We declare that such determination of profits should be based on costs of processes actually needed for product.

Workers have no delusions regarding the policy which property owners and exploiting employers pursue in peace or in war, and they also recognize that wrapped up with the safety of this Republic are ideals of democracy, a heritage which the masses of the people received from our forefathers, who fought that liberty might live in this country-a heritage that is to be maintained and handed down to each generation with undiminshed power and usefulness.

The labor movement recognzes the value of freedom and it knows that freedom and rights can be maintained only by those willing to assert their claims and to defend their rights. The American labor movement has always opposed unnecessary conflicts and all wars for aggrandizement, exploitation, and enslavement, and yet it has done its part in the world's revolutions, in the struggles to establish greater freedom, democratic institutions, and ideals of human justice.

Our labor movement distrusts and protests against militarism, because it knows that militarism represents privilege and is the tool of special interests, exploiters, and despots. But while it opposes militarism, it holds that it is the duty of a nation to defend itself against injustice and invasion.

The menace of militarism arises through isolating the defensive functions of the State from civic activities and from creating military agencies out of touch with masses of the people. Isolation is subversive to democracy-it harbors and nurtures the germs of arbitrary power.

The labor movement demands that a clear differentiation be made against military service for the Nation and police duty, and that military service should be carefully distinguished from service in industrial disputes.

We hold that industrial service shall be deemed equally meritorious as military service. Organization for industrial and commercal service is upon a different basis from military service-the civic ideals still dominate. This should be recognized in mobilizing for this purpose. The same voluntary institutions that organized industrial, commercial, and transportation workers in times of peace will best take care of the same problems in time of war.

It is fundamental, therefore, that the Government cooperate with the American organized labor movement for this purpose. Service in Government faċtories and private establishments, in transportation agencies, all should conform to trade-union standards.

The guarantees of human conservation should be recognized in war as well as in peace. Wherever changes in the organization of industry are necessary upon a war basis, they should be made in accord with plans agreed upon by representatives of the Government and those engaged and employed in the industry. We recognize that in war, in certain employments requiring high skill, it is necessary to retain in industrial service the workers specially fitted therefor. In any eventuality when women may be employed, we insist that equal pay for equal work shall prevail without regard to sex.

Finally, in order to safeguard all the interests of the wage earners organized labor should have representation on all agencies determining and administering policies for national defense. It is particularly important that organized labor should have representatives on all boards authorized to control publicity during war times. The workers have suffered much injustice in war times by limitations upon their right to speak freely and to secure publicity for their just grievances.

Organized labor has earned the right to make these demands. It is the agency that in all countries stands for human rights and is the defender of the welfare and interests of the masses of the people. It is an agency that has international recognition which is not seeking to rob, exploit, or corrupt foreign governments, but instead seeks to maintain human rights and interests the world over; nor does it have to dispel suspicion nor prove its motives either at home or abroad.

The present war discloses the struggle between the institutions of democracy and those of autocracy. As a Nation we should profit from the experiences of other nations. Democracy can not be established by patches upon an autocratic system. The foundations of civilized intercourse between individuals must be organized upon principles of democracy and scientific principles of human welfare. Then a national structure can be perfected in harmony with humanitarian idealism-a structure that will stand the tests of the necessities of peace or war.

We the officers of the national and international trade-unions of America in national conference assembled in the Capital of our Nation, hereby pledge ourselves in peace or in war, in stress or in storm, to stand unreservedly by the standards of liberty and the safety and preservation of the institutions. and ideals of our Republic.

In this solemn hour of our Nation's life, it is our earnest hope that our Republic may be safeguarded in its unswerving desire for peace; that our people may be spared the horrors and the burdens of war; that they may have the opportunity to cultivate and develop the arts of peace, human brotherhood, and a higher civilization.

But, despite all our endeavors and hopes, should our country be drawn into the maelstrom of the European conflict, we, with these ideals of liberty and justice herein declared, as the indispensable basis for national policies, offer our services to our country in every field of activity to defend, safeguard, and preserve the Republic of the United States of America against its enemies whomsoever they may be, and we call upon our fellow workers and fellow citizens in the body name of labor, justice, freedom, and humanity to devotedly and patriotically give like service.

Mr. GOMPERS. That declaration was adopted by unanimous vote, and better than all, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, the workers of America made good on that declaration of loyalty and faith.

During the early part of 1918 there was held in London a meeting of the representatives of labor of the allied countries. We were invited, but we could not go. At that conference, in February, 1918, that body declared for a negotiated peace, and demanded from their respective Governments that negotiations with the Central Powers should be begun forthwith.

In September of that year another conference was held, representing the same bodies and almost of the same personnel-except this, that the American Federation of Labor was represented at that conference. That conference adopted a declaration that the forces. of the Central Powers must be met and defeated, until they were driven from the lands they had invaded and occupied and until they should refuse to give obedience to the autocracies of their Governments.

During the period of 1917 and 1918, and also just before we entered into the war, there were two distinctive movements on foot for the purpose of preventing our country from entering into or prosecuting the war. There was no agency in all America so potent to defeat and destroy those two movements as the American Federation of Labor. I had the honor of playing some part in that activity—at many of the camps, preaching the doctrine of Americanism and patriotism and determination to carry the war to a victorious end; speaking in public; speaking at meetings for the Liberty loans and for the war savings; urging men to comply with requests to subscribe to the bond issues, and to buy the war savings stamps and thrift stamps; contributing to the measure of my financial ability to all of it; going over to Europe; being chosen by the President and the American commissioners to negotiate peace as one of the commissioners on the part of the United States on the International Labor Commission, which sat for about seven weeks; devising the labor convention now adopted by the plenary council and made a part of the treaty of Versailles; receiving the express thanks of the commissioners; and, at the completion of the work, having the President of the United States declare at the plenary council his approval of that document and to express his regret that I could

not be present in order to voice the sentiments of the workingmen of America as it had been necessary for me to return to the United States before the completed work was presented to the council.

I received a letter from the American Commission to Negotiate Peace, dated September 1, 1919, which I should like to read into the record. It is dated, Paris, September 1, 1919, and is signed by Robert Lansing, Henry White, E. M. House, and Tasker H. Bliss, and reads as follows:

AMERICAN COMMISSION TO NEGOTIATE PEACE,

Paris, September 1, 1919.

DEAR MR. GOMPERS: With the completion of your work with the American Commission to Negotiate Peace, we, the commissioners, desire to extend to you, on behalf of the Government which we represent, as well as personally, our warm thanks for the important services which you have rendered your country while on duty here. The task of making peace has been great and arduous, and our country is indebted to those who, like you, have rendered such valuable service to the Government.

You take with you the sincere wishes of the commission for the future.
Faithfully, yours,

Hon. SAMUEL GOMPERS,

American Federation of Labor, Washington, D. C.

ROBERT LANSING.
HENRY WHITE.
E. M. HOUSE.
TASKER H. BLISS.

This is the first time that I have made public that letter.

There are others which I have received, which are too numerous to take the time of the committee in referring to, or even mentioning. But the services which I have tried to render to my country, at any time and all time, entitle me at least to be immune from a charge of disloyalty or failure in patriotic services to the country.

Mr. Pou. Mr. Gompers, I never heard of any human being bringing that charge against you.

Mr. GOMPERS. Well, you can read it in the Record. Probably you have not read the Record of the last few days.

Mr. Pou. Well, I am not saying that by way of questioning your statement; but such a charge against you seems to be so utterly baseless that I can not imagine any American making it.

Mr. GOMPERS. If you will read the record or proceedings in the United States Senate in the Congressional Record of January 20 you will find that everybody does not share in that view that you take, sir—and I thank you for your expression of it.

I want to be of some value to my fellow beings. This country— I have said this and I want to repeat it here fortunately, or unfortunately, this is not the country of my birth. I was born in England, in 1850. I have been in the United States since I was 13 years of age, landing here on July 29, 1863. I have lived in the United States longer than probably nine-tenths of the people in the United States. I became a citizen a few months after my eligibility began and I have kept the faith.

To me America is something more than a name; it is more than a country; it is more than a continent. I have said that to me it represents the apotheosis of all that is right and good and just. And in my life I have tried to be of service to my fellows and my country; to render, not lip service, but real service, and to take the chance and the consequence of what service means.

And, in spite of the fact of my advanced years, I feel a virility and strength; and while I sometimes look back for guidance, I am a forward-looking man. I live for whatever may be in store for me in the years to come; I look to the future to contribute my mite and my service, whatever it may be, to be helpful to my country and to my people and to my fellows.

And I am apprehensive of this species of legislation, gentlemen. It will take the idealism out of the people of the United States; it will take the reverence out of their hearts and souls for the spirit of America. Repression and suppression all bring resentment in their wake; just as surely as the law of gravitation has its repulsion, just so surely comes the reaction against any attempt upon the natural, normal activities of a people.

We want to speak of America in the terms of the Declaration of Independence. We want to speak and think of the spirit of the institutions as we do on the Fourth of July, our Independence Day. We want to speak of the Republic of the United States, and to think of it, in the terms of the fathers, and in the higher and better spirit of to-day-the more humane spirit of the peoples of to-day and of the future.

This legislation is not reconstruction; it is destruction. This is not going to suppress or kill off discontent; it will increase it. And whether that discontent is manifested one way or another, it will be discontent; and if the open meeting, assemblage, and freedom of the people are curbed, the underground, the secret assemblage, with all that breeds from secrecy and darkness and the feeling of suppression and denial of right will surely follow. The proposed legislation does not accomplish, and can not accomplish, the desired result; for the desired result is to stamp out the advocacy of change in the Government, in the forms, in the Constitution, in the method. Nothing is so contributory to a better understanding of the people of the United States, or of any country, of any cause, as publicity-open publicity. And, much as we are disturbed by any socalled radicalism, it is better that it should be permitted and be counteracted by other influences that we can exert than that we should attempt to throttle it. It will not be throttled.

I think the American labor movement, and myself as one of its representatives, has done more than any other group of people to oppose this very thing you are trying to meet, if you are trying to meet the real situation. We are opposed to it in principle. We are opposed to it in practice, and we are contending against it more effectually than any other known group of which I am aware.

I appeal in the name of labor-and not alone in the name of labor. I appeal in the name of our country, and the real, true, liberty-loving men and women of the United States, against the enactment of this species of legislation-not only the bill itself, but the species of legislation. You do not meet the condition; you do not overcome it; you simply provoke a greater discontent and a greater feeling of dissatisfaction.

I hope the committee will not report the rule, and that Congress will not adopt the bill. America is too pure and ideal to have it defiled by such species of legislation.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Gompers.

Mr. Volstead, the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, will be heard on the bill this afternoon; and then you may make selection of those whom you desire to present, Mr. Ralston.

Mr. RALSTON. Thank you.

(Thereupon, at 1 o'clock p. m., the committee took a recess until 2 o'clock p. m.)

AFTERNOON SESSION.

The committee reconvened, pursuant to the taking of the recess, at 2.30 o'clock p. m., Hon. Philip P. Campbell (chairman), presiding.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Ralston, you may proceed.

Mr. RALSTON. I understand that the committee will be kind enough to hear Prof. Chafee, of the Harvard Law School.

The CHAIRMAN. We will be glad to hear Prof. Chafee.

STATEMENT OF PROF. ZECHARIAH CHAFEE, JR., HARVARD LAW SCHOOL.

Prof. CHAFEE. I am professor of law at Harvard University. I live in Cambridge.

Mr. Chairman, I represent no one but myself, but I have been very much interested in this proposed legislation through study of similar legislation in the past, and consequently I have welcomed the opportunity to speak briefly on the matter.

I feel that there are many of the Harvard faculty who feel the same way that I do about it, and among many generally, for I rank myself among them.

I am particularly glad to have a chance to speak after Mr. Gompers, because I come from such a different position from him.

For several years I was in the manufacturing business in an open shop, which was a member of the National Manufacturers' Association, and of the National Foundrymen's Association, both of which fought the American Federation of Labor pretty vigorously, and I should differ with Mr. Gompers on many things at the present time; but I feel anxious to differ with him on the plane of argument rather than on the plane of prosecutions.

I shall digress a moment from the statute to another domain, and I hope you will not consider it irrelevant if I say something about the United States Constitution.

The first amendment to the Constitution, of course, provides that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or the press. In providing for the suspension of the habeas corpus act the Constitution says that it shall not be suspended except in case of invasion or rebellion. That does not mean that there shall not be some restriction of utterance, but at the same time it is an important thing to have in consideration in this present legislation.

I do not want to occupy your time with the question whether any law is constitutional or unconstitutional, or just how far Congress has power to go, before it reaches its limit, because I feel that it has very wide powers, and I hope that you will think of the Constitution not simply as a stone wall that you can not pass, as a high fence that you can not jump over, but also as a sort of signboard sug