260 



CONGRESS. (LABOK QUESTIONS.) 



the negative vote being exclusively Democrat- 

 ic and only a few Democrats voting in the af- 

 firmative. June 23, on the question of con- 

 sidering the rule, the vote stood 132 to 116; 

 but the Republicans prevented a final vote by 

 filibustering. 



Congress passed 747 pension bills, of which 

 the President approved 491, while 154 became 

 laws without signature, 101 were vetoed, and 

 one remained unsigned at the time of adjourn- 

 ment. The private pension bills vetoed by the 

 President were the subject of much warm dis- 

 cussion. Many of the veto messages were se- 

 vere, impugning the action of Congress and 

 the motives of the pension-seekers ; and in 

 every case where bills originated in the Senate 

 and in some where they originated in the 

 House, the Committees on Pensions made re- 

 ports setting forth facts to show that the Presi- 

 dent had acted under a misapprehension. In 

 several cases attempts were made to pass spe- 

 cial pension bills over the President's veto, and 

 though a majority in Senate and House seemed 

 disposed to do so, there was only one case, 

 that of Joseph Romiser, in which the veto was 

 overridden. The vote on the re-passage of the 

 bill in the House was 175 to 38, and the vote 

 in the Senate 50 to 0. 



Labor Questions. May 9, 1886, by a vote of 

 251 to 8, the House passed a bill prohibiting 

 the letting out on contract of the labor of crim- 

 inals incarcerated in any prison for violation 

 of any of the laws of the United States, mak- 

 ing such letting out of prison-labor a misde- 

 meanor punishable by imprisonment for from 

 one to three years, or a fine of from $500 to 

 $1,000, for each offense. In the Senate the 

 measure did not progress beyond a reference 

 to a committee. 



In the Senate, June 1, 1886, Mr. Miller, of 

 New York, moved to consider the bill making 

 eight hours a day's labor for letter-carriers, 

 and declaring that there shall be no reduction 

 of their wages on account of the limitation of 

 their hours of labor. The bill was taken up 

 and passed without a division, It did not come 

 to a vote in the House. 



In the House, April 3, 1886, the Committee 

 on Labor reported a bill " to provide a method 

 for settling controversies and differences be- 

 tween railroad corporations engaged in inter- 

 state and territorial transportation of property 

 or passengers and their employes." The bill 

 provided that, in cases where a difference oc- 

 curs between such a railroad as described in 

 the title and its employes, which difference 

 may hinder, impede, or obstruct the transpor- 

 tation of property or passengers, upon written 

 agreement to submit the difference to arbitra- 

 tion the railroad company shall choose one ar- 

 bitrator and the employes another, both of 

 whom shall select a third, the three together 

 to constitute a board of arbitration. The arbi- 

 trators are to act under oath, and to have pow- 

 er to summon witnesses, compel attendance, 

 examine books and papers, with authority akin 



to that of United States commissioners. A 

 majority of the board may give an award ; and 

 the board is to organize, at a point as near as 

 possible to the origin of the difficulty, and hear 

 and determine the matters of difference sub- 

 mitted to them, receiving statements from the 

 parties, examining them on oath, and allowing 

 them the advantage of counsel. The award, 

 when made, is to be filed with the United 

 States Commissioner of Labor Statistics. Any 

 employes engaged in such controvery shall be 

 entitled to choose one or more persons to rep- 

 resent them either in selecting an arbitrator or 

 before the board. Allowances are made for 

 the payment of arbitrators, witnesses, and mar- 

 shals engaged in the settlement of the con- 

 troversy, the expenses in no single case to ex- 

 ceed $1,000. The measure was debated at 

 length in the House. It was criticised by con- 

 servative members as unconstitutional ; the 

 labor-men objected to it as worthless. Mr. 

 Foran, of Ohio, said in their behalf: 



14 Without stopping to inquire into the con- 

 stitutionality of such a law. the principle in- 

 volved is so abhorrent to every sense of jus- 

 tice and right that I recoil from it with horror. 

 I am not prepared to give the judges of the 

 courts of the United States the right to im- 

 prison men for contempt, to coerce by the mili- 

 tary arm of the Government men who are 

 honestly contending for a principle they believe 

 to be right. Compulsory arbitration would so 

 fetter and shackle labor that its freedom and 

 its right to organize for self-protection would 

 eventually disappear. As to the bill now be- 

 fore the House, which is a substitute for the 

 bill introduced by the gentleman from Missouri 

 (Mr. O'Neill) yesterday, I am not prepared to 

 say that I will vote against it ; I may possibly 

 vote for it, for the same reason that I would 

 drink a glass of water it might do me no good, 

 but it would certainly do me no harm. It 

 will injure nobody to pass this bill ; we may 

 safely vote for it. If it will not benefit labor, 

 it certainly will not injure it. It is a very 

 harmless measure, but there is no arbitration 

 in it. There is less of the principle of arbitra- 

 tion in this bill than there is flesh upon the 

 dried and bleached bones of a doctor's anatom- 

 ical skeleton. The gentleman from Pennsyl- 

 vania (Mr. Kelley) thinks some one may be de- 

 ceived by it. I think that is hardly possible. 



" The trouble with this bill is it accomplishes 

 nothing because it provides for nothing that 

 does not now exist. Take the present diffi- 

 culty in the Southwest, for instance. Suppose 

 this bill was in force as a law when that trouble 

 arose, and the Knights of Labor submitted to 

 Mr. Gould a proposition to arbitrate the mat- 

 ters in controversy, would he have acceded ? 

 We know he would not. He was asked to ar- 

 bitrate, but refused. If he now partially con- 

 sents to such a course, it is because he has be- 

 come convinced that it is to his interest to do 

 so, not because he favors the principle of ar- 

 bitration or because he has any love for the 



