July 31, 1917

" 4. Eighty-three of the 113 concerns when employing or promoting men discriminate against those who nse alcoholic liquors, even though they use liquor outside of working hours only, absolutely refuse to promote men who drink ; there the most moderate use of rum is fatal to a man's chance . of promotion.’

" 5. Sixty-three corporations have undertaken constructive abstinence work to determine the deleterious influences of the moderate u e of alcohol upon a workman's efficiency, producing power, and reliability. " 6. Ten concerns not only prohibit orinking during work hours but absolutely prohibit employees drinking at all time .'

Of som'l 60 statements in these replies the following are said to be typical:

"When it becomes necessary to reduce the force, regular drinkers are the first ones let go:" (Lockhart Iron & Steel Co., Pennsylvania.) "We do not allow any liquor on the premises, dl~eharge immPdlatel;y any man under the influence, preach abstinence through foremen an•l bulletin-board literature, and we are succeeding famously. Most im- ~~~l \srJ!e ct:::~\J~:tt also see the good of it." (Interstate " The efficiency of a man is reduced in exa c t proportion to the rttnount of alcohol he drinks . The total abstainer rank "' above the moderate drinker in reliability and efficiency in all classes ot work nearly as much as the moderate drinker doE's above the heavy, regular drinker.” (The Follansbee Furnace Co., Follansbee, W. Va.)

“'Phe moderate use of liquor tends to impair efficiency and reliability, and we do not knowingly employ men who drink, nor advance them to • positions of authority if they -are employed." ('!'he Crane Co., Chicago.)

In this industrial . antialcobol campaign we read further, electric signs and posters play no small part-

:• Over th~ main entrance to. several steel plants can be seen such Ja~?~ electric temperance-teach·ng trnn s oar<>ncies as:

Did booze ever do you any. good 1"-Did booze ever get you n better job?-D1d booze ever contribute anything to the happiness of your family ? ' ..

" “Throughout another plant this bulletin, signed by the general superiDtendent and approved bv the president, Is posted in conspicuous places: :

"'For ~e promotion C'f safety and welfare, it is hoped that all employees w11l avoid the use of Intoxicating liquors .

• ·Under the rule of the .Jol1t>t Works any employee who uses !.n­ tof.17ating liqnors while on duty will bt> discharged.

In making promotions in all departments of the plant superintendents of departments and foremen will select for promotion only tbo~ e who do not u"" intoxicating liquor.’ "

This movement, according to Mr. Baines, has attracted the attention of the liquor trade papers, one o.t which has called " the steady and increasing tendency of big corporations to en l· encroach upon the personal liberties of the workers" one of " the most pregnant signs of the timE's." And the Brewers' Journal is quoted as saying:

“'There are even companies and individual employers who threaten to discharge employees for drinking alcohol at any time. They do not care if that 1s social and economic slavery. Their main object is to protect their pocketbooks."

Mr. JONES of Washington. Al. o, in connection with that article and touching upon the same matter. I have here an ­ article prepared by Alexander Fleisher, supervisor of the Welfare Division of the Metropolitan Life Insurance Co .• of New York, read at the National Conference of Charities and Cot·rec· tions in Indianapolis, which I ask permission to put in the RECORD.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the matter will be printed in the REcORD.

The matter referred to is as follows:

ATTITUDE OF LARGE EMPLOYERS TO USE OF ALCOHOL BY TIUllil

EMPLOYEES.

[:ay Alexander Fleisher, -Ph. D., supervisor of welfare division, Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., New York, read at National Conference of Charities and Correction, Indianapolis.

Has industry taken a stand in regard to the use of alcohol by its employees? I so, what is it? lf it is opposed to its use, why has it taken this attitude? The Interest of the national conference to the welfare oc the workers of the cou.ntry has broadened. There is developing an increasing interest in preventive and constructive work as opposed to remedial. The working life is receiving more and more consideration at these meetings. These facts make proper a discussion of one phase of the problem of employment and tenure of position · What are the drinker’s chances of getting a job, of holding it, of secur: ~fnf~omotion, in comparison with those of he man who does not; In order to secure answers to these- questions, we made an analysis of other studies of this subject, we sent a letter and questionnaire to 100 of the largest employers oJ labor in the United States; we studied the benefit funds of some 'W corporations; and we reviewed all publica· tions that might threw light upon the subject.

OTHEB STUDIES.

Only two studies have previously been made in this Identical field The first to be considered is the twelfth annual report of the CommiS: sioner of Labor ( 189T-98) on the " Economic Aspects of the Liquor Problem.” . one chapter of 'his study deals wltb the experience and practice of employers relative to :be use ot Intoxicants. It was based upon the answers to a schedule sent to 30 000 employers. About 25 per cent replied. These 7,025 establishments employed 1,750,000 persons. Of 6,976 employers answering the inquiry 5,363 reported that In employing new men, they took into consideration the use of intoxi: eating liquor. The largest percentage of employers considering this question was among the transportation companies . There were four methods used in ascertaining the employee ·s drinking habits-personal knowledge, appearance, the questioning of the applicant. and outside inquiry. In some estabUshments the rolf' existed that no one using intoxicating liquors was employed. In other cases this applied only to certain limited occupations. . One thousand seven hundred and ninetyfour plants reported on this point; tl'le reason given by two-thirds of them can be grouped under two beadings, because of responsibility of position, and In guarding against accidents.

Of these 7,025 firms, 3,527 had some regulation as to the use ot alcoholics by employees; 855 demanded that no employee use intoxicants while on duty; 696 that nQ employee use intoxicants either on or off duty : 692 that in certain occupations · no employee use intoxicants while on duty; and 1,284. in certain occupations, placed a complete restriction on the use of alcoholics either on or ott duty. It Is interesting to note that at this time 138 of the 708 transportation org:anizations reporting had no requirements In regard to the u e ot intoxicating liquors.

The second study, though smaller, Is more recent. It was made during the past year by the research department of the Temperance Society of the Methodist Episcopal Church. This study covers the iron and steel companies of Pennsylvania. Ohio. Illinois, and West Virginia. Information was secured from 140 companies, many of which have more than one plant. Of the 120 concerns replying to the question as to whether tt was a custom among their workmen to send boys out for beer during working hours, only 6 stated that at the time this was still permitted. Ten concerns not only prohibited drinking during working hours, but prohibited It absolutely at any time. Eighty-three of the 120 concerns rep! ing discriminatl'd in employing and advancing men against those who use alcoholic liquor.

One of these studies was made two decades ago ; the other was limited to one industry. In making our own study we sought to cover as wide a field as possible. Obviously the material that we have to present is impressionistic. With the time and equipment at our disposal, tt was impo sible to make a study in which the results could be presented statistically. We received 50 responses to our 100 letters; these embrace a considerable variety of occupations and cover three-quarters of a million, employees. Although the number of employers ls 50 to 7,025; the employees considered are 43 per cent of the number of the Government study.

Practically all the. returns received were . from the • presidents · or other : high executive officers of the- organizations with which we communi· cated. The returns wer-e carefully worked ! out and were in almost all regulation: cases · accompanied by · a letter expressing- interest in. om: attempt, in the problem . as a 1 whole, and in the' attitude . and approach of : other · env ployers.

RAILROADS' ANn: USE OF- ALCOlrOIJ.

We re · received answers from. 10 railroads-, having' over 400,000 · employees. All of these have rules In · regard ' to the use · ol alcohol tly employees, of which tlie: following ' quotation. is typiCal ' :

" The use of intoxfea.nts- by employees, ' subject to call ~ prohibited. Their use by any - employee3-'or the treguenting: of places- where they are sold Is sufficient cause for dismissal!" ' ·

The wording · or this prohibition varies with the • railroad company.

'llwo of the railroads ' mention only the · habitual • use of alcoholic. drinks as being cause for- dismissal. In each case these .rules • are · printed In the general rule book of the- organization. According to the statements made by the railroad l officials, they are strictly enforc-ed;

These companies - make an effort to determine a man's habit before he is employed. Should any facts in regard to his use of alcohol be" disclosed, he would he debar.red. This information is obtained by inquiry. observation. references, and. in the case of two o1i the roads, by n medical examination . of those seeking positions.

The efficiency ot this ruling, Is not . questioned by the railway execu- tives. One official reports to us that—

.. The policy or the company as expressed by itS' chief officers in their personal. lives and influence is to eliminate · entirely the use o:t. int'oxicants whether on or. off duty. With. that idea m view. the sale ot ' intoxicants has been . taken off dining ' cars and out of aJI eating houseswhere the company is in. absolute controL This has been · done- so as • to show the employees an actual example of the desire. ot the company to remove intoxicants from its premises and to let those who wish to use them obtain them . off the- lines • of the road rather than· on railroad property."

This is, however, more definite than . tlie position taken by most rail- . One company. for example. states that-

·• TbiE> rule (similar to the one- just quoted-) fs strictly • enforced. but we, of course, can , not- control the individual actions and habits · ot ollll employees so - long as they- do not. interfere · with . efficient. service to the company.”

But It is fair to conclud~ that the railroad:s are opposed to the use of intoxicants by their employees, whether on or off duty, and ' thatthey will . continue • their present method of " careful observation :md investigation . and discipline; discharge in · case practice is continued.” Foreign railroads are also beginning : to take - a . definite stand against the use of alcoholic. beverages byr their employees. The Saxon State Railways bave issued · instructions that officials are to employ non. ­ drinkers exclusively. 11he Dutch railways provide f-or. a medical examl nation at the time of employment and 1 urge all employees · to join abstinence societies. The German Trade Association ) of Private RailWays advocates the employment ot sober men only. T}le Swiss . railways insist on sobriety.

An interesting de-velopment among common carriers - is reported in · the monthly bulletin of the American · Iron and Steel 1 Institute for June. 1915. At the suggestion of · the- captain and engineers of the lake car- riers' association a r-ule was adopted providing- that temperance be made a consideration of pr-omotion between men. ot equal merit and 1 that' no • person be allowed to carry liquor aboard a vessel.

Judging from these returns, representing a large percentage of the railway riilleage of the United States, there has been • a marked • change in attitude among these corporations since the Government study of 20 years ago. At that time there was a large- number of railroad organizations that had no rule in regard to i:be use of alcohol and made no attempt to reduce its consumption among their employees. Now, apparently, It is difficult for a man to secure a position • in the operating branches of the railroads unless he is a teetotaler, and any employee is liable to lose his position if he indulges- in · intoxicants or frequents places where alcoholic beverages are sold.

PUBLIC-SERVICE CORPORATIONS.

We received replies from six - public-service corporations, · tions, employing picnics. about 200,000 persons. The results from this group ar.e · for- the most: part unsatisfactory. In few cases was the questionnaire filled out; the responses came principally in the form of a: letter. One exception was a . metropolitan , traction company employing over 8,000 men. This corporation has a strict • rule against the use ot intoxicating liquor and forbid the- visiting of saloons. . Among the questions to be answered under oath by an applicant for position is, Do you, or have you r ever, used intoxicating liquors? The information obtained is checked up by references and l:Jy inquiry of persons not referred to by · the applicant. If he uses intoxicants he is not employed. From other statements in the letter from this corporation it would SN'm that, in the case of those already employed, only a resulting accident or an · instance ot an employee's being " notoriously intoxicated in public" would · ordinarilY' be considered • ground for. discharg-e. Persistent use of alcoholics by any employee would be .a · matter of serious discipline-.

The general conclusion that can . be drawn from the replies of telephone, gas, and electric companies is that, although · they have never had the problem seriously presented to them, intoxication on duty will result ~ discharge; that the use of alcohol is not permitted ductngwork~ hours and that if. l its outside use interferes with an employee's work he will be discharged. The vice · president ot one o! the largest of these C'orporations wrote to us that " the general character of our employees is such that such roles (rules · in regard to the · use of. intoxicants) seem hardly necessary."

Dr. Alvah H. Doty, medical : director of the employers’ benefit cOlfi, mittee of the Bell Companies, h:na publication dated J-une, 1914, . has ~ summarized t'he attitude of these corporations:

"It- i . s g-enerally accepted, however, that it is their abuse .(the · abuse of alcoholic drinks) rather than their use which iff injurious: not only : to the individual but in a way to . the . public . a:lso < ; therefore it is logical and fail" to assume that much · may be gained, so far as the betterment of this condition is concerned, if temperance as well : as prohibition J iS: preached, for drinking- is very much · a matter of: habit. and l is increased largely because the danger of overindulgence is · not considered."

These organizations seem to: emphasiz-e. temperance rather· tliall- prohibition.

RETAIL STORES AND MAn::.{)RDER HOUSES:

We rec~ived returns . from three Large mall-order corporations having petltlob. about 25,000 · em-ployees, tbre.e denartment snores in thr-:ee d-ifferent cities having 15,000 employee~ and a chain of retail stores having 3,600 J employees.

Tlle mail:oroer corporations in · two cases have n.o . definite • rules on tlle subject o~ the use afJ alcohol: One, however ;. has · the: following­ "Absence from . w.ork; because of th · e; mm o.t : liquors is cause for' im• ' mediate dismissal. For the protection of minors and women • working · foe us; we fee! it: ne~essary tu prohibit employees - from patr-onizing saloons - within · eight blocks of our store. Violation: ot this • rule will ' place the offender in a position where his services . are no longer de- . sir.able:"

This • rule- ts: given to . new- employees. and' ls ' strictly enfor.ced ! The use • ot intoxicants during nonworking hours, if it does not · affect the individual's work, is not considered. . In. an: three corporations · a, person who is shown tn Be, or admits that:fieo is-, a user' of alcohol to any. · extent; is not employed This is determined by. questioning the applicant. by general observation , and in one case by physical examination of. applicants lor employment.

Two of the department stor-es have rules against th · e use of intoxicants during business hours. In the case of one stor-e if it is known. that alcohol is- used by- an employee outside of ' working lioUl's such knowledge wUl not directly affect his standing in the company but will ' work against' his' advancement. ‘The general ' statement on tl1e part of these concerns is that drinkers · will not be allowed to continue in their employ. .

One of t11e regulations of the chain of retail stores questioned' is that intoxicating liquor may not be- c-arried into nor used in its place ot business.

These. organizations, with one exception. have considered : the question of the use of alcoholic beverages by their employees only, in so · far . as it relates to t 1ft.ieir conta-ct' with . customers. The- retail · stores which. deal ' directly ' with the · customer du not t'oler.a.te its use during- business . hours.

SALl!lS" ORGANtzATlONS".

We communicated t witi:J , two life insurance ' companies in order to determine the attitud-e of: employers- whose fundamental · problem was ' in ­ the handling of a; la:rge number ot salesmen. In such companies · supervision is necessarily less close than · in factories or stores. One of thesE' companies, employing almost exclusively commission men, many of whom do not devote their- full time to the business, has no rules at all in regard to • the use ot alcohol by · employees. ln the other · case- the employees receive salaries and commissions and a:re consequently under more rigid discipline. · . This: organization has an unwritt-en rule that employees shall ' not drink during business hours. Men w.bo e references show that they drink to some- extent are not employed'. ‘This corpora.tion l holds numerous ' meetings of' salesmen · at which, according to its printed book of' rules, the serving of intoxicating' liquor is forbidden.

Ml'NING COMPA:r.iES. ~

We received answe-rS' from three · mining companies, one of- w - which is located in. a State in which a prohibition r la:w became effective January; 1 of • this ye!U'. Before the- passage of the law this company had madenumerous efforts to lessen the amount of alcoholic beverages used by its employees . On December 22, 1915, it' issued' re gener.al statement to its employees that every effort would be made to assist in the enforcement of the prohibition • law, and urged employees to observe it in letter aml iir spirit A. second l compan:y forbids drinking on its" premises, but places no restrictions upon an. employee's habits outside ot working hours. lL third follows: a · similar practice, but. is seeking to lessen the use of alcohol by educating its employees. most o-t whom are foreign born; to an American standard of' 1iv.ing; This, it states, would ' of itself reduce the desire for intoxicants a.n.d tlrec amount ot money · available for them.

These three companies take precautions · against a:llow.ing . employeesunder the. intluence of liquor · to enter their shafts, and enforce the: prohibition that liquor should not be carried underground.

In employing men none ot theS'e ' concerns. raise ' any question in regard to tlie use of alcohol. In connection with- the- growing practice among those companies to seek to affect the habits of their men outside or · working hours, 1t is interesting to note that the Unit'ed Mine Workers ha'Ve a - rule which f.Orbids members to , sell alcoholic beverag-es · even at

S'l'lilEn COMPANIES. l \'XIRS.

Replies : were received from two steel companies. We have; in addl tion, information in regard to the regulations- of two others. One of these companies prohibits tlie use of alcohol' by emp-loye:es at any time. · Three of the four companies do not forbid the use of alcohol, , but have issued ' notices- to their employees that they- hope- that they will refrain from the use ot intoxicating liquor, that any person using intoxicating liquor while on duty will be discharged, and that the nondrinking men will at all times be given preference in promotion and in continuous employment. .All four corporations- have been very active in the organized safety movement. Two or these companies have urged total abstinence repeatedly through their employees' magazines. Another com· pany provides for · the medical examination as a test in addition to the inquiries usually made of applicants.

In connection with ' this group it is perhaps - appropriate to repeat the opinion of C. L. Close, manager of the bureau of safety of the United States Steel Corporation, recently quoted in the Technical World Magazine, that in 10 years · through the · combined efforts of American industry, the manufacture and sale ot ' liquors - wm ba at an end in • the United' States. /

MANUFA'CTUR'ElRS OT STli!EL AND WOODEN' PRODUCTS.

S'even. organizations that manufacture steel a-nd wooden products sent · us · replies; ThreE" of these have a general requirement concerning the ~ sobriety of employees. In 1 another company, while- ther-e · Is no wdtt e rr rule, it 18' understood that drinking is considered aJ disgrace; In a laugc measure this requirement is enforced by the employees themselves

In one ot these concerns the matter is carefully considered ' in · employing men. No · mention of this precaution was made to us in ' the other replies · from this group.

One company nas . introduced • regular physical examinations and requires all employees to · report to the m-edical dispensary after absence:. . If absence can be attr:ibuted to the use · of intoxicants, the physician . in charge seeks to show the employee- the advantage · of total • abstinence. This · plan is said ! to hav-e ' decreased the ' use of alcohol among- th . e company's ' employee&

In addition. mention might be made of the recent discharge of 30 employees of a lar.g,e steel manufacturing plant for signing- a liquor W.e nnve information · about' three automobile manufacturing- companies ; Two · of these have unwritten rules forbidding the uBi:! ot a'lcobol. They will · not employ" men w1lo drink. In . these. instances a ~ careful effort is made to check up references, and there is the attempt to eliminate the man who previous to employment has been accustomed to drinking. One company has begun an educational campaign on the value of total abstinence by the distribution of literature a . and by talks to employees. ·

In the third concern we find the usual practice reversed. The fact ~~ that a man drinks does .not necessarily stand in the way of his appointment. Continuation of th l s llablt, however, affects his becoming a profit sharer in the organization and his promotion. According to the procedure of this company an employee is placed on six: months' probation. During that time efforts are made to educate him in the proper use of his wa ge s . One of the things that is insisted upon is sobriety. Here the pressure comes after be is employed, rather than before.

MISCELLANEOUS,

To a miscellaneous group, bard to classify, representing 11 different indu s h · J e s, such as printing, oil, and tobacco etc .. all the corporations responding to our inquiry stated that drinking was forbidden in their plants. Three of these have printed rules to this effect; in one case this rule- is signed by the applicant. ‘Those who reported upon restrlc· tions on employment stated that although they would much prefer the man who does not drink at all, they rely, however, entirely upon questioning the applicant and upon the references that he gives. It is generally understood in all these plants that the · employee must be "in good working condition " during working hours.

One concern with practically no regulations on this subject has .nevertheless through its employment manager made · a determined effort to eliminate drinking among its employees at any time. He is the first person with whom a .new employee comes in contact and from whom be receives his earliest impression of the concern. This manager impresses upon the new man the importance of the elimination of drinking, not on•y during working hours, but at all times. This plan is said to be raising the g1'1lde f)f men employed.

· Another corporation has adopted the following rule in regard to this subject: "All employees of the company must refrain from using intoxicating liquors, and all officers shall refuse employment to men known to frequent saloons." But this is exceptional severity.

USE OB' ALCOHOL I~ PLANTS.

To the questionnaire of the research department of the Temperance Society of the Methodist Episcopal Church, previously cited, 6 of the 120 firms replied that employees were permitted to have alcoholic beverages brought into the plant. These are the exceptions; they have probably always been the exception in American industry. The usual practice has been to forbid the use of intoxicants In workrooms or on corporation property. In Europe, however, the custom Is in general use in industrial establishm e nts. But the recent study made by Dr. William H. Tolman, of the . American Museum of Safety, indicates that many foreign employers are trying to eliminate brandy from their plants and to substitute coffee and milk for the beer and wine in common use. The efforts made since 1908 by the Allgemeine Electrische Gesellscbaft among its 10,000 employees have resulted in a marked reduction in the sale of alcoholic drinks per individual and an even more marked increase · in the sale of nonalcoholic beverages.

EMPLOYEES' BENEFIT ASSOCIATIONS.

ln the endeavor to SeC'Ure further light Upon the attitude of employers we examined the regulations of a .number of employees' benefit associations. I.n these the final control is usually vested in the employeril, although the management is by employees and employers jointly. Ordinarily the corporation makes a lump-sum contribution, pays overhead expenses, or shares the premium of the insured. The rules of these organizations may be said to indicate the attitude of the employers represented. Among 20 examined, 10 have a statement In regard to intemperance or to sickness or accident induced by intoxicants, somewhat like the following:

•• No member shall under any circumstances be entitled to benefit when sickness, injury, or death was, in the opinion of the board of trustees, caused or occasioned, directly or indirectly, by the use of intoxicating liquors."

Several of the clauses only refuse to pay benefits for accidents directly resulting from Intoxication.

One of the largest of these funds, however , goes further and states that "if sickness of or injury to any person insured hereunder is due to violation of the law by or to malicious and unlawful acts or culpable or mtentiona : negligence or intemperance or immorality of such person s ," benefits will not be paid. The by-laws of another fund make the f o llowing provision: " Superintendents shall have authority to ca.n­ cel m e mbership upon receiving reliable information of habitual or frequent drunkenness,” ."

ADVERTISING.

Although tt does .not lead to any positive conclusion, it is nevertheless inter P.s ting to learn that · the two leading general business men's magazines e s in the country do not carry liquor advertisements. Whether this boy c ott exists in the various trade journals we bad no opportunity to ascertain. ·

REASONS F O R OPPOSITION TO USE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES.

In our investigation we were interested not only in rules but the reasons for their exi s tence. Our questionnaire sought to obtain statistics of t h e relation of alcohol to · efficiency, accidents, and sickness. We rec e i v ed no r e plies to these questions. Evidently the answers . must come from the laboratory rather than from the shop or the factory. A number of organizations did make the statement. however, that rules ag a inst th e use of intoxicants had resulted i.n a noticeable reduction in the num b er of accid e nts. But none of these furnished us with figur e s to substantiate such statements. The basis for establishing a connection betw e en alcohol and accidents is usually the statistics report e d by th e G e rman si c lrne s s societies. These show that the accident ra t e ls highest on Monday; that it d e creas e s toward the middle of the week. with a mark e d increase on Frid a y and Saturday. It is u s ually claim e d that the greater frequency of accidents at the end of the w e ek is due to increa s od fatigu e . but that the Monday accidents can only be explained by the heavy drinking of the working classes on Sund a y. Other explanation of these facts, however, are pos s ible. There are few American figures. The Lucens Iron Co. has · declared that there was a decrease of 54 p e r c e nt In the number of their accidents in the fir s t s ix month s aft e r the closing of the saloons in Coates­ new s papers. • ville , where their plant is lo c at e d.

At a meeting of the National Saf e ty Coun c il the statement was made that "it is r e cogniz e d that most industrial accidents are brought about with th E: u s e of al c oholi c st imul ants ." A s an an s wer to this statement an an a lysi s of a cc idents app e ars in th e Yearbook of the United States Brewers' Association for 1914 and again for 1915. To quote the con ­ clusion of this organization, ' 1 The loose statements i.n regard to the part played by drink as a factor in industrial accidents are without foundation." But the effect of alcohol upon the reaction time of workers has .not been given adequate consideration in this controversy.

The National Safety Council is composed of 1,800 members found ln over 150 industries, and represents the employers of upward - of 2,500,(100 Moreover, in practically all the workmen's compensation laws It is stated that the employer shall .not be responsible for accidents due to intoxication. These clauses indicate a general conviction that there is a.n important group of accidents for which employers are in no way responsible, anll !or which they should .not be charged.

In our questionnaire we asked 1f alcohol had a place in the problem of Irregularity c r attendance. Here again the answers, though unaccompaniecl by statistics to bear them out, were without exception m the affirmative. F:Jreign experience frequently cited-for instance, that of the Leipzig Sh : k Benefits sh . owing that drinkers lose two and one-half times as many days as .nondrinkers , must be seriously discounted, because, in this case, the definlttcn of drinkers is those who show signs of chronic alcoholism. It fails to consider that much larger group of the occasional drinkers.

COMBATING THE USJIJ OF INTOXICANTS.

In addition to the rules previously summarized efforts have been made by some- employers to discourage the use of alcoholic beverages among workers. This IS particu1arly true of the industries in which the employer is still in ~wse touch with the individual employee.

Efforts to educate employees are in force i.n a number of organizations • Publications of the Colorado Fuel & Iron Co., the Commonwealth Steel Co., the Avery Co., the Illinois Steel Co., have contained messages to employees against the use of intoxicants. A number of concerns have Issued special leaflets bearing upon this, and in two instances that have come to our attention addresses are made to the employees on this subject .

In addition, the weekly bulletin of the National Safety Council has In a number of instances mentioned the use of alcoholic beverages. The . se paragraphs w.ere posted on shop bulletin boards by many employers.

In isolated instances, employers _ are endeavoring to develop substitutes for the saloon. We find, for example, a statement of the Brook l yn Rapid ' l'ransit Co. that clubrooms have been erected at its depots and terminals Jn order to C'ombat the saloon. This is also being done oy other traction companies a.nd by a number of railroads. Housing contHtions are being improved in several corporation communities and many factories are providing lunchrooms with this.

To come now to a summary of our study. We have returns from the employers of ' 750,000 Individuals : this is 4 per cent of those engaged in trade, transportation, and the mechanical and manufacturing industries of the United States These employers forbid alcohol in their plants; in many instances its use is considered in the promotion and retention o1 employees; its use at any time is prohibited i.n such Fn~~~g:}:f ~~t~b~fs~~~~~t~~.n, and this practice is being followed by some This analysis inaicates that a number of employers are making up their minds on the use of alcohol by their employees. By whatever reasoning they are arriving at their conclusion, whether they feel tt ts i.n the interest of the public, of the employee, or of good business, they seem to be taking a stand against the man who uses alcohol. They :ue not considering the detailed and intricate question of the effects of alcohol on the mind and body-these preliminaries have been Ignored • they find the n~Jndrinker the more satisfactory employee. '

Mr. JONES of Washington. I also want to insert an article from the Literary Digest headed "Two years' sobriety in Russia."

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it will be so ordered.

The matter referred to is as follows:

[From the Literary Digest, Mar. 24, 1917.]

TWO YEARS' SOBRIETY IN RUSSIA.

Drawing sober breaths of rejoicing, Russia does .not forget the time when " there were entire drunken villages, drunken cities, a drunken army, a drunken Russia.” So the Petrograd correspondent of the Neue Ziiricber Zeitung presents a survey of the results of the prohibition ukase of July 29, 1914. "What would have become of Russia without the revolutionary proclamation?" is a question put by many. A representative of. the Duma has said that "the very thought of the fateful consequences on the battle field and In the country itself of a continuation of the inveterate alcohol regime makes every patriot shudder." The writer continues : . "We are, therefore, more than overjoyed to know that it has been statistically proved that the daily producing capacity of the workingman since the promulgation of that message of salvation has been increased by 15 per cent, and that Monday, the day when millions of muzhik (farmers) werE' found in the gutters, has become a .normal workday in Russia. But not only the . mir (village community) felt the consequences ; the life also in the city was as if of a sudden transformed. The population ru s hed to the schools and savings banks, cooperative societies opened their counters by the hundred. The whole aspect of the family life, the very looks of the people on the street, were changed. How quick l y the population grasped the prospective benefits of the great reform is best shown by the fact that wh e n it became known that the imperial ukase , ln order to become legally valid, will need the express consent of the majority of the mirs, only an exce e dingly low percentage refused the indorsement. To-day there is hardly a village ln the vast Emp ; r e wh t> r e the blessings of heaven are not called down on the Little Father in Petrograd.

"January last (1916) the zemstvo ( c ounty assembly) of Moscow circularize d the peas a nt s in ord e r to ascertain in the most direct possible way tne impression ot the p o pulation. A few of the replies mad e by the village elders, most ol them a s Illit e rat e as their charges, have a. great economic and ps y chological value: :

"'The men feel strong e r. 'Ib ei r treatment of their women folk and attitude toward their neighbor s i s not th e sam e ns before.

"• The children are now .nic e ly dress e d and have even shoes on their feet. One bears no more quarreling in the : zbas (farmhouses).

.. 'I was amazed to find among our farmers some who sub s cribe to "• The people have become more honest.'

" “There are, however, some who do not give up all hope to see again the vodka bottle in its ancient glory: ' The war will end with our victory; our heroes will return, and then, of course, moderately, one will have to drink again:"

Our authority states that the malcontents are mostly found among the lazy farm hands and the city loafers, who try to replace the old wine and alcohol by all possible substitutes. ·The substitUtes offered by the Government and the municipalities are . theater~, moving pictures, reading rooms, clubs, tea houses, and similar institutions. · '"Nobody has so quickly and completely grasped the import of the s-ocial revolution as woman, the greatest sufferer from the old alcohol curse. We are, therefore, not astonished to learn that as soon as the saloons. were- definitely closed the- peasant women marched to the churches in Indian file to burn a Calldle each, thanking the- Lord for tives? the g-reat delivery. ' ·

" When last spring the question of rep · ermitting the sale of beer and red wine came up in the Duma, Tarasov, a farmer ' deputy, exclaimed: ' U the women would hear you, they would pull you down from this platform.'"

Mr. JONES of Washington. People ha-ve come to realize that upon him? there is no good in alcohol as a beverage; that it is a noxious poison; that it stimulates only to weaken; that it undermines the brain and weakens the body; that it incites the · mob and fires it with hate and savagery; that it fills the homes with sorrow, suffering, .poverty, and death; that it kills love and begets - hate; that it destroys reason and enthrones brutality; that it wastes the earnings of the laborer ; squanders the profits of business ; closes the door of opportunity ; hinders advancement and turns success into failure; that it knows ' no politics save Its own selfishnesS'; no law save its own will and no patriotism save its own ends; that it destroys- health. wastes · wealth, weak· e-ns the wiU, paralyzes tl'le brain, corrupts morals, excites lust, enmity, and hate, breeds riots and anarchy; that it fills our jails with criminals, our · poorhouses with paupers, and ' our asylums with imbeciles and lunatics; that it blasts the hopes and aspirations of the individual, undermines and destroys the home, and weakens the State. ·

· No one defends the saloon or the liquor traffic. No one points out any good that comes from it ta the individual, the home. or the Nation; to industry, enterprise, or labor. I trust this resolution may be passed, and I hope this amendment will b~ adopted. It will mean more of comfort to the man, more of joy to the home, and more .of strength to the Nation than anything Con- · gress can do. I would rather have an humble part in doing this great thing than to lead in any other legislation that ie likely to come before the Senate of- the United States.

Mr. THO:l\fPSON. Mr. President, I wish first to · congratulatethe able, courageous, and industrious Senator from Texas [Mr. SHEPPARD] on finally succeeding in getting the time · fixed for a vote on the national prohibition amendment resolution. This is the first time in the history of the country that the Senate will have been given an opportunity to vote on this important question.

I ha-ve always been favorable to national prohibition. I have regarded it as one · o.f the moS't important questions before the American people; and as most vital to the welfare 01 our Nation. Entertaining these views, I have-introduced a national prohibition resolution, similar to the one - we a-re now considering, at the commencement of every Congress since I have been in the Senate. I am thel'ef<Jre greatly pleased that we will · soon be able to vote on this resolution, and I sincerely hope that the necessary two-thirds- vote required by · the Constitution will respond to the roll call.

Mr. President, owing to the fact that Kansas has always taken the lead in prohibition legislation: and has · been the beneficiary of so many blessings resulting therefrom, and our . people are practically unanimous for national prohibition, whenever this question comes up Kansas seems to bear the brunt of the fight. The enemy appears to center its guns · upon the strongest opposition with the hope of destroying it first. We would not complain of this if our opponents were fair and correctly represented our attitude toward this law and theresults obtained therefrom. What we do object to is the false representations usually made, and the tirade of abuse, slander, and calumny heaped upon us by the opposition. If our exact situation and conditions were truthfully represented we would have no fault to find, because we are proud of our standing and record in this respect and have nothing to conceal but everything to reveal, and want the world to know all about it. r

As evidence of the unfair and ' unwarranted methods of the opposition, I desire to call special attention to the action of Representative JACOB' E. MEEKER, sometimes referred to as the “Preacher Congressman," who on March 3, 1917, just before Congress adjourned, obtained permission from the House to extend his remarks in the REcORD. ·

While he denied in the House the other day that he had eV'er been a Methodist minister, yet the ' denial was specific in those terms; but it would seem from the ecclesiastical obituary as composed by the official body of the St. Louis Association of Congregationnl Ministers and Churches that they simply placed him in the wrong pe'\V', and that he was at one time a Congregationnl minister · , and resigned under censure. As evidence of this, 1\Ir. President, I desire to send to the desk and have r'ead a letter Which was written to Supt. W. S. Shupp, of the Missouri Anti-Saloon League, of st: . Louis, Mo., by Dwight S. Bayley, registrar, ip connection with this subject, showing the · resignation of the Member.

Mr. OVERMAN. Mr. President, is the Senator referring to a gentleman who is now a Member of the House of Representa­

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. KINa in the chair) .. The - Chair so understands. .

Mr. OVERl\fAN. Is not that against the rules of the Senatereferring to a Member of another body in a way that reflects

Mr. THOMPSON. I know of no rule of this body which makes it improper to show a public record.

1\fr. OVERMAN. I think it is against the rules of this body. 1\fr. THOMPSON. It is simply a letter and a published record showing a particular fact. I desire either to read or to have read the letter and the record of this ecclesiastical body. It simply shows the resignation of this man from membership in tile Congregational Ministerial Association.

Tlle PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator from Kansas pardon the Chair? Is it .a reflection upon a Member of the House of Representatives?

Mr. THOl\.fPSON. It is simply proof, Mr. President, as I understand it, that he was a minister of the Congregational Church. and , resigned under censure. I know of no rule of the Senate that ·deprives me of the right to show that fact, for I would not, of course, want to violate any rule of the Senate.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from North Carolina raise the point of order that the discussion, or proposed discussion, with reference to a Member - of the House is not inorder?. _

Mr. OVERMAN. I do not know anything about this matter, Mr. President. I simply want to preserve the rules of the Senate. It is against the rules of the. Senate for any Senator to refer to a Member of Congress m any opprobrious terms.

Mr. THOMPSON. I should not think it wonlcl be regarded · as opprobrious to show that a Member of the House had been a Congregational minister and had resigned. and that his resigna- , tion was accepted by the ministerial association.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair thinks - the:re is such a rule that would make it improper and out of order to refer to a Member of , the House of Representatives in opprobrious terms and to impute to him. unworthy motives. If there is not, there ought to be.

Mr THOMPSON. l know of no such rule, Mr. President. "I do not want to . violate any rule, even impliedly; but I think it is a fact that ought to be known in connection with what I have to say following the letter and the record I desire to have read.

:ur. OVERMAN. I will state to the Senator from Kansas that · the reason of the rule is this : The gentleman to whom he refers is not here to be heard, and they have a rule similar to ours in the House o:f Representatives. If that man is a Member of the House of Representatives, he caDJ rise on the floor of the Hou e­ of Representatives · and refer to the Senator from Kansas in opprobrious terms. There is a comity between the two bodies by which, if the Senator refers to him in this body, of course he can say what he pleases on the floor of the House about the • Senator from Kansas.

I do not care what the Senator does about it; I am simply calling his attention to the rules.

1\fr. THOMPSON. I want to proceed, af course, according to the rules; but 1i know of ne rule of the Senate that deprives me r of showing this fact, which I think is important in connection with what I have to say; for I will show before I am through that this gentleman violated the rules of the House in his conduct there.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair is not clear whether the Senator from North Carolina raises a point of order or not. However, the Chair hopes he will be pardoned for stating that, as he understands the rule, no Senator ought to make any statement that would be a reflection upon a,ny Member of the. House or impute to him improper conduct oT an unworthy motive. He is not here to defend himself: It would seem to the present occupant of the chair unfair for any Senator to make any comment upon the life or character or political conduct of a Member of the House of Representatives that would reflect upon his honor or his integrity or his good faith.

Mr. THOMPSON. In view of what the Chair has said, I will withdraw - raw the statement and not insist upon the reading of the letter and church record. I will say, however, that this gentleman represents the tenth Missouri district', in which is located 15 large breweries. Shortly after Congress · adjourned, on March S, 1917, instead of extending his own remarks in nc- · cordance with the special privilege accorded him he took occasion to grossly abuse that privilege-

1\Ir. OVERMAN. Mr. President, I am bound to make a point that he may deliver. of order. .

. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it. • Mt·. OVERMAN. It is for the Senator's own protection that I make this point of order, because to-morrow probably the gentleman from Missouri will rise and make a severe attack on him . . The rules of the Senate ought to be preserved, and I do make the point of order.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order is sustained.

Mr. THOMPSON. 1\Ir. President, I am stating the acts of this Congressman in obtaining permission of the House to extend his remarks, and that instead of extending his own remarks he extended the remarks of a paid attorney for the breweries to the extent of 68 pages of solid printed . matter which appears in nonpareil type, at pages 622 to 690, inclusive, of the Appendix to the CoNGRESSIONAL RECORD, Sixty-fourth Congress, wherein the State of Kansas and her people are wantonly and maliciously slandered and abused. I think that that is squarely within the rule, as long as the Congressman himself has resorted to this method and has violated the rule of the House as I contend.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the Senator from Kansas is addressing his remarks to the Chair, the Chair wUl say that an infraction of the rules of the House by a Member of . the House would not, in the opinion of the Chair, warrant an infraction of the rules of the Senate by an attack upon a Member of the Hou e. ·

Mr. THOMPSON. I am not attacking a Member of the House. I am attacking the conduct of an entirely outside party, an · attorney for the breweries, who wrote the article printed in the RECORD.

Mr. OVERMAN . Mr. President, I will simply read the rule: It Is a breach of order m debate to notice what has been said on the same subject in the other House pr the particular votes or majorities on it there, because the opinion of each House should be left to its own independency, not to be influenced by the proceedings of the other ; anti the quoting them -:night beget reflections leading to a misunderstanding between- the two Houses,

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair could not hear all of the matter read by the Senator. The Chair will ask the Senator please to send it to the desk.

Mr. THOMPSON. I am simply calling attention to what was inserted in the Co " ORESSIONAL RECORD. If this is out of order, it is a strange proceeding to me. Things of this character are said every <lay in the Senate without any objection being raised to them, and I have the RECORD here before me, in which the Congressman himself states that an attorney of Kansas City, Mo., prepared the data.

Mr. OVERMAN. I have no interest in this particular matter, Mr. President. I always make this point of order whenever a Senator says anything that · might be considered a reflection upon a Member of the House. .

Mr. THOMPSON. I have simply stated that under the rule of the House permitting this Member to extend - his remarks in the RECORD he extended the remarks of a paid attorney, and I will prove it by his own statement.

Mr. SMOOT. l\Ir. President, I remember the . case to which · the Senator refers. It came about by what I was going to say is the · unjustifiable · practice that the House continues in of allowing remarks of Members to be extended in the RECORD.

Mr. ROBINSON. l\Ir. President, if the Senator from Utah will pardon me, I think he is out of order when · he refers . to a practice of another body in this Capitol as unjustifiable. l\1r. SMOOT. No; if the Senator had just waited, I was about to explain in this way: Of course, I have no right whatever to say what the rules of the House should . be, and in referring to it as I did, I simply referred to it, not as something for which . any one House Member is responsible, yet it is a practice, as a practice, that nobody can defend.

The Senator refers to a large number of pages printed; I do not !mow how . many. I know that it has not only occurred once, but it has occurred many, many time.s; and I know one case where I called the Member's attention to it and stated that the extension of his remarks criticized a Member of the Senate, and lle himself admitted that he had not read the statement and did not know that there was any such thing in the statement which he had put in the RECORD by way of an extension of his remarks.

Now, I do not believe that the House would have allowed a Member to have deli . delivered the speech referred to by the Senator upon the floor of the House. No one in the House knew what was in the extended remarks. They were put in the RECORD, but if it bad been undertaken to announce them upon the floor, which ought to be done in all cases, then they never would have appeared in the REcoliD. Of course it is clearly · a violation of the rule for a Senator to follow the same practice in a speech

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I am simply calling attention to the abuse of this rule, for the benefit not only of tile public but of Congress itself. This is a special privilege of the House, and this matter was inserted after Congress bud au;. journed, and it seems to me . that it certainly deserves the mild criticism I have attempted to give it here. ·

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will announce. if the Senator from Kansas will pardon him, that in thE' opinion of the Chair nothing should be stated by a Senator that '"oulfl be a reflection upon the integrity or moral character of a Member of the other House or impute to him improper or unworthy motives. The Chair may be in error, but the Senator from Kansas has the view of the present occupant of the chair, and the Chair hopE'S the Senator will conform to that view. · l\1r. THOMPSON. I shall certainly endeavor to conform to the ruling of the Chair, for whose opinion I have the greatest respect. I wish, in closing the controversy, to simply call at· tention to this practice, which ought to challenge the serious thought of the membership of that honorable body to bring about a modification of its rule so a.-; to protect itself as well as the country against willful abuse. I want tllE' Congress ancl th~ country to know that this statement, Or “data” '' as he calls it himself, which does not rise to the importance or dignity of a speech, was bought and paid for in so many dollars antl cents.

The statement shows on its face that it was prepared by 0111~ Paul S. Conwell, of Kansas City, l\fo., a young lawyer with whom I have been personally acquainted practically all of his life, having lived in the same town with him in Kansas · as during our boyhood. This young man was educated to be a lawyer, and I wish to say for him that he is really worthy of a bette: · calling than the representative of the whisky and brewery interE>st~ of the country in writing and talking against prohibition. He has been employed in that capacity for the last few years !'imply because of the money he gets out of it, for he told me himself that the only reason he was doing it was because he could make . more money out of it than in the legitimate practice of the law. Any man with no higher conception of the ethics of the legal profession can never hope to attain di tinction in the profession. Howe-ver, Mr. Conwell is already receiving some punishment. For this article which Representative MEEKER introduced in the RECORD Mr. Conwell claims he was to be paid $1.600 for preparing ,- but the brewing companies, with their usual display of honor and honesty, paid him only $250. After reading the article one can hardly blame the breweries for objecting to the payment of this exorbitant sum for an article which is · not actually worth 16 cents. Yet if they agreed to pay it they should follow the old adage which exacts honor among thieves. I have here an article taken from a recent issue of the- Kansas City Star giving an account of the bringing of suit by Mr. Conwell for tba collection of the balance due for preparing this statement, which I send to the desk and ask that it may be read as a part of my remarks.

l\!r. SMOOT. I thought the Chair had ruled on this question once.

l\1r. THOMPSON. I hope that the time the Senator from Utah occupies ~ will not be taken out of my time.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah rises to · a point of order and is entitled to the floor.

l\Ir. SMOOT. This is a direct personal attack upon a Member of the other House.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair thinks so.

l\Ir. SMOOT. I thought the Chair had already ruled upon it. . -

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair ruled two or three times on the question and thinks the point of order is sustained.

Mr. THOMPSON. This is simply an account of a suit brought by Mr. Conwell in corrcboration of my statement that the speech was prepared by this very man. I can not see how the Chair can hold it to be out of order. It is simply in corroboration of the statement I made of the fact that a suit was brought by Mr. Conwell to collect a balance due for preparing this speech. l\Ir. SMOOT. The rule provides that when a question of order is raised the Senator violating the- rule of order must either proceed in order or take his seat. I do not ask that the Senator from Kansas shall take his seat, but I ask the Senator from Kansas to proceed in order. It is not that I care anything about what the newspaper article contains if not a criticism of a Senator or Member of the House. All that I care about is that the Senator should obey the rule of the Senate.

Mr. THOMPSON. I exp - ect to proceed in order and to obey the rule of the Senate. as well as it is obeyed by any of· the other -senators. I simply desire the right to present the paper to corroborate a mere statement of fact. Every Senator d()e~ that every day on this floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The . Chair is of opinion - that an attack may be made upon the honor or the iritf>L;Tity · of a Member of the other House by having read an · article · to the same extent as if the attack were made orally by a Senator. The point of order is sustained. ·

1\Ir. THOMPSON. In view of the ruling of the Chair I will withdraw the article clipped from the Kansas City Star, and ask that it be expunged from the REcor.D, and refer simply to an article taken from the Kansas City Post of June 19, 1917, already contained in the CoNGRESSIONAI, RECORD , on page 4534, introduced by Representative RANDALL, of Californb, on June 29. 1917, and call attention simply to that part of the article concerning the bringing of suit by 1\Ir. Paul S. Conwell, in the opposition. following language: ·