In no previous conflict between capital and labor, it is likely, has the public had as excellent an opportunity of judging the rights and wrongs as in the steel strike. One day after the struggle eventually began the Senate of the United States passed a resolution instructing the Committee on Education and Labor to investigate the strike and report on its causes. The committee conducted public hearings in Washington where Judge Gary and a number of loyal workers were heard on the side of the Steel Corporation, while Foster, Fitzpatrick, Gompers, and other union leaders had equal opportunity, which they availed themselves of, to present their case. The committee also visited the affected districts to secure first-hand evidence on conditions there. In an essentially fair and complete report, submitted to the Senate on November 8, 1919, the committee reviewed the claims of the strike leaders and of the Corporation. While criticizing the steel companies on the question of too long work hours and suggesting that the six-day week could be extended to include all workers the report characterized some of the statements of the strike organizers as false and dismissed their claim of pauper wages, expressing the opinion that the employees of the steel industry were fairly well satisfied with wages received and that the question of wages was not persuasive at all in the consideration of a strike. The committee, in fact, in its own language found little to complain of as to conditions in general outside of long work hours. On the other hand, the committee reported the underlying cause of the strike to be “the determination of the American Federation of Labor to organize the steel workers in opposition to the known and long-established policy of the industry against organization,” and “the seizing upon this cause by some radicals who are seeking to elevate themselves to power in the A. F. of L.” On this point the committee further found that “behind this strike there is massed a considerable element of I. W. W.’s anarchists, revolutionists, and Russian Soviets,” and expressed the opinion that the American Federation of Labor had “made a serious mistake by permitting the leadership of this strike movement to pass into the hands of some who have entertained most radical and dangerous doctrines.” Still further pursuing this point the committee reported: “There may be, in view of the radical utterances and actions of certain strike leaders, some warrant for the belief that the strike in the steel industry is a part of a general scheme and purpose on the part of radical leaders to bring about a general industrial revolution. The committee, however, do not go to that extent because they feel there were some real grievances.” This, of course, is just what steel men and the greater part of the public believe.