Mr. JONES, of Arkansas. I have known Mr. Fuller for some years. He has borne himself like a gentleman and has conducted himself like a man of sense and ability. He has rendered valuable services, to my certain knowledge, to the organizations he represents here, and I think he is entitled to the consideration and respect of every member of this body as well as of the people outside.

The argument presented by him that this new Department of Commerce is more likely to have at its head a man in sympathy with the employers of labor than of labor itself seems to me to be a strong reason why the Department of Labor should be allowed to remain as it has been all this time, and, with these organizations, I see no reason why it should be subordinated to any other. I do not believe that there is any good reason for the head of this Bureau being put in any other department. He can go ahead and do his work as he has done it in the past, with just as much credit as he has done it, and that is the best way, in my opinion, to benefit labor of all kinds, organized as well as unorganized, throughout the country.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the amendment of the Senator from Alabama [Mr. Pettus].

Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. Pettus rose.

Mr. NELSON. If the Senator from Alabama desires to speak, I will withdraw my suggestion.

Mr. BACON. It occurs to me that the Senator from Minnesota can not do that. He has suggested the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COCKRELL, The suggestion of a lack of a quorum necessitates the calling of the roll.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair thinks the rule requires that the roll shall be called. The Secretary will call the roll.

The Secretary called the roll, and the following Senators answered to their names: Aldrich, Bacon, Bard, Berry, Beveridge, Blackburn, Burrows, Burton, Clark of Montana, Clark of Wyoming, Clay, Cockrell, Cullom, Dillingham, Dubois, Elkins, Fairbanks, Foster of Louisiana, Foster of Washington, Frye, Gamble, Hale, Hanna, Heitfeld, Jones of Arkansas, Kearns, Kittredge, Lodge, McLaurin of Mississippi, McLaurin of South Carolina, McMillan, Mallory, Martin, Money, Morgan, Nelson, Patterson, Pettus, Platt of Connecticut, Quay, Rawlins, Scott, Simmons, Simon, Spooner, Taliaferro, Teller, Turner, Vest, Wellington, and Wetmore.

Mr. SPOONER (when the name of Mr. Quarles was called). My colleague [Mr. Quarles] is absent from the Chamber because of illness.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Upon the roll call 51 Senators have answered to their names. A quorum of the Senate is present.

On January 28, 1902, the bill was discussed in the Senate for the last time before going to the House.

Mr. NELSON. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of the bill (S. 569) to establish the Department of Commerce, and that it be considered without the limitation of Rule VIII.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Minnesota asks unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of the bill known as the Department of Commerce bill and that the limitation of five minutes be removed. Is there objection? The Chair hears none.

The Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the consideration of the bill. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by the Senator from Alabama [Mr. Pettus].

Mr. McLAURIN, of Mississippi. Let it be read.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The amendment will be read to the Senate.

The SECRETARY. In lines 18 and 19 on page 3, it is proposed to strike out the words "the Department of Labor and."

Mr. McLAURIN of Mississippi. Mr. President, I do not rise to make a speech on this bill, and I do not intend to do so, but before we vote on the pending amendment I wish to submit a suggestion that occurs to me.

Preparatory to doing that, I will state what I understand to be the proposition of the Senator from Alabama. As I understand the bill, it embraces the Department of Labor in the Department of Commerce and makes it a bureau, and it is the purpose of the amendment to strike this out. I further understand from the discussion of this question that there is now an independent Department of Labor. It has been argued here, especially by the junior Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Quarles] and the

senior Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Elkins] that the purpose of putting the Department of Labor in the Department of Commerce is to give it dignity. In other words, to give dignity to labor, to lift it up. It occurs to me that if it be true that labor and commerce are to go hand in hand, side by side, if they are of equal dignity, there being a Department of Labor already established, which is, according to the statement of Senators, an independent department, responsible to no head and responsible to nobody except to the President, it might be well to make that an executive department and to provide for a secretary of labor and to put a bureau of commerce in the Department of Labor.

In the selection of the secretary of commerce or secretary of labor, as the case might be, if it were a secretary of commerce, the President would naturally have reference to some one engaged in commerce. He would have reference to capital instead of to labor. But if we have a department of labor instead of a department of commerce and put a bureau of commerce in the Department of Labor, then the President, in selecting the head of that Department, would have reference to some man who was engaged particularly in labor.

I desire to read a short extract from the speech of the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Elkins]. He said:

I understand the Commissioner of Labor is responsible to nobody but the President. In the multifarious duties that rest upon the shoulders of the President he can not give these bureaus any attention whatever, and for this reason we believe that it is better to put them in the hands of a responsible Cabinet officer, notwithstanding the claim of the political complexion that might attach to the administration of the Labor Bureau.

The junior Senator from Wisconsin said, speaking of this side of the question:

They propose that labor should dwell in a tent on the outside. We propose to bring the labor interests right into the mansion alongside of commerce, alongside of capital, where they belong, that they may dwell there harmoniously together; that the Labor Bureau shall not be an orphan, entirely discredited and unaffiliated.

Now, if you are going to make the Labor Bureau something besides an orphan, it ought not to be subordinated to the Department of Commerce-that is, if we recognize labor as being of equal dignity to commerce. There is no more reason, as I said before, why the Labor Bureau should be put in the Department of Commerce than that a bureau of commerce should be put in the Department of Labor already established, and it seems to be the idea of the Senator from Wisconsin that the two are of equal dignity. Yet he wants to uplift and elevate and dignify labor by subordinating it to the Department of Commerce, or, rather, by subordinating it to

commerce.

There is one other suggestion I wish to make, and that is in reference to what was said by the Senator from West Virginia. I quote from his language. He said:

I am glad that the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Money] has taken into his particular charge the labor of the South. This is a new departure. It is gratifying that we find that Southern statesmen are beginning to love and care for labor in the South as well as in the North and all over the country.

I can not see that there has been anything said by any man from the South that would justify making this a sectional issue. There has been no time in the history of this country where any man sent to this body or the House of Representatives by the people of the South has not been a friend to labor. They have not only been a friend to labor here, but they have been friends to labor everywhere; labor first in this country, and afterwards they have taken the labor of all the countries into their friendship, but especially have they been a friend to the laborer in the United States. Mr. NELSON. I hope that we will have a vote.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on the amendment of the Senator from Alabama [Mr. Pettus].

Mr. PETTUS. Mr. President, I desire to add a few words to what has been said in reference to this matter.

It has been asserted by the junior Senator from Ohio [Mr. Hanna], and I believe by the senior Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Elkins], that the laboring men of this country did not desire the Department of Labor to remain in its present condition; that they were not opposed to this provision in this bill. Mr. President, I have no doubt that if this were a question of capital, of commerce, of mines and mining, or any such question, the opinion of these distinguished gentlemen would be entitled to all the weight possible, for those are matters with which they no doubt are perfectly familiar; but it seems to me that the opinions of the leaders of these organizations of labor are really entitled to more weight on a question of their individual preference than are the opinions of these two distinguished Senators.

Mr. President, labor is afraid of capital. I do not suppose that any Senator would have the hardihood to say that either of the Senators I have named has any fear of capital whatever. Their opinion on the subject of capital, if it were capital alone, would be entitled to the utmost weight; but as to giving the opinions of laboring men, I do not think they are entitled to as much weight as to those who have charge of such organizations.

The opinion of Mr. Hayes has been published in the Record, it having been read yesterday. That gentleman, whatever may be his character and distinction and connection with labor-and I am told his connection is with one particular organization alone, and that not of the largest-in his own statement has discredited his evidence. If any man has met the absolute approval of the United States Senate, so far as it has been spoken here, it is the distinguished individual from Massachusetts who now occupies the position of Commissioner of the Department of Labor. No man in this Senate has spoken one single word to his discredit. All Senators who have spoken on this subject have given him the utmost credit for his diligent, faithful, and untiring work, and have stated that it has been of great profit to the country. Just see what Mr. Hayes says about the Commissioner of Labor. In the first place, he says that the Department of Labor has been a personal asset of the Commissioner. Then he adds:

It has been of little consequence or value to those whom it was organized to aid, and more than one-half of its reports are false and misleading.

A man who recklessly makes such a statement as that as to the work of so distinguished an officer, who has met the unqualified approval of the Senate, ought not to be credited in his statement on any other subject.

Mr. President, in offering this amendment I had no idea of politics in my head, and I am sorry that the discussion has taken so broad a range as it has. I hope the amendment will be adopted for the good of the country, and especially for the good of those who caused this Department of Labor to be organized in its independent state. It was once connected with an executive department, but Congress in its wisdom chose to remove it and make it an independent organization, subject to the orders of the executive authority of the President and the rule of Congress. Congress passed on it deliberately, and it has since been an independent organization. I think if we go no further in establishing a real executive Department of Labor, that we should at least leave this fragment independent for the benefit of those it was especially designed to aid.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on the amendment submitted by the Senator from Alabama [Mr. Pettus]. [Putting the question.] By sound the "noes" have it. [A pause.] The "noes" have it, and the amendment is rejected.

Mr. BACON. That amendment being rejected, I offer an amendment, to insert the words "and Labor" after the word "Commerce".

Mr. PETTUS. Do I understand that the vote just taken has been taken as in Committee of the Whole?

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. It has been.

Mr. PETTUS. And that a vote by yeas and nays can be had in the Senate on this question?

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. No; if the proposed amendment had been adopted and the words had been stricken out, then a separate vote could have been had in the Senate.

Mr. PETTUS. Then, if not too late, I ask for a vote by yeas and nays on the amendment.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair will entertain the request. The Senator from Alabama asks that the yeas and nays be ordered on the amendment offered by him.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

Mr. BACON. Let the amendment be read.

Mr. BATE. Can we not have the amendment read, Mr. President, before voting upon it?

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The amendment simply proposes to strike from the bill the Department of Labor.

Mr. BACON. As I understand, those who are in favor of retaining the Department of Labor as an independent bureau will vote "yea."

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. They will.

The Secretary proceeded to call the roll.

Mr. PRITCHARD (when his name was called). I have a general pair with the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. McLaurin]. If he were present, I should vote "nay.” The roll call was concluded.

Mr. HANSBROUGH. I have a general pair with the senior Senator from Virginia

[Mr. Daniel], but I take the liberty of transferring that pair to the senior Senator from Iowa [Mr. Allison] and will vote "nay.'

Mr. DEPEW (after having voted in the negative). I have a general pair with the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. McEnery]. As he is not present, I withdraw my

vote.

66

Mr. MCLAURIN, of Mississippi. My colleague [Mr. Money] is paired with the Senator from Iowa [Mr. Dolliver]. If present, my colleague would vote yea." Mr. DOLLIVER (after having voted in the negative). I have a pair with the senior Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Money], but having voted, I desire to withdraw my vote.

Mr. BATE. I desire to say that my colleague [Mr. Carmack] is paired with the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Spooner]. My colleague is necessarily absent this morning.

The result was announced- yeas 19, nays 38; as follows:

Yeas: Bacon, Bate, Berry, Blackburn; Clark, of Montana; Cockrell, Dubois, Gibson, Harris, Hawley, Heitfeld; Jones, of Arkansas; McLaurin, of Mississippi; Mallory, Morgan, Pettus, Rawlins, Taliaferro, and Tillman.

Nays: Bard, Beveridge, Burnham, Burrows, Burton, Clay, Cullom, Deboe, Dillingham, Fairbanks, Foraker, Frye, Gallinger, Gamble, Hanna, Hansbrough, Hoar, Kean, Kittredge, Lodge, McComas, McMillan, Martin, Millard, Mitchell, Nelson, Penrose; Platt, of Connecticut; Platt, of New York; Proctor, Quarles, Quay, Scott, Simmons, Simon, Stewart, Vest, and Wellington.

Not voting: Aldrich, Allison, Bailey, Carmack, Clapp; Clark, of Wyoming; Culberson, Daniel, Depew, Dietrich, Dolliver, Elkins; Foster, of Louisiana; Foster, of Washington; Hale; Jones, of Nevada; Kearns, McCumber, McEnery; McLaurin, of South Carolina; Mason, Money, Patterson, Perkins, Pritchard, Spooner, Teller, Turner, Warren, and Wetmore.

So the amendment of Mr. Pettus was rejected.

Mr. BACON. Mr. President

Mr. NELSON. I suggest to the Senator from Georgia that there is another amendment pending. Let us dispose of that before proceeding further.

Mr. BACON. If it is one that will lead to no debate, I have no objection.

Mr. NELSON. I do not think it will lead to any debate, but I do not know.

Mr. BACON. I will yield for that purpose; but I should like to get my amendment offered right in connection with the particular matter which has been pending, while Senators who are to vote upon it are still present.

Mr. NELSON. Very well.

Mr. BACON. I will offer the amendment, at any rate, and if the Senator shall then desire I will consent that it be passed over.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is no amendment pending. There was one amendment printed and laid on the table.

Mr. BACON. If there is no amendment pending, I now offer an amendment, after the words "Department of Commerce," in line 4 of section 1, on page 1, to insert the words “and Labor,” and also-I have not had the opportunity or the time to look through the entire bill-wherever the words "Department of Commerce” are found I ask that a similar amendment may be made, so that instead of "Department of Commerce" wherever it occurs in the bill it will read "the Department of Commerce and Labor."

Mr. NELSON. I will make one suggestion to the Senator from Georgia, and I think that will be better still. This bill was entitled originally "A bill to establish a Department of Commerce and Industry." I think it would be well to make the title "the Department of Commerce, Industry, and Labor." Will the Senator accept such an amendment?

Mr. GALLINGER. That title is too long.

Mr. BACON. I have no objection in the world to it, if it is not thought to be too cumbersome.

Mr. GALLINGER. It is very cumbersome.

Mr. LODGE. Undoubtedly.

Mr. NELSON. I have no objection to the amendment of the Senator from Georgia. I simply proposed the other as a suggestion to him.

Mr. HALE. I hope the Senator from Minnesota will not agree to add another word to the title. Our invariable practice has been to have a single descriptive word. Each head of a department is the secretary of the department of that single name. We have not gone into the cumbrous fashion that other people have in creating their departments. I hope the Senator in charge of the bill will modify it by adding the words and Labor," so as to make it the Department of Commerce and Labor; that he will not go further and encumber it by adding "Industry."

Mr. NELSON. I will say to the Senator from Maine and the Senator from Georgia that I will agree to that, and will consent that these amendments be put into the bill.

Mr. HALE. While I am on the floor, Mr. President, I wish to withdraw the amendment I offered the other day, including the Interstate Commerce Commission and making it a part of this new Department.

Mr. BACON. If the Senator will pardon me a moment, do I understand that the amendments offered by me have been agreed to?

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. They have not been.
Mr. BACON. I think they should be first agreed to.

Mr. GALLINGER. They should be agreed to. There is no objection to them.

Mr. HALE. I thought they had been agreed to.

Mr. BACON. The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Nelson] consented to them, but they have never been announced from the Chair as having been agreed to.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Will the Senator from Maine allow the Chair to put the question?

Mr. HALE. Certainly.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on the amendments offered by the Senator from Georgia [Mr. Bacon], inserting in the bill after the words "Department of Commerce," wherever they occur, the words "and Labor.”

The amendments were agreed to.

Mr. HALE. When, the other day, I offered the amendment to which I have referred, several Senators very earnestly indicated their acceptance of it and desired to vote for it; but I was very much impressed by the suggestions which came in answer to a question by the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Platt] as to what would be the effect if the Interstate Commerce Commission were put into this new Department as a bureau, as I proposed. The answer was that it would probably destroy its usefulness. I should not want to do that; and, reflecting upon the matter since then, I think it would be unsafe to disturb that Commission.

I do not recognize the Commission as a judicial tribunal with the right to promulgate decisions as a court, and I have so said; but it deals undoubtedly with commerce, the interstate commerce of the country, and in a way its acts are cognate to the purposes of this bill. I should not, however, want to be a party to anything that would impair its real efficiency, because it is undoubtedly doing some good. Rather than incur the risk of doing that, Mr. President, I withdraw the amendment which I proposed.

Mr. CULLOM. Mr. President

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from Maine yield to the Senator from Illinois?

Mr. HALE. Certainly.

Mr. CULLOM. I simply want to say that I expected to take part in this discussion if the amendment remained in the bill or if the Interstate Commerce Commission was attempted to be put upon the bill, as I feel very sure that it would practically destroy the usefulness of the Commission.

I want to say to the Senator that it was placed in connection with the Interior Department when the bill creating it became a law, but it was found by the Secretary of the Interior, as well as by the Commission and some of us in Congress, that it worked very badly. Judge Cooley, who was then chairman of the Commission, and the Secretary of the Interior agreed that the Commission should not remain in that Department, and it was taken out so as to give the Commission opportunity to exercise the functions placed in its hands without the embarrassment of the Interior Department as a political organization.

The Commission has been run upon the theory, and I think in fact, of being a nonpartisan body. While it is not a judicial body in a technical sense, it is performing in a way judicial acts; that is to say, it passes upon and determines questions, subject, of course, to the decisions of the courts, if the parties involved see proper to take an appeal. As one of the Supreme Court judges said, the Commission is a sort of a referee of the circuit courts of the United States. But I do not care to take up the time of the Senate on this subject, as the Senator from Maine has withdrawn the amendment.

Mr. HALE. It was such considerations as have been stated which have induced me to withdraw the amendment. I hope I shall never be in a condition where, if I find I am wrong in anything I have proposed, I am not willing to recede. I think I was wrong in offering the amendment, and I withdraw it.

Mr. CULLOM. The Senator is always desirous of doing right.

I wish to add a further word while I am upon the floor. I am very anxious that this bill shall pass and that the Department of Commerce shall be created. I think