« 이전계속 »
PHILIP P. CAMPBELL, Kansas, Chairman. BERTRAND H. SNELL, New York.
EDWARD W. POU, North Carolina. WILLIAM A. RODENBERG, Illinois.
FINIS J. GARRETT, Tennessee. SIMEON D. FESS, Ohio.
JAMES C. CANTRILL, Kentucky. AARON S. KREIDER, Pennsylvania.
DANIEL J. RIORDAN, New York. PORTER H. DALE, Vermont. ROYAL C. JOHNSON, South Dakota. THOMAS D. SCHALL, Minnesota.
JOHN N. FREE, Clerk. 2
RULE MAKING IN ORDER THE CONSIDERATION OF S. 3317.
COMMITTEE ON RULES,
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Washington, D. C., January 22, 1920.. The committee assembled at 11 o'clock a. m., Hon. Philip P. Campbell (chairman) presiding.
The CHAIRMAN. While we are waiting for the Attorney General, who desires to be present this morning, at the opening of the session, we will save a little time by arranging for the manner of procedure by the opposition.
Mr. Ralston, I understand that you are to conduct the hearing on the part of the opposition to the bill. About how much time will you require, and how many persons will want to be heard?
STATEMENT OF MR. J. H. RALSTON, ATTORNEY AT LAW, WASH
INGTON, D. C., REPRESENTING THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
Mr. RALSTON. Answering your questions as nearly as I can at the moment, there will probably be 8 or 10 people who desire to be heard in opposition to the bill. Most of the speeches will be short ones, I am happy to be able to assure the committee. That will be true with, perhaps, one or two exceptions.
We shall ask the opportunity for Mr. Samuel Gompers, president of the American Federation of Labor, to speak at length, perhaps for an hour; but the other speeches will be probably from 10 to 20 minutes each. We hope, speaking this far in advance, and subject Lo correction by events, that we shall be able to be through, so far as the opponents of the bill are concerned, within four hours.
My understanding, Mr. Chairman, is that the Attorney General is to present the arguments from his standpoint in favor of the bill.
We also hear some reports to the effect that Mr. Graham, whose bill it is, will also desire to be heard. May I suggest, in the interest perhaps, of clarity of discussion, that Mr. Graham may speak in advance of those who will oppose his ideas, this to the end that all arguments which may be made in favor of the bill shall be before the committee before we are called on to reply? I think that that would, as I say, conduce to clarity, and prevent confusion in the order of arguments later on.
Mr. Pou. Whom does Mr. Ralston represent, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Ralston. I am speaking for the moment on behalf of those who oppose the bill, and simply acting as spokesman, or, if you