The Montgomery advertiser., 1906-03-22
ROOSEVELT
 TO G0MPERS Frank Speech by the
 President. ORGANIZED LABOR LEADERS Cal at White Honse in Connection
 With Petition. mr. Roosevelt Declares That An Hour Law On the Pansmn Canal Job would Prove An Ab-
 surdity.

washington, March 21.--President Roosevelt received a body of Represen- tatives of organized labor this after noon at the White House and talked to them about their urgent request for the enactment of labor measures now pend ing before Congress.
 Samuel Gompers, president, and Frank Morrison, secretary, of the American Federation of Labor, headed the delegation, which consisted of about 100 members or the executive council of the American Federation oi Labor and Officials of the organiza- tions which comprise the Federation. Practically; all of the important labor organizations of the country were rep resented.
 The men called by appointment at the N executive offices at 2:SO D. m. and were Nreceiv ed soon afterwards by President Roosevelt in his private office and the adjoining cabinet room. Secretary Mor- rison read to the President memorial of the executive council of the Ameri- can Federation, urging action upon the various demands for legislation being made by the organized labor inter ests of the country. The memorial dwelt particularly on the eight-hour law and its enforcement on govern rnent work including the Panama Canal and the migration laws, and especially the Chinese exclusion laws.
 President Gompers and James Dun can, of Quincy, Mass, first vice. presi- dent Of the Federation and President of the Granits Cutters Union, followed with brief addresses on the lines of the memorial.
 President Roosevelt, after listening to the statement replied in an extend cd address. On the subjects Of general immigration and the exclusion of. Chi r1,-o fvaA9 cd he was III practical accord with them, but on some other matters he differed from them radically. The text of the Presidents remarks as given out at the White House this evening follows:
 speech of the President.
 MT. Gompers: If your body objects to the passage of the proposed anti iniunction bin. have no qHestioh that you can stop fl, for there is not a capi- taIist concerned who simply as a capi- fallst is not against it: though l be- Iieve, that a goodly number both or capitalists and wage workers who are concerned primarily as citizens, favor it. The law was worked over and substantially whipped into its present shane at a number of conferences be- tween representatives of railway or ganizations, of the Department of Jus flee and of the Bureau of Corpora- tions with me. It goes as far as per gonalIy think it ought to go in limiting inc right of injunction; at any rate. no arguments have hitherto been advanced which make me think it should go far- ther.
 T do not believe it has any chance of ,nassing, because there has been great criticism in both houses of Con- gress against the attitude of the ad- ministration in going so far as we have gone, and if you think 1t IS not far enough, why you will have no earthly difficulty in killing the bill. Personally I think the proposed law a most admirable one and very sincerely wish it would be put through.
 .As for the right of injunction, 1t Is absolutely necessary to have this pow CT 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 nresident I do not remember an in- stance where the Government has in voked the right of injunction against a combination of laborers. We have invoked it certainly a score of times against combinations of capital l think possibly oftener. But under stand me, gentlemen, If l ever thought it necessary, if I thought combina- tion of laborers were doing wrong l would apply for an injunction against them just as quick as against so many capitalists.
 CritIeises the Petition.
 Now l come to the general subject of your petition. I wish in the hrst place to state my regret that you dlu not divorce so much of the petition as refers to the action of the executive from so much as refers to the action of the legislative branch, because l cannot consider any petition that you make that reflects upon the co-ordi- nate branch of the Government or that makes any charges whatever against if. I would not even receive 1t save for inc fact that in part 1t affects the exocutiye Therefore in what 1 have to say. I shall limit myself solely to what vou assert in reference to the acts of the executive.
 .sYou speak of the eight hour law Your criticism so far as 1t relates to fbe executive bears upon the signature of the appropriation bill containing tha voonav for expenditure on the Panama Canoi with the proviso that the eight hour law shall net there apply. If youl statement is intended to mean that nc onnortunity was given for hearing tafore that, this statement is not in nessorSafce OesorS with tho facts There was smnIe opportunity that any one could he bea d, but -ot a single request fot sucb A heari'.g came to me"
 ~ received, however, some hundreds o telearams and letters requesting tSs veto of the entire appropriation buI because it contains that proviso. TranJxlv I found it difficult to believe tbsf VOL were writing and telegraphing ,Ii+S any kind of knowledge of the con S,tions in the case. I believe emphat- joaIIv in the eight hour law for our oyvn neople in our own country. But tba conditions of labor such as we have to work with in the tropics are so absolutely different that there is nc
 osSihle analogy between them. and an eight hour law for the Panama canal Is an absurdity.
 ..Every one of you know that we cor not get white labor; can not get Sahor of the Unite dstates to go down to Panama and work. We are driven to extrenities in the effort to get any kind of labor at alL Just at the mo- nent we are working chiefly with ne- ero labor from the West Indies. The usual result in the employment oi these meh is that Monday and Tuesday they werk fairly we'll; Wednesday and