Organization and Law of the Department of Commerce and Labor

should devote its whole energy-those are the words that he used-to that end. Now, energy means something more than simply interest.

I wish to stop there for a moment and digress to say that these people who have asked for the creation of this Department are employers of labor, and should this bill become a law, or this new Department be created, it does not matter whether you folks see fit to strike the Labor Department from it or not. Every member of this committee has had experience enough in political affairs to know that these influences which have brought about the passage of this bill can consistently claim of the President that they are entitled to recognition in the selection of this man to be placed at the head of this Department.

They do do it; they do do it in the other Departments. When there is a vacancy on the Interstate Commerce Commission, for instance, the railroads of the country get together and select a man, and, usually, he is put there to fill that vacancy. And we feel that even if you allow this bill to go through as passed by the Senate, calling this the Department of Commerce and Labor, they will claim the right-not the absolute right-but a right to this extent, at least, that the President will listen to their claims. We do not dispute that right. If they have brought about this agitation that creates the Department, I will not say that they have not a right to do that.

Now, then, so far, I want to say that a man who represents those interests, if he is selected to represent this Department in the Cabinet, although he may be honest, and I have reason to believe that he would be-we have no reason to believe that any man is otherwise until we find him so—is not competent to represent labor. He is not competent to sit down at the Cabinet table with the President when something very vital is up before that council in which labor is interested, and to speak. It is simply that he is like the laboring man-a man of environments. His whole life has been spent in something else-in furthering the interests of employers-and consequently he is not capable to speak for labor, even though he felt honestly disposed to do so, and I believe that he would be.

And during the examination of Mr. Fuller by the committee, this colloquy ensued: Mr. RICHARDSON. In that connection, do you believe you represent the entire sentiment of labor in this country when you say that this Labor Department ought not to be put under a Commerce Department?

Mr. FULLER. I think so, from my experience among the men and my talks with them.

Mr. DAVIS. Do you not think it would be unfortunate, both for labor and for capital, to undertake to combine them in one general head this way?

Mr. FULLER. I do.

Mr. DAVIS. Do you not think it would produce future distrust and bickerings?

Mr. FULLER. I do. As I stated yesterday, Mr. Davis, I said that a man representing capital was not competent to represent labor in this Department; that I also thought that the ordinary representative labor man could not represent all of the interests that are merged under this Department of Commerce.

Mr. DAVIS. Aside from that, Mr. Fuller, do you not think when the President commenced to form his Cabinet there would naturally be a contest between capital and labor as to which one of the two classes would capture this Cabinet office?

Mr. FULLER. I think so.

Mr. DAVIS. And do you not think if the President should appoint a capitalist who is not thoroughly familiar with labor conditions it would displease labor?

Mr. FULLER. It certainly would.

Mr. DAVIS. And that if he should select a laboring man it would displease capital?

Mr. FULLER. It certainly would. After I had concluded my remarks on this point yesterday a representative of capital came to me and said he thought I was right on it.

Mr. RICHARDSON. Do you think from the spirit and trend of this bill that the manufacturing interests would have largely the advantage in securing a Secretary?

Mr. FULLER. I think so. I stated that yesterday. If this Department is created they can claim the credit for its creation, because they are the ones who have asked for it.

Now, Mr. Chairman, these extracts which I have read speak more forcefully than I could possibly do.

Mr. HEPBURN. Will my colleague permit me to ask a question?

Mr. DAVIS, of Florida. Certainly.

Mr. HEPBURN. The gentleman stated, or read, I think, the sources of information that one of these gentlemen had as to the conditions of labor. Now, I want to ask you if any of the men who appeared before that committee professed to have been authorized by any organized body of labor? They said they represented that number and this number and the other number, but did any man say that any set of men had sent them here?

Mr. DAVIS, of Florida. In reply to my friend I will say that so far as anybody coming before us with credentials, no; so far as any man coming before us exhibiting authority to represent any particular body, no. But they who spoke for labor spoke with as much authority as they who spoke before us in the interest of commerce. And my friend, the distinguished chairman of the committee, knows that they were credible gentlemen; they said they represented labor in sentiment, and I believed and believe they did.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I have said all that I care to say on this bill. I want to repeat that if the word "labor" in the title and all through this bill, wherever it occurs, can be stricken out, as will be moved by my friend from Alabama [Mr. Richardson] as an amendment to the bill, I shall have no objection to its passage. I shall be glad to cast my vote for the measure. I am willing to see the commercial interests of this country represented in the President's family. I repeat that, in my judgment, this great interest ought to be represented there; but I do not believe that, when labor has been standing up for more than thirty years asking for a representative in the President's family, we ought to insult that element by making the present Department of Labor what will be tantamount to a mere bureau in the

Department of Commerce. I hope the House of Representatives will not go on record as doing so. [Loud applause.]

Mr. RICHARDSON, of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I now yield five minutes to my colleague [Mr. Clayton].

Mr. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I had not intended to take any part in this discussion, but the question propounded by the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Hepburn], the chairman of the committee, who reported this bill, can be easily answered by reference to the report of the committee accompanying this measure. On page 10 of the report I think that, so far as he is concerned and so far as concerns the majority who have reported this bill, his question is answered, against what I take to be his contention.

The distinguished chairman seems, by his questions, to dispute the proposition that organized labor is opposed to being taken under the wing of this so-called Department of Commerce. The distinguished chairman by his question challenges the assertion of the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Davis] that organized labor is opposed to playing "second fiddle" to the Department of Commerce. Organized labor, so far as any member here knows from private correspondence or private conversation, is opposed to this measure. It does not lie in the mouth of the chairman of the committee to dispute that proposition. I read now from the report of the committee:

There has been opposition to this proposition. A majority of the leaders of organized labor who have expressed any opinion upon the subject have opposed the placing of the present Department of Labor in the new Department.

There is an admission that the majority of the leaders of organized labor who have expressed any opinion upon the subject are opposed to placing this Department of Labor in the Department of Commerce.

Mr. HEPBURN. Will the gentleman allow me a moment?
Mr. CLAYTON. Certainly.

Mr. HEPBURN. My recollection is that four gentlemen representing labor, or connected with labor organizations, appeared before our committee. The gentleman is correct in saying that three of them expressed their opinions in the way he has stated. The point I was trying to make-as the gentleman, if he had paid close attention to my remarks, might perhaps have known-was this: While I do not dispute the fact that certain gentlemen came there and assumed to speak for labor, I say that no man came there with credentials or pretending that any body of labor had sent him to represent their views. That is what I said.

Mr. CLAYTON, I was not present, of course, at the hearing of the committee; I do not know personally about this matter; but I take it that what the gentleman says is true. I can not doubt it. That, however, Mr. Chairman, does not affect the controversy. The fact is-and this report shows it to be a fact; every man who has discussed this proposition admits it to be a fact-that organized labor is opposed to being placed in the Department of Commerce.

Now, the report of the committee undertakes to answer that fact. It concedes it to be a fact, and tries to argue away from it. Now, let us admit this fact. Let us not inquire into whether these men who testified before the committee had credentials properly signed or whether they meet all the red-tape requirements of the most fastidious gentleman who has served on committees of credentials in conventions. [Here the hammer fell.]

Mr. CLAYTON. Just one more minute.

Mr. RICHARDSON, of Alabama. I yield five minutes more to the gentleman from Alabama.

Mr. CLAYTON. Thank you. The gentleman admits in his report the fact to be that organized labor is opposed to being taken into the Department of Commerce, and the admission which I have already quoted is strengthened by the argument which is made in the report in an endeavor to nullify that position of organized labor, for the report goes on to say:

The opposition has been based upon the idea that whoever might be selected as Secretary of the new Department would be a representative of capitalistic influence and not of labor. In view of the opposition of some of the labor leaders to the inclusion of the Department of Labor in the proposed new Department, your committee has given the subject careful and considerate examination. We are satisfied that the opposition is based upon a natural misunderstanding of the situation and a misapprehension as to the effect of such action.

The Department of Labor as now organized has its duties defined by statute. The statute provides that it shall be presided over by a Commissioner of Labor, to be appointed by the President. It is not proposed to make any change in these provisions of the statute. If the Department of Labor is included in the new Department, the Secretary of the new Department will not have the power to appoint the Commissioner of Labor, nor will he have power to prevent the Commissioner of Labor from discharging the duties now imposed upon that office by the present act of Congress.

It is impossible to see, therefore, how there can come any injurious effect from including the Labor Department in the new Department of Commerce and Labor. As the law now exists the President can, at any time, name some one for appointment as Commissioner of Labor who may be adverse to

labor and favorable to capital as against labor. It is not likely that any President will ever do this, and it is equally unlikely that he would do it if the Department of Labor were made a part of the Department of Commerce and Labor.

Now, Mr. Chairman, that admits the contention of my colleague from Alabama [Mr. Richardson] and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Davis], that the laboring people are opposed to having the Department of Labor merged into the Department of Commerce. They are jealous of surrendering whatever independence that Department may have to an officer who may be controlled entirely by commercial influences, and who may not be in touch and sympathy with the great laboring masses of the country. Therefore I shall support the amendment offered by my colleague from Alabama. The Department of Labor, instead of being a mere bureau in another department, subordinate to some Cabinet officer, ought to have an officer in the Cabinet. The laboring interests of this country are as important as the interests of

commerce.

Indeed, Mr. Chairman, everybody knows that we could not conduct commerce, that the great industries of the country would stand still, were it not for the laboring people, and they are jealous of the supervision of people who may not be in sympathy with them. The better proposition would have been, and the better proposition now is, to defer to their wishes and not only to create this Department of Commerce, if you wish it, and if that is to be created, to create also a Department of Labor, with a Cabinet officer, so that labor may have a representative in the Cabinet to voice the wishes and the sentiments of that great class of our people. [Applause.] Mr. RICHARDSON, of Alabama. Will the gentleman from Iowa now use some of his time?

Mr. HEPBURN. I yield twenty minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Corliss]. Mr. CORLISS. Mr. Chairman, I am very heartily in favor of the general provisions of this bill. When the last Department was created, in 1862, our people were principally engaged in agriculture. That was the great branch of industry in our country, and the creation of the Agricultural Department has demonstrated the great usefulness of such branches of our executive office. Since the creation of that Department we have constructed vast railroads, telegraph, and telephone lines, until every part of our great country is supplied with rapid communication and transportation. Since that time there has been developed in almost every city, village, and hamlet in our country institutions for the manufacture of our natural resources, until the products of the farm and the factory far exceed the capacity of our people to consume them. We are to-day forced into a greater field. Hereafter we must pursue a broader view and endeavor to expand our influence in foreign commerce. From the time when the first nation was created down to the present time commerce has been king.

All things created by God or man have their infancy and grow and expand until they reach the zenith of their influence, then wither and die. This is as true of nations as of men. Therefore if our nation is to go on and its power and influence in the world is to be extended, we must meet the growing demands of the people by the creation of a Department of Commerce to assist its growth. The greatest interests, influence, and wealth of the people to-day are embraced in industrial enterprises and commerce. I therefore think that this measure is most opportune and wise.

Now, with reference to the Department of Labor being incorporated, there has developed in this country an aggregation of capital, a combination of interests, many of which are wise and beneficial, and they are associated intimately with labor. The organization of capital has not gone forward more rapidly than the organization of labor. The effect of these two combinations of labor and capital upon our great interests may be likened unto the two hands of man. Capital is necessary and labor is indispensable to the success of our people and our nation. Great progress has been made recently toward the union of these great interests. The creation of the Civic Federation and the establishment of the Coal Commission by the President are doing much toward the advancement of the interest of labor.

I appreciate the fact that many of the labor organizations do not desire the Bureau of Labor to be incorporated as a part of the Commerce Department, and I hesitate to vote against their wish in the matter. I believe, however, that if labor is to go on and derive the just benefits to which it is entitled, it must be recognized as a part of the industrial and commercial interests of our country, inseparably and forever united, and I look forward to the time when capital and labor engaged in all character of industries and commerce will be united in harmony and their differences settled by the just tribunal of arbitration.

It is suggested that a Secretary of Commerce and Labor appointed under this measure might be disposed to favor commerce rather than labor; but our recent experience under President Roosevelt leads me to think that under the present

Administration, at least, labor will be protected and her interest guarded far better than in a separate bureau.

We have gone on for years appropriating vast sums of money for the improvement of our rivers and harbors. We have been occupied for many years in the discussion of the great isthmian canal, and have authorized the expenditure of millions of dollars to develop this highway of commerce, and the time is ripe for the extension of our foreign trade and the expansion of our commerce with foreign countries. No department of our Government to-day has jurisdiction thereof or can give to our industrial and commercial interests the information that is necessary to enable our people to take advantage of the markets of foreign countries.

In the last session of Congress we appropriated, I think, nearly half a million dollars for the benefit of a private or State institution located at Philadelphia, for the purpose of building up a bureau of information to enlighten our manufacturers with reference to foreign markets. If that was wise, it is certainly better that the Government expend such money in a bureau or in a department especially created for the benefit of commerce and labor.

Mr. Chairman, there is one provision of this bill to which I must make objection. Section 6 authorizes the creation of a new Bureau of Insurance. The business of insurance is not commerce. A contract of insurance is not an instrumentality of commerce, and the creation of this Bureau is unnecessary and, in my judgment, unwise. The insurance companies of our country, located in different States, are properly regulated by State laws. There is no complaint that any investor in insurance, whether it be life, marine, or fire, is not furnished with all the information necessary with reference to the stability of the corporation, the character of its policies, statistics with reference to losses, etc., in the statistics now published by the corporations themselves. You might as well create a bureau for the investigation of the value of securities that our people desire to purchase, such as railroad bonds and industrial stocks and things of that kind into which people put their money.

I want to call the attention of the House to the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States with reference to insurance. Congress has no power to regulate the insurance business. It is a useless expenditure of the public money. Let me read from the opinion of Justice Field with reference to any kind of insurance:

Issuing a policy of insurance is not a transaction of commerce. The policies are simple contracts of indemnity against loss by fire entered into between the corporations and the assured for a consideration paid by the latter. These contracts are not articles of commerce in any proper meaning of the word. They are not subjects of trade and barter offered in the market as something having an existence and value independent of the parties to them. They are not commodities to be shipped or forwarded from one State to another and then put up for sale. They are like other personal contracts between parties which are completed by their signature and the transfer of the consideration. Such contracts are not interstate transactions, though the parties may be domiciled in different States. The policies do not take effect-are not executed contracts-until delivered by the agent in Virginia.

That opinion was written in the case of Paul v. Virginia.

Mr. HEPBURN. When?

Mr. CORLISS. It is reported in 8 Wallace, 168. I can not tell the year when it was rendered.

Mr. PERKINS. Back in the sixties, I think.

Mr. CORLISS. I am reading from 155 United States Reports, in which that opinion is quoted, and that was of later date, 1894. Justice White, now on the Supreme Bench, in rendering the opinion in the case of Hooper v. California, said:

The business of insurance is not commerce. The contract of insurance is not an instrumentality of commerce. The making of such a contract is a mere incident of commercial intercourse, and in this respect there is no difference whatever between insurance against fire and insurance against "the perils of the sea."

I will also call attention to the case of Fire Insurance Company against New York (119 U. S. Reports, p. 110):

Insurance is not commerce; it is not a contract over which Congress has any control under the Constitution.

Why, then, burden the people by a creation of a department and the appointment of officers and the payment of salaries merely for the purpose of giving employment to some one? It can have no beneficial effect. Congress can not regulate it. If you find that the great insurance companies of New York are speculating on Wall Street, and thereby endangering the interests of the policy holder, Congress has no power to stop it. Congress has no jurisdiction over it. Therefore I submit that paragraph in this bill should be stricken out.

I believe that the Department of Commerce will become the greatest power and influence for good of any department of our country. I would perhaps personally go further, and incorporate other interests. The bill as it came from the Senate incorporated too many bureaus, and the committee has been wise in narrowing the

commerce.

« 이전 계속 »

도서

Organization and Law of the Department of Commerce and Labor: Prepared Under ...