national labor movement 
 hold office in a body similar to the National Civic 
 Federation ? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: No, that is impossible. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Of course. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS : As a matter of fact, there isn't any 
 capitalist say, for instance in Germany, who would 
 condescend to meet with a representative of labor. 
 And yet, let me call your attention to this fact that, 
 in the strike of the building trades in Berlin which, 
 subsequently, extended all through Germany two years 
 ago, a Board of Arbitration was selected, and there 
 
 148
 
 were capitalists and public officials on it, and not one 
 labor man. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Is that the closest analogy to the 
 National Civic Federation you can think of? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: No. In England, when the coal 
 strike occurred two years ago, there were conferences, 
 associated efforts, between the coal miners, the mine 
 owners and representatives of what you would term 
 the capitalistic government. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Yes; those are all special cases of 
 temporary co-operation, but not definite, permanent 
 organizations, are they? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: All for a definite purpose, and the 
 only way in which I am engaged in any work of the 
 Civic Federation is in cases of that character. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: You say you are familiar with the 
 trade movement abroad. Will you please state which 
 movement in the European countries you consider 
 the strongest? 
 
 MR. GOMPER,S: Strongest in numbers, you mean? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: In numbers, things accomplished, 
 and everything else that goes to make up success? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: In Great Britain? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: And next to Great Britain? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Germany? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Then? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: I think that I might say, like the 
 boy, "there ain't no then." 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT : How about Austria ? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS : That is very poorly organized. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: How about Belgium? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS : Poorer organized. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: And how about the Scandinavian 
 countries, Sweden, Norway and Denmark? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS : They were better organized before 
 their general strike, about five years ago. That strike 
 has weakened the movement there very materially. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Now, with respect to actual ac- 
 
 149
 
 complishment, the attainment of definite measure^ of 
 relief, which would you place ahead of the re^t 
 
 MR, GOMPERS: Which measures of relief? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: I mean reform measures in the 
 nature of labor legislation, social insurance and siiiiilar 
 measures ? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: I would say Germany. Next comes 
 England. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT : Yes, then would you take Belghim . J 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: No. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: What would you take next? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: I would take Austria. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: And then? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Belgium. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Now, Mr. Gompers, do you know 
 the general political affiliations, attainments and prac- 
 tices of the German trade union movement? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: I do, sir. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Are the German trade unionists 
 pretty closely allied to the Socialist Party of Germany ? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: They are in their membership, and 
 there is a sort of a common work, too. But this, too, 
 must be borne in mind in regard to Germany: The 
 trade unions of Germany have absolutely no right of 
 lawful political activity. I have said, Mr. Hillquit, 
 that if I were in Germany, I would belong to the So- 
 cialist Party, not because I would give adhesion to the 
 philosophy of Socialism, but because it is the only pro- 
 testing democratic party in Germany. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: And, as a matter of fact, Mr. 
 Gompers, the large bulk of trade unionists in Germany 
 supports the candidates of the Socialist Party in elec- 
 tions ? 
 
 MR. GOMPER.S: As a rule that is true. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: And also a number of prominent 
 trade union leaders are Socialist members of Parlia- 
 ment, including the International Trade Union Sec- 
 retary, Karl Legien? 
 
 150
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Yes. You know that Mr. Legien 
 belongs to the "Revisionists" in the Socialist Party, 
 or the Bernstein School, which recognizes the abso- 
 lute economic independence of the trade union move- 
 ment from the political Socialist Party. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Yes, but that has nothing to do 
 with the case. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS : That is what you may think. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Well, let's proceed. Mr. Legien 
 is a member in good standing of the Socialist Party, 
 and also a leader in the trade labor movement. Do 
 you know the political activity of the trade unionists 
 in England? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: I do. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: How does it express itself? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: In an independent political party. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Known as the Labor Party? 
 
 MR* GOMPERS: Labor Party. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: In which the Socialist organiza- 
 tion known as the Independent Labor Party, and an- 
 other Socialist organization known as the Fabian So- 
 city, are officially represented? Is that correct? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: I think so, yes, sir. 
 
 MR,. HILLQUIT: And do you know the political 
 activity of the workers in Belgium? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Belgium is fairly representative of 
 the political action of the workers. As a matter of 
 fact, the Socialists of Brussels dominate the oftices 
 and dominate whatever of the labor movement there 
 is in Belgium. That, as a consequence, has left the 
 Belgium workmen the lowest in Europe in economic 
 conditions. As a matter of fact, wherever the work- 
 men are most active politically, there they lose sight 
 of their economic interests, believing that by casting 
 their vote once a year they can secure remedial legis- 
 lation that will offset the work of trade unionism. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Mr. Gompers, isn't it a fact that 
 the American Federation of Labor is the only large 
 
 151
 
 national body of organized workers which has no inde- 
 pendent political policy, party, organization or affilia- 
 tion of its own ? 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: It is improper to place the Amer- 
 ican Federation of Labor in that position, because it 
 has an independent political policy a policy so politi- 
 cally independent that it is independent of the Socialist 
 Party, too. It looks to achievements rather than the 
 instrumentality of achievement, and we have achieved 
 in the American labor movement more real better- 
 ment for the working people than has been accom- 
 plished by any other labor movement in the world. 
 _ CHAIRMAN WALSH : Mr. Hillquit, this is intensely 
 interesting to'me, as I know it is to the balance of the 
 Commission, but we must bring this to a close, and so 
 I will, on behalf of the Commission, thank you very 
 much for your contribution to our work, and will bring 
 it to a close. 
 
 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Well, I understand, I will have a 
 chance 
 
 CHAIRMAN WALSH : Yes, you may be put on in 
 rebuttal. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Thank you. 
 
 152
 
 FIFTH SESSION. 
 
 Socialism and Trade Unionism 
 
 / 
 
 CHAIRMAN WALSH : Please come to order. Call 
 your next witness, Mr. Thompson. 
 
 Max S. Hayes, called as a witness, testified as 
 follows : 
 
 MR. TOHMPSON : Mr. Hayes, will you please give 
 us your name, address and your occupation? 
 
 MR. HAYES: Max S. Hayes, 979, Parker Drive, 
 Cleveland, Ohio. I am editor of the "Cleveland Citi- 
 zen," organizer for the National Typographical Union, 
 National Committeeman from Ohio for the Socialist 
 Party, and I hold a few other similar positions. 
 
 MR. THOMPSON: Then, from your statement, Mr. 
 Hayes, we are to understand that you are a member 
 of a union affiliated with the American Federation of 
 Labor, and also you are a member of the Socialist 
 Party? 
 
 MR. HAYES: Yes, sir. 
 
 MR. THOMPSON: And have been an organizer for 
 both in the past? 
 
 MR. HAYES: Yes, sir. 
 
 MR. THOMPSON : Mr. Hayes, did you hear the tes- 
 timony which was given here yesterday by Mr. 
 Gompers ? 
 
 MR,. HAYES: I did. 
 
 MR. THOMPSON : I would like to have you state, as 
 you see it, the position occupied by the American Fed- 
 eration of Labor, its aims and objects, and the position 
 occupied by the Socialist Party and its aims and ob- 
 
 153
 
 jects ; wherein they agree and in what respect they 
 differ? 
 
 MR. HAYES: Well, in a general way, the aims and 
 objects of the American Federation of Labor, so far 
 as its political and social demands are concerned, are 
 quite similar to those contained in the ''Immediate 
 Demands" of the platform of the Socialist I 'arty. 
 Holding a sort of dual position in the two organiza- 
 tions and having attended the conventions of the 
 American Federation of Labor during the last fifteen 
 years as a delegate. I have followed the trend quite 
 closely and, naturally, have gained some convictions 
 upon the principles upon which both organizations 
 are founded. I want it understood that I am not here 
 speaking as a representative of either organization. I 
 have not been delegated by the Socialist Party, nor 
 by the American Federation of Labor, to express the 
 views of their memberships. I give my own impres- 
 sions. In other words. I do not wish to pose as a 
 labor leader or a Socialist leader. I would prefer to be 
 classified as an ordinary labor and Socialist agitator. 
 I sometimes become provoked when I am referred to 
 as a labor leader or a Socialist leader because my im- 
 pression of both movements is that they lead them- 
 selves largely, but have spokesmen, advocates, agita- 
 tors, etc. In my capacity as a delegate to the Amer- 
 ican Federation of Labor, and as a member of the 
 Socialist Party, as editor of the Citizen for the last 
 twenty years, as a participant in the trade unicn 
 movement for thirty years, and the Socialist move- 
 ment for about 19 years, I have come to the conclu- 
 sion that the American Federation of Labor is the 
 logical economic organization for this country. I have 
 no sympathy with the so-called Industrial Workers 
 of the World, any more than I had for the Socialist 
 Trade and Labor Alliance which was organized prior 
 to the I. W. W., or with the American Labor Union. 
 I do not agree with Mr. Debs on the one hand in his 
 
 154
 
 views as to the form of organization which the labor 
 movement should take on the industrial field. Nor do 
 I agree with Brother Sam Gompers on the other hand, 
 in his opposition to the Socialist movement or to the 
 progressive demands made by the Socialist movement. 
 
 There is not the difference between the member- 
 ship of the Socialist Party and the membership of the 
 trade unions that people are frequently led to believe 
 exists, because of the contentions, the rivalries, the 
 jealousies or the animosities that may exist between 
 the so-called leaders of these movements. I do not 
 wish to deal particularly with individuals, because, in 
 the long run, there is not very much gained by criticis- 
 ing individuals. When I speak of individuals I want 
 it understood that I am dealing with their views, with 
 their qualities. Whatever antipathy may exist be- 
 tween Mr. Debs and Mr. Gompers as well known rep- 
 resentatives of the organizations with which they are 
 affiliated, does not exist among the rank and file. ' 
 
 To the uninformed individual, it might appear 
 that there is a sort of gulf, an inseparable barrier, be- 
 tween the Socialist organization on the one side, and 
 the labor movement on the industrial field on the other 
 side. 
 
 Now, as a matter of fact, the very large bulk of the 
 membership, a majority I would say, of the Socialist 
 Party, is composed of trade unionists. I can speak 
 from experience, when I say that. As representative 
 of the Typographical Union, I have often been very 
 materially assisted by Socialist organizations. For- 
 instance, in cities and towns in the Middle West, where 
 we had no local organization, and where there ap- 
 peared to be difficulty in getting the printers to form 
 a Union and to affiliate with the International or- 
 ganization, I have written letters to members of So- 
 cialist locals and enlisted their co-operation in inter- 
 esting printers in the subject of organization. Later 
 
 155
 
 followed up the correspondence by a personal visit, 
 with the result that we formed a union. 
 
 That is my individual experience. And, un- 
 doubtedly, many International Organizers I am mak- 
 ing a distinction between International organizers and 
 the paid organizers of the American Federation of 
 Labor, those directly connected with headquarters in 
 Washington, have been assisted by Socialist organiza- 
 tions in the smaller towns. We have Socialist or- 
 ganizations in hundreds of towns where there are 
 no unions, and they are often used for the purpose 
 of securing the formation of trade unions. I might 
 sit here and explain for an hour or more the co-opera- 
 tion that exists between the memberships of the So- 
 cialist Party and the labor unions, particularly in the 
 smaller towns of the country. 
 
 MR. THOMPSON : May I interrupt you at this 
 point ? 
 
 MR. HAYES: Yes, sir. 
 
 MR. THOMPSON: Is it known in the Socialist 
 Party that you are a member of the A. F. of L. ? 
 
 MR. HAYES: Oh, certainly. 
 
 MR. THOMPSON : Has there ever been any objec- 
 tion to your membership in the A. F. of L. by the 
 Socialist Party? 
 
 MR. HAYES: Absolutely none. 
 
 MR. THOMPSON : Has there ever been any objection 
 by the American Federation of Labor to your mem- 
 bership and participation as an official in the Socialist 
 Party? 
 
 MR. HAYES : None whatsoever. 
 
 MR. THOMPSON: Does that condition which exists 
 with reference to you exist with reference to thou- 
 sands of other workers ? 
 
 MR. HAYES: It does. 
 
 MR. THOMPSON : Is there a fair percentage of mem- 
 bership in the American Federation of Labor, in your 
 opinion, who are Socialists, avowedly such? 
 
 156
 
 MR. HAYES: Yes, sir. There is a very large per- 
 centage. I am not able to give you exact figures, 
 but you can form some opinion from the convention 
 proceedings. If you will follow the A. F. of L. pro- 
 ceedings and those who are delegates to the con- 
 ventions of the American Federation of Labor know 
 it you will find that there is a steady increase in the 
 number of representatives from the National unions, 
 who are also Socialists. 
 
 Take the miners, just as an illustration. A very 
 large percentage of the United Mine Workers to-day 
 are Socialists. That is particularly true in the Middle 
 West, in Ohio, Indiana and Illinois. Some of the 
 mining towns in those states are almost solidly So- 
 cialist, as is demonstrated by the votes cast in the 
 elections of delegates to their national conventions, 
 usually held in Indianapolis. The same is true of the 
 brewery workers, the machinists, and many other 
 trades. 
 
 No objection has ever been raised by the Socialist 
 Party. In fact the Socialist Party, the Socialist press 
 and the prominent Socialists who do not happen to be 
 in a position where they themselves can affiliate with 
 trade unions, have advised and constantly insisted that 
 the rank and file of the Socialist membership, when- 
 ever eligible, should join trade unions and assist in 
 the struggles on the industrial field. 
 
 MR. THOMPSON: Mr. Hayes, you have said that 
 you believe that the American Federation of Labor is 
 the logical leader of the working class in this country ? 
 
 MR. HAYES: Yes, sir. 
 
 MR. THOMPSON: And, for that reason, you object 
 to the Industrial Workers of the World, to the So- 
 cialist Labor Party, to the American Labor Union,- 
 and to any other organization which undertakes to 
 divide the field. Am I correct in that statement? 
 
 MR. HAYES r Yes, sir. 
 
 MR. THOMPSON: Why, then, do you co-operate 
 
 157
 
 with the Socialist Party, and what is the reason that 
 makes these two bodies, the American Federation of 
 Labor, and the Socialist Party, capable of existing 
 side by side and not dividing that field? 
 
 MR,. HAYES: I am a member of the trade union 
 movement, because it is the bread and butter organiza- 
 tion. It is a movement that meets problems on the 
 industrial field, as has been stated by President Gom- 
 pers, from day to day, in reducing hours of labor, 
 raising wages, gaining more decent working condi- 
 tions in shops, mines and on the railroads of the 
 country. That is an absolute necessity. But I recog- 
 nize the limitations of the trade union movement, and 
 I have come to the conclusion that it is absolutely 
 necessary to also have a political expression of the 
 wants and desires of the working class in order to 
 place ourselves in a position of equality in waging 
 the contest with the capitalists, who organize politi- 
 cally and industrially as well. 
 
 I recall when some of the ultra-conservatives in 
 the American Federation of Labor opposed any nnd 
 every form of political action, contending what the 
 Industrial Workers of the World now claim : That 
 the workers can secure by direct action without the 
 assistance of governmental machinery whatever de- 
 mands they may make; that they can achieve by purely 
 economic action, a condition where they will be able 
 to secure the full product of their toil. 
 
 We had, for instance, in the Kansas City convention 
 in 1898, again in the Detroit convention, in the Louis- 
 ville convention, debated those points, and prominent 
 members and officers of the American Federation of 
 Labor took the position that the labor movement 
 should keep its hands off political manoeuvering in its 
 efforts to gain advantages. 
 
 But there has been a sort of a steady evolution even 
 among those conservatives to the extent that they 
 now operate through what they call a Labor Represen- 
 
 158
 
 tative Committee, adopting the name of the Labor 
 Representative Committee of Great Britain. That is 
 merely the name, however. There were, I believe, 
 three individuals selected at the conference in Wash- 
 ington to steer the labor movement along political 
 lines, whereas in Great Britain the Labor Representa- 
 tive Committee developed into the Labor Party, with 
 which the Independent Labor Party of which Keir 
 Hardy is one of the prominent spokesmen, is affili- 
 ated, and with which the British Socialist Party will 
 undoubtedly affiliate within the next few months. 
 There is a referendum vote on now on that very propo- 
 sition. So that there will be a combination in Great 
 Britain of those three or four parties, including the 
 Fabian Society. 
 
 And now, do you want to ask questions ? 
 
 MR. THOMPSON : I want to ask you directly, isn't 
 it the fact to-day that the American Federation of 
 Labor is taking a very direct interest in legislation 
 affecting the welfare of the workingmen of this 
 country ? 
 
 MR. HAYES: Yes, that is what I intended to de- 
 velop, to show that the officers of the American Fed- 
 eration of Labor have advocated political action and 
 the election of members to Congress who are now 
 classified as a Labor Group, in a loose manner. Prac- 
 tically every member of the Labor Group, however, 
 maintains his adherence and responsiblity to his politi- 
 cal party. Thus, for instance, Secretary of Labor 
 Wilson made the public statement that he cannot and 
 will not be regarded as a labor representative. He 
 .was elected as a Democrat and, logically, affiliated him- 
 self with his Party in Congress. He is, however, a 
 labor man. Now, there comes the division in the 
 labor movement. The conservative elements are in- 
 clined to the view that more can be accomplished bv 
 acting through the old parties in the election of mem- 
 bers to Congress, while the radical elements, \vith 
 
 159
 
 which I generally affiliate in the American Federation 
 conventions, insist that the only logical, definite and 
 substantial manner to make progress is through a 
 Party that is composed wholly and solely of labor 
 men. That is, we contend that it is essential that we 
 be as conscious of our solidarity as workers on the 
 political field as we are on the industrial field. We 
 maintain that it is an absurdity to make, demands upon 
 the industrial field from the employing class and tlien 
 turn around and elect attorneys to Congress and to 
 the State Legislatures, who are dominated, as lias 
 been proven in any number of investigations, by large 
 corporations and, naturally, side with the employers 
 when it comes to a crisis, and make it difficult to 
 secure the enactment of legislation which we have 
 been demanding for many years, such as' the curbing 
 of the injunction curse in labor controversies, amend- 
 ing the Sherman Law, and so on. It is difficult to 
 force those measures through the National Congress 
 or the State Legislatures, because of the fact that 
 these attorneys and capitalists, manufacturers, mer- 
 chants, etc., understand their class interest much bet- 
 ter than the workers understand their class interest. 
 Hence, in every contest where the lines are sharply 
 drawn, the capitalist representatives usually are op- 
 posed to the enactment of remedial legislation for 
 labor. In this country we have had a tremendous 
 advantage over the workers in Europe, who were 
 mentioned yesterday. The workers in Europe have 
 had more to contend with than we have had in this 
 country. They have been held in a condition of in- 
 dustrial slavery for centuries, from the feudal state 
 down to the present capitalist system of industry. The 
 workers in Europe have found the class lines drawn 
 against them, the lines of privilege. The church and 
 State were allied against them. Here we have been 
 practically free and yet the workers are paying abso- 
 
 160
 
 lutely no attention to their political power so far as 
 going along independent lines is concerned. 
 
 MR. THOMPSON: Mr. Hayes, did I understand you 
 correctly that one of the lines of demarcation between 
 the American Federation of Labor and the Socialist 
 Party is this: That in matters of Legislation the 
 American Federation of Labor will affiliate indis- 
 criminately with any other Party if it may be able to 
 carry its purposes, whereas the Socialist Party be- 
 lieves in organizing a Party of its own to stand for 
 whatever it advocates? 
 
 MR. HAYES: Yes, sir. 
 
 MR. THOMPSON: Now, in regard to the concrete 
 or present industrial situation, the Socialist Party be- 
 lieves in letting that field lie in the hands of the Amer- 
 ican Federation of Labor to adjust the present-day 
 working hours, wages and conditions? 
 
 MR. HAYES: Yes, sir. 
 
 MR. THOMPSON: Whereas, they look forward to a 
 programme which deals more particularly with the 
 philosophy or theory of what Society should be ulti- 
 mately ? 
 
 MR. HAYES : In the political sense, yes. 
 
 MR. THOMPSON: That is correct? 
 
 MR. HAYES: Yes. 
 
 MR. THOMPSON: Now, Mr. Hayes, coming down 
 to one or two concrete questions. Mr. Gompers stated 
 yesterday, if I remember it rightly, that the American 
 Federation of Labor would take a stand against the 
 limitation of the hours of work, by legislation. Was 
 that his personal opinion or is that the general view of 
 the American Federation of Labor on that subject? 
 
 MR. HAYES: Well, it certainly is his personal 
 opinion. I don't know of any instance, nationally or 
 in any State, where there has been any opposition 
 from the trades unions against the enactment of an 
 eight-hour law. In fact, it has been the cardinal prin- 
 ciple of the American Federation of Labor to demand 
 
 161
 
 the enactment of an eight-hour law to affect not only 
 the workers directly employed by Uncle Sam, but those 
 who are furnishing supplies to the United States 
 Government. We have the same law in States. I do 
 not know .but what Mr. Gompers was misunderstood 
 somewhat. 
 
 COMMISSIONER O'CONNELL: That Certainly could 
 not have been Mr. Gompers' position yesterday. 
 
 MR. HAYES: As I understand Mr. Gompers' con- 
 tention against the enactment of the eight-hour law, 
 it was that he would oppose its application to business 
 as a whole, to private business ? 
 
 COMMISSIONER O'CONNELL: Yes/ 
 
 MR. HAYES: Now, I entirely disagree with Mr. 
 Gompers upon that point. I don't believe there are 
 any considerable number of unions, none at least that 
 I can call to mind, that would oppose a general national 
 sweeping eight-hour law to extend to every man, 
 woman and child in the country engaged in indus- 
 trial work, any more than they would on the minimum 
 wage question. 
 
 CHAIRMAN WALSH : The matter is a little confused 
 in my mind, so that when Mr. Gompers comes back 
 on the stand he should be asked the question by coun- 
 sel straight out. Then we will not need to go into 
 the difference, if any, of the recollection of the Com- 
 mission on the matter. Now, as I take it, the ques- 
 tion has been fully answered, that Mr. Haves is in 
 favor of legislation limiting the hour., of labor of 
 the workers wherever it comes from, and that his 
 observation has been that the American Federation 
 of Labor likewise has taken that position. 
 
 MR. HAYES : No, the American Federation of Labor 
 has not, to my knowledge, gone on record in favor 
 of a general eight-hour law to be enacted by the 
 National or State government covering the entire in- 
 dustrial field, but merely so far as it related to em- 
 ployes of the Government, National, State and local. 
 
 162
 
 MR. THOMPSON : Is the American Federation of 
 Labor committed to a programme of hostility to legis- 
 lation in favor of the working classes? 
 
 MR,. HAYES : No, sir, it is not. 
 
 MR. THOMPSON : As a member of the American 
 Federation of Labor you would say that the natural 
 tendency of that body would be to sympathize with 
 and to help the passage of legislation leading to the 
 improvement of the condition of the working class? 
 
 MR. HAYES: Oh, yes, certainly. The American 
 Federation of Labor has always stood behind any- 
 thing in the nature of progressive legislation. 
 
 MR. THOMPSON : In other words, in the political 
 field as well as in the industrial field the American 
 Federation of Labor stands for progressive pro- 
 grammes so far as the workingman's interests are 
 concerned; is that correct? 
 
 MR. HAYES: Yes, sir. The only objection I have 
 is that it does not go far enough. 
 
 MR. THOMPSON : I understand that. I just want 
 to get the general lines laid down here so that the 
 Commission may understand it. Now, Mr. Hayes, 
 with reference to the limitations, you heard Mr. Gom- 
 pers say that the American Federation of Labor places 
 no limit on the demands it may make from time to 
 time with reference to wages or hours, or rather, with 
 reference to getting a larger share or, perhaps, the 
 whole share of \he product ; is that correct ? 
 
 MR. HAYES: Yes, sir. I believe he expressed the 
 general opinion. In fact, I was very pleased to hear 
 him make that admission. 
 
 MR. THOMPSON : Would not that be the natural 
 position of the American Federation of Labor? It 
 must be that position. 
 
 MR. HAYES: I cannot see how it could take any 
 other position if the thing is put up squarely to the 
 membership. 
 
 163
 
 MR. THOMPSON : Mr. Chairman, I am through with 
 the witness. 
 
 CHAIRMAN WALSH : Any questions ? 
 
 COMMISSIONER GARRETSON: Yes; I would like to 
 ask Mr. Hayes a question or two. It may not have a 
 direct bearing on the testimony, but I want to get an 
 understanding myself of a certain phase here, be- 
 cause you take a somewhat different ground from any 
 exponent of your faith that I have seen. Bear in 
 mind, I am not affiliated with either side, the A. F 
 of L. or the Socialist Party. Do I understand that 
 you regard the trade union movement or, to narrow 
 it somewhat, the American Federation of Labor, as 
 the proper form of machinery for realizing such bene- 
 fits as can be gained for the workers from day to day 
 without waiting for the success of this or that im- 
 provement that might be brought about by political 
 action, while at the same time, in your character as a 
 citizen, , you believe that the Socialist Party is the 
 proper form of the expression of your legislative be- 
 liefs and the means for securing the same? Am I 
 interpreting your meaning right or not? 
 
 MR. HAYES : Substantially. I would like to amplify 
 that to some extent. I regard the American Federa- 
 tion of Labor the legitimate, recognized, organized 
 industrial movement on this continent. It is not i>er- 
 fect. But my contention is that the American Fed- 
 eration of Labor is broadening from the purely craft 
 or trade form of organization into an industrial form. 
 There are at least a dozen international unions affili- 
 ated with the American Federation of Labor that are 
 industrial in their character, as the Miners, the 
 Brewery Workers and other bodies. The Machinists 
 only recently broadened out. They are now talking 
 about merging three of the garment working trades 
 into one complete union. And right on that point I 
 take issue with the accusations made by representa- 
 tives of the I. W. W. They laid such particular % m- 
 
 164
 
 phasis upon this point that it appealed in a large 
 measure to many Socialists the country over,. I mean 
 the charge that the American Federation of Labor had 
 neglected the so-called common labor. I happened to 
 have a debate with a representative of the I. W. W. 
 on this subject in Seattle last November, and chal- 
 lenged him to produce the proofs of this accusation. 
 And I showed by the records and the figures, which 
 I expected President Gompers to submit to the Com- 
 mission yesterday, but probably he overlooked, that 
 one union, the Hod Carriers, had a larger increase 
 last year in membership than the entire membership 
 of the I. W. W. is to-day. The United Mine Workers 
 and Brewery Workers include thousands upon thou- 
 sands of unskilled, so-called "common laborers" in 
 their ranks. 
 
 COMMISSIONER GARRETSON: Then the American 
 Federation of Labor has organized more unskilled 
 workers than the I. W. W. ? 
 
 MR. HAYES: Most certainly. 
 
 COMMISSIONER GARRETSON: Then on the former 
 question virtually you, as a citizen, are a Socialist ? 
 
 MR. HAYES: Yes, sir. 
 
 COMMISSIONER GARRETSON: As a worker you are 
 a trade unionist? 
 
 MR. HAYES: I am. 
 
 COMMISSIONER GARRETSON: Now, one further 
 question. I would like to ask your opinion on the 
 difference between the American and the continental 
 Socialist movement. Is it not true that continental 
 Socialism is more a movement of citizens than of 
 workers, on account of the disabilities they labor un- 
 der as citizens which hamper them as workers? 
 
 MR. HAYES: It don't make any difference between 
 the workingman and the citizen; they are one and the 
 same. You c'annot separate them. 
 
 COMMISSIONER GARRETSON: Does he not bear the 
 dual relation 
 
 165
 
 MR. HAYES : He does bear a dual relation, yes, sir. 
 As a Socialist he is affiliated with the Socialist Demo- 
 cratic Party or the Labor Party or the Independent 
 Labor Party, according to whatever country he lives 
 in, and likewise he is required to associate himself 
 with a trade union. 
 
 COMMISSIONER GARRETSON: Well, would you not 
 draw the same distinction in regard to him that you 
 did with regard to yourself, that politically he would 
 be a Socialist and in his capacity as worker, a trade 
 unionist ? 
 
 MR. HAYES: Yes, sir. 
 
 COMMISSIONER GARRETSON: So the two would be 
 blended there as is unnecessary here to a certain de- 
 gree, would they not, I mean as an absolute neces- 
 sity for their betterment? 
 
 MR. HAVES: Yes. Each carries out its own func- 
 tions; they are separate organizations. Likewise there 
 is a third agency called the Co-operative movement. 
 It is a tri-partite agreement practically. 
 
 COMMISSIONER GARRETSON: That is all, Mr. Chair- 
 man. 
 
 COMMISSIONER RALLARD: You say that the A. F. 
 of L. and the Socialist Party both want to take a 
 larger share of labor's production? 
 
 MR. HAYES: Yes, sir. 
 
 COMMISSIONER BALLARD: And they want finally to 
 lake it all? 
 
 MR. HAYES: Undoubtedly. Wealth should belong 
 to him who produces it. The workers produce the 
 wealth, and consequently they should own the wealth. 
 
 COMMISSIONER BALLARD: As soon as they become 
 sufficiently powerful numerically they would simply 
 take it. whether those to whom it belonged wanted to 
 give it up or not? 
 
 MR. HAYES: I am not prepared to say }ust how they 
 are going to acquire it. If I had my way about it they 
 would certainly take the railways and the mines and 
 
 166
 
 the steel mills and other great monopolies and operate 
 them under control of the government and probably 
 we would hire Brother Rockefeller as business agent 
 of the oil division of the government, or Judge Gary 
 as manager of the steel department ; but they would 
 have to be workers. 
 
 COMMISSIONER BALLARD: In other words, yon 
 would put men in charge of the different departments 
 who you thought could handle those departments, no 
 matter what their previous condition had been? 
 
 MR. HAYES: Oh, yes; they would be superinten- 
 dents. 
 
 COMMISSIONER BALLARD: I gather from the I. W. 
 W. that they want to do the same thing, except they 
 would resort to force immediately to take it as soon 
 as they felt they could, and the Socialist Party does 
 not propose quite that just yet? 
 
 MR. HAYES: The Socialist Party believes in organ- 
 izing workingmen politically in order to secure con- 
 trol of the law-making machinery, and doing it legally. 
 The I. W. W., as I understand it, expects to accomplish 
 it by so-called direct or mass-action. I do not hanker 
 for that sort of propaganda, because it would neces- 
 sarily injure the working masses millions of in- 
 dividuals. 
 
 COMMISSIONER BALLARD: That is all, Mr. Hayes. 
 
 MR. HAYES : There is just one point, Mr. Chairman, 
 on which I would like to say something. 
 
 CHAIRMAN WALSH : Very well. You may state it. 
 
 MR. HAYES: That is, with reference to the discus- 
 sion here yesterday about the minimum wage. The 
 minimum wage proposition has never been acted upon 
 authoritatively by the American, Federation of Labor. 
 I do not believe, with President Gompers, that the 
 American Federation of Labor, though he probably 
 has a right to speak for the American Federation of 
 Labor, while I have not, is committed against the 
 minimum wage. There has never been, to my knowl- 
 
 167
 
 edge, any discussion on the question of a general mini- 
 mum wage law in any convention of the American 
 Federation of Labor or in the International Unions in 
 this country. The matter has been up for discussion 
 in State conventions and in local b> dies. For example, 
 in the State of Ohio, at the Constitutional Convention 
 in 1912, a minimum wage amendment was submitted 
 to a referendum vote. It received the support of the 
 labor men in that Constitutional Convention Social- 
 ists and trade unionists about a dozen members of the 
 convention. From there it went to the people of the 
 state and it was endorsed. The minimum wage propo- 
 sition or the amendment to the constitution of the 
 State of Ohio was endorsed generally by organized 
 labor of that State. There is a movement now on 
 foot in the State of Ohio to secure the enactment of 
 a minimum wage law, but not on a basis prescribing 
 $3.00 or $3.50 or $4.00 as a minimum wage, but in 
 line with the constitutional provisions requiring the 
 appointment of a Commission to examine four times 
 a year the living conditions that exist in the larger 
 cities. They have to consider the cost of living : Rent 
 for a six- or seven-room house, clothing, food and 
 other immediate necessaries. Upon the basis of such 
 cost of existence, whether it be $3.00 or $5.00 or $4.00 
 a day, the wage will have to be paid, if the law is 
 passed, which is now being initiated and will be sub- 
 mitted to a referendum vote in the next year or two. 
 Undoubtedly other states will copy it, as they have our 
 Workmen's Compensation Law. By the way, there is 
 another point I want to touch upon in just a few 
 words. That the Workmen's Compensation Law in 
 Ohio was drafted and prepared by a Socialist, Harry 
 D. Thomas. He has since died. But he was probably 
 more thoroughly acquainted with legislation pertain- 
 ing to compensation laws than any other man. He 
 prepared the data and submitted them to an attorney 
 entirely in sympathy with the idea, and went to the 
 
 168
 
 legislature, and there it was adopted, and it was like- 
 wise adopted as an amendment to the constitution. 
 So much for the charge that the Socialists are inac- 
 tive in the matter of securing legislation for the better- 
 ment of the workers to-day, to-morrow and the next 
 day. We are always at it. 
 
 COMMISSIONER BALLARD: Just one point, you are 
 in favor of government ownership of public utilities, 
 as I gather railways and other public utilities ? 
 
 MR. HAYES: Yes, sir. 
 
 COMMISSIONER BALLARD: Well, in the experience 
 of those states where that has been done, do you feel 
 that the administration has been better than where it 
 is in the hands of private corporations? 
 
 MR.- HAYES: I believe so, all things considered. 
 Germany's railways are government-owned and oper- 
 ated. They have been cited as an example, and those 
 opposing contend that they are not a success. But 
 when you take into consideration the fact that they 
 were nationalized in order to beat back the rising tide 
 of Socialism, and are operated by people who are 
 opposed to Socialism, you will realize that many econ- 
 omies could be introduced that they refuse to. They 
 were primarily taken over for military purposes, as 
 a matter of fact. I might cite other examples of rail- 
 ways, but I am simply coming to the point that was 
 emphasized by Mr. Mellen in his examination in 
 Washington the other day, that it is either a case of 
 private monopoly or government-owned railways ; and 
 I prefer government ownership to private monopolies. 
 That is all. 
 
 COMMISSIONER LENNON: Mr. Hayes, do you be- 
 lieve that the application of the principles of Social- 
 ism would solve finally the problem of the distribution 
 of wealth, or is it a step in the evolutionary progress 
 of the race? 
 
 MR. HAYES : Oh, it is a step, of course. The next 
 step in our evolution as a race. Centuries ago we had 
 
 169
 
 the condition of slavery, then we evolved into feudal- 
 ism, then into capitalism. Now we are going towards 
 Socialism, and I might say, on this point that ten years 
 ago. when we discussed Socialism, we were con- 
 founded with Anarchists and bomb-throwers, while 
 to-day we have reached the point where we are almost 
 respectable. Most people think they know something 
 about Socialism, and perhaps they are becoming a 
 little Socialistic themselves. So that when my friend 
 Gompers tries to ridicule the Socialist movement, he 
 had better be careful, because he doesn't know what 
 will happen in the next ten years. He accuses the 
 Socialists of having purloined some of the demands 
 of the trade unions. He might have said that the 
 Bull Moosers stole some from the Socialists ; the 
 Democratic stole some, and probably the old Moss- 
 back Republican Party may have grabbed a few of 
 our planks. One'thing they won't steal, and that is 
 the collective-ownership plank. 
 
 MORRIS HILLQUIT, recalled as a witness herein, 
 further testified as follows: 
 
 CHAIRMAN WALSH : You may proceed, Mr. Hill- 
 quit, and answer anything that you see fit within the 
 time limit ; answer any part of what has gone before 
 in the testimony of Mr. Compers or Mr. St. John. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: At the outset I desire to answer 
 two questions raised by Mr. Gompers in his testimony. 
 The first refers to the character of the Compensation 
 Act which the Socialists in the City of New York 
 drafted and prepared some years ago. Mr. Gompers' 
 statement was to the effect that it contained a demand 
 fo~ the appointment of a Socialist as member of the 
 proposed Commission and also for an appropriation of 
 one million dollars by the State of New York. The 
 draft in question was not of Socialist authorship ex- 
 clusively. It was prepared by the Socialists in con- 
 junction with representatives of the labor organiza- 
 
 170
 
 tions of the City of Greater New York, that is, the 
 organizations of the American Federation of Labor 
 in that City. 'When adopted, it represented the local 
 sentiment of the American Federation of Labor as 
 well as that of the Socialists. It made no require- 
 ment for the appointment of a Socialist on the Com- 
 mission. It did, however, contain a requirement to 
 the effect that the Commission be largely composed of 
 accredited representatives of organized labor. As to 
 the million dollars appropriation, I don't recall it ; but 
 I may say that if it provided for the sum of one million 
 dollars to be appropriated by the State of New York 
 for the purpose of organizing a proper machinery for 
 the administration of a workmen's compensation sys- 
 tem, the demand was exceedingly modest. The State 
 of New York, with its population of ten million or 
 more, the State of New York, which appropriates 
 sixty million dollars for improvement of canals and 
 to help trade along, should consider it a mere pittance 
 to allow one million dollars to save the lives and limbs 
 of its one million and a half industrial employes, and, 
 Mr. Gompers, I believe, should be the last man in the 
 world to find it exorbitant. 
 
 Mr. Gompers has also stated that the Socialist rep- 
 resentative in Congress, Victor L. Berger, had voted 
 to sustain the veto power of the President of the 
 L'nited States. That statement I wish to deny. The 
 Socialist Party directly requires by its platform the 
 abolition of the Senate and of the veto power of the 
 President. Of course, the question of sustaining the 
 veto power of the President never came up in Con- 
 gress. What Mr. Gompers is pleased to construe as 
 such a vote. was. no doubt, a vote or votes on two 
 measures, which Mr. Berger considered reactionary 
 and opposed to the best interests of the workers. lie 
 voted against the measures. The Pxe<ident of the 
 I'nited States happened to share his conception of it 
 and vetoed the bills after the majority had voted in 
 
 171
 
 their favor. The bills then came up a second time, 
 and they were still as reactionary and as bad as ever. 
 Mr. Berger consistently voted against them. And 
 that is all there is to his voting to maintain the veto 
 power of the President of the United States. 
 
 This by way of rebuttal. And now I shall say a few 
 words by way of summary on the relations of the So- 
 cialist movement to the American Federation of Labor. 
 Since the method of mutual cross-examination has 
 brought out a good many, but not all the conclusions, 
 I shall add this briefly. 
 
 First of all, the matter, it seems to me, is one of 
 very large importance. The American Federation of 
 Labor and all other organized workers within or out- 
 side of the Federation represent about three million 
 persons. The Socialist Party at the last Presidential 
 election polled almost one million votes. We may 
 legitimately assume that for every male voter there 
 is a female non-voting Socialist sympathizer, and, 
 taking the men and women voters and non- voters we 
 may conservatively estimate the number of persons 
 in the United States who support the Socialist philos- 
 ophy and programme to be likewise about three mil- 
 lions. The relation between those two powerful fac- 
 tors in the industrial and political world, seems to me, 
 of importance, and I wish to state, for the benefit of 
 the Commission, the public at large, and the working 
 class particularly, that whether for good or for evil, 
 the Socialist movement and the organized economic 
 labor movement must be considered ultimately -is one. 
 Born of the same conditions, having consciously or un- 
 consciously the same aims and objects, and leading to 
 the same result. The Socialist movement aims to secure 
 to the workers the full product of their labor and, 
 by the same token, to deprive the idlers of their un- 
 earned part of the general national product. It stands, 
 then, for the nationalization of industries; for the 
 collective ownership of means of operating those in- 
 
 172
 
 dustries. The labor movement, it appears very clearly 
 from Mr. Gompers' statements, stands likewise for 
 an ever increasing share of the product to be given 
 to the workers; for an ever decreasing share of the 
 product to be left to the non j workers, and Mr. Gom- 
 pers admitted that this process has no limitation and 
 will not stop before the entire product of the work is 
 turned over to the working class as a whole. Thus, 
 you see, substantially and ultimately, the two move- 
 ments stand for the same thing. The distinction is 
 mainly one of the degree of consciousness. The So- 
 cialists proceed upon a general social philosophy. 
 They have thought out the thing, they have asked 
 themselves where it leads to, they have drawn their 
 conclusions and formulated them in the Socialist pro- 
 gramme. The trade union movement, on the other 
 hand, as Mr. Gompers himself stated, is not concerned 
 much with ultimate ends or social philosophies. It 
 works for immediate ends, but those ends lead event- 
 ually to the same point. There is also no great merit 
 in the distinction between political and economic func- 
 tions. The demand to abolish child labor in a certain 
 shop or a number of shops, or to introduce an eight- 
 hour workday in a certain shop or in a number of 
 shops, is economic if made by the workers in those 
 shops on their employers. The same demands stated 
 broadly for an entire industry or an entire division 
 of the working class, and being formulated by way of 
 legal enactment, becomes political action. And it is 
 just because the Socialist stand for the larger nspect 
 of the movement that their activity is more political, 
 and it is because the labor unions, while standing on 
 the same basis, do not have the larger vision that they 
 consider their activity primarily economic. As to the 
 ultimate result, the two do not differ much from each 
 other. I make that statement to avert any misunder- 
 standing as to the attitude of the Socialist Party to- 
 ward the American Federation of Labor. 
 
 173
 
 What Mr. Hayes has said here is not his individual 
 view. It is the view of the Socialist Party at large. 
 The Socialist Party is absolutely committed to a policy 
 of friendship to organized labor, and unequivocally 
 recognizes the American Federation of Labor to-day 
 as the main representative of organized labor. The 
 little tilt I had with my friend, Mr. Gompers, was 
 very largely individual and directed not against the 
 American Federation of Labor, but against certain 
 conceptions and policies of the present leadership of 
 the American Federation of Labor. The attitude of 
 the Socialist Party to the American Federation of 
 Labor as such, as distinguished from its leadership, 
 is absolutely friendly, and the criticism which is 
 directed against its present leadership, is also of a 
 friendly nature. 
 
 I shall mention these criticisms briefly. In the first 
 place, the Socialists believe that the leaders of the 
 American Federation of Labor fail to recognize the 
 drift and trend towards industrialism in organization. 
 Now, mind you, we don't say that the American Fed- 
 eration of Labor is not developing in that direction. 
 It is. But what we do say is that the development 
 is not aided consciously by its leaders, becau.se the 
 leaders fail to understand the importance of it. The 
 present leaders of the American Federation of Labor 
 fail to see that industrial conditions to-day are not 
 what they were in 1881, when the Federation or its 
 predecessor was organized. Mr. Gompers placidly told 
 here on the stand that the American Federation of 
 Labor had originally adopted a plan and system of 
 absolute autonomy of trades and had rigidly adhered 
 to it. If it actually had, it would not be a subject for 
 praise, but one for severe criticism, because industrial 
 development has not stood still within the last thirtv 
 years. Industries to-day are more inter-related, more 
 interwoven, more organically connected, than they 
 were in 1881, and if the workers are to keep pace with 
 
 174
 
 them and be in a position to meet their employers and 
 their organizations, they must organize accordingly. 
 The example cited by Mr. Gompers, that of the State 
 organizations and the Federal Government of the 
 United States, does not apply at all. That is purely 
 political. And industry cannot be so separated from 
 its parts as one State may be separated geographically 
 and arbitrarily from another. Now, we recognize, 
 however, that the American Federation of Labor is 
 tending toward ever greater industrial organizations. 
 We fully approve of the report which Mr. Gompers 
 offered in evidence here before the Commission and 
 favor the extension of industrialism within the Amer- 
 ican Federation of Labor. We only wish that the 
 leaders of the Federation had been clear-sighted 
 enough to see the tendency and to co-operate with it 
 and help it along more assiduously. 
 
 Another point of criticism we have is this, that the 
 American Federation of Labor does not seem to un- 
 derstand the significance of the agitation which has 
 assumed the name I. W. W., and here I want to 
 make this statement : The Socialist Party has no sym- 
 pathy with the methods of the Industrial Workers of 
 the World, none whatsoever. You have heard the 
 testimony of the representatives of that organization. 
 We regard their methods as absolutely ineffective and 
 childishly inadequate. But the "Industrial Workers of 
 the World" means more than the fourteen thousand 
 men organized in Mr. St. John's organization. It 
 means a certain new spirit in the American labor move- 
 ment. It means Lawrence, it means Patersons. It 
 means Little Falls, it means McKeesport Rock. It 
 means this new phase of the labor movement which 
 has arisen within the last few years. How are we to 
 account for it? How does the American Federation 
 of Labor account for it ? It is not a mere accident. 
 There must be some cause underlying it. Nothing is 
 produced without causes. The causes, as we Socialists 
 see them, are briefly stated as follows : 
 
 175
 
 First, the development of machine industry has 
 made skilled labor a less and less important factor, and 
 unskilled labor a more important factor in this coun- 
 try. It has attracted a different type of immigrants, 
 who have come here by millions, who have no right of 
 citizenship, are unorganized and poor beyond descrip- 
 tion, and who have no means of civilized resistance or 
 welfare. It has created a new class within the work- 
 ing class, and has led to the spontaneous unorganized 
 and frequent violent outbursts which we designate by 
 the general phrase, "I. W. W. revolts." These revolts 
 are not explained by calling the I. W. W. names. 
 They represent a new phase in the labor movement, 
 and the American Federation of Labor should have 
 taken cognizance of it by making more strenuous ef- 
 forts it has made honest efforts, I admit but it 
 should have made more strenuous efforts to organize 
 these men and to acclimatize them, and, if you want, 
 to Americanize them and make them part and parcel 
 of the American labor movement. 
 
 On the question of politics Mr. Hayes has said a 
 good deal, and, in view of my limited time, I shall not 
 take it up. But I wish to say a few words on another 
 subject of criticism, and that is the relation of certain 
 leaders of the American Federation of Labor to the 
 Civic Federation. The Civic Federation is an organiza- 
 tion founded by employers for the purpose princi- 
 pally and primarily of deadening the aggressive spirit 
 of the American labor movement, and I think it is 
 succeeding marvellously. Mr. Gompers has stated 
 here that the National Civic Federation has no mem- 
 bership, and that he is not a member of it. Since he 
 is to follow me, I should like him to answer these few 
 questions : 
 
 First, if the National Civic Federation has no mem- 
 bership and anyone who happens to come in has a 
 voice in the choice of officers, would it be permissible 
 for me and, say, a hundred of my Socialist friends 
 
 176
 
 to go to the next meeting and to vote in the election 
 of officials ? If it were, we might be tempted to try it. 
 
 Second, if the National Civic Federation has no 
 membership, it has, presumably, no dues. It main- 
 tains an elaborate office. It pays salaries to a secretary 
 and a large staff of workers. It has various depart- 
 ments. It spends very large sums of money. One 
 of the features of its activities is a very lavish annual 
 banquet. I should like to know, Mr. Gompers, where 
 that money comes from ? Does the American Federa- 
 tion of Labor contribute any part to it, and if it does 
 not, who does? And if it is all contributed by our 
 capitalists and their friends in the National Civic Fed- 
 eration, I should like Mr. Gompers to say whether, 
 in his opinion, such contributations are made solely 
 and singlemindedly for the benefit of the workers? 
 
 I am now ready to answer questions. 
 
 COMMISSIONER, GARRETSON: There has been one 
 point that has not been brought out here at all from 
 the standpoint of the Socialists and on which I would 
 like an expression. What is the attitude of the So- 
 cialists toward the means of economizing industrial 
 waste caused by strikes ? Do you look on the Erdman 
 act I am citing the only Federal enactment as a 
 desirable means of settlement of labor difficulties? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: The Socialist Party has not ex- 
 pressed itself on this subject. The Socialists on the 
 whole regard a strike as a necessary and inevitable 
 evil an evil inherent in the present system and which 
 no amount of legislation can curb or change. In other 
 words, we believe that there is a case where we would 
 agree with Mr. Gompers and say, "Beware of the 
 Greeks bearing gifts," if the legislature were to enact 
 or offer to enact any measure tending to prevent 
 strikes and to substitute other methods of settlement 
 of labor disputes. For what that might mean would 
 be that whereas the workers in well-organized indus- 
 tries to-day have that last resort, the strike, by which 
 
 177
 
 they may enforce their demands, that weapon would 
 be taken away from them by legislative enactment. 
 
 COMMISSIONER GARRETSON : You are aware of the 
 origin of the Erdman Act? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Not very well. 
 
 COMMISSIONER GARRETSON: I will say here that the 
 Erdman Act was pressed largely by the Railway or- 
 ganizations. Do you regard a purely voluntary settle- 
 ment as represented by that Act as a desirable agency 
 bearing in mind that your views as expressed with 
 regard to the strike are exactly my own to minimize 
 the times when it becomes an absolute necessity? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Yes, if it can be done without 
 sacrifice to the workers. 
 
 COMMISSIONER GARRETSON: Or without pressure? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Without pressure and without sac- 
 rifice of the interests of the workers. I would, of 
 course, prefer, as a rule, to avoid strikes rather than 
 to incur strikes. 
 
 COMMISSIONER GARRETSON: You are also familiar 
 with the successor of the Erdman Act, the Newlands 
 Act? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: In a general way. 
 
 COMMISSIONER GARRETSON : Are you familiar with 
 the conditions that led up to its adoption? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: I am not. 
 
 COMMISSIONER GARRETSON: You don't know what 
 function the Civic Federation performed in that? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: I do not. 
 
 COMMISSIONER GARRETSON: I am not on the wit- 
 ness stand. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: No. But there is only one point, 
 Mr. Garretson, in which again I would like to quote 
 my friend Gompers with reference to the Civic Fed- 
 eration. I would say, "Beware of the Greeks bearing 
 gifts." 
 
 COMMISSIONER O'CONNELL: The closing paragraph 
 of instructions under which this Commission is cre- 
 
 178
 
 ated, reads: "The Commission shall seek to discover 
 the underlying cause of dissatisfaction in the indus- 
 trial situation and report its conclusions." If you 
 were a member of this Commission, what would you 
 state as your opinion to be the cause of the industrial 
 unrest ? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT : That would be an exceedingly easy 
 task for me. I think the National platform of the 
 Socialist Party gives a perfectly clear statement of 
 the causes of the unrest, the ultimate remedy, and 
 the immediate remedy applicable to-day. 
 
 COMMISSIONER O'CONNELL: What would be the 
 immediate remedy? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: The immediate remedy would be 
 the adoption of the various planks in the platform of 
 the Socialist Party which I yesterday had the pleas- 
 ure of reading to Mr. Gompers and to which he gave 
 assent in practically all cases. That would be the im- 
 mediate remedy. 
 
 COMMISSIONER O'CONNELL': What would you as- 
 sign as the cause of industrial unrest? 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT : The private ownership of the tools 
 for the production of the things which all men need 
 to sustain their lives. 
 
 CHAIRMAN WALSH : Now, I have a couple of ques- 
 tions that I am going to submit to you and ask you 
 if you will give them some sort of answer in writing. 
 
 MR. HILLQUIT: Yes, sir. 
 
 CHAIRMAN WALSH : We will give it whatever pub- 
 lication we can, but I will ask you to give it some 
 thought, and I will ask you to hand it in. In addition 
 to the interests of the capitalists, and the workers, 
 tending to range them in opposition to each other, is 
 there not a sense of justice existing in some minds 
 that inclines them to act without regard to class inter- 
 ests; and, second, are there any prominent capitalists 
 in the Socialist Party? 
 
 179
 
 MR. HILLQUIT : The answer to both is "Yes " It 
 does not require any study. 
 
 CHAIR.MAN WALSH: Very well, that is all then. 
 
 SAMUEL GOMPERS, recalled. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Whenever any utterance is made 
 by me that may be a declaration of a principle or a 
 purpose with which the Socialists differ, they have no 
 hesitancy to misrepresent and misquote me. On the 
 contrary, the very emphasis which I may give to any 
 particular point will simply be distorted again in order 
 that the misrepresentation may be continued. On the 
 subject of an eight-hour law I have said that we have 
 worked for the establishment of the eight-hour work- 
 day by law for all employes of the Government, 
 whether National, State or Municipal, and for all 
 employes of contractors or sub-contractors who do 
 Government work. An eight-hour day for all Govern- 
 ment employes, because the Government is then the 
 employer. An eight-hour day for minors, and for 
 woman workers. But I am opposed to the statutory 
 fixing of the hours of labor for men, and I gave the 
 historic achievements of the working people of the 
 United States, true, only partially, but yet achieve- 
 ments secured by the workmen through their own 
 initiative, through their own collective action or by 
 agreement with employers. Now, in the limited time 
 at my disposal, unless any further questions are asked 
 me, I should like to take up some things that have been 
 said. First, the construction placed by Mr. Hillquit 
 upon the statement which I made in answer to one of 
 his questions as to membership in the Civic Federa- 
 tion. I omitted to say, "Dues-paying membership." 
 Answering his question of this morning I should say 
 that the National Civic Federation exists by the volun- 
 tary contributions of those who agree to contribute in 
 furtherance of any thought or purpose that they may 
 have in mind. I want to call your attention to the 
 
 180
 
 studied effort of Mr. Hillquit to call that Association 
 the American Civic Federation, with the avowed ef- 
 fort frequently made by the Socialists, and as evi- 
 denced by his questions to me upon cross-examina- 
 tion, to confuse the American Federation of Labor 
 with the National Civic Federation, and to use the 
 term as the associates of Mr. Hillquit so frequently 
 use. They often refer to the American Federation 
 of Labor by the supposed title of the American Civic 
 Federation of Labor. The difference is between prac- 
 tice and pretense. The pussy-footed Socialist, Mr. 
 Hillquit, before this Commission, is not the same 
 kind of Socialist- before the world. (Laughter in 
 audience.) 
 
 It may not take a man five minutes to ask questions, 
 which it would take hours, and sometimes weeks, to 
 answer. Th'at there may be no question on this mat- 
 ter, let me quote from Mr. Morris Hillquit, member 
 of the Executive Committee of the Socialist Party, 
 one of its ablest and most sophistical exponents of 
 Socialism in this country. In the Metropolitan Mag- 
 azine for July, 1912, he says: 
 
 "Stated in more concrete terms, the Socialist pro- 
 gram requires the public or collective ownership 
 and operation of the principal instruments and agen- 
 cies for the production and distribution of wealth. 
 The land, mines, railroads, steamboats, telegraph and 
 telephone lines, mills, factories and modern machinery. 
 This is the main program, and the ultimate aim of 
 the whole Socialist movement and the political creed 
 of all Socialists. It is the unfailing test of Socialist 
 adherence, and admits of no limitation, extension or 
 variation. Whoever accepts this program is a So- 
 cialist, whoever does not, is not." 
 
 In fact, in all their platforms, immediately follow- 
 ing their so-called "Social Reform" program, will 
 appear the frank avowal quoted below, this one being 
 
 181
 
 taken from the platform of the national Socialist con- 
 vention in Indianapolis, in June, 1912: 
 
 "Such measures of relief as we may be able to 
 force from capitalism are but a preparation of the 
 workers to seize the whole powers of government in 
 order that they may thereby lay hold of the whole 
 system of socialized industry and thus come into 
 their rightful inheritance." 
 
 Mr. Chairman, I have here a number of quotations, 
 which I should like to have incorporated as* a part ot 
 my statement, which I do not care, at this time, to read 
 in my time. 
 
 CHAIRMAN WALSH : Very good. Just give them 
 to the stenographer, and they will be identified and 
 put in as part of your statement. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS : As to the suggestion . of making 
 more strenuous efforts to organize the unskilled 
 workers, the American Federation of Labor, during 
 the entire year, devotes more of its time and more of 
 its revenues, more of the efforts of its officers, organ- 
 izers and representatives, to the organization of the 
 unskilled workers, than to any other one thing. It 'is 
 physically imposible to make more strenuous efforts 
 in any cause than are made in that direction by the 
 witness before this Commission at this time, and who 
 is made the principal object of attack by t e Socialists 
 here and elsewhere. There is no man I don't care 
 who he is who works harder and more consistently 
 and persistently in the effort to organize the workers, in 
 the effort to improve their conditions, in the effort to 
 secure, to firmly rivet, the rights to which the toilers 
 of our country are entitled ; and to the suggestion by 
 one who is in the ranks of the Socialists, that more 
 strenuous efforts should be put forth, conies with ; 11 
 grace. After all, what is "skilled" and "unskilled"? 
 It is all a matter of graduation. There are some men 
 who say that they work with their heads. My answer 
 to that is, so do hogs. The matter of gifts and 
 
 182
 
 powers and responsibility entering into their work 
 are required in any field of wage labor. What would 
 you call the ditch digger, what would you call the 
 hod carrier, the laborer? What would you call the 
 conductor on a street railway ? What would you call 
 a street railway motorman, a man who will acquire 
 the ability to operate a car in the course of six or 
 eight or ten hours, and is entrusted after that with the 
 operation of the car? The fact of the matter is, that 
 for a long period of years the Socialists have had the 
 open sesame to the people of Europe, who speak lan- 
 guages other than English, and the minds of the for- 
 eign speaking workmen have been poisoned against 
 the American Federation of Labor, and, as a con- 
 sequence, many of the workmen from other countries 
 in which languages other than English are spoken, 
 come here with minds prejudiced and poisoned against 
 the American labor movement, and they start out what 
 they regard as their own movement. 
 
 Now, before I get deeper into this question, let me 
 say that I quite agree with Mr. Hayes' statement that, 
 after all, the quarrel is among us, our dispute is among 
 us, the working people, and we are fighting it out as 
 best we know how. Men who are Socialists belong to 
 the unions affiliated with the American Federation of 
 Labor. Mr. Hayes is a member of the International 
 Typographical Union, and I think at least he will 
 agree with me in this, that in the conventions of the 
 International Typographical Union he has as much 
 say as any other member or delegate. In the con- 
 ventions of the American Federation of Labor he has 
 as free a throw to express his opinion as any other 
 man. 
 
 And I want to call your attention to this one fact, 
 that, during the period of preparation of the Inter- 
 national Typographical Union for the inauguration 
 of the eight-hour workday, and in the face of the 
 possibility of a strike being inaugurated for its ac- 
 
 183
 
 complishment, Mr. Max Hayes, the Socialist, wa 
 tr.ctful enough to declare that Socialist policy and 
 Socialist philosophy must not be injected into the trade 
 union movement, at least during the period of that 
 controversy. And I held with him. But where his 
 was a temporary limitation, mine is an absolute one. 
 It is not necessary to make more difficult the strenu- 
 ous struggle of America's organized workers with 
 their terrific enemies and powerful employers. 
 
 The other point of difference particularly lies, and 
 I want to emphasize it, in the constant attempt of 
 Socialist speakers and writers to belittle the achieve- 
 ments of the organized labor movement of America. 
 Their argument is that, even after you increase wages, 
 it does not do any material good. It is simply so much 
 effort wasted. The effort of the Socialist Party is to 
 divert the attention of the American working people 
 from the immediate needs and from the immediate 
 struggle to something remote. If the working people 
 of America can be made to believe that they can -ecure 
 the relief they need, the improvement which is justly 
 theirs, the freedom which they ought to have, by cast- 
 ing a vote once every year, wherefore join in the 
 unions engaged in the every-day struggle to improve 
 material conditions now? It is the position of the 
 man who preaches from the pulpit that the working 
 people are in the position God ordained, and that they 
 will have a better time in the sweet bye and bye. And 
 it is the same with the Socialists, who paint a beauti- 
 ful picture of a future, luring the workmen from 
 the immediate struggles to the hopes for the future. 
 It is the idea of men being diverted from the immedi- 
 ate struggles and immediate needs for the natural, 
 rational development of the human race ; and securing 
 day by day, and week by week, and month by month, 
 and year by year, a little to-day, a little to-morrow, 
 adding, adding, gaining, gaining, moving forward, al- 
 ways a step in advance, and never taking one receding 
 
 184
 
 step except it be to plant the foot forward firmer thrui 
 ever before. 
 
 I would not want any man to believe that our move- 
 ment is satisfied. There is not anything satisfying in 
 what we have accomplished. It is gratifying but 
 simply whets our appetite and desires for better and 
 better and still better things 
 
 My time is running away from me, and there is so 
 much to say, and yet I cannot help, but must take 
 cognizance of the explanations which Mr. tiillquit 
 made for Mr. Berger in voting to sustain the Presi- 
 dent's veto in the House of Representatives. 
 
 You know that the Congress of the United States, 
 using the nomenclature of Socialists, is a capitalistic 
 concern. The Congress. of the United States passed 
 two measures amended by the American Federation 
 of Labor, and that is : 
 
 1. For a better regulation of immigration into the 
 United States; and 
 
 2. An appropriation bill in which was contained 
 the demands made by the American Federation of 
 Labor. 
 
 It was that appropriations contained in that bill 
 should not be used to prosecute men or women of 
 labor in their effort to raise wages, shorten hours or 
 to improve their working conditions. I grant that 
 that was not a fundamental law and that it was not 
 so far-reaching, but capitalist Congress passed it at 
 the request of labor, and Mr. Victor Berger, the only 
 Socialist member of Congress, voted first against the 
 proposition itself, and then when the President vetoed 
 it, he, as the representative of this great party of labor, 
 voted to sustain a President in that veto; and let me 
 say that the idea of a man of democratic tendencies, 
 much less a pronounced Socialist, voting in favor of 
 sustaining the veto of any President upon any meas- 
 ure is contrary to the principles of democracy; for 
 
 185
 
 the Presidential veto is nothing more than an inheri- 
 tance of the exercise of the royal prerogative. 
 
 COMMISSIONER O'CONNELL: What was the second r 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: The other bill, Mr. O'Connell, was 
 a bill to regulate immigration to the United States, 
 which every man realizes is necessary, no matter what 
 differences there may be as to the degree of regula- 
 tion and limitation. There is a general agreement 
 among the people of the United States that some regu- 
 lation and limitation is necessary other than that which 
 exists to-day. That bill passed the house of Repre- 
 sentatives and the United States Senate by overwhelm- 
 ing majorities, and then came to the President. The 
 President vetoed it, and Mr. Berger voted to sustain 
 the veto, and was one among the minority which stood 
 in the way of securing the two-thirds vote to pass the 
 bill over the President's veto, an action which should 
 not only damn the man politically in his own party, 
 but in the eyes of every democrat in the best sense ot 
 that term, and not in its party sense. 
 
 The American Federation of Labor has always 
 been striving to get the workmen to organize and to 
 unite, to fraternize, and to make a common cause as 
 best you can; to have their agreements terminated 
 as near as possible, about the same time, so that new 
 joint agreements of one industry or kindred trades 
 might be made under the best conditions with the 
 employers. 
 
 May I call attention again to the report of the Ex- 
 ecutive Council to the Rochester Convention on the 
 question of industrial unionism. The report of the 
 committee upon that subject, which was adopted by 
 the Convention, was submitted to Mr. Hillquit upon 
 the witness stand, and he could express no dissent 
 from it. Yet, this morning he said that we have not 
 reached, and are only reaching that goal from which 
 he himself could not dissent. 
 
 In regard to the Workmen's Compensation bill, let 
 
 186
 
 me say this: "That there are now representatives of 
 labor as Commissioners on that commission, and since 
 Mr. John Mitchell was appointed a Commissioner, he 
 has been stigmatized by the Socialist press and 
 speakers as a faker, a four-flusher and a fraud upon 
 the American workmen. Mr. James Lynch, the Com- 
 missioner of the Deparement of Labor, formerly 
 President of the International Typographical Union, 
 has been denounced time and again as a faker, four- 
 flusher and fraud, an imposter upon labor, a misleader. 
 Let the trade union movement anywhere in the coun- 
 try nominate a labor man for any position, such as, 
 for instance, the Board of Aldermen, the State Legis- 
 lature, or Congress of the United States, and the So- 
 cialist Party will antagonize him. Why, Mr. Frank 
 Buchanan, former President of the Bridge & Struc- 
 tural Iron Workers' Union, a candidate for Congress 
 in Chicago, 111., was antagonized by the Socialist 
 Party. In the last election when he was running 
 for re-election, Mr. Victor Berger came from Mil- 
 waukee, neglecting his own district, in order to defeat 
 Frank Buchanan* as a member of Congress. That is 
 the instance that comes to me just now. 
 
 * The "trade union" candidates for political office re- 
 ferred to by Mr. Gompers are not candidates nominated 
 b^ trade unions and running as labor representatives. 
 They are candidates of the Democratic or Republican 
 parties, who happen to hold union cards, but are pledged 
 to the conservative platforms of the old parties and take 
 orders from those parties. They are used by the shrewd 
 politicians as decoys for the thoughtless labor vote. In 
 the state assemblies and in Congress they represent not 
 the interests of the workers but those of the employers, 
 who dominate the old political parties. 
 
 The activities of such men tend to confuse, mislead, and 
 sometimes even to corrupt the labor movement, and the 
 Socialists quite properly oppose them at the polls. The 
 Socialist Party itself most frequently nominates union men 
 for public office, but then the candidates run on a distinct 
 labor platform and are entirely free from the domination 
 of any capitalist political party. 
 
 187
 
 I am simply thinking aloud. It is not just one 
 instance; there is no deviation from their course. As 
 I say, it is the difference between the pretence made 
 here and the practice which obtains throughout. 
 
 I remember, Mr. Chairman, one question that I did 
 not answer, and to which I now desire to address my- 
 self. That is, in the establishment of so-called big 
 unions, "one big union" for labor. 
 
 First, we had the National Labor Union. It was the 
 first general organization of labor. Then came the 
 Rochester Convention of the National Labor Union. 
 And I can recommend to every student, and particu- 
 larly do I recommend to Mr. Hillquit, the reading of 
 the Declaration of Purposes of the National Labor 
 Union, which met at Rochester, somewhere in the six- 
 ties, and he will find that the declarations of -"imme- 
 diate demands" contained in the Socialist Party; the 
 immediate demands upon which he questioned me 
 yesterday were more fully, amply and ably set forth 
 by the National Labor Union than by the Socialist 
 Party, who purloined all this stuff from us. 
 
 * The history of the National Labor Union is fully 
 treated in my "History of Socialism in the United States," 
 first published in 1903. The National Labor Union was 
 organized in Baltimore in 1863 and remained in existence 
 until 1876. Its radical and class-conscious declaration ,of 
 principles was largely inspired by one Edward Schlegel, 
 a German Socialist of the Lassalleau School. Under the 
 leadership of William H. Sylvis, one of the keenest minds 
 and noblest characters produced by the American labor 
 movement, the organization adopted the policy of inde- 
 pendent working class action in politics and formed the 
 "National Reform Party," in 1868. Unfortunately Sylvis 
 died suddenly in 1869. The National Labor Union fell into 
 the hands of weak and over-conservative leaders, who 
 sought alliances with old-party politicians. This policy 
 eventually brought about the dissolution of the first gen- 
 eral organization of American labor. In my turn I 
 strongly recommend to Mr. Gompers the study of the 
 history and the fate of the American Labor Union. 
 
 M. H. 
 
 188
 
 The Knights of Labor, the Western Labor Union, 
 the American Labor Union, the Socialist Trade and 
 Labor Alliance, and the Industrial Workers of the 
 World, I have no right to make any choice as to 
 which is the better; I believe the statement of each 
 of the representatives of the I. W. W., when they 
 speak of the other I. W. W. 
 
 And now, as I said, Mr. Debs is engaged in a move- 
 ment to destroy the American Federation of Labor; 
 and I am not misquoting him, I am not misrepresent- 
 ing him these are his direct words, and if you care, 
 I should be very glad to submit them to you. 
 
 CHAIRMAN WALSH: Please submit them, because, 
 Mr. Gompers, you have just three minutes left. 
 
 MR. GOMPERS: Then I want to refer to this "one 
 big union." There is not anything that could be more 
 disastrous to the interests of labor than the establish- 
 ment, if it could be established, of a so-called "one 
 big union." There are differentiations in all human 
 activities. Perhaps no better comparison can be cited 
 than the military force on the battlefield and in the 
 preparation for battle, and the organized labor move- 
 ment on the industrial field. In the military estab- 
 lishment of this or any other country, each corps of 
 men are doing their particular work, know when that 
 work is to be done, and how to do it, and each works 
 with the other upo the best accepted understanding 
 of the purpose which the army is to achieve. The 
 tactics change, and they have changed now from. what 
 they were, ten, fifty or one hundred years ago. And 
 so has the labor movement. Yet it is organized scien- 
 tifically upon the basis that each is to do a particu- 
 lar thing at the particular time, and that each accom- 
 plish and in the whole accomplishes their great pur- 
 poses. But now imagine the infantrymen and the cav- 
 alrymen, the men on the horse were all thrown in to- 
 gether. What would occur? The worst thing which 
 could occur to such an army would be to order a 
 
 189
 
 movement of any kind to advance or retreat. The 
 only safety for them would be to stand still forever 
 and anon. And so with the labor movement. The 
 labor movement organized in a trade, in a calling, 
 in an industry, with its departments such as have al- 
 ready been established, the coalition of each with the 
 other, each helping the other to do the best thing that 
 can be done for the one specific purpose of best pro- 
 tecting the men and women of labor, and the children 
 of our time, to promote, to help them promote their 
 best interests, now and for the future, neither tread 
 ing upon the other, all trying as best they can in the 
 light of their intelligence, in the light of their ex- 
 perience, in the light of the plans formulated by them- 
 selves and those chosen to speak for them, well or- 
 dered, rational, democratically-governed, as such the 
 movement of organized labor of America will lead to 
 the attainment, as it has already led to the attainment 
 of the highest possible conditions of life, and to the 
 conscience that shall demand as well as give to every 
 human being the rights, the liberties of the better 
 civilization to which we are constantly tending and 
 for which we are striving. 
 
 190
 
 WHY VICTOR BERGER VOTED AGAINST THAT 
 "RIDER" TO THE SUNDRY CIVIL BILL. 
 
 In answer to the criticism of Sam Gompers, I have the 
 following to say: 
 
 I voted against the "rider" to the sundry civil bill (not 
 to use any of the money of the appropriation for the our- 
 pose of enforcing the Sherman anti-trust act against trade 
 unions and agricultural organizations), because I con- 
 sidered that amendment a cowardly and dishonest make- 
 shift that meant nothing. 
 
 And for the following reasons: 
 
 First This provision would only apply to criminal pro- 
 ceedings. But crimina.1 prosecution has never been brought 
 under the provisions of the Sherman act against a trade 
 union or a farmer organization until this provision was 
 passed that was supposed to protect them. I said at the 
 time that the "rider" was a swindle because, under its 
 provision only this particular fund could not be used for 
 the criminal prosecution of a union. But if the govern- 
 ment really would desire the criminal prosecution of some 
 union, the money could simply be taken from some other 
 fund. The government has all kinds of funds at its dis- 
 posal. President Wilson has pointed that out himself 
 when later ton such a bill passed under his administration. 
 Yet he signed the sundry civil bill with the "rider," so 
 that Sam Gompers could say that the Democratic Party 
 had done something for the trade unions. 
 
 Second While the sundry civil "rider" apparently 
 seemed to exempt labor organizations from prosecution, 
 that act did not prevent private persons or corporations 
 from, bringing suit against unions and union men to re- 
 cover damages caused by strikes and boycotts. There- 
 fore, if that "rider" had been in force at the time the 
 
 191
 
 Hatters' Union in Danbury was sued for damages, it would 
 not have given the workmen any protection whatsoever. 
 
 Third The exemption clause being a "rider" on an 
 appropriation bill ceased to operate as soon as that par- 
 ticular appropriation expired. That means the exemption 
 could hold good for only one year at best even if it could 
 accomplish what the Gompers lobby claimed it would ac- 
 complish. The whole affair was simply a bare-faced 
 attempt to make the uninformed union men believe that 
 the expensive Gompers lobby in Washington was doing 
 something for them. 
 
 The Socialists are not in the business of busting trusts. 
 And we are not asking for any special exemption from the 
 Sherman act 
 
 We oppose all anti-trust legislation. As a matter of 
 principle, therefore I, Victor Berger, Socialist, while in 
 Congress, introduced a bill based on class-conscious politi- 
 cal action, providing for the repeal of the Sherman act 
 altogether and for the enactment of honest, sensible and 
 really progressive legislation in its place. This would 
 benefit the people in general and the working class in 
 particular. 1 did not feel that I was under any obligation 
 to assist Mr. Sam Gompers in his trades and deals with 
 the capitalist parties or in his attempts to blindfold trades 
 union voters. 
 
 Victor L. Berger. 
 
 The Co-Operative Preti. 15 Spruce Street. New York
 
 University of California 
 
 SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 
 
 405 Hilgard Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90024-1388 
 
 Return this material to the library 
 
 from which it was borrowed.
 
 UC SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 
 
 .ill mi inn 111 ii inn mil in ii inn mil mil inn in | 
 
 A 001 073 408 5