Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1906-03-22
Confer With Pres. Roose-
welt and Speaker Cannon.
Former Agrees on Some Points
But Differs on Others.
Latter Says: "You're Not Whole Shooting
Match, But Good Share Of It."

talked to them about their urgent re-
quest for the enactment of labor meas
ines now pending before Congress.
Samuel Gompers, president, and
Frank Morrison, secretary, of the Am
crican Federation of Labor, headed the
delegation, which consisted of about
hundred members of the executive
council of the American Federation of
Labor and officials of the organizations
which comprise the federation.
Secretary Morrison read to the Presi-
dent memorial! of the executive coun-
Gil of the American Federation, urging
action on the various demands for leg
islation being made by the organized
labor interests of the country. The
memorial dwelt particularly on the s.
hour law and it's enforcement on gov
eminent work including the Panama
canal; and the immigration laws, es
pecially the Chinese exclusion laws.
President Roosevelt, after listening
TO the statements replied in an extend
ed address.
On the subjects Of general immigra
ton and the exclusion of Chinese
labor, the President indicated that he
was in practical accord with them but
them radically.
The text of the Presidents remarks,
as given out at the White House this
morning. follows:
"Mr. Gompcrs, if your body objects
to the passage OF the proposed anti
injunction bill, / have no question that
you can stop it for there is not a cap
ltaliSt concerned who simply as capt.
talist is not against il; though 1 be-
lieve that a goodly number both of
capitalists and wage workers who are
concerned primarily as citizens, favor
it. 1t goes as far as l personally think
It SHOULD go, in limiting the right Of
injunction. l do not believe it has any
chance of passing because there has
been great criticism in both houses of
Congress against the attitude of the
adminstra ton in going so far as we
have gone. Personally, l think the pro-
posed law a most admirable one and
very sincerely wish it would be put
| through.
AS for the right of injunction, it is
absolutely necessary to have this pow
er lodged in the courts, though of
course any abuse of the power is
strongly to be reprobated. During the
four and a half years that have been
President l do not remember an in
stance where the government has in
volled the right Of injunction against a
combination of laborerS. We have in
vOked it certainly score of times
against combinations of capital;
think possibly oftener. But understand
me, gentlemen, if 1 ever thought it
necessary, if 1 thought combination
OF laborers were doing wrong 1 would
apply for an injunction against them
just as quick as against so many cap
ita!ists.
"Now, I come to the general subject
OF your petition. | wish in the frs
place to state my regret that you did
not divorce SO much OF the petition as
refers to the action Of the Executive
because l cannot consider any petition
that YOU make that reflects upon the
| coordinate branch of the government
or that makes any charges VIVA tcver
against it. Therefore, IN what l do say
shall limit myself solely to what you
assert in reference to the acts of tn
| Executive.
you speak Of the S-hour law. Your
| criticism. 50 far as it relates to the FIX
| ecutivc bears upon the signature of the
| approximation bill containing the money
| for expenditure on the Panama canal
| with the proviso that the S-hour law
shall not apply there. II your state is
| intended to mean that no opportunity
| was given for a hearing before me, then
| the statement is not in accordance with
! the facts. There was ample opportunity
| that enyone could, but not single re-
| quest for such a hearing came to me-
! | received, however, some hundreds of
| kilograms and: letters requesting the
| veto of the entire appropriation bill be-
| cause it contained that proviso. Frank
| ly, l found it difficult to believe that
| you were writing and tclegraphing
| with any kind of knowledge of the con-
| ditiuns in the case. l believe emphat-
! icaliy in the S-hour law for our own
| people in our own country. But the con-
| ditions of labor, such as we have to
work with in the tropics, are so abso-
lutclv different that there is no posi-
| bic anoloSy between them and an s.
| hour law for the Panama canal is an
| absurdity. Everyone of you knows that
| we cannot get white labor. cannot get
! labor of the United States to go down
! to Panama and work. We are driven to
the extremities in the effort to get any
kind of labor at all. You hamper me in
the effort to get for you what I think
you ought to have in connection with
| the S-hour law when you make a re-
| quest that is indefensible and to grant
| which would mean indefinite delay and
| injury to the work on the isthrlus.
| las to the violations of the S-hour
law. Mr.. Morrison. you give me no
Specifications. At your earliest con-
venience, please lay before me in de-
! tail any complaints you have of viola
tons of the S-hour law. Where
have power / will see that the law is
obeyed. All ask is that you give me
the cases.
/ Now. about the Chinese exclusion
| The number of Chinese now in this
country is, as I remember Alright, some
| 60 900 or 10000. So far from their
being a great influx of the Chinese the
| fact is that the number has steadily
decreased. There is no appreciable in
fux of Chinese laborers and there is
not the slightest or most remote dan