The Washington times., 1917-05-23
Senator Casts Doubt on
Frankness Of Letter.
DIRECTORS KEPT IN DARK
Employees Charge ". F. Ham De-
ceiVed Them As to Intentions.
(continuee from First Page.l


in conference with the District Com
miEsioners
Mr.. Ham had just testified tina
while In conference with the Commits
sioners the Washington Railway anC
Electric Company officials declined Il
entertain the suggestion made by Mr.
Newman that a contract similar Il
that made by the Capital Traction
Company be entered into He said thu
reason for the refusal was that tbs
company was sure the union would bt
back OF any agreement entered into.
AS L understand the testimony In
this case, the company. because Of
It's observations during 1915 did moi
want to enter into a contract with
the employees because the company
believed the men were dominated by
the Amalgamated Association, is that
rtght?' asked Senator Pittman.
1T Is, replied the witness
Then what does this letter mean -
asked Senator Pittman as he began
reading the letter Of February % in
which the following language was
used: After We shall have discharg
ed this duty taking care OF inaug
ural visitorsl, we will have ample
time. and shall be pleased to take UP
any matter pertaining TO the inter
est OF the employees"
The witness replied the company at
the time the letter was written was
willing to deal with its employees.
This letter was written to the
grievance committee chosen by the
union and nonunion employees last
year and the company dealt with Il
last year, why did the company re-
fuse to deal with the same commit.
tee this year? The commissioners
suggested that you deal with that
committee this year, why didn't you
deal with itF" asked Senator Pitt
man.
says situation Had changed.
The situation had changed when
the Commissioners made that sug-
gestion," replied the witness. The
grievance committee had already
failed to keep an appointment with
US"
Isn't II a fact that the company
was determined not to renew the con-
tract with the men. and that It in
| tended dealing with individuals
through an individual contract?" in
quired Senator Pittman.
I'VE were willing TO discuss Q new
contract II II could be made in the
same spirit as that OF 1916 with the
AmaIgamated Association eliminated.
! don't think the company could have
refused such a proposition as that"
This letter promised TO enter into
q contract and said the company was
willing to meet a committee repre-
company meet that COMMITTEES when
the Commissioners suggested it,"
Senator Pittman asked again.
The situation had changed" re-
piled Mr.. Ham.
"How7" asked Senator PIttman.
THE grievance committee had fail
ed to keep an appointment" answer
ed the witness.
The grievance committee failed to
keep a tentative appointment on
March 0, but this letter was written
on February 2T. Was there any
change in the situation between Feb
ruary % and March s when the indi-
vidual contract was offered the men? -
Says Union Ruled Men.
The witness replied that the de-
mAnds presented on February %
showed that the employees were dom.
mated by the union.
Did you company really want to
negotiate with las eInpIVy IS: asked
Senator Pittman.
ave did II II were possible to deal
with them with the union eliminated"
the witness responded.
And you had already found that
there was no means OF eliminating
the union?" asked the Senator.
I'VE were perfectly willing to ne
gotiate, but we didn't think we could"
answered Mr.. Ham.
Isn't Il a fact that the Commits
sioners were trying TO bring about q
settlement as in 1916 and you wouldn't
consent to deal with the same commit.
tee you dealt with last year," inquired
Senator Pittman.
mo, we wouldn't consent" the wit. |
ness replied.
Senator Pittman then said:
las only one member Of the COM !
mittee ! wan TO say have II in my
mind as to whether the company's |
letter OF February - was written |
in all frankness."
Attorney Hoover then resumed his |
Of the witness In reply
TO a question Mr.. Ham said the Com |
mIssioners at no time stated to the |
officials Of the company that the en-
pIoyes OF the Washington Railway |
and Electric Company would accent
a contract similar to that made nv |
the Capital Traction Company with
its men.
senator Pittmsn then asked this
question:
"As a matter OF fact II would have |
been lmmaterisl what the Commits
sioners said about a contract with
the men en- mass, your company
would not have dealt with them.
isn't that so?'
Mr.. Ham reiterated that the Com.
pany would not have objected 70
dealing with the men in a body n
the union could have been eliminated
In fact as well as in theory.
Work For Police Remark q Joke.
Questioned regarding President
kings remark to Commissioner
BrownIow that he would give the
police something to do. the witness
said he was sure the statement wa
made in a Jocular way.
He testified that at no time did
The committee. headed by George 4.
WHburt, which called on President
King on March 3, indicate that the
men would waive recognition of the
'nion.
The witness said wiIburt said sew
,ral times, I'VE represent employee
u the company, members OF the d.
,ision $50. AmAlEamated Association.
President King, the witness said in
ormed the visitors he could not deal
With them as representatives Of the
lnion.