men's compensation, and, so far as this commission has been able to ascertain, in the States where that has been introduced it is rapidly wiping out that cause for industrial unrest, and where workmen's compensation prevails, in the cases you cite of willful misconduct, the burden falls on the workmen. Mr. OSGOOD. The consequences are the same.

Commissioner WEINSTOCK. In the State of California there have been only two accidents this year where willful misconduct has caused them. Those laws minimize the possibility of willful misconduct.

Mr. OSGOOD. I am not arguing against the law; I am a strong believer in the expediency of such a law; but I still maintain that the recklessness of menI don't know whether you can carry it to the point of willful misconduct or whether it would come within the law, but it would open the door to a great deal of litigation even under the employers' compensation law, because so many cases of accidents are caused by the recklessness of men willing to take chances. A considerable percentage occur from the falling of roofs which should be supported. The man who is new and inexperienced will take every precaution because he is afraid of the danger; but the old, seasoned miner who knows the danger will take a chance. He will say, "I will load this car out and take a chance," and he gets killed. You can hardly call that willful misconduct; it is recklessness, which seems to be ingrained; it starts with the small boy that runs out in front of an automobile in the street to see how close he can come to it without being run down.

Commissioner WEINSTOCK. The fact remains that employers in other States have taken the initiative, realizing the inequity of the situation if not the iniquity, and have taken the initiative to have those laws passed. Have the employers of this State done anything of that kind?

Mr. OSGOOD. I have been for four years a member of a commission of this State to formulate such a law. This last year I have done very little, but two years ago we made a report to the legislature; however, we were not ready at that time to suggest a specific law. We finally requested some financial assistance. The first two years I paid all the expenses myself, the second two years I did not feel like doing it, and we asked for money, but it was not forthcoming, and nothing has been accomplished so far by this commission except the benefit the individual members derived from reading a great mass of literature and getting some more clear ideas as to the intricacy of the subject. I am a believer in such a law.

Commissioner WEINSTOCK. Did all the employers then drop the matter, or exercise energy to have it brought about?

Mr. OSGOOD. I can not answer for any other employer than myself. We have an association acting in matters of that kind. I called attention at the first meeting of this association to this matter and stated it was a matter that should have their first consideration, I prepared a paper, and I think they are interested in the subject, but I can not say that they are ready to do everything in their power to bring about the law-with many of them it is a new subject.

Chairman WALSH. Mr. O'Connell says that he would like to ask a question. Commissioner O'CONNELL. Just as I came in you were saying that your company would not deal with the United Mine Workers of America, and probably if there was some other organization they might not deal with them. Have you in mind some sort of organization of miners that you would deal with?

Mr. OSGOOD. No, sir; I have not. My position is simply that there is no possible question of the right of the men to organize and to demand that they shall deal collectively, but there is just the same right on the part of the employer to say that he prefers to deal with men who will deal individuallyso long as he can find plenty of men of that state of mind to operate his business I think he has that privilege. I do not think we take the position at all that these men have not the right to organize. I have strong views in opposition to the United Mine Workers of America, which I think are well founded, and I do not want to do business with them, and I won't do business with them. If I have to do business with them I will quit. I quit twice in Iowa; I gave up property worth $400,000, because I could not work under their regulations and I would do the same thing in Colorado.

Commissioner O'CONNELL. You have given some thought to the question of the individual miner dealing with a large corporation, for instance, such as your own?

Mr. OSGOOD. I think there is a good deal of misunderstanding and misapprehension about this idea of collective dealing. The individual employee, or the

Individual miner, can select and does select the mine and employer he will work for; he knows his terms and the character of his reputation, and he applies to the man for whom he wants to work; he is his own selector of the position, and I do not see why he can not protect himself. If he does not want to work under the conditions in Colorado, he can go to Wyoming or Kansas and work under union conditions. The wages are higher in Colorado than anywhere, except in Wyoming. If he looks at the other conditions, he may think they make up for advantages which he may consider go with the union contract, just as he can in buying his goods. No store is considered a first-class store where a man can go in and bargain as to what prices he shall pay. The man has his chance, in individual action, in trading with one merchant or another, and of going where he thinks he can buy his goods at the best prices, and he can do the same with his employer, and go to the man that has the reputation for the most fair dealing. That is one thing I claim in regard to this whole trouble, that these men who wanted to work in union mines had plenty of places where they could go. The whole thing was an attempt by force of arms to require us to deal with this organization and put all our men, whether they wanted to be members or not, under their rules, and take the management of the mines out of our hands.

Commissioner O'CONNELL. The matters of conditions of employees and hours of labor you think should be set by the employers?

Mr. OSGOOD. Yes, sir; just as the merchant fixes the prices on his goods; if he sets them too high, he will find no purchasers; if the employer of labor sets his wages too low, he will get no employees.

Commissioner O'CONNELL. The employee has no say as to wages or hours? Mr.OSGOOD. Yes, sir; absolutely, because of he can do better anywhere else he has a right to go there; he has no right to work for me except on the terms that .I am willing to pay, and I think I am the best judge of what I can afford to pay. If I can not afford to pay enough, he will probably find some other employer, and I will be without employees and out of business.

Commissioner O'CONNELL. Then, as an individual bargainer, with you, his bargain is simply to take the job or not?

Mr. OSGOOD. Yes, sir; just as when you go to a store, if you buy you must pay the price at which the goods are marked, but you are not forced to buy there.

Chairman WALSH. Commissioner Garretson says he has another question. Commissioner GARRETSON. Do these mines in the States, which you say have signed up agreements with the miners-were those agreements signed before or after the declaration of the strike in southern territory?

Mr. OSGOOD. Afterwards.

Commissioner GARRETSON. Were any of those mines originally opposed to union contracts?

Mr. OSGOOD. Yes; three or four of them; the operators of those mines were in the meeting.

Commissioner GARRETSON. What has been their relation to that association since that time?

Mr. OSGOOD. The association never continued; that was the only meeting it ever had. The individual mine owners, after that meeting, came around if they wanted to ask about what was going on, and that is the extent of that association.

Commisisoner GARRETSON. This one you perfected within the last 30 days? Mr. OSGOOD. I think the most of those men were in the initial meeting of this association.

Commissioner GARRETSON. The last one?

Mr. OSGOOD. Yes.

Commissioner GARRETSON. And some of them signed up?

Mr. OSGOOD. Yes.

Commissioner GARRETSON. The fact that they signed up has not affected their relations with those that took the opposite course?

Mr. OSGOOD. Only to this extent: There was a strong feeling on the part of those bearing the burden of the strike that some of those who signed up did so to take advantage of the market conditions during the trouble, and we did not have a warm feeling for them. Some of the men made excuses that they had to do it; that they could not afford to stay out on strike; that they had debts to meet. Others made no excuses, but took advantage of the conditions to make money while we were idle. We have no sympathy for the men

that did that, but we have for the men that were forced because of their financial condition; but those who did it to take advantage of the troubles of the others, I do not think there is any warm feeling toward them.

Commissioner GARRETSON. You feel toward them like the average union man feels toward the fellow that goes gack to wark at a reduced rate? [Applause.] Chairman WALSH. Ladies and gentlemen, you can understand, and I will tell you now once for all, and I hope it will last all the time, that in a matter of this kind where sympathies are naturally deep, and prejudices also, it makes distinctly for disorder to exhibit any outward manifestations of approval. We are going about the country trying to do these things logically, and in a sensible manner, and you may be sure that if something is said that stirs your sympathy and calls your applause, that something will be said later on the other way, and it is impossible to keep any semblance of order unless we have the cooperation of all present; please, therefore, give no manifestations of your feelings.

Commissioner GARRETSON. You spoke of the feeling of the Illinois mine owners toward unionism. Is the commission to understand that the men representing the mine owners of Illinois have testified before the commission as to what they consider desirable relations with the organized miners-are we to consider that the testimony that they gave in that direction is valueless?

Mr. OSGOOD. I don't know who gave testimony before you, Mr. Garretson, and I don't know every mine operator in Illinois. I do say, and I repeat it, that all the mine operators I do know, and I know a good many-I do not know one of them who does not believe that the conditions under which he is now working are unfavorable to his business. It is possible there are operators who believe in the United Mine Workers' organization. There may be, only I don't know them. I do know a good many operators whom we have wanted to come here and testify in regard to this matter, but who, because they did not care to strain their relation with the organization that they feel that they must do business with, have declined to do so, although they are perfectly willing in private conversations to express themselves freely. Now, it may be that I have done Mr. Harry Taylor an injustice, but as long as I have, I can repeat it again—

Commissioner GARRETSON. I am not referring to Mr. Taylor at all. You spoke a moment ago about your abiding faith about what the verdict would be in certain trials that were pending, as demonstrating the guilt or innocence in certain cases, referring to some trials in Huerfano County.

Mr. OSGOOD. Yes.

Commissioner GARRETSON. Has it ever been asserted that in that county the mining companies, without singling out any one of them, exercised undue influence over civil or criminal process in those counties?

Mr. OSGOOD. I want to say before I answer that question, that I do not refer to Huerfano County, but to all the counties. The trials taking place to-day are taking place in Fremont County. Another trial is taking place by change of venue from Huerfano County to Pueblo County; and those charges have been made. I don't think they have ever been substantiated in the slightest degree. It is like any community where they have a strong partisan majority. The other side is going to declare that there is fraud in that particular county. And it comes from the Republican side just as strongly as from the Democratic side, that the sheep are voted there. They say the miners are voted-and it is simply charge and countercharge and there has never been any proof of it. And the last time a State senator was elected from one of those counties down there on the Republican ticket he was seated by the vote of the Democratic legislature by the vote of an adverse interest. Now, anybody can make a charge of that kind, but there has never been any proof of it.

Commissioner GARRETSON. But it has existed a great many years?

Mr. OSGOOD. Yes; and it has existed about certain wards in Denver during all that period of time, and about certain counties in the State; and I guess it is so elsewhere. I was told so by different members of the congressional committe that in almost all of the counties of their own States they had such conditions.

Chairman WALSH. Have you any memorandum of any kind of the documents we have asked you to present?

Mr. OSGOOD. Well, I have been depending on Mr. Gove to take that down. I don't know whether he did or not.

Mr. GovE. I have made a note of it.

Chairman WALSH. You have got a note of those ducuments?

Mr. GovE. Yes, sir.

(See Gove exhibits.)

Chairman WALSH. All right. You will be excused. Mr. Osgood.
Call Gov. Carlson to take the stand.

TESTIMONY OF GOV. GEORGE A. CARLson.

Chairman WALSH. What is your name, please?

Gov. CARLSON. George A. Carlson.

Chairman WALSH. What is your profession?

Gov. CARLSON. Lawyer.

Chairman WALSH. How long have you lived in Colorado?

Gov. CARLSON. Since 1880.

Chairman WALSH. How long have you practiced your profession in this State?

Gov. CARLSON. Since 1905 in this State.

Chairman WALSH. You are the governor-elect, I believe, of this State at the present time?

Gov. CARLSON. Yes, sir.

Chairman WALSH. And you assume the duties of your office on what date? Gov. CARLSON. I think the 8th day of January; I am not sure.

Chairman WALSH. Now, prior to your election had you held official position in Colorado?

Gov. CARLSON. I was district attorney of the eighth district from 1908 until the present time. I have not yet resigned.

Chairman WALSH. That includes what counties, please?

Gov. CARLSON. Boulder, Laramie, Weld, and Jackson.

Chairman WALSH. And in your duty as district attorney have you had to deal with some of those industrial disturbances or alleged crimes growing out of them?

Gov. CARLSON. I have had to deal with crimes.

Chairman WALSH. But you have not been in any other touch with the situa

tion?

Gov. CARLSON. Not any further than trying to exercise or help the police officers to maintain peace in times of trouble.

Chairman WALSH. Have you or have you not taken part in any conferences that were had to bring about a settlement of the controversy between the mine operators and the miners?

GOV. CARLSON. No; I have not taken part in any conference trying to effect a settlement of any.

Chairman WALSH. Have you made a study, Governor, of the existing statutes to ascertain whether or not they are effective in conferring proper authority on the officers of the State, or ineffective, with a view to suggesting improvements in them?

Gov. CARLSON. I have; yes, sir; to some considerable degree.

Chairman WALSH. I wish you would state to the commission, if you will, the situation that you find the law itself in-that is, the statute law, which makes it difficult or impossible for the administrative officers effectively to discharge their duties?

Gov. CARLSON. Now, I am not referring to the coal mining code or other laws, many of which I regard in themselves as very excellent laws. I would not go so far, Mr. Walsh, as to say it was impossible for them to administer their duties. There are certain things in our system of administration that I think greatly hamper the executive, not only in dealing with a crisis, but in dealing with a condition at the period of the inception of a crisis, and which also prevent the public from obtaining accurate information in regard to the exact situation. Indeed, I could go on in different general criticisms which are justly placed, I think, against our system.

Chairman WALSH. Well, sketch it concisely and generally, but give us what you consider the limitations of the present laws as they have actually worked out.

Gov. CARLSON. Now, in the first place the responsibility of the administration in the enforcement of law finally is upon the chief executive of the State. I think that our system wherein certain administrative and executive officers are placed under a coordinate executive department, like, for instance, the appointment of the labor commissioner and other officers of that type by the secretary of state, is a mistake. I think that that appointment should originally be with the governor.

I also believe that the division of forces between a number of independent officers is also a mistake. I think the administration of all the laws relative to employer and employee should be through one board and that board closely coordinating with the executive of the State. Now, take, for instance, this situation: Suppose a coordinate officer-in the first place, where there is a responsibility fixed you get the best service. Again, an officer that is largely ministerial should never have the duty-should not have imposed upon him an executive duty. That particular officer, if unfriendly to the executive, may embarrass the executive. And so one thing I have found in the study of the different laws over the country that I think would do us here is the system of a single board-such a system as they have in effect, for instance, in Wisconsin and also other States. I like the Wisconsin system the best on that. Chairman WALSH. Have you given attention to the details of the attempted concentration laws affecting industry particularly, Governor?

Gov. CARLSON. Why, we have for a long period of time-for instance, take in the field where there were certain differences and there was certain information that should be brought to the chief executive, and it has seemed to me that it should be brought there by certain ministerial officers, that on going to the chief executive for that information we find that he does not have that particular detail, and apparently those officers were not coordinating with him at all nor working with him. Now, at that time, or about that time, I began to make a study of the weakness of our system. And it would seem to me that the first thing we must have is centralization of power in some competent board.

Now, I believe that board should not be the representatives of either labor or capital; that is, partisan representatives, the original board; and that board should have under it a number of experts controlled in their appoint. ment by that board. For instance, at the time of the inception of a strike there is a certain period before the time of the crisis; now, when we find ourselves practically in this situation, that we haven't any competent board to go right in there at the time of the very inception. We have to wait until the legislature meets. Then, for instance, an investigating committee is appointed. That investigating committee is not, perhaps, acquainted with the employers and employees; does not know the business; may not know the specific point of controversy, and they will have spent a good deal of time, for instance, getting acquainted. They have to learn where, for instance, the mine is located; they have to learn the business; they have to learn the details of the controversy; and by that time they are expected to report. Now, during that period the strike has probably been declared and bitterness has been engendered, and their report does but little good. And then after they do report, the public begins to inquire who they are, and wants to know about their wisdom and fairness, and whether this interest or that interest dictated their appointment, and how much they know about the situation.

Now, I think, for instance, this, that if we had a board that was a nonpartisan board, a board that was fixed, and as to the selection of the board and the way it may be made nonpartisan, I think that can be arrived at; and if they were closely in touch with the particular problems, if the public was acquainted with that board as a nonpartisan governing board, and if immediately upon the very inception of difficulties they should appear there and go over the situation, knowing the employers and knowing the employees and knowing the particular problem-they have got their influence as governmental officers and their suggestions at that time and their influence, particularly if they had the power of investigation-I think they should have the power of investigation as to both sides; that is, in the way of requiring witnesses to appear before them-that they could do effective work. They are acquainted with the situation at the time and place of the crisis and they are in a position to act. Now, they are coordinated with the governor, with the executive, and he is at once furnished with accurate information as to the entire situation. That sort of a commission, acting in that way, I believe would help. Now, then, in case either or both of the parties refused to pay attention to the suggestions, the information of that body sent to the public would be dependable. The public would rely upon it. Then there are other functions.

Chairman WALSH. Have you given attention to the subject of safety in industry and sanitation?

Gov. CARLSON. Yes; and along that line it seems to me that we have gotten to this place in government, when the active business forces and the active