The Barre daily times. (Barre, Vt.) 1897-1959, 1912-08-30
LETTERS TO
THE EDITOR
CONG. pLUMLEY's RECORD.
As Furnished Sec. Alex. Ironside by Sec.
Frank Morrison, A. F. of L.

Dear Sir.
Please find enclosed the record of Con
gresham Frank Plumley as furnished
me by Sec'y Frank Morrison of this
American Federation of Labor. 1t is un'
fortunate that Congressman Plumley':
name should have gone forth as being in
opposition to the eight -hour bill, along
with Senator's Dillingham; and Page, az
we have no mention of such opposition
in his record. The rest will speak foi
itself
Sincerely yours,
Alex Ironside,
Secretary of VT. State Branch
OF the American Federation
of Labor.
Washington, d. c.. June 10, 1912.
Mr.. Alexander Ironside, Secretary,
Vermont State Branch,
SO Ayers street, Barre, Vermont.
Dear Sir and Brother:
| have your esteemed favor Of June J.
in which you furnish me many valuable
items concerning the progress you are
making in your community and your
state in behalf OF more and better or
ganization Of the workers.
Replying to that part of your letter
in which you ask for the congressional
record Of Representative Frank Plumley,
OF the second district OF Vermont, | fur
nsh you herewith his record on meas
ures affecting the interests of labor,
which have come before the House of
Representatives since Mr.. Plumley was
a member, upon which a record vote has
been taken, and from which you will
observe that out of seven opportunities
to vote upon labor matters, Mr.. Plum
ley voted favorably once, unfavorably
twice, and recorded as mot voting four
times. This record YOU viii observe is
not only hostile, but extremely negh-
gent.
The following is Mr.. Plumley's record
on the measures enumerated;
"a On June 2, 1910, the House, while
in committee of the whole, adopted the
following amendment by Hughes Of New
Jersey, in the section Of the sundry civil
appropriation bill, making appropriation
for the prosecution OF violations of the
antitrust law This proviso was ia
yored by labor:
provided further, That no part of
this money shall be spent in the prose
cution OF any organization or individual
for entering into any combination or
agreement having in view the increasing
of wages, shortening of hours, or bet
tering the eondtio of labor, or for
any act done in furtheranee thereof not
in itself unlawful
On June ., this proviso was stricken
from the bill when it was reported to
the Senate by the appropriation commit
tee. On a record vote of "a years" Is
mays" and AZ mot voting the Senate
sustained the action OF the appropriation
One June 81, 1910, motion was made
in the House to instruct the conferees to
insist upon disagreeing with the Senate.
The motion carried by vote of l54
yeas" to l05 mays" ~ answering
present" and 10 mot voting" This
record vote in the House was an en-
dorsement of its former action in favor
of the Hughes amendment when it was
added to the bin while the House was
in committee of the whole
On this very important measure to
labor, Representative Plumley is record
ed as votipg-''nay," or against labor.
On June 90, 1910, the conferees re-
ported to the House a disagreement or
this proviso and recommended that the
House recede and concur" which means
that the House agree with the Senate
and eliminate the Hughes proviso from
the bill The motion carried by vots
Of 1873 yeas" to 100 mays" Is answer
ing present. and l05 mot voting"
BY this vote the House of Representa-
tives repudIated its former actions taken
on June 2 and June 81. when il adopted
the Hughes amendment and instructed
its conferees to retain ii in the bill.
This last vote was the determining fac
tor in which the House OF Representa-
tives placed itself on record as being
opposed to any organization or individ-
ual making an organized effort to in
crease wages, TO reduce hours, or to bet
ter the condition of labor-organized or
NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. running the risk
Of criminal prosecution under the provi-
sions of the antitrust law.
On this final and most important vote,
Plumley is recorded as
or against labor. This
was very damaging vote to labor.
On March 2s, 1912, the match bill