Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1917-06-17
re the strike was voted by the local

fore the strike was voted by the local
| men.
Referring to President Mahon Of the
Amalgamated. Mr.. Hoover said:
This war lord of the Amalgamateo
snapped his fingers and every one oi
| these men here walked out.
Mr.. Hoover said that while tho strik
ers had done their best to make the
public believe that President hlng mac
defed the President of the unl'eu
States and every other constituted au-
thortty in refusing to arb1trate, SUCH
was not the fact.
| Gives Strikers Side.
James H. vahey, counsel for the
strikers resumed his argument when
\ the committee met at 2:3o o'clock. he
| pointed out that Commissioners New
man and Brownlow had repeatedly
stated on the stand that the men were
willing to waive the closed shop ana
the recognition of the union.
| yet President King published IN the
newspaper advertisements stating that
the strike was due to the demand for
the closed shop and the recognition OF
the union" said Mr.. Valley.
He said 1t was to the everlasting
credit of Mr.. Newman that he had not
| laid the cards on the table" so far as
the union was concerned. and had not
told the officers Of the company that
| the men were willing to waive recog-
milton of the union. He said that Mr..
Newman had told the officers Of the
company repeatedly that he was con-
f1dent that he could get the men to
waive recognition of the union ii they
Mr.. Vahey claimed that the company
counsel had attempted to place the
blame for the strike upon Commits
sioner Newman on the ground that he
had not told the company officials the
truth. and had attempted to show that
Commissioners Newman and Brownlow
were biased in favor of the men against
the company.
He insisted that the Commissioners
| had been actuated only by the desire
to serve the best interests Of the COM
munity.
Calls Mr.. King "Overlord.'
Mr.. Valley described President King
as the arrogant overload of these
men,. and declared that he had no de-
sire to settle the controversy peace
fully.
Nothing would satisfy him but
blood" said Mr.. Valley. 1.-THE lust of
blood was on him. he would have a
fight"
Mr.. Vahey defended the Amalgamated
Association. which. he said. the COM
pany had tried to discredit before the
committee as the cause Of violence in
many cities. The association. he said.
has acted everywhere for the uplift of
street railway employees and they
should thank God for its existence"
He closed his argument with the
statement that the responsibility for
the strike lay with the company
MI Vahey then made recommended
tons to the committee as to what leg
islation should be enacted, dealing par
tfcularly with the bill drafted by Sec
~ 10
Labor. He said this bill. in its essence,
| provided for compulsory arbitration,
| and he opposed many of its provisions.
Argues Law Points.
John S. Barbour of counsel for the
company took up the questions of law
| involved, referring to the Individual
for the strikers alleged to be mot
worth the paper it Is written on" be-
| cause not enforcible.
yet" said Mr.. Barbour. there has
was a bond Of slavery"
He argued that the contract was
| binding on both the men and the COM
| pany. He cited many cases settled in
the courts to sustain his contention.
Counsel for the strikers" said Mr..
Barbour. contends that Congress has
the right to enact law to compel this
company to re-employ these strikers and
to pay them back pay. This is the most
remarkable statement l have ever
heard from a lawyer from Boston," re-
| ferring to Mr.. Valley.
The men. he said, had no vested right
in the company and the proposition ad-
! vanced by Mr.. Vahey would take prop
process of law.
| Mr.. Barbour told the committee that
Mr.. Valley had erred when he argued
that Congress had the right to enact a
| tering into n contract prohibiting the
men from Joining a labor union. Mr..
| Barbour cited decisions OF the Supreme
| Court to support his contention.
The attorney for the company also ar
gued that Congress could not enact a
! law setting aside the individual con-
tracts now in force with the company
! employees. as it would put back the old
men without providing for the payment
of damages to the men who would be in
1ured. He discussed the decision of the
| Supreme Court in the Adamson eight
hour case. and held that this decision
did not validate legislation doing away
| with such contracts as those of the COM
pany with Its employees.
Urges Anti Violence Law.
Mr.. Barbour urged that tho commit
| right In the Amalgamated ito do vio-
lence and create disorder" and legisla-
ton be enacted to prevent such vio-
| lence.
Mr.. Barbour charged that the local
men had been aw-abiding citizens until
| they were ''misled and. as believe,
| defrauded by the Amalgamated."
He eulogized the part played by
J President King in defending the rights
| Of the loyal men"
II wish there were more men with his
courage and determination In the coun-
| try" said Mr. Barbour.
Mr.. Vahey argued in rebuttal of the
arguments of Mr. Hoover and Mr.. Bar
bour. He commended that Congress did
| have the right to amend the charters
| Of the street railways in any way 1t sees
At
The counsel for the men insisted that
President King did know that the men
| would have waived recognition of the
union, Notwithstanding the declarations
| of Mr.. Hoover to the contrary
! At the request of Senator Jones, Mr..
Vahey stated to the committee what
he believed the committee should
| recommend as follows:
| That 1t request President King to enter
| into negotiations with the men out ON
strike. and II he still was obdurate that
| Congress should amend the charter OF
| the company 50 as to compel the recoe-
! milton Of collective bargaining so as II
| prevent such an individual contract as
that now made by the company with its
men.
He also proposed that the committee
| should recommend that the public uttl-
| tiles commission be empowered to ar
| bitrate the controversy
| THE strike still exists" he said. "and