ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

and the chairman of the Judiciary Committee assured this committee that if this bill ever passed the House it would be limited in unmistakable terms to physical force and violence, and would not include moral force.

Mr. RODENBERG. Do I correctly understand your position, then, to be that you do not think there is any basis in the objections raised by the newspapers to this legislation?

Mr. BLANTON. If there is-I do not think there is to the Palmer bill. As to the proposed Palmer bill, the bill that the Attorney General asked to be passed, there is not an objection to be raised. The CHAIRMAN. But we are not considering anything but this bill. Mr. BLANTON. But as to the Graham bill, if there is any chance for misconstruction, we will fix that on the floor of the House; because I am not in favor of convicting a man of any crime because the Postmaster General claims he has violated a law, without giving that man a proper court hearing and appeal; and the House, if given a chance, can perfect a proper law.

The CHAIRMAN. But, Mr. Blanton, there are 434 other members of the House.

Mr. BLANTON. But the only power that is given to the Postmaster General in this bill is the right to stop such a paper going through the mail; and then the editor has his recourse; he can appeal to the courts; the courts are open to him. Every time the right of an individual is denied him in this land he has the right to appeal to our courts for redress. There is nothing in the bill to keep him from doing that.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Blanton, may I ask you this question: Is not the calm deliberation of a committee in session a better place to perfect the language of a bill than the open forum of the House?

Mr. BLANTON. Mr. Chairman, you can not ever get me to believe that at all. When the Constitution and the laws say that the people shall be represented by 435 Congressmen, drawing $7,500 a year each, you can not get me to believe that a small set of 15 or 20 men, I do not care how bright they are, can go off in a committee room and frame legislation to be passed finally without any change whatever in a better way than the Members of Congress can.

The CHAIRMAN. I mean the preparation of a bill in the orderly

way

Mr. BLANTON (interposing). Well, this legislation was prepared by a committee supposed to give us at least a skeleton outline, if you please; but, after all, it should be passed upon by the whole body of Representatives who represent the people. They constitute the House of Representatives to pass laws.

The CHAIRMAN. But do you think the chairman of the Judiciary Committee more efficient on the floor of the House than he is in the room of the committee of which he is chairman?

Mr. BLANTON. Well, he has control, after all, of the legislation. But, nevertheless, every Member of Congress ought to be heard on it; whose counsel and suggestions he is supposed to value and accept when wise and proper.

The CHAIRMAN. There is no doubt about that.

Mr. BLANTON. He ought to be given a chance to amend it, to perfect it. After the skeleton or outline has been framed by the com

mittee, the bill ought to be perfected, after all, in the House of Representatives "in Congress assembled."

The CHAIRMAN. Of course, there is no question about that; nobody is raising any question about that.

Mr. BLANTON. Now, let me get back to the point: Here [indicating] is a telegram from a newspaper in the largest city in my section of Texas-central west Texas. Let me read you what this editor says; and he is just as jealous of his rights as anybody else; he is an Irishman, a full-blooded Irishman. This telegram I received about 25 minutes ago from the publisher of the San Angelo Standard, of San Angelo, Tex.:

THOMAS L. BLANTON,

Member of Congress, Washington, D. C.:

To h with all anarchists and their friends. Put me down as in favor of the antisedition measure.

J. H. MURPHY, Publisher San Angelo Standard.

And those are my sentiments. And therefore I say that I represent the sentiment of my section, and that is its sentiment.

Here is a telegram from Austin, the capital of my State. The Austin American is the paper of largest circulation in the capital of my State; it is a daily morning newspaper. The only charge that I have ever heard made against it was that it was controlled by Hearst. Whether that is a reflection on the paper or not, I leave for the committee to decide. But here is what the Austin American says:

Hon. THOMAS L. BLANTON,

Washington:

AUSTIN, TEX., January 23, 1920.

The Austin American is unreservedly in favor of the most stringent antisedition laws and is in favor of the Graham measure or any thorough effective law that can be produced.

KENDALLE B. CRESSY, Editor of the Austin American.

I would like these telegrams to go in the record.

What is it that the opposition to this bill wants, Mr. Chairman? What is it that they really want? Are they representing the anarchists, or anyone in any way affiliated with anarchists? You know if you could just wipe anarchism, disobedience to laws and disregard of laws-just wipe them away from unions, or just make unions purge themselves and their leaders of all disregard of law and all anarchy, I would be one of the best friends of unions that they ever had in the world, because my heart's sympathy goes out to the laborer of this land, whether organized or unorganized. I am with him in all of his proper aspirations and pursuits in life; I want to better his working conditions in every way possible. I am for the laborers, but am against most of their leaders.

But is there any anarchy connected with unions? Let me call your attention to a few instances:

Last April in New York City, the great metropolis of our land of which all of us are proud, Dr. Scott Nearing addressed 3,000 union men, every one of them having union cards in their pockets and affiliated with the American Federation of Labor. In that address he preached the overthrow by force and violence of this Govern

161476-20-10

ment; he denounced this Government and its Constitution. And he was applauded by 3,000 members of unions to a man.

On last May day eve, even here in the Nation's Capital, if you please, in the Pythian Temple, under the auspices of the Fur Workers' Union, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, with delegates from every union in this city, address after address was made advocating the overthrow of this Government by force and violence. The red flag was flown and the Red and I. W. W. anthems were sung and applauded. And concerning that meeting the Washington Star said the next day that not only did anarchy prevail, not only did nihilism prevail, and bolshevism to the extreme, but the advocacy of the overthrow of the United States Government by force and violence, in unmistakable terms was rampant. We are just going to let that go on, are we? That is what Samuel Gompers is ordering us to approve and permit.

Let us come down to the draft act. When we were sending men as cashiers from banks, managers from stores, millionaires' sons from the heads of big offices and manufacturing plants of this country, lawyers from their offices, doctors from their patients, preachers from their pulpits, farmers from their farms-when we were sending those people to France, sending the best, the most splendid young manhood of this country to the trenches of France, to fight knee-deep in mud, to be "cootie " infested, and to endure all the privations and horrors of war, all for $33 a month, making them work, not eight hours a day or six hours a day, which some of Mr. Gompers's unions in this country advocate as a day's work, but making them work sometimes 24 hours out of 24-and if they hesitated to obey their orders they would have been stood against a wall and shot.

And under these circumstances what happened? Mr. Gompers says that a strike is merely the expression of a laudable aspiration of a laborer. An aspiration. And in the next breath what did he say? He said the American Federation of Labor had done more to stop strikes than anybody else; it was against strikes, as a general proposition. It had sought to keep down strikes.

In one sentence he says that a strike is merely the natural aspiration of labor; and then he says he tries to keep them down. İs he trying to keep down the aspirations of labor or is he trying to hold up their aspirations?

But, at any rate, he can not deny this, because I had the Secretary of Labor state it in writing from his department: That during the war, from April 6, 1917, to November 11, 1916, a little over a year, how many strikes were there in this country? Six thousand, and of 18 days each average duration. There were times when the President had to command men to go back to work.

Did Mr. Gompers stop that? Could he if he had wanted to prevent 6,000 strikes in war time by the men who were safe here at home, permitted to sleep in good, comfortable beds at night, to be with their families, enjoying all the pleasures of a peace country? The Provost Marshal General in Washington told us that he had found a way whereby we would not have to send the 18-year-old boys of the country to France, of whom there were only 670,000 all told. He said, "Do not get uneasy, Mr. Congressman; we will not have to send them." We asked, "Why?" He said, "I have 21,000,000 men, able-bodied, grown men out of whom to take only 2,300,000 soldiers that I need; I can easily get them." We asked,

"How are you going to do it? Mr. Gompers has had the laboring men of the country exempted." Of course, lots of laborers went to war, and they fought loyaly in the trenches of France. We know that, but we know that Mr. Gompers had them exempted if they wanted to stay. And the ones who went, went voluntarily. We asked the Provost Marshal General, "What are you going to do about the fact that Mr. Gompers has had all the laborers exempted?" He said, “I am going to put a rule into effect to make every ablebodied grown man in this country, within certain ages, do one of two things: he must either work or fight." We said, "That is all right;" and the very next day after that order came out Mr. Gompers came out in the press and said, "I will not stand for it. I will cause a revolution."

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Blanton, the time is getting short, and if you will devote some discussion to the provisions of the bill

Mr. BLANTON (interposing). I am just going to get down to that. The CHAIRMAN. You have had 35 minutes already

Mr. BLANTON (interposing). Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that I am the only person who has been-I will not say foolish enough, to speak in favor of this bill, although, being a Congressman, I believe it is very generally understood over the country that I would be very foolish to oppose the will of Mr. Gompers-but in view of the fact that I am the first man who has spoken here in favor of the bill; in view of the fact that I do represent a big constituency of the people; in view of the fact that I am a colleague of the members of this committee, a Member of Congress; in view of the fact that you gave Mr. Gompers the other day an unlimited time; and in view of the fact that you have so far given all the time to the opposition, I ask to be permitted to proceed.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I was simply assuming that you wanted to keep within the time which you had fixed yourself. You may proceed.

Mr. BLANTON. Well, I would like to proceed until I can get some facts before the committee.

Mr. Gompers said, "I will not stand for it." He said, "I willcause a revolution in this country if you attempt to put that work or fight order into effect." There is no question but what he said that.

And then the whole plan had to be changed, for when Samuel Gompers objects, plans are changed; and then the Committee on Military Affairs brought in a bill that drafted into the service. 670,000 18-year-old boys, when we had 21,000,000 grown, able-bodied men over 21 years of age to select from.

Thank God! however, that through the fight made by some of us. we put those boys in colleges, and the armistice came and they did not have to go to France.

Now, are strikes laudable aspirations of labor-proper aspirations? Let us see: Who was put in charge of the steel strike, when it was shown that men involved in that strike were getting wages as high as $41 a day? Who was put in charge of it? A man who is recognized all over this country as an anarchist-William Z. Foster. He was put in charge of it; and had the stamp of approval of the Ameri

can Federation of Labor, because he could not have led that strike if Mr. Gompers had not approved it.

And Mr. Margoles, the I. W. W. attorney from Pittsburgh, Pa., before a committee here in Congress, showed that Mr. Foster and himself had been working together for years. And the book that Mr. Foster had written showed what? That the only way to overthrow this Government—the only way to destroy the Republic of the United States was for them to work through organized labor and the unions of the country. And they certainly did try to work through them. Boring from within. It is just from such radical and anarchistic leaders as William Z. Foster that I have been trying to defend and protect the loyal organized laborers of our land.

Why, would any member of this committee, or of organized labor, or any of my good friends, the Republican Party of this country, have the people believe that any of these bombs that were sent through the mail to public officials some time ago was forwarded by a prearranged plan by the men themselves who received them? Would anybody have this committee or the public believe that Attorney General Palmer arranged with some poor devil down here to bring a bomb around in a grip and explode it at his front door in the dead hour of midnight and blow his body to the stars? That is what happened, and yet our friends would have us believe there are no anarchists in this country.

Mr. Gompers says that labor must be permitted to exert moral force. I want to show you the kind of moral force exerted in Washington, if you please

(At this point Mr. Blanton was handed a telegram.)

But first, here is another telegram from a newspaper I want to read:

THOMAS L. BLANTON,

BROWNWOOD, TEX., January 23, 1919.

Member of Congress, Washngton, D. C.:

Please do your utmost to secure passage of strong antisedition measures. America for Americans only.

BROWNWOOD BULLETIN.

That telegram is from a daily in one of the largest cities in my district.

Here are some photographs that I had taken last year which are a disgrace to this country. They are a disgrace to the Congress. They are a disgrace to this Government. And yet that is carrying out Mr. Gompers's idea of permitting moral force to be exerted, as he calls it. I had them taken because I wanted to preserve evidence of such a situation.

(Whereupon Mr. Blanton handed a large number of photographs to the members of the committee.)

I want the committee to look at them, because this took place right here in Washington. I would like for the committee secretary to see that each one gets back to me, because they cost money. I don't want them destroyed. I want them to remain a monument to the exhibition of Mr. Samuel Gompers's moral force while in action in Washington, D. C.

I will state for the benefit of my friends, if the committee will indulge me to take the time, that the contract of the Raleigh Hotel in Washington with its waiters had expired and just before the expira

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »