Senator CUMMINS. I think that is all.

Senator POMERENE. Mr. Chairman, I was unfortunately detained at another important committee meeting, and I regret that I did not have the opportunity to hear the doctor's testimony in chief. I do want to ask just one question. I am not sure that I understood it. You made some reference to the excuses which were given for not providing means of protection against fire for those young girls in New York. What were those excuses?

Dr. ABBOTT. The excuse which was made in a letter which I saw in one of the New York papers, either by the employer or by some friend or defender, was that the competition in the shirt-waist factories was so severe that they could not afford to put in iron tables and iron receptacles for the débris of the girls' work.

Senator POMERENE. Now, do I understand that you accept that as a fact?

Dr. ABBOTT. No, sir; I do not know whether it is a fact or not. I only cited it as an indication that competition does not secure protection to the workingmen. In my judgment neither competition nor combination affords sufficient protection to either the workingman or the public.

Senator POMERENE. It would be just as logical to say that combination might not afford that protection also?

Dr. ABBOTT. I do not think it would afford adequate protection. The object of my paper was to show that protection must be furnished, not by competition nor by combination, but by putting all organizations, whether they are competing or combined, under the regulation of law.

Senator POMERENE. I think that is all.

Senator TOWNSEND. As I understand it, you think there ought to be permitted more combinations, more power to combine, than is permitted under the Sherman antitrust law?

Dr. ABBOTT. No; what I think is that the evils which we all recognize we are suffering from under monopoly can not be cured by breaking up combinations and reestablishing competition. It must be done by bringing the organized industry, whether big or little, under the control of law. I did not take any time, as I did not wish to misuse the time of a busy committee like this, in dwelling upon the evils of monopoly. I suppose we all agree that those evils have grown to be intolerable, and the thesis which I endeavored to present to this committee was that the remedy for those evils lay in bringing all monopolies, as the railroad monopolies have already been brought, under the control of law, rather than in the endeavor to restablish competition and trusting to competition to remedy those evils.

Senator TOWNSEND. The object of the Sherman antitrust law, as I understand it, is to bring the corporations which offend against it under the law.

Dr. ABBOTT. Yes, sir; but my point was, as I stated in my paper, that the law under which they were brought is not adequate; that it needs supplementing.

Senator TOWNSEND. You want some supplementary legislation but you do not care to amend that law?

Dr. ABBOTT. No, sir. I should like to say, as some other Senators have just come in the room since I made my statement-and I will just give it in a word-I do not believe at the present time in either

repealing or amending the Sherman antitrust law as interpreted by the Supreme Court of the United States. I would leave it on the statute books and continue to enforce it against any organization which had the object or had the effect to acquire the power to detriorate quality, raise price, limit output; in other words, to produce the three evils which have been pointed out as the evils of monopoly. Senator TOWNSEND. Would you advise the Supreme Court to make those points in his decision, or rather conform to the letter of the law itself?

Dr. ABBOTT. I believe thoroughly in Justice White's decision-absolutely. I think it was a sound, admirable statement of what the statute means, regarded in the light of history.

Senator TOWNSEND. Then, when a trust or a combination is brought before the court, you are in favor of the dissolution of that trust or combination as the court ordered it?

Dr. ABBOTT. Yes, sir; absolutely.

Senator TOWNSEND. The object of that was to permit competition, was it not?

Dr. ABBOTT. Yes, sir; and I would not put a stop to that until I had gotten something organized that was better; but I think that better thing is indicated in the line of what Congress has already done by its pure-food law, by its railroad law, and by other enactments. That is to say, the more strict and rigorous regulation of all organizations that are engaged in interstate commerce.

Senator TOWNSEND. Now, if the letter of the law, as I understand it, was adhered to. and all combinations, contracts, and conspiracies in restraint of trade, and all attempts to monopolization, and all monopolization was prohibited, would we not reach the evils of which you complain?

Dr. ABBOTT. I do not think so. In the first place, I think that can only be done by a long, legal process, and an expensive legal process; and in the second place. I do not think that competition does remove adequately the evils of which we complain. I think that can only be done by regulation.

Senator TOWNSEND. One of your suggestions was that possibly we might have to regulate prices. If you have discussed this with Senator Cummins on his examination, I wish you would tell me so and I will not inquire into it again.

Dr. ABBOTT. I did to some extent. I said that I thought that the Government, in the case of large combinations which had power to raise prices-I thought the Government must either fix the prices as it has done in the case of the railways, or limit the profits as Massachusetts did in the case of the Boston & Albany Railway.

Senator TOWNSEND. Are you prepared now to advise the fixing of prices?

Dr. ABBOTT. No, sir; I am not prepared to say which of those two courses would be the better to pursue. In fact, if I had any responsibility in the premises-and I did not come here at all with the idea of giving a panacea that I could prescribe

Senator TOWNSEND. I realize that, and I appreciate what you are saying and value your testimony very highly.

Dr. ABBOTT. I should come here and sit down with the other gentlemen who have larger information than I have, and compare notes, and endeavor to arrive at some process of regulation rather than to attempt disruption.

Senator TOWNSEND. I take it is the object of the committee to get information from such gentlemen as yourself, who have given these matters great thought, to get their ideas as to what ought to be done, and then, of course, we will consider it.

Dr. ABBOTT. Yes, sir.

Senator TOWNSEND. Do you regard the industrial combination as in the same class as the common carrier?

Dr. ABBOTT. There are material differences between public-service corporations and private corporations, of course. But take my own case, for example. I do not see any reason why the Outlook Co.of which I am the editor in chief-should not be under the regulation of the law just as much as the New York Central Railroad should be under regulation of the law, but what kind of regulation should be provided for a corporation like the Outlook Co. and what kind of regulation should be provided for the New York Central Railroad. Co. is another matter.

Senator TOWNSEND. I had in mind particularly the question of fixing prices. You cited the fact that the commission fixed prices for the railroad?

Dr. ABBOTT. Yes, sir.

Senator TOWNSEND. That is, in a way they did?
Dr. ABBOTT. They were given power to do it.
Senator TOWNSEND. To fix the maximum price?
Dr. ABBOTT. Yes, sir.

Senator TOWNSEND. And you think that same policy could be adopted with reference to the industrial corporations?

Dr. ABBOTT. Industrial corporations that have acquired or were in danger of acquiring power to fix prices themselves. If the price. is to be fixed either by a private corporation or by the Government, I would rather have it fixed by the Government than by the private corporation.

Senator ToWNSEND. You have considered the difficulties that would arise in the Government undertaking that proposition, I suppose?

Dr. ABBOTT. Yes, sir; I think it is a very difficult thing, and therefore I am rather inclined to the other alternative, that of limiting of profits rather than the fixing of price. But, as Senator Cummins has pointed out, the difficulties are analogous in that case; I do not think they are quite so great, but they are analogous.

Senator TOWNSEND. You have discussed that, and I do not care to have you repeat what you have said, because it will appear in the record, and I can look it over for myself. Are you familiar at all with the decree on the case of the tobacco company?

Dr. ABBOTT. I have no familiarity with it such as would enable me to discuss it in detail, but I have read it.

Senator TOWNSEND. I do not think there is anything further that I care to ask.

(There being no further questions, Dr. Abbott was excused.)

STATEMENT OF SAMUEL GOMPERS, PRESIDENT OF THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR, NEW YORK, N. Y.

Mr. GOMPERS. Mr. Chairman, I am a resident of New York City. I am a sojourner in Washington because the headquarters of the American Federation of Labor are located here.

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, of course you understand that, as a representative of an organization of working people, and assuming to speak in the interests of all the working people, we have, in the Sherman antitrust law the additional interest as it has been made to apply to the working people as such and though we may have some views upon the trust law in its general aspect, we have particular views as that law has been made to affect the working people, and made to affect the working people by reason of the interpretation placed upon that law by the courts of the United States and finally adjudged by the Supreme Court of the United States.

I think it were best if such of my colleagues who may have the opportunity of appearing before you, and myself, would apply ourselves to the effect the antitrust law has upon the working people rather than dealing with the subject as it applies to others. I might say that we do not feel averse to expressing our opinion upon even its general aspect, too, but I think that we would then express our personal views rather than any views as officially expressed in any concrete form by the men of labor.

At the outset I may say that I am accompanied here this morning by the members of the executive council of the American Federation of Labor. We began a regular quarterly session on last Monday and have been in session since. We gladly interrupted our proceedings that we might have the privilege of appearing before this committee. We do so not only of our own volition but we do it by specific instructions of the convention of the American Federation of Labor held about two months ago-in November, 1911-in Atlanta, Ga.

We are interested in securing relief from the interpretation placed upon the Sherman antitrust law by the Supreme Court of the United States, and the restoration of the working people, either as individuals or in association, to their status before the enactment of the law as interpreted by the court. In so far as the Sherman antitrust law is concerned, as now held as the law of the land, voluntary associations of the working people are regarded as combinations. coming under the provisions of the antitrust law and amenable to its civil and penal provisions.

I might read to you gentlemen the instructions under which the executive council of the American Federation of Labor is acting, not only in regard to the present status of the working people-the associations of working people--but also in regard to matters which do not come within the jurisdiction of the committee, and if I may be permitted I would like to make a simple reference to them. I refer to the issuance of injunctions in labor disputes, which we regard as wholly a perversion of the beneficent purposes of the writ of injunction. The writ of injunction has for its purpose the protection of property and of property rights, and so is in nowise designed to regulate personal activities or personal relations in which no property or property rights are involved. Then again, the contempt proceedings-the practice in contempt, and contempt growing out of the abuse of the injunctive writ. I mention this not because, as I said, it may possibly come under the jurisdiction of this Senate committee, but that I might more intelligently present the instructions given to the executive council by the American Federation of Labor.

The convention of the American Federation of Labor at Atlanta, having these matters under consideration, referred them to a committee, which, after reciting the complaints from which labor suffers, made this recommendation to the convention, which was unanimously adopted:

We recommend that this convention authorize and direct the executive council to urge the President of the United States to recommend in his forthcoming message to Congress the amendment of the Sherman antitrust law upon the lines as outlined in the Wilson bill to amend the Sherman antitrust law.

That the executive council be and it is hereby ordered, either as a body or by the selection of a committee thereof, to obtain an interview with the President in furtherance of the purpose of this report.

The executive council is hereby furthermore authorized and directed to take such further action, as its judgment may warrant, to secure the enactment of such legislation at the forthcoming session of Congress as shall secure the legal status of the organized movement of the wage workers for the prevention of unjust discrimination in the exercise of their natural, normal, and constitutional rights through their voluntary associations, and the executive council is further authorized and directed that in the event of a failure on the part of Congress to enact the legislation which we herein seek at the hands of Congress and the President, to take such action as in its judgment the situation may warrant in the presidential and congressional elections of 1912. As I say, that recommendation was adopted by a unanimous vote after careful deliberation and by the largest representative convention of organized workers of America ever held in the history of the

country.

The Sherman antitrust law, as it has been interpreted, brings the men and women of labor under its civil and penal sections. As a consequence, any person or persons who may be injured in their business by reason of the normal and rightful action of working people, the person or persons so injured may bring suit and recover threefold damages.

The case in point which resulted in the decision was the case of a strike of a number of workmen hatters, located in Danbury, Conn. They had failed to reach an agreement with an employer to adopt the trade rules in regard to wages, hours, conditions of employment-the rules and wages and hours prevailing to the extent of seven-eighths of the trade throughout the country of the workingmen. It meant either securing from that employer an agreement to conform to the wages and rules and standards largely prevailing in the trade, or encountering the antagonism of the employers who had already adopted those wages and rules by their insisting upon a lower standard and conditions of employment. The strike ensued in order to persuade the employer to come to this general trade agreement. The organization of hatters sent out a few of its men to several parts of the country to solicit the cooperation of dealers with this Connecticut employer-to write letters to him to persuade him to come into this general agreement; and upon the inability of those dealers to accomplish this with this employer, to persuade these dealers not to make their purchases of this manufacturer of hats.

Workmen were appealed to to wait upon dealers to persuade them to follow this course, and the employer, through the instrumentality of an association of one or two attorneys, with others, perhaps, brought suit in the name of this employer under the provisions of the Sherman antitrust law. The Federal judge, sitting in the circuit court of Connecticut, dismissed the suit, assigning the reason that