805f 
 
 E34 
 \90b 
 
 ■%i 
 
CORNELL 
 
 UNIVERSITY 
 
 LIBRARY 
 
 FROM 
 
CORNELL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY 
 
 924 070 664 945 
 
Cornell University 
 Library 
 
 The original of tiiis book is in 
 tine Cornell University Library. 
 
 There are no known copyright restrictions in 
 the United States on the use of the text. 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924070664945 
 
H. R. 11651-EIGHT HOURS FOR LABORERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. 
 
 HEARINGS 
 
 BEFOHE THE 
 
 COMMITTEE ON LABOR 
 
 ^ HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 
 
 MAY 3, 16, 18, 22, 24, 28, 
 AND 29, 1900. 
 
 MEMBERS OF COMMITTEE ON LABOR, 
 
 FIFTY-NINTH CONGRESS. 
 
 JOHN J. GAEDNBR, New Jersey, Chairman. 
 RICHARD BARTHOLDT, MissoUEi. GEORGE W. NORRIS, Nebraska. 
 
 SAMUEL W. McCALL, Massachusetts. WILLIAM RANDOLPH HEARST, New York. 
 
 EDWARD B. VREELAND, New York. JOHN T. HUNT, MissobEi. 
 
 J4.MES P. CONNER, Iowa. HENRY T. RAINEY, Illinois. 
 
 HERMAN P. GOEBEL, Ohio. A. O. STANLEY, Kentucky. 
 
 KITTREDGE HASKINS, Vermont. THOMAS B. DAVIS, West Virginia. 
 
 John G. Shreve, Clerk. 
 
 WASHINGTON: 
 
 GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE. 
 1906. 
 
H2> 
 8 OS-/ 
 3/ 
 
 /906 
 
 A^773JZ7 
 
EIGHT HOURS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. 
 
 HEARING BEFOBE THE COMMITTEE ON LABOB OF THE HOUSE 
 OF REPRESENTATIVES ON THE BILL H. B. 11651, ENTITLED "A 
 BILL LIMITING THE HOURS OF DAILY SERVICE OF LABOBERS 
 AND MECHANICS EMPLOYED UPON WOBK DONE FOR THE 
 UNITED STATES, OR FOR ANY TERRITORY OR THE DISTRICT 
 OF COLUMBIA, THEBEBY SECUEING BETTEB PBODUCTS, AND 
 FOR OTHER PURPOSES." 
 
 Copy of Mil under consideration, H. R. 11651, Fifty-ninth Congress, first session. 
 
 A BILL Limiting the hours of daily service of laborers and mechanics employed upon 
 work done for the United States or any Territory or the District of Columbia, thereby 
 securing better products, and for other purposes. 
 
 Bp, it enacted iy the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
 States of America in Congress assernbled. That each and every contract here- 
 after made to which the United States, any Territory, or the District of Colum- 
 hia is a party, and every such contract made for or on behalf of the United 
 States or any Territory or said District, which may require or involve the 
 employment of laborers or mechanics, shall contain a provision that no laborer 
 or mechanic doing any part of the worlv contemplated by the contract, in the em- 
 ploy of the contractor or any subcontractor contracting for any part of said 
 work contemplated, shall be required or permitted to work more than eight 
 hours in any one calendar day ; and each and every such contract shall stipulate 
 a penalty for each violation of the provision directed by this act of five dollars 
 for each laborer or mechanic, for each and every calendar day in which he shall 
 labor more than eight hours ; and any officer or person designated as inspector 
 of the work to be performed under any such contract, or to aid in enforcing 
 the fulfillment thereof, shall, upon observation or investigation report to the 
 proper officer of the United States or any Territory or the District of Columbia, 
 all violations of the provisions in this act directed to be made in each and 
 every such contract, and the amount of the penalties stipulated In any such con- 
 tract shall be withheld by the oflicer or person whose duty it shall be to pay 
 the moneys due under such contract, whether the violation of the provisions of 
 such contract is by the contractor, his agents, or employees, or any subcon- 
 tractor, his agents, or employees. No person, on behalf of the United States or 
 any Territory or the District of Columbia, shall rebate or remit any penalty 
 imposed under any provision or stipulation herein provided for, unless upon a 
 finding which he shall make up and certify that such penalty was imposed by 
 reason of an error in fact. 
 
 Nothing in this act shall apply to contracts for transportation by land or 
 water, nor shall the provisions and stipulations in this act provided for affect 
 i?o much of any contract as is to be performed by way of transportation, or for 
 such materials as may usually be bought in open market, whether made to con- 
 form to particular specifications or not. The proper officer on behalf of the 
 United States, any Territory, or the District of Columbia, may waive the pro- 
 visions and stipulations in this act provided for as to contracts for military or 
 naval works or supplies during time of war or a time when war is imminent. 
 No penalties shall be exacted for violations of such provisions due to extraor- 
 dinary emergency caused by fire or flood, or due to danger to life or loss to 
 property. Nothing in this act shall be construed to repeal or modify chapter 
 three hundred and fifty-two of the laws of the Fifty-second Congress, approved 
 August first, eighteen hundred and ninety-two, or as an attempt to abridge the 
 pardoning power of the Executive. 
 
 3 
 
4 eight hours for laborers on" government work. 
 
 Committee on Labor, 
 
 House of Eepresentatives, 
 
 Thursday, May 3, 1906. 
 The committee met at 11 o'clock a. m., Hon John J. Gardner 
 (chairman) in the chair. 
 
 The Chairjian. This hearing was called at the suggestion of the 
 president of the American Federation of Labor, Mr. Gompers, he 
 having expressed a desire to the chairman to meet the committee 
 and to be heard on matters of legislation pending before the com- 
 mittee at this time, and, as I understood him, particularly with ref- 
 erence to the eight-hour bill, and so, Mr. Gompers, if you are ready to 
 proceed, we will hear you. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. SAMUEL GOMPERS, PRESIDENT OE THE 
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR. 
 
 Mr. Gompers. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, Mr. 
 Gardner, the chairman of the committee, stated that I requested 
 that a meeting of the committee might be called for the purpose of 
 hearing the representatives of the interests of labor, or the repre- 
 sentatives of labor in matters of interest to the wage-earners of the 
 country, not necessarily for hearings in the generally accepted sense 
 of that term, but rather that we might urge upon the committee, as 
 briefly as we can find words to state what we have in mind to say, 
 the necessity for legislation, the necessity for the enactment of some 
 of the bills which are now before this committee. I take it, of 
 course, that it would not be appropriate to discuss matters or meas- 
 ures or bills that are in the hands of other committees of Congress, 
 but there are a number of them in the hands of this committee, the 
 Committee on Labor, and we are strongly desirous that the Com- 
 mittee on Labor of the House, . that the House itself, that Congress 
 shall pass bills which are pending in this Congress and which have 
 dragged a very weary existence through' several previous Congresses. 
 Among them I think I should urge the enactment of the eight-hour 
 bill introduced in the House by the chairman of this committee, Mr. 
 Gardner. 
 
 The child-labor law, which, although it has now passed the House 
 and is now in the hands of the Committee on Education and Labor, 
 was received by that committee, and, as passed by the House, in such 
 a form that it is practically incomprehensible and contradictory in 
 the very terms. I had the pleasure of appearing before the Senate 
 Committee on Education and Labor when the committee had that 
 bill under consideration, and the Senators in attendance expressed 
 themselves as entirely favorable to the bill. They wanted to have 
 the bill properly formulated to mean something, and to be enforce- 
 able, to eliminate the objectionable or contradictory and meaning- 
 less terms. I take it therefore that the Senate is in ^ mood^o pass 
 that bill, and I trust that if it is passed in anything like a tangible 
 form, having some meaning, that it may receive the support of the 
 members of the House constituting the Committee on Labor, and 
 thus secure the enactment of such a bill. 
 
 Mr. GoBi^EL. Is there a copy of that bill here ? 
 
 Mr. GoJiPERS. I do not know that it is here as passed by the House, 
 but my attention was called to it by the contradictory terms in the 
 
EIGHT HOURS FOE LABOREES ON GOVERNMENT WOEK. 5 
 
 bill which was referred to by Senator Clapp in the committee, and 
 there was no escaping the conclusion that the bill certainly needs 
 amendment and change. 
 
 The Chairman. Let me interrupt you here to say, if it has any 
 bearing, the child-labor bill has never been before this committee, and 
 on its return from the Senate it will not come before this committee. 
 That bill was referred to the Coimiiittee on the District of Columbia. 
 The District of Columbia Committee considered it and reported it, 
 and under their management it was passed. It being a District mat- 
 ter, Mr. Cannon referred it to the District Committee. 
 
 Mr. GoEBEL. I never saw it, and that is the reason I asked if it was 
 here. 
 
 Mr. Stanley. It is the bill 17562 that Mr. Gompers refers to. 
 
 Mr. GoMPEKS. While attending the Senate committee, suddenly 
 the discussion sirose in regard to the child-labor bill, or rather the in- 
 vestigation into the extent of the labor of women and children, and 
 T gleaned that there was some objection to that bill, to the Senate 
 committee having that bill under consideration fo.r the reason of the 
 indefiniteness of that bill as reported to the committee and passed 
 by the House, for the reason that it did not stipulate the salaries and 
 the parties to receive them ; that it was too indefinite, and there would 
 be objection on that score. 
 
 The Chairman. Not to interrupt you, let us get clear our position. 
 The child-labor bill was referred by the Speaker to the District Com- 
 mittee, and that committee retained jurisdiction of it until its passage 
 through the House, and it went to the Senate. About that bill we 
 know nothing in our records here. 
 
 As to the bill that did go through the House, this is the history: 
 The President, in his message, recommended an investigation by the 
 National Government, intended to be sociological, of the child-labor 
 question and the woman-labor question. Mr. Gardner, of Massachu- 
 setts, introduced a resolution reading as follows : 
 
 Resolved, That the Secretary of Commerce and Labor be, and he is hereby, 
 requested to investigate and report ou the condition of child labor under 14 
 years, wherever employed, and to furnish to the House of Representatives a 
 complete statement as to the various State laws regulating child labor and the 
 effectiveness of their enforcement. 
 
 Taking all the papers together, this committee substituted a bill 
 for a national investigation of the child-labor question, but that has 
 no relation to the child-labor bill for the District of Columbia, which 
 has passed, and is now in the Senate. The bill which passed this 
 committee for the investigation of the women and child labor ques- 
 tions is still on the Calendar of the House, and has been made a 
 special order. 
 
 Mr. Gompers. It was because of the previous statement by you, Mr. 
 Chairman, in regard to this matter that I passed this entirely over, 
 and then came to the suggestion of this bill, which passed this commit- 
 tee and is reported to the House. 
 
 Mr. GoEBEL. For the investigation ? 
 
 JVlr. GoMPERS. The investigation. I will say that the same bill is, 
 in effect, before the Senate, and I heard such criticism made of it, and 
 the reason that I mention it is that if it may occur to the committee 
 that if the criticism is justified it may be changed, in order not to 
 
6 EIGHT HOURS FOR LABORERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. 
 
 encounter that opposition, either when the House bill goes to the 
 Senate when it passes or when the Senate bill may come to the House. 
 The Chairman. Let us determine if that criticism is fair. We 
 think it is not. This bill (H. K. 17562) reads as follows : 
 
 Be it enacted tiy the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States 
 of America in Congress asseindled, That the Secretary of Commerce and Labor 
 be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed — 
 
 There is nobody to receive a salary there. That is the Secretar}' of 
 Commerce and Labor — 
 
 to investigate and report on the industrial, social, moral, educational, and 
 physical conditions of women and child workers in the United States wherever 
 employed, with special reference to their ages, hours of labor, term of employ- 
 ment, health, illiteracy, sanitary and other conditions surrounding their occupa- 
 tion, and the means employed for the protection of their health, person, and 
 morals. ' 
 
 Sec. 2. That to enable the Secretary of Commerce and Labor to make this 
 investigation he is hereby authorized to expend the sum of three hundred 
 thousand dollars, or so much thereof as may be necessary, for per diem in lieu 
 of subsistence of special agents and employees while traveling on duty away 
 from their homes arid outside of the District of Columbia, at a rate not to 
 exceed three dollars per day for their transportation and for the employment of 
 experts and temporary assistants, and for the purchase of materials necessary 
 for said report ; and for the purposes of this act the Secretary of Commerce and 
 Labor is hereby directed to utilize, in so far as they may be adequate, the forces 
 of the Bureau of Labor and of the Bureau of the Census. 
 
 Now, that is an investigation to be made by the Secretary of Com- 
 merce and Labor through the Bureaus of Labor and of the Census. 
 He is allowed $300,000 for the per diems of the experts, and it is not 
 possible that there is anything in the criticism that the bill is indefi- 
 nite in not designating the persons to receive the money, because, as a 
 matter of fact, I suppose it is an open secret that the bill was drawn 
 in the Department as containing every word that they need to carry 
 on the investigation in the most definite and thorough way. 
 
 Mr. GoMPEES. I am not making the criticism. I am simply calling 
 attention to the fact that criticism was made, so that you may know 
 what you may have to meet in the matter. 
 
 The Chairman. Yes. 
 
 Mr. GoMpisES. We ask that the committee report the Gardner bill, 
 H.' R. 11651. Mr. Chairman, this bill has been before five Con- 
 gresses; hearings extending over periods of five or six months have 
 been held in both this committee and the Senate Committee on Edu- 
 cation and Labor. It was reported favorably by the Committee on 
 Labor several times, and passed the House of Representatives twice. 
 It was reported favorably once by the Senate Committee on Educa- 
 tion and Labor, after it passed the House, and only by reason of the 
 Senator who took charge of the bill himself signing a minority re- 
 port against it was it that its defeat was encompassed. "We were at 
 the point of a decisive vote in the Senate upon three different occa- 
 sions, and we had reason to believe that the bill would have been a 
 law if a decisive vote could have been reached. The only time when 
 the Committee on Labor of the House did not report the eight-hour 
 bill favorably was in the last Congress. In fact, the committee 
 made no report at all upon the bill. Instead, the committee adopted 
 a series of resolutions containing several interrogatories and re- 
 ferred these questions to the Secretary of the Department of Com- 
 merce and Labor. 
 
EIGHT HOURS FOR LABORERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. T 
 
 The questions themselves were proposed by the opponents of the 
 bill. At the time that they were proposed attention was called to 
 the fact that they were suggested simply for the purpose of procras- 
 tination, of dragging the thing along so that no action could be taken 
 by the then Congress. And ftirther attention was called to the fact 
 that the questions were absurd upon their face and unanswerable. 
 The committee, however, saw fit to take the view of the opponents 
 of the eight-hour bill and adopted the resolution with the questions, 
 and referred them to the Department of Commerce and Labor, and 
 we have seen what the Secretary has said. For convenience and to 
 recall the matter to the minds of the gentlemen who are members of ' 
 this Congress and who were not members of the last Congress, I just 
 want to read the resolutions as adopted by the committee : 
 
 RESOLUTION OF THE COMMITTEE. 
 
 Be it resolved iy the Committee on Lator of the House of Representatives, 
 That the Secretary of Commerce and Labor be, and. he is hereby, requested to 
 investigate and report upon the bill, now pending in said House (H. R. 4064), 
 entitled "A bill limiting the hours of daily service of laborers and mechanics 
 employed upon work done for the United States, or for any Territory, or for 
 the District of Columbia, and for other purposes," his said report to state his 
 conclusions with regard to the following questions: 
 
 1. What would be the additional cost to the United States of the various 
 materials and articles which it customarily procures by contract, which would 
 be governed by the limitations set out in the said bill? 
 
 2. What damage, if any, would be done to the manufacturing interests 
 affected by the provisions of the bill if enacted? 
 
 Mr. Davenport. Would it interrupt you, Mr. Gompers, if I asked 
 vou whether the bill there referred to was not an entirely different 
 bill from the bill No. 11651 ? 
 
 Mr. Gompers. No. 11651 is the original eight-hour bill, which was 
 introduced by Congressman Gardner, the chairman of this committee, 
 and is the bill for which the American labor movement "has stood and 
 which it has advocated. It was changed by the Senate Committee on 
 Education and Labor in the last Congress, and^ rather than get noth- 
 ing, we preferred that; but I think that M^e have about changed our 
 minds and gone back to the demand of having an effective bill. 
 
 Mr. Da\'enpoet. But the point is that the report of Secretary Met- 
 calf is directed to an entirely different bill from this bill 11651. 
 
 Mr. Gompers. As a matter of fact, while the first paragraph of the 
 resolution names the bill, yet the questions have no reference to the 
 bill, but to the essence of the proposition involved and are equally 
 applicable, or inapplicable, to the present bill or to any consideration 
 of the proposition to reduce the hours of labor. 
 
 Mr. Davenport. But the solicitor, Mr. Collier, was first asked by 
 him to define the limits of that bill, so that the inquiries might be 
 directed to those matters. 
 
 The Chairman. In what particulars does this differ from that ? 
 
 Mr. Davenport. Oh, in such ways that as I understand the solic- 
 itor to say, it narrowed the operation of this bill so much that when 
 the Commissioner came to inquire as to the probably increase of cost 
 to the Government it was not 95 per cent. In fact, it practically con - 
 fined it to the shipbuilding and steel-producing interests. I will not 
 interrupt Mr. Gompers any further. 
 
 Mr. Gompers. Mr. Chairman, the difference in the bill now beforf! 
 this committee and that originally before the committee years ago 
 
8 EIGHT HOURS FOE LABOEEES ON GOVEENMENT WOEK. 
 
 and the one amended by former Senator McComas, of Maryland, is 
 very small. They are essentially the same.. There is different lan- 
 guage employed, or certain language omitted in Senator McComas's 
 bill, which we believe ought to be retained in a bill, but I want to say 
 that the questions propounded by the committee were not changed in 
 any particular and had as much reference to the McComas bill of the 
 last Congress or the Gardner bill of former Congresses as to the 
 Gardner bill of this Congress. 
 
 Mr. Hunt.. Might I ask if this is an exact copy of the bill which 
 passed the Fifty-sixth Congress ? 
 
 Mr. GoMPEKS. I think so. 
 
 Mr. Hunt. The same, practically? 
 
 Mr. GoMPERS. Yes, sir ; practically the same. 
 
 Mr. Hunt. If not exactly the same ? 
 
 Mr. GoMPEES. If not exactly the same, it is practically the same. 
 
 Mr. Hunt. Which passed the House in the Fifty-sixth Congress? 
 
 Mr. GoMPEKS. Yes, sir. I want to make this clear, that on the ques- 
 tions propounded by the committee to the Secretary of Commerce 
 and Labor it would not have made any difference, if the question was 
 that the Government of the United States was to place all industries 
 of our country under the eight-hour day, or if it only applied to one 
 particular industry. The committee undertook to ask questions of 
 economics, and speculative questions — theoretical questions — and it 
 did not make any difference whether it applied to the then bill, Xo. 
 4064, or to the present bill, No. 11651. I want to continue reading 
 the questions of the committee. 
 
 Mr. Payson. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question of Mr. Gompers 
 here? As Mr. Gompers knows, I am largely interested in this, and 
 so that we may understand one another as we go along I would like 
 to ask him this : Is it your contention that this bill in substance is the 
 bill of the last Congress? 
 
 Mr. Gompers. Substantially; yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Payson. Very well. 
 
 Mr. Hunt. With changes made necessary to secure action at the 
 other end of the Capitol ? 
 
 Mr. Gompers. It is the original Gardner bill. 
 
 Mr. Payson. In substance the bill of last year? 
 
 Mr. Gompers. I think it is more ample, inasmuch as it is more 
 clear. 
 
 Mr. Payson. I am not asking that, but I ask you if it is your con- 
 tention that it is substantially the same bill as that of the last 
 Congress. 
 
 Mr. Gompers (reading) : 
 
 3. Whether manufacturers who have heretofore furnished materials and 
 articles to the Government under contract would continue to contract with the 
 Government if such contracts were within the peremptory eight-hour limitation 
 provided by said bill? 
 
 4. What would be the effect of the enactment of the said bill upon the ship- 
 building industry? 
 
 5. What would be the effect of the enactment of the said bill, if any. upon the 
 export trade of the country? 
 
 6. Are the laborers of the country, organized and unorganized, who \^ould be 
 affected by the proposed legislation, willing to have taken away from them the 
 right to labor more tlian eight hours per day, if thoy desire to do so? 
 
 7. What effect will this proposed legislation have, if any, upon the agricul- 
 tural interests of the country ? 
 
EIGHT HOX'RS FOR LABORERS OX GOVEP.XMEXT 'VORK. 9 
 
 I wonder whether all the members of Congress have read the 
 answei's of the Secretary of Commerce and Labor. It is really most 
 interesting reading. These answers are on page 4 of the report of the 
 Secretary. To the first question the Secretary of Commerce and 
 Labor makes this answer : 
 
 It is clearly impossible to give a definite answer to this question. 
 
 The Secretary jDroceeds then to gi^e you his reasons, showing that 
 it is impossible to answer that question. ' To question 2 his answer is : 
 
 Tbis inquiry ran not be answered definitely for the same reasons as are 
 stated in connection with the first inquiry. 
 
 To question 3 he answers : 
 
 This question can only be answered by the fontr.K-toi's themselves, and it is 
 doubtful whether a definite reply could be given by them, etc. 
 
 Mr. GoEBEL. Mr. Gompers, I kno^y that he starts in with that sort 
 of thing, but you ought to read on there. He goes on there and he 
 says that there will be an increased cost, and so forth. You do not 
 give his answer in full. It is not because of the difficulty to answer. 
 
 Mr. GojEPERS. Let us see. He says in his answer to question 3 
 
 Mr. GoEBEL. Take question 1. He says that it is impossible to give 
 a definite answer to this question, and so on. 
 
 Mr. Gompers. He says: 
 
 It is clearly impossible to give a definite answer to this question. 
 
 Mr. Goebel. Now he gives his reasons why. 
 
 Mr. Gompers. Certainly; but they are reasons why it is impossible 
 to answer the question. Hence, does it not seem an unwarranted 
 procedure to ask a question that is impossible of definite answer? 
 That is a matter that I desire to bring to the attention of this com- 
 mittee. 
 
 Mr. Goebel. But would it not probably follow that the question is 
 so serious a one that it is hard to give a definite answer as to the 
 effect that it would have? It is not because the question is irrele- 
 vant or improper, but becavise of the nature and the circumstances 
 that he could not give a definite answer. But if you will read on, he 
 gives the reasons. 
 
 Mr. Gompers. The reasons why he can not give a definite answer. 
 His reasons do not change the statement that it is incapable of a 
 definite answer. He supports his statement that it is incapable of a 
 definite answer. To question 4 he replies : 
 
 This inquiry offers the same difficulties when a reply is sought. 
 
 To question 5 his reply is : 
 
 This inquiry is likewise not susceptible of definite reply. 
 
 To question (i, as to the position of the working people — and this 
 is the only definite answer that he makes or that he says he is capable 
 of making — he replies in this language : 
 
 This question hns alreiidy been answered by the representatives of organized 
 labor who have appeared before the committee from time to time. 
 
 As to the seventh question, he says : 
 
 The same diflieulties are met with in this question as with the preceding ques- 
 tions when a definite reply is attempted. 
 
10 EIGHT HOURS FOR LABORERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. 
 
 In other words, the Committee on Labor of the last Congress asked 
 a series of questions which officially were communicated to another 
 Department of the Government, and that Department is compelled 
 to say that the questions are incapable of definite or intelligent or 
 proper answer. And the fact of the matter is that the attention of 
 the members of the committee who voted for that proposition — for 
 those questions — Avas called to the fact that they could not be an- 
 swered, and that they were simply submitted by the opposition to the 
 eight-hour bill for the purpose of dragging the thing along through 
 the Fifty-eighth Congress, and in order that the legislation which we 
 sought might be defeated. 
 
 Now, there is no additional argument that can be made here before 
 this committee in support of the bill. There is not one additional 
 thought or fact that could be submitted to this committee in opposi- 
 tion to the bill that has not in some form or other been presented at 
 some hearing and therefore is in print in the oiRcial records of this 
 committee and of other committees of Congress and of Congress itself. 
 Time and time again it has been my duty, with others — not always a 
 pleasurable duty — to ask the consideration and time of the Committee 
 on Labor of the House to hear what we have to say ; and it has not 
 always been a j)leasurable duty, either, to be compelled to call atten- 
 tion to the impatience of the working people of our country with the 
 dilatory methods employed either by the one or the other, the negli- 
 gence, the indifference of some members or parties regarding the 
 interests of labor and the hostility manifested by many and under the 
 tongue of glibness and kindly expression for labor. But when any- 
 thing tangible was suggested or offered or proposed it was met too 
 often with indifference and hostility. 
 
 I am not here, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, to ask for any hear- 
 ings upon this bill. We believe that the facts that are obtainable 
 have been obtained either in support or in opposition to the eight-hour 
 bill. The working people of this country want it. They are in 
 earnest about it. And when I say that they want it, I mean not 
 simply as a mere fad or fancy. They want it because it is an abso- 
 lute necessity to their own well-being and the well-being of our 
 country. 
 
 Some men have said that we are indulging in threats, because we 
 have expressed our dissatisfaction with things as they are going with 
 regard to the interests of labor and the affairs in which labor is inter- 
 ested, and we have been held up to scorn and contempt before several 
 committees of Congress because we dared to say that our patience has 
 been tested to the limit. It has been construed that we have threat- 
 ened members of Congress and Senators with our displeasure, if 
 you please, or threatened them that we would try to supplant them 
 with other men representing the people in Congress, and this is the 
 kind of threats about which so much is said. 
 
 For heaven's sake, when has it become a crime or an offense for an 
 American citizen to express his preference for one Congressman or 
 (mother? I imagine that it is not so grave an offense for the work- 
 ingmen to exercise their sovereign political power, accorded to them 
 equally with all other citizens, in furtherance of their interests or in 
 furtherance of the principles in which they believe, in the pro- 
 tection of the rights to which they are entitled or think they 
 are entitled. I am sure I am within the limit of truth when I say 
 
EIGHT HOUES FOB LABORERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. 11 
 
 tliat the representative men in the organized labor movement have 
 exercised a healthful and a rightful conservative influence over the 
 working people of our country. If you do not believe it, look to 
 other countries. 
 
 Mr. Haskins. Right here let me ask you a question, whether it 
 would not be better for the laboring organizations of the country to 
 quietly exercise their right of suffrage, as all other people do, rather 
 than to send out letters threatening men who are acting under an 
 oath of office in order to induce them to conform to their particular 
 wishes in the enactment of certain legislation ? 
 
 Mr. GoMPERS. I think the question is scarcely a fair one, for it 
 leaves the inference that the workingmen have done a thing which 
 they have neither a lawful nor a moral right to do, and I deny that 
 the workingmen have done anything of the sort. ~\Vliat they have 
 done is what every other citizen in the United States is expected to 
 do, and that is to ally themselves with those who are similarly sit- 
 uated, who hold similar views, for the purpose of having those inter- 
 ests and those views enacted into laws by Congress. Pray tell me — 
 I might turn the Yankee — what was this movement for the declara- 
 tion of the gold standard? What was the movement for the main- 
 tenance of the free and unlimited coinage of silver ? And a man who 
 stood upon the opposite platform was threatened with dire political 
 defeat. We are interested in the matter of our employment, in the 
 matter of our hours of labor, in the exercise of the rights which every 
 other citizen exercises, and we find that Congress has turned a deaf 
 ear to our complaints, to our memorials for relief, to the petitions 
 which we have presented for redress; and the back of Congress is 
 turned against us by negligence or indifference or hostility, and noth- 
 ing comes from our efforts. What shall we do, continue to come here 
 year after year and year after year and decade after decade and still 
 go back reporting to the men who select us to come here and present 
 their claims, "' Defeat, defeat, defeat ; nothing accomplished ? " 
 
 Mr. Haskins. I understand that the Attorney-General has recently 
 rendered an opinion that the present eight-hour law applies to all 
 Government work. 
 
 Mr. GoMPERS. Have you a copy of that ? 
 
 Mr. Haskins. I have not. 
 
 Mr. GoMPEES. Nor have I. 
 
 Mr. Haskixs. I have seen a copy of it within the last two weeks. 
 
 Mr. GoBBEL. No; he said that it applies to the Canal Zone. 
 
 Mr. Morrison. That did not do very much good, though. 
 
 Mr. GoEBEL. That is what you have reference to ? 
 
 Mr. Haskins. Yes; I suppose so. 
 
 Mr. GoMPERS. There are several things in reference to that, and I 
 am glad that is brought up for this reason, because it matters a great 
 deal what suits Government work. The purpose of this bill is to 
 reach the work done by contract and subcontract, affecting those 
 things which can not be bought in the open market. But shall we be 
 compelled to depend upon the varying influences and varying con- 
 ceptions and varying interpretations? We want something a little 
 more substantial; and as for the eight-hour law in the construction 
 of the Panama Canal, the first great work, the first one great under- 
 taking, or, rather, one of the great undertakings that our Government 
 proposes to build, the eight-hour day so far as it applies to foreign 
 
12 EIGHT HOURS FOR LABORERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. 
 
 laborers is not operative. And who is there who is going to com- 
 plain now? What American workman who may be there and who 
 may be called upon to work in excess of eight hours is going to com- 
 plain? "Who is going to complain? If they complain there it means 
 simply the absolute loss of their situation ; and, as I say, the eight-hour 
 law, the first eight-hour resolution of Congress was not only a means 
 for the shortening of the Avorkday, but it was a declaration of an 
 economic principle established by the Government of the United 
 States, and that principle has been destroyed or vitiated — not de- 
 stroyed, but vitiated to a considerable extent — by the action of Con- 
 gress. 
 
 Mr. GoEBEL. It was suspended. ^ 
 
 Mr. GoMPEES. Yes; suspended. That will do just as well as any 
 of them. 
 
 Mr. Haskins. You understand, do you not, that Congress can not 
 enact any law but what it is subject to interpretation and construc- 
 tion by the courts hereafter? 
 
 Mr. GoMPEES. I understand that very well, and it has seemed to 
 me that inasmuch as Congress does not mind to take a chance as to 
 the constitutionality of a measure when it affects other interests, I 
 do not see why this continuous harping upon judicial interpretation 
 and constitutionality as to measures that have for their purpose the 
 benefiting of so large a mass of the people as the wage-earners are. 
 
 Mr. Stanley. As I understand it, Mr. Gardner, you prepared this 
 bill with great care. I do not think there is any question but what 
 this bill is clearly within the right of Congress. There is no serious 
 question but what you have a constitutional right to circumscribe 
 the hours of labor on Government work, or to define what Govern- 
 ment work is, as has been done in this bill. 
 
 The Chaieman. I do not know whether that is seriously disputed 
 by anybody, now. I think very generally the position has been 
 abandoned. 
 
 Mr. Stanley. Of course, what you want to do is to get a bill 
 through, and then what the courts will do with it is another thing. 
 
 Mr. GoMPERS. Yes; we will take our chances with the courts. 
 There is considerable discussion and rumor as to when Congress will 
 adjourn. Of course we understand that Congress may adjourn, and 
 any bill that is unadopted or which is not passed in this first session 
 may be adopted or passed in the next session. I do not think that 
 Congress ought to adjourn this first session without passing that bill 
 and having it become a law. I urge it, and I trust that the members 
 of the committee may see the wisdom of so doing. 
 
 I said that the report of the arguments in extenso, with testimony 
 to a very great length which was submitted, are all in print. In 
 those committee hearings the last Congress was urged to pass this 
 legislation, and we said that Ave were perfectly satisfied that the 
 committee might take a vote upon the bill without a word from us 
 on the subject and submit our case upon the record, upon the argu- 
 ments and facts submitted in former Congresses. We do not want 
 to add anything more. I am sure there is not a new thought, there 
 is not a new fact, that can be submitted by the opposition. 
 
 Mr. Stanley. Are there any new conditions — I mean interests — 
 that you Avould like to present to the committee ? 
 
 Mr. GoMPEES. I have not really any desire to do that, now. Of 
 
EIGHT HOUES FOB LABORERS ON GOVERNMENT WOKK. 13 
 
 oourso if the committee should so decide to undertake hearings or 
 arguments, I presume that M-e should be compelled to submit. But 
 we shall do so then very reluctantly. We do not want to take up 
 the time of the committee, and we do not want to burden your record. 
 The facts, the theory, and the arguments are all in print. 
 
 Mr. Haskins. There is nothing additional ? 
 
 Mr. GoMPEES. There is not anything in addition that we care to 
 present other than what is already in print. "We might present facts 
 anew, but they would simply support the first contentions. We might 
 make another argument or arguments and clothe them in different 
 language, but in their essence they would be the same. I trust that 
 the committee may report the bill. 
 
 Mr. Davenport. In the original Gardner billwhich has been intro- 
 duced at this session, and which you ask the enactment of now, in 
 lines 12 and 13 on page 1, it is provided that no person " shall be re- 
 quired or permitted to work more than eight hours in any one cal- 
 endar day." In the bill that was before this committee at the last 
 session, the bill as it is in the report made by Secretary Metcalf, are 
 these words, the language used is : " Shall be required or permitted 
 to work more than eight hours in any one calendar day upon such 
 work." Now, we are not novices in this discussion. The insertion 
 of the words " upon such worli " was made, of course, after a great 
 deal of discussion before this committee and before the Senate com- 
 mittee. Do you object to the insertion of those words in the Gardner 
 bill? 
 
 Mr. GoMPERS. I think that the Gardner bill with those words 
 omitted should be enacted. I think that to make it an effective bill, 
 to make it an effective law, those words sliould not be retained. 
 
 Mr. Davenport. That is, that the words " upon such work " should 
 not be inserted ? 
 
 Mr. GoMPERS. Be not inserted. 
 
 Mr. Davenport. Then, it is your desire to have a bill enacted which 
 will require the contractor to stipulate that no workman working 
 upon any part of the work contemplated shall be required or" per- 
 mitted to work more than eight hours at all in any one calendar day ? 
 
 Mr. GoMPERS. In his employ. 
 
 Mr. Davenport. In his employ. 
 
 Mr. GoEBEL. Does not that refer to the contract ? 
 
 Mr. Davenport. It does not ; that is the precise point. 
 
 Mr. GoEBEL. Can it mean anything else but the contract ? 
 
 Mr. Davenport. It is in the contract, but the question is whether 
 the man stipulates that no employee of his shall work in any one cal- 
 endar day more than eight hours. 
 
 Mr. GoEBEL. On that contract. 
 
 Mr. Stanley. That is, four hours might be upon the Government 
 work and six hours upon some other work. 
 
 Mr. GoEBEL. Under the contract. 
 
 Mr. Stanley. The only way it could affect it would be that they 
 would work him eight hours on that contract and two hours on some- 
 thing else. 
 
 Mr. GoEBEL. It would not apply. 
 
 The Chairman. That language is lifted bodily from the act of 
 1892, which had been in effect for a number of years, but we propose 
 to pass this, under which no difficulty of the kind suggested has 
 
14 EIGHT HOURS FOB LABOEEKS ON GOVEENMENT WOBK. 
 
 arisen. We have got this law to-day on the statute books, with this 
 exception. The present law limits its operation by its own terms to 
 the public works of the United States. 
 
 Mr. GoEBEL. Undertaken by the Government? 
 
 The Chairman. No ; to the public works of the United States, and 
 it applies there. So that the whole difference between this bill and 
 the existing law hinges upon the construction of " public works," 
 which, in its turn, hinges upon the ownership of the land on which 
 the work is being done. That, I think, has been held. But this is 
 the act under which our post-offices and custom-houses and every 
 public work of the United States is being built : 
 
 The service and employment of all laborers and mechanics who are now or 
 may hereafter be in the -employment of the Government of the United States 
 or the District of Columbia by any contractor or subcontractor upon any of 
 the public works of the United States, or said District, Is hereby limited and 
 restricted to eight hours in any one calendar day, and it shall be unlawful for 
 any oflBcer of the United States Government or of the District of Columbia or 
 any contractor of such laborers and mechanics to require or permit any such 
 laborer or mechanic to work more than eight hours in any one calendar day. 
 
 I simply cite it to show that when that bill was formulated here we 
 were not adopting anything new, that we were lifting bodily the 
 law under which every public building in the United States was 
 being erected. 
 
 Mr. GoMPERS. I would say that I would like, in turn, to ask Mr. 
 Davenport a question : Whether the adoption of the words " upon 
 such work " in this bill would make any difference in his attitude to 
 the bill? 
 
 Mr. Davenport. Well, I do not think it would. 
 
 Mr. GoMPERS. I do not think it is necessary, then, that I should go 
 any further. 
 
 Mr. Davenport. I wanted to direct attention to the fact that it 
 makes a very material difference as to the scope of this bill, if a man 
 contracts and gives a bond not to permit a person to work more than 
 eight hours a day, and it is not limited in its scope to the work that 
 he is' doing upon that particular contract. It makes some difference. 
 
 Mr. GoEBEL. But how could he give the bond ? A bond has refer- 
 ence to the contract. 
 
 Mr. Davenport. Yes; and the attempt, as we understand it, on 
 the part of the proponents of this legislation, is to force every em- 
 ployer of labor who does work for the Government within the pro- 
 visions of the bill, to prevent him, I might say, from' having his men 
 work more than eight hours a day for him. 
 
 Mr. Payson. Upon any other work than this. 
 
 Mr. Davenport. Now, I would ask Mr. Gompers if there is any ob- 
 jection on his part to the insertion of the words " upon such work? " 
 
 Mr. Gompers. I do not know that the question is really material 
 information to the gentleman who has asked it. He is not going to 
 change his attitude toward this bill one iota, and I do not see any 
 necessity for my answering his question at all. Of course if a mem- 
 ber of the committee should ask that question, that is a different 
 thing. 
 
 Mr. Davenport. I would ask him if these words inserted in the 
 bill No. 4064, " nothing in this act shall apply to contracts for the 
 purchase of supplies by the Government, whether manufactured to 
 conform to particular specifications or not," would meet with his 
 
EIGHT HOUES FOR LABOEEBS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. 15 
 
 approval — whether there is any objection to the insertion of those 
 words? 
 
 Mr. GoMPEES. I advocate the bill as it is. 
 
 The Chairman. The following phrase is new 
 
 Mr. Davenport (reading). " Materials or articles? " 
 
 Mr. GoEBEL. Is it not in substance the same? 
 
 Mr. Davenport. No. Senator McComas said that in his opinion 
 it would limit its operation to only 5 per cent of the work that was 
 done for the Government. Now, that insertion was made after pro- 
 longed discussion before the Senate Committee on Education and 
 Labor and before this committee. The difference between the two 
 bills in that respect 
 
 Mr. Stanley. What are the lines? 
 
 Mr. Davenport. Line 21 is the old Gardner bill: 
 
 Nothing in this act shall apply to contracts for transportation by land or 
 water, nor shall the provisions and stipulations in this act provided for affect 
 so much of any contract as is to be performed by way of transportation or 
 for such materials as may usually be bought in open market, whether made 
 to conform to particular specifications or not. 
 
 Mr. Stanley. That is in this bill ? 
 
 Mr. Davenport. Yes, sir. The way it read in bill No. 406-1: was : 
 
 Nothing in this act shall apply to contracts for transportation by land or 
 water, or for the transmis^on of intelligence, or for such materials or articles 
 as may usuaJly be bought in open market, whether made to conform to par- 
 ticular specifications or not, or for the pjirchase of supplies by the Government, 
 whether manufactured to conform to particular specifications or not. 
 
 Now, what I want to ask Mr. Gompers is whether he objects to the 
 insertion of that clause " and for the purchase of supplies by the 
 Government, whether manufactured to conform to particular speci- 
 fications or not ? " 
 
 Mr. GoMPERS. I do not think it is possible in this fashion to say 
 whether I should be in favor of or opposed to any particular proposi- 
 tion to be inserted or to be omitted in the bill ; but I say in a general 
 way, and as strongly as I can say it, that we want the Gardner bill. 
 r imagine that there will be no objection, to the insertion of the 
 words " for the transmission of intelligence," if that is essential ; 
 but if my conception of the bill is right, I think that is covered in the 
 very terms of the Gardner bill. That is, the language is unnecessary. 
 We exempt the railroads and transportation companies, the common 
 carriers, from the operations of the bill. You know that the repre,- 
 sontatives of the railroad workmen of the United States are asking 
 Congress for a law limiting their hours of daily labor. 
 
 Mr. Payson. To how much ? 
 
 Mr. GoMPEES. I think to eight. 
 
 Mr. Payson. To sixteen hours. Sixteen hours, as was stated by 
 .^Ir. Fuller in a discussion which I had wifh him day before yesterday 
 before the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. 
 
 Mr. GoMPEES. And I take it that you are opposed to that? 
 
 Mr. Payson. Yes ; but not on that ground. 
 
 Mr. Gompers. Undoubtedly you are opposed to it. 
 
 Mr. Payson. Let us be frank about it. 
 
 ilr. Gompers. Yes; of course you are opposed to anything of that 
 sort. Mr. Davenport called attention to the statement made by 
 former Senator McComas that the provisions of his bill would cover 
 
16 EIGHT HOURS FOR LABORERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. 
 
 about 5 per cent of the Government's work, and yet Mr. Davenport 
 did not cease his antagonism to it. It does not make a particle of 
 difference what proposition labor mav make, what suggestion it may 
 make to secure some Government relief, it will meet with the same 
 opposition. A few weeks ago we saw the news flashed across the con- 
 tinent that a railroad telegraph operator had fallen asleep at his post 
 and two trains smashed into each other, killing the human freight. 
 Tt was not stated, though, that this man had been constantly at the 
 ifeyboard for more than two days. 
 
 Mr. Payson. Are you referring to the Colorado disaster ? 
 
 Mr. GoMPBRS. It was just about two months ago; less than two 
 months ago. 
 
 Mr. Payson. Yes. 
 
 Mr. GoMPERS. The operator did not know what had occurred. He 
 was aroused and told that this calamity had occurred, and he said, 
 "Yes; I was asleep." 
 
 Mr. Stanley. Do you not attribute the failure of this Government 
 to exercise any sort of control over the hours of employment to that 
 very condition ? Do you not believe that there can be attributed the 
 great mortaj^ity among both passengers and employees on the rail- 
 roads of the United States over that on other railroads of the world 
 giving similar service to that? 
 
 Mr. GoMPEES. I have not the slightest doubt. 
 
 Mr. Stanley. I believe that there are about 500 per cent more 
 deaths on railroads in the United States than in almost any other 
 country, or about as many as in all the rest of the world put together. 
 
 Mr. Gompees. Yes; and I say in spite of the fact that in recent 
 years there has been a little conformity of the railroad companies 
 to the uniform coupler law, which law was opposed. I do not know 
 that Mr. Davenport opposed it or that Judge Payson opposed it. 
 
 Mr. Payson. In a way I did. 
 
 Mr. Gompees. He opposed it, of course, or if he did not oppose it 
 his prototypes would oppose it. 
 
 Mr. MoEEisoN. The same interests. 
 
 Mr. Gompees. The same interests. The human slaughter would 
 go on. 
 
 Mr. Payson. No ; that does not follow at all. 
 
 Mr. Gompees. No; of course it does not follow from your view- 
 point. Gentlemen, there are new conditions of industry in our time, 
 and the working people, so far as they can, in their organizations 
 undertake to improve or to protect their economic condition. There 
 are certain things over which they can exercise no power of enforce- 
 ment other than through the state — the state, as represented by 
 the Congress and the President, in their enacting power. We can 
 not change the conditions of industry. They must have the fullest 
 opportunity of growth and development. There is no disposition on 
 the part of the working people of our country to interfere with that, 
 but rather their disposition is to encourage the fullest industrial de- 
 velopment. In the matters which can be only determined, in which 
 relief can be only obtained through legislation, we come to the Con- 
 gress of the United States. 
 
 Mr. Rainey. I understand that upon many of these questions sev- 
 eral labor organizations are divided. Upon this question of eight 
 
EIGHT HOUKS FOB LABOBEKS ON GOVERNMENT WOEK. 17 
 
 hours for labor, is there any division among labor organizations in 
 this country ? 
 
 Mr. GoMPEES. Not any. 
 
 Mr. Rainey. Do you know what the attitude of European govern- 
 ments has been to this question of eight hours for labor? 
 
 Mr. GoMPEES. Yes, sir. In England, in France, in Germany, in 
 Russia the tendency is in that direction. And no matter what form 
 of government obtains in any country, the demand of the workers of 
 modern times is universal for the eight-hour workday. There is 
 not any difference of opinion among any of the working people the 
 world over upon that subject. The idea of men saying that the work- 
 men want their right of working longer,^ that they do not want that 
 right taken away irom them, is preposterous. 
 
 Mr. Haskins. Do you mean to include in that statement unor- 
 ganized labor as well ? 
 
 Mr. GoMPERS. Yes; unorganized labor. You may perhaps have 
 noticed that in any statement I have made I have tried to express my- 
 self as voicing the sentiment of labor among the working people. It 
 is true that some men have said and may say again that there are 
 only 3.000,000 organized workmen in the United States. There are 
 some who erroneously, then, make this comparison and say there are 
 80.000,000 people in the United States, and by inference we represent 
 i', nimiber which is as three is to eighty; but they fail to have any con- 
 ception of the fact that these 3,000,000 have vrives and children also, 
 and. as the old, trite saying is, " Where God gives children he also 
 gives bread," but as a rule those who have the most bread have the 
 least children, and those who have the least bread have the most 
 children. 
 
 Mr. Paysox. The men having the children would not trade them off 
 for bread. 
 
 Mr. GoMPEES. Xo, sir; we are not engaged in that' traffic. That 
 rnaj' be a better policy to pursue for those who care less for human 
 life than they do for money. 
 
 Mr. Payson. I only made that remark facetiously. I know that 
 you have children yourself 
 
 Mr. GoMPERS. Yes ; I have five grandchildren — bless their hearts. 
 
 Mr. Payson. I would be glad to trade some bread for children my- 
 self. 
 
 Mr. Haskins. Does this apply to the laborers upon farms, those 
 who are employed in that class of work? Is that the general senti- 
 ment of the laborers on the farms, that they demand an eight-hour 
 day? 
 
 Mr. GoMPEES. I only say this, that wherever they have had an 
 opportunity of expressing themselves that has been the desire, and, 
 secondly, there is this fact, that under the modern conditions of agri- 
 culture they do not work so many hours as they formerly did. 
 
 Mr. Haskins. That is so. I used to work on a farm myself ten to 
 fifteen hours a day. 
 
 ■ iNIr. Stanley. You are making no fight here to have any legisla- 
 tion looking to the regulation of the number of hours that farm 
 laborers should work? The conditions are different among the manu- 
 facturing interests from what they are among farm laborers. I rep- 
 Tcseiit an agricultui'al district, and there are times when a farmer 
 
 EH— 06 2 
 
18 EIGHT HOURS FOR LABORERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. 
 
 is bound to work more than eight hours, and then there are rainy 
 days when he can not work at alT. 
 
 Mr. GoMPERS. This bill has no application at all to farm hands. 
 
 Mr. Haskins. You are speaking of the general sentiment of the 
 wage-earners as a^Dplied to all classes? 
 
 Mr. GoMPERS. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Haskins. That is why I made the inquiry. 
 
 Mr. GoJiPEES. No one expects that conditions are going to remain 
 as they are and that the workingmen are simply going to submit to 
 the tender consideration of the employers, of the great companies and 
 corporations and trusts, which control industry to such an enormous 
 extent. What are we going to do? "We organize, and they tell us, 
 " Well, organize ; but if you manifest any desire to protect yourselves 
 in the ordinary ways that other men protect themselves in, then Ave 
 will deal with you ; " and we are dealt with exceptionally as a class, 
 not under the regular, ordinary judicial proceedings as laid down in 
 the laws of our land and our States. We come to Congress, and 
 every effort made is opposed. I suppose that there will not be very 
 much opposition to a child-labor bill for the District of Columbia. 
 It is so easy, you know, to enact legislation for the protection of the 
 children of some other land. It is so easy to adopt a proposition that 
 will affect some. one else. 
 
 I have made the statement before this committee several times and 
 before other committees of Congress and of our State legislatures — 
 and it is more justified to-day than ever at any time when it was 
 uttered — that it does not make a particle of difference whatever labor 
 may do on any field of action for the purpose of protecting its inter- 
 ests, it is going to meet with the bitter antagonism, not only of the 
 greedy and the greediest of the employers, but by their retained 
 attorneys they wfll antagonize it, the latter of whom are very much 
 more zealous'in their opposition than are the men who retain them. 
 It has been my duty to appear before the committees of Congress for 
 thirty years, and before committees of the legislatures of the various 
 States, of a number of States, and I never yet have seen a bill intro- 
 duced that sought and had for its purpose the slightest relief for, the 
 working people — men, women, or children — but what it met the bitter, 
 unrelenting opposition of the employers' counsel. This was true of 
 the child-labor legislation of New England, of the Middle States, 
 of the West, of the South, and is still true of several States in the 
 South,. and it is true in trying to secure some amendments or changes 
 that time has shown to be essential in order to protect the children 
 from the modem conditions of industry. 
 
 Mr. GoEBEL. It is hoped now, Mr. Gompers, that when Congress 
 passes, the bill that the committee recommended for an investigation 
 that it might throw some light on the legislation, so that relief might 
 be had there. 
 
 Mr. GoMPEKS. I believe that these investigations ought to be under- 
 taken. 
 
 Mr. GoEBEL. We think so. 
 
 Mr. GoMPERS. Yes; and I am in entire accord with the thought 
 and with the project. But it is not the first investigation undertaken 
 by Congress without any tangible result at the hands of Congress. 
 Remember, for instance, the mvestigation undertaken by the com- 
 mittee of Congress headed by the Hon. Abram S. Hewitt, of 
 
EIGHT HOURS FOR LABORERS ON GOVERNMENT -.'/ORK. 19 
 
 Xi'w York. Remember the investigation undertaken hj the Senate 
 Committee on Education and Labor. You will remember, also, the 
 Industrial Commission; and a bill which the Industrial Commission 
 proposed for the elimination of the evils resulting from convict labor 
 has been shelved ever since. Not one bill has passed Congress as the 
 result of either of these investigations, and yet I say I am in favor of 
 them. These investigations furnish the facts upon which legislation 
 can be based. 
 
 Mr. Hunt. This committee has favorably reported a bill such as 
 
 was advised by the Industrial Commission. The committee here 
 
 within the last month has reported the identical bill which passed the 
 
 House at the same time that your present eight-hour bill passed, in 
 
 • the Fifty-sixth Congress. 
 
 Mr. GoMPEES. Yes. I did not say — at least, if I did so, I did not 
 mean to say — that a bill did not pass the House. I desired to say that 
 a bill was not enacted. 
 
 Mr. Hunt. Into a law ? 
 
 Mr. GoMPEES. Yes. 
 
 jMr. Hunt. Oh, yes ; that is true. 
 
 Mr. GoMPEKS. I remember that the Committee on Labor reported 
 the bill favorably — the bill drafted by the Industrial Commission. 
 
 The Chairman. The convict-labor bill. It was recommended by 
 the Commission. 
 
 Mr. GoMPERS. That was it. It was recommended by the Commis- 
 sion and drafted by the chairman of this committee, to be more accu- 
 rate. It was reported favorably, passed by the House, and died in 
 the Senate. Of course it does not matter very materially so far as 
 progress is concerned whether a bill passes one House and dies with 
 the Congress. There is not one bill which has been enacted as the re- 
 sult of these investigations. But I am in hopes. I have never given 
 up hope, Brother Hunt. 
 
 Mr. Hunt. I am glad to hear it. 
 
 Mr. GoMPEES. When I give up hope I want to lie down and die. 
 
 Mr. Hunt. Hope long deferred maketh the heart grow sick. 
 
 Mr. GoMPEES. It may be made very tired, but never sick. The 
 workingmen of the United States ar^ not less intelligent than the 
 workmen of other countries. They know their rights, and they pro- 
 pose to exercise them in spite of the fact that an effort has been made 
 to browbeat them, or to browbeat them through their representatives, 
 their chosen representatives, when we have said that we ask this 
 relief, and that we are going to appeal to the sympathy and the sup- 
 port not only of our fellow-workingmen, but our fellow -citizens in 
 every other walk of life, to support us in our contention. How much 
 longer is some man, or, rather, are a number of men, to come here 
 year after year and ask for this legislation? We are workmen, and 
 we are citizens, and we ask you for relief, for this necessary legisla- 
 tion. These bills are not hastily drawn. I remember the time when 
 my friend Judge Payson came here before this committee and asked 
 whether there was any man in the room or in the country who had tl^e 
 temerity to stand up and say that he advocated and defended that 
 bill. I did have the temerity to say that I defended and advocated it. 
 
 Mr. Patson. Yes; you did, but you would not do it now? 
 
 Mr. GoMPEES. What? 
 
20 EIGHT HOURS FOR LABORERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. 
 
 Mr. Payson. I will tell you the reason, in a minute, why you would 
 not. 
 , Mr. GoMPERS. Do what ? 
 
 Mr. Payson. Defend the bill now that you defended then ? 
 
 Mr. GoMPEEs. Well, I think that I would defend it. At any 
 rate, I defend the eight-hour proposition. That is what T defend. 
 It does not make a particle of difference to me as to the language 
 employed in the eight-hour law for labor and for the men employed 
 by the Government or by the contractors and subcontractors who do 
 work for the Government. It is not a question as to the terminology 
 of the particular bill. It is the essence. And we do not ask for the 
 eight-hour law to apply to all labor. We come here and say that we 
 will take care of ourselves in our private employment; we will do the* 
 best we can. And if we can not do better, well, we will do worse, 
 that is all. We are going to try to do better though, and I think we 
 are going to do better. So far as Government work is concerned, 
 whether done direct or whether done through a contractor or sub- 
 contractor, that work as provided by the bill and within the limits 
 of the bill we want performed on the eight-hour plan. We believe 
 that Uncle Sam, who is so generous to all else, might be a fair 
 employer, and rather a generous employer. 
 
 Mr. Stanley. I want to ask you one question. I would like to 
 hear you on it for my own information. What will be the moral 
 effect upon other laborers of extending to its ultimate extent this 
 eight-hour principle in Government work ? 
 
 Mr. GoMPEES. It will have the influence to make the eight-hour 
 workday applicable through the industries of America. In Aus- 
 tralia the workmen have had the eight-hour day since 1856. Only 
 a short time ago they celebrated the half centennial, the semicenten- 
 nial, of the universal eight-hour day obtaining there. There is not 
 any establishment, any industrial establishment, the world over that 
 has worked under the eight-hour plan for five years that would want 
 to go bacjf to a longer workday. And if necessary, so far as admin- 
 istration, so far as rents, so far as land, so far as operation expenses 
 are concerned, really there is no reason why plants could not be oper- 
 ated under three shifts of eight hours each, if essential. 
 
 I have had some correspondence for a number of years with the 
 heads of Departments in regard to the eight-hour workday and 
 violations of the law, and their attention has been called to the 
 fact that there has been no serious effort made for the enforcement 
 of the law. Its violations have been continuous. Some men say 
 that this kind of work, specifying the nature of the work, is emergency 
 work, and extraordinary emergency. And the contractors employ- 
 ing the men, or the Government direct, under its own officers, are 
 employing these men for nine, ten, and twelve, and more hours a day. 
 It has never occurred to these officers in charge of men that if this 
 is a continuous emergency it can not be an extraordinary emergency, 
 or even if it is there is no reason why two shifts of men can not be 
 employed, each of them at eight hours, and the emergency overcome 
 in that way, rather than by compelling men to work eleven or twelve 
 or more hours a day. They make no such attempt to seriously en- 
 force the law. That was one of the reasons why we presented our 
 bill of grievances to the President and to the President pro tempore 
 of the Senate and to Speaker Cannon. 
 
EIGHT HOURS FOR LABORERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. 21 
 
 Mr. Haskins. Coming back to the bill, in the excepting clause 
 there are two words that seem to have been omittefl by Mr. Gardner, 
 and I assume unintentionally, which words are inserted in H. R. 
 40C4, and in every other bill which is in this portfolio in relation to 
 eight hours, and those words are " or articles." For instance, all the 
 other bills read like this :. 
 
 Xotlimg in this act sliall apply to contracts for transportation by land or 
 water, or for the transmission of intelligence, or for such materials, or articles 
 as may usually be bought in open marltet. 
 
 All the other bills have the words '' such materials or articles as 
 may usually be bought in the open market."' 
 
 The Chaik-man. That was put in over in the Senate. 
 
 Mr. Haskixs. I think it ought to be put in here, unless there is 
 good reason for not putting it in. I was going to ask Mr. Gompers 
 if he had any objection to inserting the words " or articles " after the 
 word " materials." 
 
 Mr. (JojrPERS. I think it would be very much better to omit it. 
 The word " articles " admits of such wide construction. 
 
 Mr. H.\SKixs. Take, for instance, the Fairbanks Scale Works in 
 my State; they have contracts for the Ijuilding of scales for the 
 Post-Office Department, usually small scales, and larger scales, and 
 of course those scales can not be bought in the open market, and I 
 think the words " or articles " should be embraced in this bill. 
 
 The Chaieman. It was to meet just such cases that the words " or 
 articles " were originally inserted in the Senate. The word " ma- 
 terials " was put in the original bill here. 
 
 Mr. Haskins. Materials are raw materials. 
 
 The Chairman. The reason for not inserting the word '' articles " 
 here, and inserting it ov€r there, Avas that we found in the old hear- 
 ings that " materials " was meant to cover such things as paper and 
 departmental supplies. 
 
 Mr. Haskixs. Those scales are departmental supplies. 
 
 Mr. GoJiPEBS. Then it would seem that it would be unnecessary to 
 particularize and say " articles." 
 
 Mr. Haskixs. But I am a little afraid that the word " materials " 
 as it is used here would not include such things. 
 
 Mr. Gompers. I am free to say that under the provisions of the 
 law I do not think these scales would form a part of such products 
 as would come under the operations of the bill. 
 
 Mr. Haskixs. You do not think that scales would come under the 
 operations of the bill? 
 
 Mv. Gojipers. I think not. I am not quite sure. I am not sure 
 of my ground about it. 
 
 Mr. Haskixs. If it should, it would break up their entire works 
 entirely. 
 
 STATEMENT OF HON. L. E. PAYSON. 
 
 Mr. Paysox. jNIr. Chairman, I see that the hour is late ; but may I 
 have four or five minutes to make a statement to clear away some of 
 the brush that I think surrounds these matters? I think this ought 
 to be done at this time. 
 
 I do not propose at this time to enter into any discussion of this 
 bill. I only want to refer first to some of the suggestions made by 
 
23 EIGHT HOURS FOE LABOREES ON GOVEENMENT WORK. 
 
 Mr. Gompers as to the personal relation which some of us have occu- 
 pied toward this Ifegislation for a number of years past, and first as 
 to myself, for I assume that I not only come within the category, but 
 perhaps am the chief offender as one of those counsel who have ap- 
 peared before the committee. I do not remember of any lawyer 
 before this committee who has ever come within that rule except 
 myself, within the judgment of Mr. Gompers. 
 
 The explanation of my earnestness in this matter may be best 
 understood when I say that in this official document before you, com- 
 ing from an impartial source — the Secretary of Commerce and 
 Labor — is the announcement that 95 per cent of the contracting of 
 the Government would not come under the operations of this bill. 
 Five per cent of it would. And of that 5 per cent I represent no 
 inconsiderable part. And when Mr. Gompers is pleased to say that 
 there is a persistency almost amounting to mendacitj' in the opposi- 
 tion to this legislation year in and year out, it is because of the rel- 
 ative magnitude of the interests confided to my hands. 
 
 As I look over the membership of this committee, Mr. Chairman, T 
 may say, for myself, that I have been engaged as counsel for some 
 corporations interested in this legislation ever since it began in Con- 
 gress. I have appeared in this committee room for at least the last 
 ten years every sesson of Congress, with more or less regularity, when 
 these things were pending; and, as I look along the membership of 
 this committee, there are only two faces that seem familiar to me as 
 to the general course of this legislation — yourself and the gentleman 
 from Missouri, Mr. Bartholdt. As to the rest of the members, their 
 faces are new ; and I undertake to say without fear of contradiction, 
 but without arguing it, that there is not a member of this committee, 
 except you two, who knows 5 per cent of this situation. It is new 
 to you, and you can not be expected to dig it out of the discussions 
 which have been conducted in this room, certainly Avith great vigor, 
 whether with great intelligence or not, on both sides. You can not 
 be expected to do that. This gentleman [addressing Mr. ^^tanley] 
 made an inquiry which I want to answer. Will you give me your 
 name? 
 
 jN'lr. Stanley. Stanley. 
 
 Mr. Payson. Mr. Stanley; yes. In answer to an inquiry or, pos- 
 sibly, a suggestion that you made as to whether there was any con- 
 stitutional question that stood in the way of the reporting of this 
 bill, I want to say that that question has never been in my mind 
 since "the commencement, because I felt myself that I had no doubt 
 whatever of the constitutional power on the part of Congress to 
 enact this legislation if it chose to do so. That has never troubled 
 me, and the chairman of this committee will bear me out in saving 
 that. 
 
 Mr. GoMPEES. I will also, with pleasure. 
 
 Mr. Payson. Yes; and you yourself will. When my colleagues — 
 and when I say that I mean those in opposition to this pending leg- 
 islation — raised and debated this question I was franlc enough to 
 say to the committee, and someA^hat to their disgust, that their con- 
 tentions were wrong. They were men of abilitj^, and their judgment 
 was perhaps weightier than mine. As distinguished a lawyer as 
 ex-Secretary Herbert of the Navy entertained the view that the 
 bill was absolutely unconstitutional, and there would be no trouble 
 
EIGHT HOXJES FOR LABORERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. 23 
 
 in defeating it if it was ever attempted to be enforced; and Judge 
 MoCammon, at one time Assistant Attorney-General for the Interior 
 Department, representing the Bethlehem Steel Company and the 
 Carnegie company, and I think the Union Iron Works, entertained 
 the same view. 
 
 Mr. Dalzell. Mr. Herbert represented the Union Iron "Works. 
 
 Mr. Payson. At any rate, at that time Judge McCammon and his 
 partner, Mr. Hayden, represented the Bethlehem Steel Company and 
 the Carnegie company. They had absolutely no doubt of the uncon- 
 stitutionality of this legislation. Judge McCammon had no more 
 doubt of its unconstitutionality than he had that he was speaking 
 of it, and I shall show later on with reference to this bill and my 
 objections to it that my objections to it are not based on these grounds 
 at all. 
 
 Having made myself understood on that, that is out of the way. 
 Now, what do I represent here as an essential portion of the 5 per 
 cent that was affected by the o]Derations of the bill last year? I 
 represent the Newport Xews Dry Dock and Ship Building Company. 
 Its works are located at Newport News, Va. We have, I think, 
 without question the finest shipyard in the American nation, and I 
 am told by men that know about these things abroad that it is the 
 finest shipyard in the whole world. There are in the employ of 
 that company seven thousand eight hundred and some odd employees, 
 not counting the clerical force — ^7,800 men who are engaged in manual 
 occupations in the works, in the shipbuilding enterprise, and we do 
 nothing else whatever except shipbuilding Avork and work that is 
 liindred to it. 
 
 It has happened in the last few years, perhaps eight or ten, that 
 a l;irge majority, more than half, of the Government work that has 
 gone out has come to our yard. Our people were the pioneers in 
 enterprise, in low bidding upon Government work, and I have 
 known instances where our people, in the early part of our com- 
 petition in the shipbuilding, bid so low that it seemed they were 
 certain to lose, rather than make anything. ^A^ien the Kentucky 
 and the Kearsarge were bid for, their bids were so low that upon 
 the calculations which were made it seemed that our people stood 
 to lose $100,000 on each of those great ships at the then cost of labor 
 and material. But the material market went down, and there was 
 a little to the good on the construction of those two ships when it 
 was all done. And it is in the reports of the Secretary of the Navy 
 that the cheapness with which the American Navy is furnished its 
 battle ships to-day, and has been for the last ten years, has been 
 owing to the competitive enterprise of the Newport News Ship- 
 building and Dry Dock Company. 
 
 .Vs to those 7,800 men, I will say to you to-day, instead of saying 
 that there is this feeling of unrest that is pictured here, that they 
 are working there to-daj' without any manifestation of dissent as 
 to hours of labor or price paid for their employment, day by day. 
 There has never been during the last ten years but one exhibition 
 of dissent, and I do not care at this time to speak of how that hap- 
 pened to occur, and it is not necessary that I should. But there is 
 no dissent as to the hours of labor or as to the prices which are paid 
 there for it. 
 
 Mr. Stanley. "What are your hours? 
 
24 EIGHT HOUES FOR LABOEEES ON GOVERNMENT WOEK. 
 
 Mr. Payson. Nine hours, and with overtime pay of 50 per cent 
 more; time and a half for overtime, and double time for Sundays, 
 for it often happens, I may say in passing, that overtime work is 
 necessitated, and sometimes work on Sunday. Sunday work is paid 
 double time, and overtime work time and a half, 50 per cent addi- 
 tional. And instead of the workingmen not desiring to work over- 
 time — I only speak for the yard now in which I am interested and 
 from personal representations made by the men themselves, as well 
 as the officials — the men are anxious to work overtime if they can 
 get the opportunity. 
 
 Now, the people whom I represent, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, 
 believe, thej'^ know, that if this bill becomes a law it means the 
 
 f'oing out of Government business with them. And I go a step 
 urther and say that if the committee desire to investigate that ques- 
 tion and will send for persons and papers, or invite people to come 
 here, they will get opinions from the president, the general manager, 
 the assistant superintendent, and any executive officer that they 
 ask, that if this bill had become a law four years ago the Newport 
 News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company would have been in the 
 hands of a receiver to-day. It is pretty nearly the only shipyard 
 in this country that is paying any dividends upon any of its stock 
 upon the work that it does. It is in active competition for every- 
 thing that the Government puts out. It is in active competition 
 with other shipyards of the country in merchant-marine work, which 
 constitutes now about three-fourths of its employment, and, of 
 course, it goes without saying it would be perfectly idle to undertake 
 to talk here to sensible men that an eight-hour rule as to 25 or 30 
 per cent could be adopted, and a nine-hour or a nine- and-a-half rule in 
 the same yard as to two-thirds or more of the same work. That is 
 a practical business impossibility, and it is not in discussion. 
 
 We are opposed to the passage of this bill for the reasons I shall 
 be glad to give you later on, in order to show to you, Mr. Chairman 
 and gentlemen, why it is whether the degree of vigor that I have 
 been manifesting hertofore is small or not. I am in the employ of 
 that company, and I believe religiously the propositions that they lay 
 down and ask me to champion here; I believe in them as religiously 
 as I do in the principles of the Republican party of which I have 
 been a member since 1861, and believing them, I have no hesitancy in 
 championing them, because whatever they ask me has been upon 
 business reasons and business principles. 
 
 I said that we would clear away a little of the underbrush about 
 this business. Mr. Gompers is j)leased to say that organized labor in 
 this country is demanding an eight-hour day, and in answer to the 
 gentlemen of the committee he said it was the same way in the rail- 
 way service. 
 
 Now, let me correct him. He ought to know about that. Besides 
 being counsel for the Newport News Shipbuilding Company, I have 
 the honor — I will call it an honor, for I believe that it is one — of 
 being counsel for the Union Pacific Railroad Company, and the 
 Southern Pacific system. We have 15,000 to 16,000 miles of railroad 
 operated under the interstate-commerce law. That includes trackage 
 over which interstate commerce is run. Whenever legislation inim- 
 ical to railroad interests is presented I do not hesitate to appear before 
 committees — never individually to a member, but before a commit- 
 
EIGHT HOURS FOK LABORERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. 25 
 
 tee — to say why I do not think that this legislation should be en- 
 acted, and there are now pending before Congress four bills for regu- 
 lating the hours of labor for railroad employees upon interstate-com- 
 merce roads. On last Friday, a week ago Friday, and on Tuesday 
 I had the pleasure of appearing before the Committee on Interstate 
 and Foreign Commerce of the House of Representatives, Colonel 
 Hepburn's committee, to oppose the legislation which was there pre- 
 sented. 
 
 I need not go now into the character of those bills, nor the charac- 
 ter of the argument which was addressed against them, but it was 
 stated by Mr. Fuller, whose authority to speak in that regard is com- 
 plete — I do not know whether it is known to members of the commit- 
 tee, but Mr. Gompers will bear me out that he is the accredited repre- 
 sentative of railway trainmen, as much so as Mr. Gompers is the rep- 
 resentative of the Federation of Labor — withdrew these bills. For 
 reasons, he withdrew the bills then pending, stating that they were 
 supported by himself and his associates and some other people out- 
 side, and that a new bill would be presented. On last Tuesday morn- 
 ing that bill was presented, presented and introduced in the House 
 by Mr. Esch. I can not give you its number, but it was introduced 
 last Monday and came before the committee on Tuesdaj', prepared 
 by Mr. Fuller and Mr. Moselej', of the Interstate Commerce Commis- 
 sion, and I know what I am talking about, because I saw it in type- 
 writing before it was put in print, was presented and argued for by Mr. 
 Fuller and others representing that body of laborers, and the hours 
 fixed in that bill which they ask Congress to pass are sixteen hours ^ 
 maximum with an eight-hour rest intervening, and it is made a penal * 
 offense in case a violation of that provision shall be either required or 
 permitted on the part of the carrier. 
 
 Mr. Gompers. The provision of the bill is that no more than six- 
 teen hours of labor shall be required without eight hours' rest. 
 
 Mr. Paysox. Required or permitted. 
 
 Mr. GoJiPERS. From ,aiiy railroad employee. 
 
 Mr. Payson. Train men. 
 
 Mr. GojiPERS. Train men, operating a train. 
 
 Mr. Pay-son. Yes; engaged in interstate commerce. 
 
 Mr. GojiPERS. And to that bill you also offered objection. 
 
 Mr. Payson. I did. Not to the hours, however, for I will say to 
 you that that is precisely the rule that has been enforced by the 
 Union Pacific and the Southern Pacific Railroad companies for years, 
 and by agreements between the company and the train men them- 
 selves. 
 
 Mr. Gompers. But there are other railroads. 
 
 Mr. Paysox. Of course this is foreign to what is before the com- 
 mittee. . Fourteen hours is the shortest time on any railroad in this 
 country, and eighteen hours is the highest, and sixteen hours was 
 adopted by ISIr. Moseley upon my suggestion, that if that was 
 adopted, unless something else was in that we did not deem right they 
 would not oppose the bill. And I am not called upon here to go into 
 a discussion as to why I oppose the bill. There were other propo- 
 sitions that we opposed, but the hours of labor were satisfactory to 
 us. And so, instead of the fact being as Mr. Gompers stated, of 
 coui-se, without knowledge of the facts — but he ought not to state 
 such thing's unless he knows the facts — that the railroad men of 
 
26 EIGHT HOURS FOE LABOREES ON GOVERNMENT WORK. 
 
 this country are clamoring for the eight-hour day, it is just the 
 opposite, and there is not a shadow of truth in that statement. I 
 know what these men agree to and what they do when they get to 
 conference. And when I was talking before the committee the other 
 day I said there were the Pennsylvania and the Baltimore and Ohio 
 and the Chesapeake and Ohio railroads, and the Chicago, Burlington 
 and Quincy 
 
 Mr. GoMPERS. Would it be an interruption if I asked you a ques- 
 tion? 
 
 Mr. Payson. Oh, nothing interrupts me. You know that from 
 ten years' experience here. Nothing ever interrupts me, unless it is 
 an inability to tell what I think, and that does not happen often. 
 
 Mr. GoMPEES. You do not mean that the inference should be drawn 
 from the consent of the railway employees to a bill of the character 
 you mentioned, from their consent to the enactment of a law that 
 prohibits the employment of a railroad employee for more than six- 
 teen hours a day, that it is their desire to work sixteen hours every 
 day? 
 
 Mr. Payson. Oh, no; and it is not expected that they will work 
 sixteen hours every day. But I am taking up time now with matters 
 foreign to the subject before the committee. Everybody knows that 
 the average schedule of railroad train men is less than that. But it 
 often happens that a train is laid up, for instance, because of inter- 
 fering with the time of an express train, and it has to lie there until 
 the express comes along; or there is a hot box, and for any of these 
 reasons, or others, there will be delays and detentions that will keep 
 'a train sometimes on the road twenty-four hours. 
 
 Mr. GoMPERS. And it is for that reason that railroad employees 
 are exempted from the provisions of this bill. 
 
 Mr. Payson. No ; I will come to the reason why they are exempted 
 from the provisions of this bill. Now, that brings me to another 
 thing. 
 
 Mr. Gompers somewhat triumphantly, and in a way somewhat 
 derogatory to me, has spoken of my work in opposing this legisla- 
 tion. That is all right. He works for his money and I work for 
 mine. He has a little more humanity under his than I have under 
 mine, nerhaps, but we are personally good friends. Then he spoke 
 also of my saying when the original labor bill was before this com- 
 mittee that I would be glad to see somebody who would stand up and 
 champion that bill. I did say that. I said it in this room at a meet- 
 ing of the Committee on Labor, and I said it from about the position 
 occupied by my venerable friend here to the left. I said that its 
 provisions were so absurd, its propositions were so outrageous, and 
 there was so little that could be said in favor of the fundamental 
 proposition of this bill that I did have a desire to see some man who 
 would stand up before an intelligent committee and defend that bill. 
 I did not believe the man could be found. But I was disappointed ; 
 my friend Mr. Gompers did stand up and defend it. But he would 
 not do it now, and I Mill tell you why. 
 
 There was no jorovision in the original bill that applied to trans- 
 portation — none whatever. It was just a clean-cut eight-hour bill. 
 That was all there was of it at that time, Mr. Chairman, and you will 
 remember the argument that I made here, I hope, because at that time 
 the thing was new. The question was as to furnishing stone for a 
 
EIGHT HOURS FOB LABORERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. 27 
 
 new public building that was to be built in San Francisco, and it 
 happened just at that time that the Southern Pacific Railroad Com- 
 pany were asking for bids for the transportation of granite from the 
 great quarries at Eaymond to San Francisco, and our traffic manager 
 said, •• If that bill becomes a law, it ends our transportation of that 
 stone." The railroad could not be operated upon an eight-hour sys- 
 tem, and particularly as to that. There was another concern here at 
 that time, the Government being interested in the contracts for the 
 delivery of the stone for a breakwater at the mouth of the Delaware, 
 and it brought over Mr. Anthony Higgins, who had been a Senator 
 of the United States, and who then represented a transportation com- 
 pany, and he came here and argued in behalf of water transportation 
 that that bill would apply to it, and that no boating concern could 
 even transport freight by water upon that stream, where the distance 
 was more than could be traversed in eight hours, if that eight-hour 
 bill should become a law. the Government being interested in the 
 ultimate contract. 
 
 Mr. GoEBBL. All of that simply would go to show that certain 
 things ought to be eliminated. "^Vliat I am trjdng to get at is tlie 
 fundamental principle. 
 
 Mr. Paysox. The only object that I have here, Mr. Chairman and 
 gentlemen, is to demonstrate just in this offhand way the necessities 
 for this sort of an inve'^tigation. This bill can not be matured, a bill 
 of this kind that interfere'^ with or covers transactions of hundreds 
 and hundreds of millions of dollars, where thousands and thousands 
 of industrial enterprises are directly interested, where the welfare 
 of hundreds of thousands — and I measure my words when I say that 
 hundreds of thousands — of laboring men are concerned, can not be 
 'perfected, by a colloquy between Mr. Davenport and Mr. Gompers, 
 sitting across this table, one asking the other whether he would be 
 willing that this should be done or that should be done. It is because 
 you gentlemen are not familiar with the fundamental features of this 
 bill, of the principles underlying it, that I shall ask to be heard a lit- 
 th later on, because Mr. Gomners says the working people are weary 
 of coming before this committee and asking for this legislation and 
 not gettina: it, and then he asks you how often they shall come and 
 go away disappointed. I will tell you, Mr. Gompers, how often you 
 will come and go awav disappointed: Just so long as you ask things 
 that are not reasonable, just so long as you ask Congress to throttle 
 great industries like the Newport News Shipbuilding and Drv Dock 
 Company, and these other thousands of interests, large and small, 
 all over thp country. The reason vou do not get what you ask for is 
 that you are asking for things that you ought not to have.. 
 
 I hare said so much now to straighten myself out. An attempt is 
 made here to preiudice the feeling of this committee as against cor- 
 porntions hv citing that terrible disaster out in Colorado latelv. 
 Tbnt did not occur through greediness and rapacity on the jDart of the 
 rnilrot'd company as against an employee at all. It came this way: 
 Thei-p were two men nt a little side station: one had the day shift and 
 the other the niaht shift. The night man did not want to go on one 
 night : he wanted to go fir=t and get a bank draft cashed at a little 
 bank there where a'ou coidd go and get money at any time that you 
 could find the cashier, and. secondly, he wanted to go to a dance. 
 The other man undertook to work all night, after working all day. 
 
28 EIGHT HOURS FOE LABORERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. 
 
 Tlio night man went off and the day man stayed, and then he went to 
 sleep and this calamity occurred. That is all there was to it. There 
 was no greed on the part of the company and there was no man who 
 could be criticised on the part of or in connection with the railroad 
 corporation, and by that simple accident that happened to come in 
 that way a terrible disaster occurred that shocked the whole civilized 
 world, almost. The railroad company ought not to be held respon- 
 sible for it, and morally they were not responsible for it, and to under- 
 take to say here that corporations are asking things from this com- 
 mittee that they ought not to have and by the employment of over- 
 ofRcious attorneys come here trying to crowd things out that ought to 
 go is not right. One more word, before I conclude, as to the general 
 statement Mr. Gompers makes with regard to this bill. 
 
 This bill is not only not the bill of the Fifty-ninth Congress, but 
 ought not to be named in the same day with it. 
 
 Mr. Haskins. Do you mean the Fifty -ninth Congress? 
 
 Mr. Payson. The Fifty-eighth Congress. It is nothing like it. 
 Air. Dpvenport called attention, I think, to the fact that the transmis- 
 sion of intelligence is omitted from this bill, as it was in the other. 
 Does Mr. Gompers remember how that happened to occur? I doubt 
 vrhether he does, but I had something to do with it, and that is the 
 reason that I remember. In the original bill that came before this 
 committee the telegraph companies were included. "Why? Because 
 the Postal Telegraph and the "\'\'^estern Union Telegraph Company 
 have contracts with the Government for the transmission of Govern- 
 ment messages, and the point was made somewhat vigorously by my- 
 self in behalf of the "Western Union Telegraph Company that where 
 a coiitract existed between the Government and the Western Union 
 Telegraph Company in the carrying out of that contract if one or 
 more of these operators were engaged for any length of time he would 
 be restricted then to eight hours, no matter what other service he 
 might be employed in. And so, in the wisdom of the committee, of 
 course exception was made in reference to that. But I remember 
 very well, Mr. Chairman, what Mr. Gompers will not disavow now, 
 that it was in that connection that Mr. Gompers made the confession 
 before this comm_ittee that it was the intention of those who repre- 
 sented organized labor before this committee to bring to this country 
 ths matter of the eight-hour day in every form of employment. I 
 know he will avow that now. 
 
 Mr. GoJiPERS. That is not a confession. 
 
 Mr. Davenport. Allow me to quote from Mr. Gompers's statement, 
 to be found on page 213 of the hearings before the Committee on 
 Labor in 1902, when Judge Payson stated, as he had previously 
 stated, that it would be impossible for any plant to run a part of the 
 time doing Government ^^ork for eight hours and another ten hours, 
 and that the purpose of this bill w,as to compel, every one of those 
 concerns to go to the eight-hour basis [reading] : 
 
 Judge Payson clicl me tbe honor and did our movement the honor to state 
 candidly our position so far as this bill is concerned. That is what we hope to 
 accompiisli. We believe exactly what some of the employers who have ap- 
 peared before this committee and other committees upon the subject say. We 
 believe it will not be long when the eight-hour law shall pass, and I trust it 
 may pass. If this bill shall become a law it will not long be possible to operate 
 one branch of a plant on the eight-hour basis and another upon the ten-hour 
 basis. No ; we know what the effect of it will be, and it is because they, too. 
 
BIGHT HOURS FOE LABCREKS CN GOVERNMENT WORK. 29 
 
 know the effect of what that law would be that they oppose it. But we say 
 that they are standing in their own light in opposing it and that they are doing 
 themselves a wrong and that they are belittling their own intelligence and fore- 
 sight in so doing. 
 
 Mr. Paysox. And so a single word in conclusion as to this prelim- 
 inary. I did not think it Avas just that the committee should rise 
 under the false impression made by the forcible way in which JMr. 
 Gompers has stated some of those things. Enough has developed in 
 the colloquy between us around this end of the table to demonstrate 
 that this bill ought not to be reported or acted upon by this committee 
 without hearings, as to how far it applies and how broad the scope 
 of the bill is, for in a single word I undertake to say that this bill 
 does not come within the suggestion made by Senator McComas in 
 the Senate committee that it would only affect 90 per cent of Gov- 
 ernment purchases. 
 
 This bill as it stands now before the committee is practically a bill 
 Avhich is open to all of the objections that were urged to the original 
 eight-hour bill, except as transportation and telegraph company mes- 
 sages are concerned, and at that time you can remember, Mr. Chair- 
 man, and Mr. Bartholdt will remember if he was here, that when that 
 bill was pending this room was not large enough to hold the men 
 who came here representing all sorts of industrial interests, and i3ar- 
 ticularly New England interests, in opposition to this bill, n.nd be- 
 cause it showed that it would drive them into practical insolvency 
 or the abandonment of Government business. This room was crowded 
 on both sides, and people were standing outside who could not get 
 in, representing the smaller interests of the country and all the great 
 industries, not only the six or seven great iron and steel manufactur- 
 ing plants of this country, the Bethlehem and the Carnegie, but I 
 recall very well that a representative of the Fairbanks Scale Com- 
 pany was here saying what it represented to them, and that whereas 
 they had a very large and jjrofitable business which they would be 
 glad to retain, yet under this bill it would mean to them the going 
 out of business. This is sim.ply to demonstrate the necessity at the 
 threshold, Mr. Chairman, of the newer and younger members of this 
 committee hearing what the representatives of these industries have 
 to say. 
 
 Mr. Stanley. Were those hearings preserved in writing? 
 
 Mr. Payson. I think the first Congress when the bill was pending 
 here they were not printed. 
 
 Mr. Stanley. Were the hearings of the last ones printed? 
 
 Mr. Payson. Yes; all of them since have been stenographically 
 reported, and I think they have been printed. 
 
 Mr. Stanley. It looks like this question ought to be decided some- 
 time — yes or no. I think labor is entitled to be told either yes or no 
 by the representatives of the people. How long do you think it 
 would take to present the matter? 
 
 Mr. Payson. I can only speak as to myself. If I should have the 
 honor of appearing before the committee, I think one session would 
 be as much as I would want as to the interests I represent. But on 
 legal questions I Imow that ex-Secretary Herbert and Judge McCam- 
 mon entertain the \'iews that I have spoken of as to the legality of 
 this legislation, and they would undoubtedly desire to be heard. It 
 seems to me that a programme could be majjped out. 
 
30 SIGHT HOURS FOR LABORERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. 
 
 Mr. Stanley. I did not know how many interests you were speak- 
 ing for. 
 
 Mr. Payson. Before this committee only for the shipbuilding in- 
 terests and 
 
 Mr. Stanley. I am not expressing any opinion as to the compara- 
 tive merits. 
 
 Mr. Payson. Of course; I understand you. I have no general 
 clientage outside of the three corporations I have named, and an 
 occasional retainer for the Western Union. 
 
 Mr. Davenport. We would like also to be heard on this question, 
 if we have an opportunity. I have some telegrams and communica- 
 tions here, and I think it would be better for the committee to go into 
 executive session. 
 
 .(At 1 o'clock p. m. the committee went into executive session.) 
 
 Committee on Labor, 
 House of Representatives, 
 
 Wednesday, Jlay 16, 1906. 
 
 The committee met at 11 o'clock a. m., Hon. John J. Gardner 
 (chairman) in the chair. 
 
 The Chairman. The clerk reports that the Manufacturers' Club 
 of Buffalo, the Citizens' Industrial Association of St. Louis, the 
 Metal Trades' Association of Cincinnati, and, in fact, the whole list 
 of the people who had applied for hearings represented in the com- 
 munications before us were notified of the hearing on Thursday last. 
 The only persons who seemed to have appeared are .Mr. Gompers, 
 Judge Payson, and Mr. Davenport. Are you ready to go on this 
 morning for the Newport News people, Mr. Payson? 
 
 Mr. Payson. ^Vhenever the appropriate time shall come. 
 
 The Chairman. I reckon we are ready. The fact is that the naval 
 appropriation bill is before the House this morning, and we will have 
 to adjourn at 12 o'clock. 
 
 Mr. Gompers. I should like to know what conclusion the commit- 
 tee reached in regard to the eight-hour bill ? . 
 
 The Chairman. The committee determined to begin hearings to- 
 day at 10.30 o'clock, and to continue them at least every other day 
 until they are closed. 
 
 Mr. Payson. AVas anything determined by the committee as to 
 whether the burden should be taken by the friends of the bill ? It has 
 seemed to us in a matter of so much importance as this, and particu- 
 larly remembering the differences between the pending bill and the 
 bills which have been before Congress for the last two Congresses, 
 that perhaps the friends of the bill ought to give some reasons, if they 
 have any, or such evidence or statements in support of the bill we 
 tiiink should be projected into the forum in the first instance. I make 
 the suggestion. 
 
 The Chairman. There was no arrangement made of that kind. 
 In fact, nobody had applied for any hearing in behalf of the bill. 
 All the applications before the committee on which it acted were 
 understood to be in opposition to the bill. 
 
 Mr. Payson. Yes. 
 
EIGHT HOURS FOE LABOKERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. 31 
 
 Mr. Haskins. Mr. Gompers was heard here in the hist open session. 
 
 Mr. >»'oERis. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me it would be more logical 
 if there are those who desire to be heard further in favor of the bill 
 to permit them to be heard first, and then give those who are opposed 
 to the bill an opportunity to be heard. I only suggest that, inasmuch 
 as we have taken no action on that subject ; but it seems to me that it 
 is the logical course to pursue — to hear the affirmative first and then 
 the negative, and so on, as long as anyone desires to be heard, one way 
 or the other, and the committee are willing to hear them. 
 
 Mr. Gompers. Mr. Chairman, may I be permitted to say a word 
 just here? Of course I thoroughly understand the desire to hear an 
 argument in favor of the bill, particularly by the opponents of the 
 bill It might take another day or more, and it would be very agree- 
 able to the opponents, a waste of time, that is, from our view point. 
 All that we have to say in support of that bill has already been said, 
 both before this committee and before the Senate Committee on Edu- 
 cation and Labor, and is in print. It is true that in certain phrase- 
 ology this bill differs from the bill in the Fifty-eighth Congress. 
 But it does not differ from the bill of the Fifty-seventh Congress nor 
 of the Fifty-sixth Congress, and the hearings that were then had, 
 the testimony that was then taken, is in print. So far as the advo- 
 cates of the bill are concerned, and speaking for them, we have noth- 
 ing further to offer than the testimony, the hearings, and the argu- 
 ments had before the House Committee on Labor and the Senate Com- 
 mittee on Education and Labor upon this bill in previous Congresses, 
 and substantially the same bill in the last Congress. 
 
 Mr. Haskins. Does this bill differ from what is known as the' 
 McComas bill ? 
 
 Mr. GoMPEES. Not except in phraseology; not in fact; not appre- 
 ciably in fact. I will say, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, that some- 
 times there is a period which arrives M'hen a case is beyond the stage . 
 of argument. We think that the eight-hour bill, the Gardner eight- 
 hour bill now before your committee, has reached that stage. It 
 has reached that stage, at least, so far as we are concerned. 
 
 Mr. NoRHis. I would like to ask Mr. Gompers a question, and be- 
 fore I ask it I want to suggest that there are some members of the 
 committee, and I am one of them, who were not on the committee 
 before, and consequently did not hear the other arguments. I do not 
 think we are at all disposed to ask that anything be repeated, but if 
 Mr. GomjDers can suggest or will suggest where the argument and 
 evidence can be found, definitely, I would like to read that evidence 
 and argument before passing on this bill here, inasmuch as I have had 
 no opportunity to hear it, and, of course, I would do so. I do not, 
 for my part, want anybody to repeat anything, but I would like to 
 have them designate explicitly where it can be found, so that I can 
 get it, and I would be glad to get it and read it before final judgment 
 is passed by the committee on the present bill. 
 
 Mr. Gompers. Mr. Chairman, I suppose that for any significant 
 and important piece of legislation it is necessary to go through vari- 
 ous stages before its final achievement, in the matter of public dis- 
 cussion, discussion before committees, and sometimes before Con- 
 gress. Congressmen come and go, new men are elected to take the 
 places of those who retire from time to time ; but, of course, the argu- 
 ments stand ; the statements stand. But the advocates of the eight- 
 
32 EIGHT HOURS FOE LABOEEBS ON GOVEENMBNT WOEK. 
 
 hour bill have from time to time and have for more than twelve years 
 appeared before the committees of Congress, before this Committee of 
 Labor of Congress, in advocacy in regard first to an amendment to 
 the present law, and then the present bill which is practically a re- 
 statement of existing law, to apply it to the contracts and subcon- 
 tracts let by the Government for Government work. With others I 
 have appeared before the Committee on Labor of the House, and also 
 before the Senate Committee on Education and Labor. 
 
 Anything that either the advocates of the bill, or, I might say, the 
 opponents to the bill, could bring forward, either in support of or in 
 opposition to the bill, has already been said in some form or other. 
 Other language might be employed, but there is not a new fact, there 
 is not a new thought, that could be adduced before this committee on 
 either side, as will be apparent when we consider that hearings were 
 had on the eight-hour legislation, this bill or the McComas bill, 
 which was reached by a process of elimination, I might say, from 
 the original Gardner bill, and the Gardner bill before the com- 
 mittee 
 
 The Chairman. Pardon me for interrupting here, but there never 
 was a McComas bill, that I am aware of. Mr. McComas never intro- 
 duced a bill that I ever heard of. I do not know how that comes to 
 be talked about. 
 
 Mr. Hunt. I have received quite a number of letters from people 
 asking me to do this and that in reference to the McComas bill. 
 
 Mr. GosiPERS. I was led into the error by the repetition of the name 
 by others. 
 
 The Chairman. It has this foundation. They have reference to 
 the present bill as amended in th4 Senate committee of which Senator 
 McComas was the chairman. 
 
 Mr. GoMPERS. Yes. 
 
 The Chairman. And that is the bill introduced last year by Mr. 
 Hitt. 
 
 Mr. Hunt. That would mean practically that the McComas bill 
 and the present bill and all those bills bear in the same direction. 
 
 Mr. GoaiPERS. The opposition take the same position. It does not 
 n:ake any difference. You attempt to pass a bill that undertakes to 
 legulate the hours of labor for Government work, and .you will find 
 tnaal opposition. There is not anything that we can do to o^er- 
 ccme the objection of those who oppose this species of legislation. 
 They are opposed to it, if I might so signify it, from considerations 
 not only of interest, but so-called principle. They are opposed to 
 any species of legislation that will have for its eilect the actual 
 material improvement of the condition of the Avork people, other than 
 their own generosity or philanthropy or their conception of wisdom 
 prompts them to give, to grant, to yield, to concede, as a largess, 
 but not as a right. The hearings and arguments on both sides have 
 appeared in the reports of the Committee on Labor of the House, 
 and also of the Senate Committee on Education and Labor. They 
 are in print, documents I should say in the aggregate not less than 
 2,000 pages, occupying a period of years. 
 
 Mr. NoRRis. Now, Mr. Gompers, may I ask you this question? 
 If I wanted to get the arguments made in favor of this kind of 
 legislation, would I get them all by reading the hearings taken, say, 
 before the Fifty-seventh Congress in this committee? 
 
EIGHT HOUES FOB LABORERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. 33 
 
 Mr. GoMPEES. I could not tell you exactly which Congress, but 
 certainly the chairman or the clerk of your committee would be in a 
 position to place before you the copies of the hearings. 
 
 Mr. NoKKis. Yes. What I would like to do is this: I would like 
 to get all the arguments and all the reasoning without going over any 
 more ground than is necessary. It would be unnecessary for me 
 to read both the hearings before this committee and the Senate com- 
 mittee, because I presume they are about the same, are they not ? 
 
 Mr. GoMPEES. Substantially. 
 
 Mr. NoKRis. You would get all of it by reading the hearings that 
 took place before this committee ? 
 
 Mr. GojiPERS. Yes. And we do not want to take up any time. 
 
 The Chairman. "'iVhile you are on your feet there, there is a 
 matter I would like to mention. The McComas bill, the Hitt bill 
 so called, is spoken of in connection with the old bill known as the 
 " Gardner bill," and you have said, I think, once before, that they 
 all embody the same principle, and they are substantially the same. 
 Do you mean to make that a matter of record as the position of 
 yourself and your organization? It is claimed, I think, by the 
 shipbuilding people that the report of the Committee on Labor of the 
 Senate has had the effect of eliminating about everything but the 
 shipyards. It Avas stated here the other day by Judge Payson, I 
 thinlf, that the Secretary of Commerce and Labor, or some person 
 in authority there, says that from the bill under consideration last 
 year, to wit, the bill as reported in the Senate by Senator McComas, 
 about 95 per cent of the effect of the present bill was eliminated. 
 
 I call your attention to the fact that among the things which were 
 in the original bill in the Committee on Education and Labor was a 
 provision to give the right of appeal to the contractor to the Court 
 of Claims, and conferring upon that court the jurisdiction to hear 
 and determine, which it had not before. The old bill excepted from 
 its provisions such materials as might be usually bought in the open 
 market, whether manufactured to conform to particular specifica- 
 tions or not. That was amended in the Senate by inserting after 
 " materials " the word " articles," making it " materials or articles," 
 the term " articles " there covering materials which would be elimi- 
 nated from the bill. Again, an amendment was put in over there 
 in the following words : " Or for the purchase of supplies by the 
 Government, whether manufactured to conform to particular speci- 
 fications or not." That is another broad elimination from the oper- 
 ation of the bill of a large part of the Government supplies. I 
 do not know how far it would go. The allegation has been made 
 against the bill as amended there that there was nothing left in it 
 but the river and harbor work, and the shipyards. I do not know 
 whether the two phrases taken together — " or articles " and " sup- 
 plies, whether manufactured to conform to particular specifications 
 or not " — are not almost broad enough to include a ship. 
 
 Mr. GoMPERS. Mr. Chairman, when I made the statement that the 
 Gardner bill, and what had come to be known as the McComas bill 
 were substantially the same, I meant to say so far as they received 
 the opposition of those who are against that species of legislation, 
 not that they are in terms exact or that they are in terms equally de- 
 sirable ; and, as I have already indicated, at the hearing last week 
 or two weks ago, we desire the enactment of the Gardner bill. 
 EH — 06 3 
 
34 BIGHT HOTJES POB LABOREBS ON GOVEKNMENT WOEK. 
 
 Mr. Payson. As it stands now ? 
 
 Mr. GoMPERS. As it stands now ; yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Haskins. H. R. 4449, introduced by Mr. Little on December 
 6 in the Fifty-ninth Congress, it occurs to me upon an examination 
 of it, is about word for word what is called the " McComas " bill. 
 
 Mr. Payson. Shall I proceed now, Mr. Chairman? 
 
 The Chairjian. If you are ready. 
 
 STATEMENT OF HOW. L. E. PATSON. 
 
 Mr. Payson. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, the colloquy for the 
 last ten minutes between yourself, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Gompers, 
 emphasizes more fully than I could hope to do in a half hour's, speech 
 to this committee the necessity of full hearings in this case. It is 
 difficult for me to understand, Mr. Chairman, how it is — and I say 
 it with the utmost respect to my friend Gompers — that a gentleman 
 who has been with this legislation from its inception down to now, 
 and whom I have met as frequently as I have met him in my opposi- 
 tion for the last eight years, should make the statement to you when 
 the question is as to what should be examined by this committee 
 before its action shall be invoked upon whatever is before it ; that the 
 bill which is now pending before this committee known as the Gard- 
 ner bill is substantially the same as the so-called " McComas " bill. 
 It will be my pleasure later to call attention not only to the differ- 
 ences between the pending bill 11651 and the so-called " McComas " 
 bill and add to the suggestions which have been already made by the 
 chairman of the committee to show not only the differences thus 
 referred to, but o>thers equally as fundamental, and I may include 
 it all in a word, a's a preliminary proposition, that this bill and the 
 bill which was pending in the last Congress — and which was referred 
 to the Secretary of Commerce and Labor, which is the so-called 
 " McComas " bill of the Fifty-seventh Congress — are as different as 
 day is from night. 
 
 Another thing. When Mr. Gompers is pleased to say to this com- 
 mittee that it is easy to ascertain what has been said and done in 
 reference to all this proposed legislation, and that there is nothing 
 new that can be said, and all that members of this committee have to 
 do is to take the hearings which are in print in reference to it and 
 run them over, and then you can ascertain what the merits of this bill 
 are — ^may I make an exhibition, simply? Here, Mr. Chairman, are 
 four volumes of hearings of different years. Here is another, later 
 [indicating books], and there is one larger than any three of these, 
 namely, the hearings before the Senate committee in the Fifty-eighth 
 Congress, and the whole thing aggregating, without stopping to see 
 the number of pages, but hazarding a guess, over 3,000 pages of 
 material that has come before these different committees. Let me 
 ask you, Mr. Norris, as a member of Congress — and intending to do 
 your duty not only by organized labor, as you should do, but also 
 your duty toward enterprises of millions of dollars of legally invested 
 capital, and of hundreds of thousands of laborers who do not belong 
 to organized labor, whose rights and interests are affected by this 
 bill — how are you expected to do that unless you get the benefit of at 
 
EIGHT HOURS FOR LABORERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. 35 
 
 least an epitomizing of all these things, so that you can grasp it as 
 YOU sit at this table and may be prepared to act as you should act — 
 imderstandingly ? 
 
 It can not be done, Mr. Chairman, in any other way than as has 
 been mapped out in your committee, and to permit hearings upon the 
 bill; that those who favor it should come in the first instance as an 
 original proposition 'and state why this bill in the present condition 
 of the industries of this country and the relation of labor thereto, 
 not only organized, but unorganized labor, should be passed; and 
 when they have said why this bill should become a law then give 
 us a patient hearing as to wlij- it should not become a law. It 
 will be my duty, as it will be my privilege, Mr. Chairman, to en- 
 deavor to aid somewhat in the light of the experience I have had in 
 these matters, aod the knowledge that I think I possess as to some of 
 the underlying conditions in reference to the questions involved in 
 this proposed legislation, to give this committee the benefit of what 
 I know about it. And I desire at the threshold to say that I feel 
 that I ought to rebuke the suggestion made by my friend Gompers 
 that practically the only object that the opponents of this bill have 
 in appearing before this committee is to cause delay. You will 
 remember the observation he made — and I was sitting under his 
 hand, and he looked at me when he said it — that if the friends of 
 the bill were compelled to take the initiative it would result in an- 
 other day's delay, which would be valuable and doubtless was the 
 purpose of those opposed to this bill. 
 
 Now, let me say to you, ]^^r. Chairman, and I call you to witness 
 to it, that I have been, for clients of mine, for eight or nine years 
 past, opposing this legislation, and except two years ago, when 
 confined to my bed by illness for four months, when I was unable 
 to attend, there has never been a meeting of this committee at which 
 I have not been present before the hour set for its assembling. There 
 has never been a time Avhen it was my duty to say what I had to say 
 that I have not been prepared to say it, aiad if there has been any 
 delay in this matter in the last four years, no portion of that delay 
 can be charged up to me, and I can call the chairman of the com- 
 mittee as witness to that proposition. I have no object of that kind 
 in view, and never have had ; never have had. 
 
 Now, addressing myself, Mr. Chairman, in a practical way, as I 
 regard it, to the consideration of this bill. Without going into any 
 lengthy statement as to the interests which I represent here, as to 
 their importance and what my clients expect of me and have a right 
 to expect of you, it seems to me that the methodical way of present- 
 ing this matter is first to call the attention of this committee to ex- 
 actly what they are called upon to consider, and, secondly, after this 
 shall be done, for us to present testimony before this committee, 
 either by the appearance of witnesses themselves or by statements 
 made by them found in print, and the book and the page of the 
 volume given where it shall be found, entering into this record, so 
 that everything will be conveniently in the hands of this committee. 
 But the preliminary statement I regard as absolutely essential, and 
 with that I proceed. And in advance, Mr. Chairman, of presenting 
 such facts as I shall deem essential for a proper consideration of this 
 bill I think it wise to place before the committee as accurately as 
 
36 EIGHT HOURS FOR LABORERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. 
 
 may be just what is before the committee, and just what this bill 
 is, especially in view of the remarkable statement made by Mr. 
 Gompers at the last open session, and repeated in this session, that 
 this is the same bill that has been pending here substantially for 
 years. The pending bill is No. 11651, introduced by Mr. Gardner 
 on January 12, 1906, and I will ask that it be inserted as part of 
 these observations. I need not stop to read this,' because I take it that 
 gentlemen of the committee are familiar with the reading of this 
 bill itself. 
 
 [H. R. 11651, Fifty-ninth Congress, first session.] 
 
 A BILL limiting tlie liours of daily service of laborers and mechanics employed upon 
 worl; done for the United States or any Territory or the District of Columbia, thereby 
 securing better products, and for other purposes. 
 
 Beit enacted J)y the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States 
 of America in Gonpress assemhled, Tbat each and every contract hereafter made 
 to which the United States, any Territory, or the District of Columbia is a party, 
 and every such contract made for or on behalf of the United States or any Terri- 
 tory or said District, which may require or involve the employment of laborers or 
 mechanics, shall contain a provision that no laborer or mechanic doing any 
 part of the work contemplated by the contract, in the employ of the contractor 
 or any subcontractor contracting for any part of said work contemplated, shall 
 be required or permitted to work more than eight hours in any one calendar 
 day ; and each and every such contract shall stipulate a penalty for each viola- 
 tion of the provision directed by this act of tive dollars for each laborer or 
 mechanic, for each and every calendar day in which he shall labor more than 
 eight hours ; and any officer or person designated as inspector of the work to be 
 performed under any such contract, or to aid in enforcing the fulfillment thereof, 
 shall, upon observation or investigation, report to the proper officer of the 
 United States or any Territory or the District of Columbia all violations of 
 the provisions in this act directed to be made in each and every such contract, 
 and the amount of the penalties stipulated in any such contract shall be with- 
 held by the officer or person whose duty it shall be to pay the moneys due 
 under such contract, whether the violation of the provisions of such contract 
 is b.v the contractor, his agents, or employees, or any subcontractor, his agents, 
 or employees. No person, on behalf of the United States or any Territory or 
 the District of Columbia, shall rebate or remit any penalty imposed under any 
 provision or stipulation herein provided for, unless upon a finding which he 
 shall make up and certify that such penalty was imposed by reason of an 
 error in fact. 
 
 Nothing in this act shall apply to contracts for transportation by land or 
 water, nor shall_ the provisions and stipulations in this act provided for affect 
 so mucli of any contract as is to be performed by way of transportation, or for 
 such materials as may usually be bought in open market, whether made to 
 conform to particular specifications or not. The proper officer on behalf of the 
 United 'States, any Territory, or the District of Columbia may waive the pro- 
 visions and stipulations in this act provided for as to contracts for military 
 or naval works or supplies during time of war or a time when war is imminent. 
 No penalties shall be exacted for violations of such provisions due to extraor- 
 dinary emergency caused by fire or fiood, or due to danger to life or loss to 
 property. Nothing in this act shall be construed to repeal or modify chapter 
 three hundred and fifty-two of the laws of the Fifty-second Congress, approved 
 August first, eighteen hundred and ninety-two, or as an attempt to abridge the 
 pardoning power of the I<]xecutive. 
 
 Mr. Gompers has stated here that this is the same bill that has been 
 pending and considered for the last eight years in Congress, and 
 that the full and exhaustive hearings had in the past two Congresses 
 left nothing to be learned or said upon the subject of the merits of 
 this bill. Isay to you, Mr. Chairman, with due respect, that nothing 
 could be more inaccurate in statement, either as to the scope of the 
 bill or its effect upon the industries of the country. In the Fifty- 
 eighth Congress the pending bill was No. 4064. 
 
EIGHT HOTJBS FOE LABORERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. 37 
 
 [H. R. 4064, Fifty-eighth Congress, first session.] 
 
 A BILL Limiting the hours of (Jaily service of laborers and mechanics employed upon 
 work done for the United States, or for any Territory, or for the District of Columhia, 
 and for other purposes. 
 
 Be it enacted by the Senate ami House of Representatives of the United States 
 of America in Congress assembled, That every contract hereafter made to which 
 the United States, any Territory, or the District of Columbia is a party, and 
 every such contract made for or on behalf of the United States, or any Terri- 
 tory, or said District, which may require or involve the employment of laborers 
 or mechanics shall contain a provision that no laborer or mechanic doing anj- 
 part of the ^^ ork contemplated by the contract in the employ of the contractor 
 or any subcontractor contracting for any part of said work contemplated shall 
 be required or permitted to work more than eight hours in any one calendar 
 day upon sttch icork; and every such contract shall stipulate a penalty for each 
 violation of such provision in such contract of Ave dollars for each laborer or 
 mechanic for every calendar day in which he shall be required or permitted to 
 labor more than eight hours upon such work; and any officer or person desig- 
 nated as inspector of the work to be performed under any such contract, or to 
 aid in enf.ircing the fulfillment thereof, shall, upon observation or investigation, 
 forthwith report to the proper officer of the United States, or of any Territory, 
 or of the District of Columbia all violations of the provisions in this act directed 
 to be made in every such contnict. tuycther Kith the names of each laborer or 
 mechanic violating such stipulatirm and the day of such violation; and the 
 amount of the penalties imposed according to the stipulation in any such con- 
 tract shall be directed to be withheld by the officer or person whose duty it 
 shall be to approve the payment of the moneys due- under such contract, whether 
 the violation of the provisions of such contract is by the contractor or any 
 subcontractor. Any" contractor or subcontractor aggrieved by the ivithholdmg 
 of any penalty as hereinbefore provided shall have the right to appeal to the 
 head of the Department making the contract, or in the case of a contract made 
 by the District of Columbia to the Commissioners thereof, ibho shall have 
 pouer to rcrieic the action im.posing the penalty; and from such final- order 
 whereby a contractor or subcontractor may be aggrieved by the imposition of 
 the penalty hereinbefore provided such contractor or subcontractor may appeal 
 to the Court of Claims, which shall have jurisdiction to hear and deride the 
 matter in like manner as in other cases before said court. 
 
 Nothing in this act shall apply to contracts for transportation by land or 
 water, or for the transmission of intelligence, or for such materials or articles 
 as may usually be bought in open market, whether made to conform to par- 
 ticular specifications or not, or for the purchase of sup/ilirs by the Government, 
 H'livther manufactured to conform to particular specifications or not. The 
 proper officer on behalf of the United States, any Territory, or the District of 
 Columbia may waive the provisions and stipulations in this act during time 
 of war or a time when war is imminent, or in anii other case irhen in the 
 opinion of the inspector or other officer in charge any great emergency exists. 
 No penalties shall be imposed for any violation of such provision in such con- 
 tract due to any emergency caused by fire, famine, or flood, by danger to life 
 or to property, or by other extraordinary event or condition. Nothing in this 
 act shall be construed to repeal or modify chapter three hundred and fifty-two 
 of the laws of the Fifty-second Congress, approved August first, eighteen hun- 
 dred and ninety-two. 
 
 While it is an eight-hour bill, it is so radically different that a 
 person favoring the pending bill would promptly reject No. 4064. 
 That was the bill which was introduced by Mr. Hitt in the last ses- 
 sion of Congress, and the same bill which was referred to the Sec- 
 retary of Commerce and Labor. I have noted in italics the pro- 
 visions in No. 4064 which are not found in the present bill, No. 
 11661, and let me briefly call your attention to what they are. Re- 
 member what I read now, that in italics, is not found in the bill 
 that you are considering, but that is the bill which was referred to 
 the Secretary of Commerce and Labor in the last Congress, and upon 
 which a report was made, copies of which are scattered about this 
 table. The Gardner bill provides that there shall not be required 
 
38 EIGHT HOURS FOR LABORERS ON" GOVERNMENT WORK. 
 
 or permitted more than eight hours' work in any one calendar day. 
 The Hitt bill adds to that "upon such work," thus making it per- 
 fectly clear what was intended to be provided in that bill, that the 
 hours of labor should not exceed eight hours upon that so-called 
 " Government work," and might be as much longer as the employer 
 and employee might desire upon other work with which and in which 
 the Government had no interest. And further than that, that in any 
 business emergency, overtime might be permitted to be worked for 
 to any extent that the employer and employee might agree upon, 
 and that, I may say, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, before proceed- 
 ing further in this discussion, is one of the rocks upon which the 
 friends of this bill and its opponents divide. 
 
 Mr. GoMPERS. Is it not true, Judge, that these two features to 
 which you call attention were in the original Gardner bill? 
 
 Mr. Payson. Away back? 
 
 Mr. GoMPEKS. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Payson. I will come to that later. 
 
 The Chairman. Just where do we find the provision that they can 
 by agreement work a longer period ? 
 
 Mr. Payson. I say that is an inference. This is my own language. 
 I say that by any fair argument, under the Hitt bill, when the 
 language is that they shall not be required or permitted to "work 
 more than eight hours in any one calendar day upon such work," 
 the workman may labor more hours upon private work the same 
 day 
 
 The Chairman. I see. 
 
 Mr. Payson (continuing). Upon such work, that is a limitation 
 in the bill as far as Congress chooses to go wpon the regulation of 
 labor. But besides the Government work it is left purely, under 
 the Hitt bill, in my judgment, to any agreement that the employer 
 and employee may make as to overtime and what emergency shall 
 exist upon which overtime may be asked or performed. 
 
 The next change in the bill is that in the Gardner bill. As it 
 stands to-day the penalty is for each violation $5 for each laborer 
 or mechanic for every calendar day in which he shall labor more than 
 eight hours. That is, more than eight hours. The langviage of the 
 Hitt bill is : " In which he shall be required or permitted to labor 
 more than eight hours upon such work." That is inserted in the 
 Hitt bill, differing from the Gardner bill. 
 
 Going back a little, among other discussions which we had in ref- 
 erence to these bills in their early history, one objection was made 
 that under the bill this penalty would be invoked and applied upon 
 a report of an inspector of the Government, either upon his oWh ob- 
 .'.ervation or upon any such investigation as he should make, but it 
 was silent as to what that report should contain. The contractor 
 was left to the mercy of the inspector; no light was given him as 
 to when this thing was said to have occurred or as to the name of the 
 employee who worked in violation of the provisions of the law, 
 and so, in order to give what everybody would concede would be a 
 good reasonable protection to the employer, this proposition was put 
 in the Hitt bill, " together with the name of the laborer or mechanic 
 violating such stipulation and the day of such violation." That 
 is a thing, I think, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, that would com- 
 mend itself to the good judgment of anybody. If my client is to 
 
EIGHT HOUES FOB LABOBEKS ON GOVERXMEXT WOBK. 39 
 
 be fined anywhere from $100 to $500 or $5,000 upon the report simply 
 <.f an inspector and without any right of appeal, before the fine was 
 imposed Upon us we ought to be given the name of our employee 
 who had violated it or the name of the subcontractor who had 
 violated the law for which we were to be fined, and the time and the 
 place where it was done, so that we might stand precisely in the 
 shoes of the inspector, as to his knowledge, for which we were to 
 be fined. Any contrary view to that would be so harsh and un- 
 reasonable that no honest man would favor the proposition. That 
 is not in this bill. It was omitted in the Gardner bill, but it was 
 in the bill of last year and the McComas bill. As to. why that was 
 called the McComas bill, I will reach that presently. 
 
 Another proposition was in the Hitt bill and was in the bill of the 
 Fifty-seventh Congress, not contained in the Gardner bill now, found 
 on page 2, beginning at line 19 — 
 
 any contractor or subcontractor aggi-ieved by the withholding of any penalty 
 as hereinbefore provided shall have the right to appeal to the head of the 
 Department making the contract, or in the case of a contract made by the 
 District of Columbia, to the Commissioners thereof, who shall have power to 
 re\-iew the action Imposing the penalty ; and from such final order whereby a 
 contractor of subcontractor may be aggrieved by the imposition of the penalty 
 hereinbefore provided such contractor or subcontractor may appeal to the 
 Court of Claims, which shall have jurisdiction to hear and decide the matter 
 in like manner as in other cases before said court. 
 
 It seemed to us years ago, when this proposition was first presented 
 (and I remember to have argued upon that proposition standing in 
 the very spot where I stand now eight years ago this session of Con- 
 gress), that certainly under the laws of the Union no man ought to 
 be fined and his money taken from him in the shape of a penalty 
 without having the right to have it adjudicated under some form of 
 law. It would look to me, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, as though 
 that proposition would go without saying. It was incorporated in 
 the Hitt bill, and was in the McComas bill, but it is omitted from 
 the Gardner bill. 
 
 And then again, the Hitt bill last year, Xo. 4064, contains this pro- 
 vision : " Nothing in this act shall apply to contracts for the trans- 
 mission of intelligence." That is omitted from the Gardner bill. It 
 was in the McComas bill and in the Hitt bill and not here. How did 
 it happen to come there? Going back (and I shall have to repeat 
 myself a little here) in the early stages of this legislation the bills 
 were in substance and in fact genuine eight-hour bills. They were 
 intended to hit everybody who had a Government contract and bring 
 the labor employed by that contractor within the eight-hour limit. 
 Railroads were included within it. Telegraph companies were in- 
 cluded within it. Carriers by water were included within it, and so 
 on and so on. And among the early discussions which were had 
 before this committee and before the Senate committee there were 
 gentlemen representing the great trunk lines of the country in oppo- 
 sition to that proposition. It happened then as now — I have a client- 
 age limited in number, but made up pretty well in importance — that 
 among my clients were the Southern Pacific Company and the Union 
 Pacific Railroad Company. Those two transportation companies 
 then had a mileage of about 12,000 miles of trackage under inter- 
 state-commerce regulations. As soon as I looked over the bill I 
 came to the conclusion that we came within it as to everything that 
 
40 EIGHT HOUKS FOE LABOREES ON GOVEENMENT WOEK, 
 
 we did for the Government, including the carriage of mails, and a 
 conference was had in the city of New York in reference to that 
 subject. 
 
 If my notions of it were true and accurate and well founded, it 
 was a pretty serious question as to how we were going to deal with 
 the Government in reference to the transportation of mails, let alone 
 the question of army supplies and the materials for public buildings, 
 and hundreds and hundreds of other dealings that we had with the 
 Government as railway companies — how we were going to deal with 
 the question. The legal department in New York concluded that 
 T was right about it, and thereafter consultation was had by me with 
 the post-office authorities. The Postmaster-General had no doubt 
 that my view of the matter was right; that the carriage of the mails 
 came within the purview of this law, and under our contract to carry 
 the mails, involving the employment of labor upon our trains, if we 
 worked a man upon one of those trains more than eight hours in any 
 one calendar day we were subject to the penalty. Of course this ques- 
 tion arose. Can you refuse to carry the mails? The railroad routes 
 being post routes, 'could we refuse to do it ? And if we had to do it 
 under the eight-hour bill it would, as everybody can see at once, 
 revolutionize our method of doing business, because there was not a 
 railroad line in the United States then, nor is there now, so far as I 
 can ascertain, where the limits of the hours of labor of the train 
 employees were as low as eight hours — not one. It would follow 
 that we would have to equip special trains, if we did any work for 
 the Government, and limit the hours for that purpose, limiting the 
 hours to eight hours, and take the chances of being laid out and all 
 that sort of thing. So we protested here and in the other end of the 
 Capitol that there should be an exception with reference to all trans- 
 portation lines, and it was deemed so important and the opposition 
 to what we were saying at that time was so persistent on the part of 
 gentlemen sitting on the other side of the table, that it became neces- 
 sary for us to produce before these committees the testimony of rail- 
 road men and post-office officials as to what the effect of this bill 
 would be upon transportation companies. 
 
 At my instance, Mr. Frank Gannon, who was general manager of 
 the Southern Eailway Company, who was selected because his road 
 was a type of all the roads in the country, came before this committee 
 and went before the committee of the Senate and gave his judgment 
 as to the effect of the bill on the business. The result was that it 
 went ultimately out of the bill — that is to say, it was put within the 
 exceptions of the bill. Now, Mr. Chairman, this very proposition 
 illustrates the point that I was making at the outset, of the necessity 
 of this committee examining everything that this bill relates to. It 
 also tends to controvert the proposition of the consistency of the gen- 
 tlemen on the other side when they say that this is not only the 
 same bill, but is the bill they have always been in favor of. There is 
 no representative of organized labor, Mr. Chairman, or one who is 
 connected with them who will now come before this committee and 
 say that he wants railroads included within the operation of this 
 bill; and if the gentleman at the head of organized labor disputes 
 that proposition, I will be very glad to have him say, in my time, that 
 he does not agree with what I am saying. 
 
EIGHT HOURS FOR LABORERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. 41 
 
 Mr. GoMPERS. I disagree with what you are saying, sir, if the men 
 affected by the operation of such a law would themselves favor it; 
 and the only persons who are in a position to express their own judg- 
 ment are those who are organized for the purpose of considering just 
 such questions, and they have not expressed themselves in favor of 
 it, and hence they are excluded from the operations of the bill; 
 otherwise they would have been included. 
 
 Mr. Payson. I tried by my question, Mr. Chairman, and will again 
 endeavor, to have Mr. Gompers say in this presence, with his ap- 
 parent desire to be sincere in what he has to say here, whether at 
 this time he is in favor of striking out from the Gardner bill the 
 exception as to railroads to-day. "i es or no will answer the question. 
 
 Mr. Gompers. I will say, sir, that if it were in my power to influ- 
 ence Congress, I should endeavor to have a law enacted that would 
 embody the eight-hour principle for all those who are employed di- 
 rectly by the Government, or those who do work for the Government 
 hy contract through contractors or subcontractors. I realize, how- 
 ever, that there are conditions and circumstances that make such a 
 broad scope impossible, at least at this time. Hence it is not a ques- 
 tion of eliminating any one by desire. But as Judge Payson has 
 done us the honor to say, and he has evidently quoted that statement 
 of mine with the purpose of arousing your opposition to the bill, we 
 have said in the past what I will for the present record repeat now, 
 that it is the hope that the eight-hour day shall become a universal 
 rule for the working people of our country, and that the purpose of 
 this bill, the purpose of the initiating of this legislation, and that 
 covers this bill and former bills, the so-called " McComas bill " in- 
 cluded, is that it shall tend to the establishment of the eight-hour 
 day among the working people of our country. And wherever we 
 have what appears to have been a receding from our original posi- 
 tion it is not one of our own choosing, but one that we have been 
 forced into by reason of the manifest opposition of all those who ap- 
 peared before this committee and the Senate Committee on Education 
 and Labor to oppose an eight-hour law. I want to know whether my 
 statement has been full and ample enough to satisfy Judge Payson? 
 
 Mr. Payson. For its fullness and amplitude nobody could object 
 to it ; but the question has not been answered or even approached, so 
 that I will resume my own statement. 
 
 The Chairman. Perhaps I ought to interject there just one word 
 for the record. 
 
 Mr. Payson. Yes. 
 
 The Chairman. As to the draft of the original bills, several of 
 them, it was a matter of evolution. I want to say that the first sug- 
 gestion that ever reached this committee room as to the impractica- 
 bility of including transportation lines came from Andrew J. Furu- 
 seth here representing the men engaged in transportation by water on 
 the Pacific coast. Mr. Furuseth has been a sailor, and the impractica- 
 bility of it was suggested to him first as touchingN vessels, as he said, 
 and secondly, as touching railroads connecting with vessels; so that 
 the exception came originally, so far as coming to this committee is 
 concerned, from a representative of the labor organizations represent- 
 ing especially those engaged in transportation, and was made on the 
 basis of its impracticability rather than on principle. 
 
42 EIGHT HOUES FOE LABOEEES ON GOVEENMENT WOEK. 
 
 Mr. Payson. Is that all, Mr. Chairman ? 
 
 The Chairjiax. That is all that I have to say. 
 
 Mr. Payson. The point that I was endeavoring to make, Mr. 
 Chairman, when I asked Mr. Gompers the question, was that his 
 attitude to-day upon the question of railroad transportation is not his 
 attitude of eight years ago, and that eight years ago this was in the 
 bill and there is no proposition, so far as any representative of 
 any railroad company was concerned, so far as they were ever ad- 
 vised or knew, to take it out of the bill. We opposed its remaining 
 in the bill, and it seemed to require discussion after discussion in 
 order to get it out of the bilU and it never did go out, Mr. Chairman, 
 until after at least two years of discussion had gone on, when Mr. 
 Fuller produced some telegrams he had received from some prominent 
 men connected with railways, among them Mr. Arthur, who was 
 prominently connected with a railroad employee organization, in 
 which he said that he favored this eight-hour bill except so far as it 
 related to the operations of railroads, and that was the first intima- 
 tion that ever came to any of us that any of the friends of this bill 
 would be in favor of this exception, and later on in the progress of 
 this discussion I will produce before you that telegram. But the 
 point that I was making is that Mr. Gompers's attitude at that time 
 was in favor of burdening the railroad companies with whatever bur- 
 dens grew out of this bill, in so far as it could be judged by what he 
 said or did. We got it out of the bill, and I tried to ask Mr. Gompers 
 whether he would be in favor of putting it in to-day, and he makes a 
 statement that is " ample and full," but does not answer and does not 
 meet the question. So that I assume that you will not hear, Mr. 
 Chairman and gentlemen, from any of the friends of the bill any 
 proposition to include the railroads in it. How does it vary again? 
 This language is, " or for the transmission of intelligence." That 
 includes all the telegraph companies of this country, as well as cable 
 and telephone lines. Some of the railroad companies have their own 
 telegraph lines, as I am advised. Ours does not. The telegraph 
 people are under contract with the Government to send Government 
 messages. An operator at one end sending a message and the oper- 
 ator at the other end taking it are engaged in the employ of a con- 
 tractor " under a contract with the Government " for the transmis- 
 sion of intelligence, and under this bill as it stood before it was con- 
 ceded, so far as I know, universally, that telegraph companies came 
 under these provisions, and that it ought not to be so. 
 
 Mr. Haskins. Is not that true of all telegraph companies, that they 
 are under obligation to transmit the Government messages ? 
 
 Mr. Payson. Yes; the Western Union and the Postal Telegraph 
 and the others, so far as I know, all are; but some of the railways 
 own their own telegraph systems, and that provision w-as put in the 
 bill for obvious and just reasons, and I doubt, Mr. Chairman and 
 gentlemen of the committee, whether you will find any member of 
 the legislative conwnittee of the American Federation of Labor who 
 will say that that exception ought not to be inserted. I am speaking 
 now of the differences in the bills. Then again, the bill of last year 
 contained an exception as to articles which may usually be bought in 
 the open market. The Gardner bill provides for such materials as 
 may be usually bought in the open market. The distinction between 
 
EIGHT HOURS FOR LABORERS OX GOVERNMENT WORK. 43 
 
 those two \Y()i'ds I will come to at a later stage of what I shall say to 
 the committee. 
 
 ^Vgain, the bill of last year contained among the exceptions as to 
 its operation these words, " or for the purchase of supplies by the 
 Government, whether manufactured to conform to particular speci- 
 fications or not" That was in the bill of last year and is not in the 
 Gardner bill of this year. Again, in the bill of last year was this 
 exception, found in line 15, on page 3, " or in any other case " — 
 speaking of emergencies now — " that the proper officer may waive 
 the provisions of this act in time of war or when war is imminent." 
 
 Now, the bill of last year said, " or in any case where in the opinion 
 of the inspector or any other officer in charge any great emergency 
 exists." That was in the bill of last year, was in the McComas bill, 
 and it is not in this bill; that is to say. no emergency Avill excuse a 
 contractor under the terms of the Gardner bill excejDt during time of 
 Avar or when war is imminent, or, a little later on, where it is caused 
 by fire or flood or danger to life and property. There is the difference 
 in that. 
 
 Then, again, in the last bill. An emergency which grew out of a 
 famine was made an exception in that bill, and it is omitted for some 
 reason in the Gardner bill of this year. If there is a famine in any 
 part of the countrJ^ jMr. Chairman and gentlemen, or there should 
 appear to be a necessity' for the exercise of some work in connection 
 with some Government contract that that matter might affect, it does 
 seem to us, and it seemed to us when that bill was under consideration, 
 that famine was as bad as either fire or flood, and if there was a 
 famine, and if the emergency existed, we think that there should be 
 an exception with reference to it. It does not appear in this bill, but 
 it did ajapear in the bill of last year. 
 
 Then, the bill of last year also had another exception as to emer- 
 gency, " or by any other extraordinary event or condition." It Avould 
 seem as though that was reasonable. I am not discussing noAv at 
 length these propositions, but I am simply showing the difference be- 
 tween that bill and this to disabuse the minds of this committee if 
 the impression that they are dealing with a bill now that is in sub- 
 stance the same as the bill of two years ago and four years ago. 
 
 Now, that is the bill of last year. 
 
 In the Fifty-seventh Congress, JMr. Chairman, the bill was No. 
 3076. 
 
 (At this point, 12 o'clock m., the committee adjourned until Friday, 
 May 18, 1906, at 10.30 o'clock a. m.) 
 
 Committee on Labor, 
 
 House of Eepeesentatives, 
 
 Friday, May 18, 1906. 
 The committee met at 10.45 o'clock a. m., Hon. John J. Gardner 
 (chairman) in the chair. 
 
 The Chairman. When we adjourned the other day. Judge Payson, 
 you had not concluded your remarks ? 
 INIr. Payson. No. 
 
44 EIGHT HOURS FOE LABOKEES ON GOVEENMENT WOEK. 
 
 The Chaieman. Does it make any special difference to you when you 
 shall conclude them? I ask this with a view to inquiring whether 
 there is anyone present here from a distance who would be incon- 
 venienced by remaining if he was not able to be heard to-day ? 
 
 Mr. Payson. Oh, I would be very glad to give way to anyone who 
 who is here from a distance, because, like the poor, I am with you 
 always. 
 
 The Chairman. Is there any gentleman here from a distance who 
 would like to be heard this morning? There does not appear to be, 
 Judge, and if you will continue now we will be glad to have you do so. 
 
 STATEMENT OF HON. L. E. PAYSON— Continued. 
 
 Mr. Payson. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, as you will remember, 
 I was endeavoring at the last hearing of the committee to point out 
 the distinctions between House bill 11651, the bill before you, and 
 the bill in the last Congress, No. 4064, and I had practically con- 
 cluded all that I desired to say as to that, with this addition: The 
 difference between those two bills, Mr. Chairman, may be concisely 
 stated, in my judgment, in this, that House bill 4064, in the judg- 
 ment of the Senate Committee on Education and Labor and in the 
 judgment of the Secretary of Commerce and Labor and his solicitor, 
 and of every gentleman in public life whose opinion has ever been 
 expressed upon it, so far as I know, would only reach about 5 per cent 
 of the contracts between the Government and the manufacturers. 
 This bill, No. 11651, will cover more than 95 per cent of the contracts 
 between the Government and Government contractors. That is the 
 practical difference between the two bills. 
 
 Mr. NoEEis. Now, might I ask you, do you mean by that 95 per 
 cent in addition to those contracts that are already covered by exist- 
 ing law ? 
 
 Mr. Payson. I leave existing law out, because there is no exist- 
 ing law that covers the question of contract between the Government 
 and contractors, except such contracts as apply to public work as such. 
 
 Mr. NoEEis. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Payson. Public work as such ; that is what I mean. 
 
 Mr. NoERis. Now, outside of that 
 
 Mr. Payson. Outside of that is what I am talking about. 
 
 Mr. NoEEis. That this bill will reach 95 per cent? 
 
 Mr. Payson. Yes, sir; 95 per cent of what the Government has 
 to deal with in manufactured articles between contractors and itself, 
 outside of public, work as such, and not including naval vessels. 
 
 Mr. NoEEis. I think I understand. 
 
 Mr. Payson. And I think I may say in passing that any time 
 during the progress of this discussion, at this time or any time later, 
 if I should fail to make myself understood I should be very glad, 
 and it will not be regarded as an interruption, but as a favor, if you 
 will ask me to make myself more thoroughly understood 
 
 Mr. NoEEis. I would like to ask you right there, unless you expect 
 to give us that later, what your idea is, as to what you base that 
 percentage on? 
 
 Mr. Payson. I will-come to that. 
 
 Mr. NoEEis. How do you reach that conclusion? 
 
 Mr. Payson. I will come to that later. 
 
EIGHT HOURS FOB LABOBEBS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. 45 
 
 Mr. XoERis. All right. 
 
 Mr. Payson. Because I am stating this now as a sort of opening 
 address to you, treating you as a jury for the present. The testi- 
 mony in the case as we will introduce it, in extenso, will demonstrate 
 what I state to you, as I think, so that I simply state my conclu- 
 sion about it, my judgment about it, based on eight years' experience 
 at this table and at the corresponding one at the other end of the 
 Capitol. 
 
 Now, that is the difference between the two bills, and I wish to 
 emphasize the importance of the consideration of these questions by 
 gentlemen who are not familiar with the situation. 
 
 Mr. NoRRis. I think if that statement be borne out by the fact, 
 that that is true, that it is a very important consideration. 
 
 Mr. Payson. Yes; and we will show it to be true. 
 
 Mr. NoRRis. In other words, if that be true, then, what has been 
 adduced in favor of these other bills would not be sufficient for a 
 man to pass judgment upon this bill? 
 
 Mr. Payson. No. 
 
 Mr. GoMPERS. Would it be an interruption for me to say a word ? 
 
 Mr. Payson. Not in the least for you to say a word, but for a 
 long argument upon the benefits of the eight-hour day it would be. 
 
 Mr. GoMPEES. Of course I shall not invade your time 
 
 Mr. Pay'SOn. Oh, my time is in common with you. 
 
 Mr. GoMPERS (continuing). Or to divert the purpose of the hear- 
 ing. But by the question which Mr. Norris put to you he appeared 
 to indicate that the hearing thus far had, in support of what has 
 come to Iniown as the " McComas bill," is not sufficient as covering 
 the present bill, and that therefore further hearings and investiga- 
 tions may be necessary. I simply desire to saj^ that the hearings 
 were in extenso, and arguments have been made ujDon both sides 
 upon the Gardner bill in not less than three Congresses, and that 
 the present Gardner bill is identical with the hearings that have been 
 held upon that bill. 
 
 Mr. Payson. I am coming to that part of it a little later. 
 
 Mr. NoRRis. I simply make my statement, based on the statement 
 of Judge Payson, that this bill covers 95 per cent, and the other 
 bill upon which, as I understand, hearings have been had only covers 
 5 per cent. 
 
 Mr. Pay'SON. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. NoKRis. Assuming that to be true, then I should think that 
 what was said upon the other bill would not necessarily be sufficient 
 on this bill. 
 
 Mr. GoMPERS. But the premise and the assumption is wrong. 
 
 Mr. NoERis. I understand that, and he himself says that this is 
 simply his opening statement to the jury, and if it is not substan- 
 tiated by the evidence, it will not be sufficient, of course. 
 
 The Chairjian. Let us get that clear as we start. The copies of 
 all the bills are here. The first one was in the Fifty-sixth Congress. 
 There have been how many bills? 
 
 Mr. Payson. I have them all here and am coming to it and will 
 cover them all in five minutes. I have them all under my hand 
 and will call the attention of the committee to them, as I think, in a 
 methodical way. 
 
 The Chairman. Yes. 
 
46 EIGHT HOXJKS FOR LABORERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. 
 
 * 
 
 Mr. Paysox. In the Fifty-seventh Congress the bill was No. 3076, a 
 copy of which I have in my hand. 
 
 [H. E. 3076, Fifty -seventli Congress, first session.] 
 
 A BILL Limiting the hours of daily service of laborers and mechanics employed upon work 
 done for the United States, or any Territory, or the District of Columbia, thereby securing 
 better products, and for other purposes. 
 
 Be it enacted l>y the Senate and House of Representatives of the Xniited 
 States of America in Congress assembled, That each and every contract here- 
 after made to which the United States, ahy Territory, or the District of 
 Columbia is a party, and every such contract made for or on behalf of the 
 United States, or any Territory, or said District, which may require or involve 
 the employment of laborers or mechanics, shall contain a provision that no 
 laborer or mechanic doing any part of the work contemplated by the contract, 
 in the employ of the contractor or any subcontractor contracting for any part 
 of said work contemplated, shall be required or permitted to work more than 
 eight hours in any one calendar day ; and each and every such contract shall 
 stipulate a penalty for each violation of the provision directed by this act of 
 live dollars for each laborer or mechanic for each and every calendar day in 
 which he shall labor more than eight hours ; and any officer or person desig- 
 nated as inspector of the work to be performed under any such contract, or 
 to aid in enforcing the fulfillment thereof, shall upon observation or investiga- 
 tion report to the proper officer of the United States, or any Territory, or 
 the District of Columbia, all violations of the provisions in this act directed to 
 be made in each and every such contract, and the amount of the penalties 
 stipulated in any such contract shall be withheld by the officer or person 
 whose duty it shall be to pay the moneys due under such contract, whether 
 the violation of the provisions of such contract is by the contractor, his agents 
 or employees, or any subcontractor, his agents or employees. No person on 
 behalf of the United States, or any Territory, or the District of Columbia, 
 shall rebate or remit any penalty imposed under any provision or stipulation 
 herein provided for, unless upon a finding which he shall make up and certify 
 that such penalty was imposed by reason of an error in fact. 
 
 Nothing in this act shall apply to contracts for transportation by land or 
 water, nor shall the pi'ovisions and stipulations in this act provided for affect 
 so much of any contract as is to be performed by way of transportation, or for 
 such materials as may usually be bought in open market, whether made to 
 conform to iiarticular specifications or not. The proper officer on behalt of 
 the United States, or any Territory, or the District of Columbia, may waive the 
 provisions and stipulations in this act provided for as to contracts for military 
 or naval works or supplies during time of war or a time when war is imminent. 
 No penalties shall be exacted for violations of such provisions due to extraordi- 
 nary emergency caused by fire, or flood, or due to danger to life or Joss to 
 property. Nothing in this act shall be construed to repeal or modify chapter 
 three hundred and fifty-two of the laws of the Fifty-second Congress, approved 
 August first, eighteen hundred and ninety-two, or as an attempt to abridge the 
 pardoning power of the Executive. 
 
 This was reported to the House as it was introduced, except for 
 some slight changes in phraseology toward the end — the insertion of 
 the word " or," and the insertion or the words " do to," and the words 
 " loss to ; " simply verbal corrections of phraseology. AVith those 
 exceptions the bill which was reported was the bill which was intro- 
 duced. After its passage by the House it went to the Senate, and 
 was considered by the Senate Committee on Education and Labor, 
 and reported out amended. 
 
 Mr. Davenport. May I inquire wTiether there was any hearing be- 
 fore this committee in the Fifty-seventh Congress ? 
 
 Mr. Payson. My understanding is that there was not. I think it 
 went out, was reported out from the committee, and was passed under 
 a suspension of the rules on the floor of the House. I do not speak 
 with accuracy as to this, but it is not material so far as what I have 
 to say goes. 
 
EIGHT HOURS FOR LABORERS ON GOVERXMEXT WORK. 47 
 
 Mr. GoMPERS. I think that hearings had been had upon that bill 
 and upon the similar bill in the previous Congress. 
 
 Mr. Payson. That is neither here nor there. Bill No. 3076 was 
 amended in the Senate, and is what is known as the " McComas bill." 
 When the chairman says there is no such bill known as the " McComas 
 bill " the chairman does not speak with entire accuracy as to that. 
 
 The Chairman. I meant to have that corrected in the record. I 
 was unaware that Mr. McComas had taken the House bill with the 
 Senate amendments and introduced it as an original bill, but upon 
 examination of the record it shows that that is true. 
 
 Mr. Payson. Yes ; and after the bill was reported as a jDart of the 
 history of this legislation it was a matter that was discussed in the 
 Senate and was talked of in the newspapers, and the bill that I hold 
 •in my hand, No. 3076, as reported by Mr. McComas, was known as 
 the " McComas bill," because it varied so much from the bill which 
 was introduced and passed by the House. This bill, I may say in a 
 single word, was almost identical with the bill to which I have been 
 referring. No. 4064, introduced by Mr. Hitt in the Fifty-eighth Con- 
 gress, at the first session. 
 
 Mr. Conner. Now, an inquiry. "Was it not upon the Hitt bill that 
 we had the hearings here in the Fifty-eighth Congress ? 
 
 Mr. Payson. Yes; I want to correct myself as to that. I did not 
 remember when I said that I could not speak with accuracy as to 
 that. In the Fifty-eighth Congress I was confined to my bed, was 
 in bed for five months, and was in the house for four months more, 
 and took no part in it, but upon suggestion I remember now that 
 hearings occurred, but I was not present. 
 
 The McComas bill, which I will insert as a part o^f this statement, 
 indicating the changes which were made by italics and brackets, so 
 as to show the changes, was almost identical with No. 4064 — with the 
 so-called " Hitt bill " of the Fifty-eighth Congress. 
 
 [H. K. 3076, Fifty-seventh Congress, second session.] 
 
 AN ACT Limiting the hours of daily service of laborers and mechanics em- 
 ploj'ed upon work done for the United States, or any Territory, or the Dis- 
 trict of Columbia, [thereby securing better products], and for other purposes. 
 
 Be it enacted hy the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
 United States of America in Congress assembled, That [each and'] 
 every contract hereafter made to which the United States, any Ter- 
 ritory, or the District of Columbia is a party, and every such contract 
 made for or on behalf of the United States, or any Territory, or said 
 District, which may require or involve the employment of laborers 
 or mechanics, shall contain a provision that no laborer or mechanic 
 doing any part of the work contemplated by the contract, in the em- 
 ploy of the contractor or any subcontractor contracting for any part 
 of said work contemplated, shall be required or permitted to work 
 more than eight hours in any one calendar day upon such work; and 
 [each and] every such contract shall stipulate a penalty for each vio- 
 lation of [the] such provision [directed by this Act] in such contract 
 of five dollars for each laborer or mechanic, for [each and] every cal- 
 endar day in which he shall be required or permitted to labor more 
 than eight hours upon such work; and any officer or person desig- 
 nated as inspector of the work to be performed under any such con- 
 tract, or to aid in enforcing the fulfillment thereof, shall upon obser- 
 
48 BIGHT HOUKS FOR LABORERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. 
 
 vation or investigation forthwith report to the proper officer of the 
 ITnited States, or of any Territory, or of the District of Columbia, all 
 violations of the provisions in this Act directed to be ma;de in [each 
 and] every such contract, together with the names of each laborer or 
 mechanic violating such stipulation and the day of such violation, 
 and the amount of the penalties [stipulated] imposed according to 
 the stipulation in any such contract shall be directed to be withheld 
 by the officer or person whose duty it shall be to [pay] approve the 
 payment of the moneys due under such contract, whether the violation 
 of the provisions of such contract is by the contractor [his agents or 
 employees], or any subcontractor [his agents or employees. No per- 
 son on behalf of the United States, or any Territory, or the District 
 of Columbia, shall rebate or remit any penalty imposed under aay 
 provision or stipulation herein provided for, unless upon a finding 
 which he shall make up and certify that such penalty was imposed 
 by reason of an error in fact.] Any contractor or subcontractor ag- 
 grieved by the withholding of any penalty as hereinbefore provided 
 shall have the right to appeal to the head of the Departmdnt making 
 the contract or in the case of a contract made by the District of Co- 
 lumbia to the Commissioners thereof, who shall have power to review 
 the action imposing the penalty, and from such final order whereby a 
 contractor or subcontractor may be aggrieved by the imposition of the 
 penalty hereinbefore provided, such contractor or subcontractor may 
 appeal to the Court of Claims, which shall have jurisdiction to hear 
 and decide the matter in like manner as in other cases before said 
 court. 
 
 Nothing in this Act shall apply to contracts for transportation by 
 land or water, [nor shall the provisions and stipulations in this Act 
 provided for affect so much of any contract as is to be performed by 
 Avay of transportation,] or for the transmission of intelligence, or for 
 such materials or articles as may usually be bought in open market, 
 whether made to conform to particular specifications or not, or for 
 the purchase of supplies by the Government whether manufactured 
 to conform to particular specifications or not. The proper officer on 
 behalf of the United States, any Territory, or the District of Colum- 
 bia, may waive the provisions and stipulations in this Act [provided 
 for as to contracts for military or naval works or supplies] during 
 time of war or a time when war is imminent, or in any other case 
 when in the opinion of the inspector or other officer in charge any 
 great emergency exists. No penalties shall be [exacted] imposed for 
 I violations] any violation of such [provisions] provision in such con- 
 tract due to [extraordinary] any emergency caused by fire, famine, or 
 flood, [or due to] by danger to life or [loss] to property, or by other 
 extraordinary event or condition. Nothing in this Act shall be con- 
 strued to repeal or modify chapter three hundred and fifty-two of the 
 laws of the Fifty-second Congress, approved August first, eighteen 
 hundred and ninety-two, [or as an attempt to abridge the pardoning 
 power of the Executive.] 
 
 Amend the title so as to read : "An Act limiting the hours of daily 
 service of laborers and mechanics employed upon work done for the 
 United States, or for any Territory, or for the District of Columbia, 
 and for other purposes." 
 
 In the Fifty-sixth Congress was bill No. 6882. That, practically, 
 was the bill that is now before you, and the original Gardner bill, 
 
EIGHT HOURS FOR LABORERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. 49 
 
 without stopping to look at any slight differences between them, 
 "was practically the same. 
 
 [H. R. 6882, Fifty-sixth Congress, first session.] 
 
 A BILL Limiting the hours of daily services of laborers, workmen, and mechanics 
 employed upon the public worlts of or worlt done for the United States, or any Terri- 
 tory, or the District of Columbia. 
 
 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
 States of America in Congress assembled, That the time of service of all 
 laborers, worlimen, and mechanics employed upon any public worJi of or worli 
 done for the United States, or any Territory, or the District of Columbia, 
 whether said work is done by contract or otherwise, is hereby limited and 
 restricted to eight hours in any one calendar day ; and it shall be unlawful 
 for any officer of the United States, or of any Territory, or the District of 
 Columbia, or any person acting for or on behalf of the United States, or any 
 Territory, or said District, or any contractor or subcontractor for any part 
 of any public works of, or work done for the United States, or any Territory, or 
 said District, or any person whose duty it shall be to employ or to direct and 
 control the services of such laborers, worlimen, or mechanics, or who has in 
 fact the direction or control of the services of such laborers, workmen, or 
 mechanics, to require or permit them, or any of them, to labor more than eight 
 hours in any one calendar day, except in cases of extraordinary emergency 
 caused by fire, flood, or danger to life or property, and work upon public military 
 or naval works or defenses in time of war. 
 
 Sec. 2. That each and every contract to which the United States, any Terri- 
 tory, or the District of Columbia is a party, and every contract made for or 
 on behalf of the United States, or any Territory, or said District, which con- 
 tract may involve the employment of laborers, workmen, or mechanics, shall 
 •contain a stipulation that no laborer, worltman, or mechanic in the employ of 
 the contractor or any subcontractor doing or contracting to do any part of the 
 work contemplated by the contract, shall be required or permitted to work 
 more than eight hours in any one calendar day ; and each and every such 
 •contract shall stipulate a penalty for each violation of the stipulation directed 
 by this act of ten dollars for each laborer, workman, or mechanic, for each 
 and every calendar day in which he shall labor more than eight hours ; and 
 the inspector or other officer or person whose duty it shall be to see that the 
 provisions of any such contract are complied with, shall report to the proper 
 •officer of the United States, or any Territory, or the District of Columbia, all 
 violations of the stipulation in this act provided for in each and every such 
 contract, and the amount of the penalties stipulated in any such contract shall 
 be withheld by the officer or person whose duty it shall be to pay the moneys 
 due under such contract, whether the violations for which said penalties were 
 Imposed were by the contractor, his agents, or employees, or any subcontractor, 
 his agents, or employees. No person on behalf of the United States, or any 
 Territory, or the District of Columbia, shall rebate or remit any penalty im- 
 posed under any stipulation herein provided for, unless upon a finding which 
 he shall make up and certify that such penalty was imposed by reason of an 
 error of fact. 
 
 Sec. 3. That any officer of the United States, or any Territory, or the District 
 of Columbia, or any person acting for or on behalf of the United Staes, or any 
 Territory, or the District of Columbia, who shall violate the provisions of this 
 act, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and be subject to a fine or im- 
 prisonment, or both, at the discretion of the court, the fine not to exceed five 
 hundred dollars, nor the imprisonment one year. 
 
 Sec. 4. That all acts and parts of acts inconsistent with this act, in so far 
 as they are Inconsistent, be, and the same are hereby, repealed. But-nothing 
 in this act shall apply to any existing contract, or to soldiers and sailors 
 enlisted, respectively, in the Army or Navy of the United States, or to seamen 
 on seagoing vessels. 
 
 Mr. Hunt. Might I ask you whether you have any recollection as 
 to whether there were any hearings upon the original Gardner bill 
 or not? 
 
 Mr. Patson. There were. 
 
 Mr. Hunt. There were? 
 EH— 06 4 
 
50 EIGHT HOUES FOR LABORERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. 
 
 Mr. Payson. Yes. The original Gardner bill when before the 
 House, No. 6882, was^considered by this committee and was reported 
 by Mr. Gardner. No. 6882 was introduced by yourself, Mr. Chair- 
 man, on the 19th of January, 1900, and reported May 8, 1900. That 
 bill was substantially amended as appears by the bill, a copy of 
 which I have in my hand, and one important amendment was re- 
 ported on that bill. The bill as originally introduced contained 
 what was practically the law of 1892, the eight-hour law, as ap- 
 
 {)licable to public work. For some reason those who favored this 
 egislation seemed to think that it would be desirable to reenact that 
 law, as I recollect, with no substantial change in it; but it was in- 
 tended that the bill should be broad enough to cover the entire labor 
 situation as between the Government and Government contractors, 
 and so section 1 of the old bill, No. 6882, was really a reenactment of 
 the old law. But when Mr. Gardner for this committee reported this 
 bill that was stricken out, and that section has never since appeared ia 
 the bill. 
 
 In the Fifty-fifth Congress the bill was No. 7389. I have been 
 unable to get a copy of that bill. I have been to the document rooms 
 of both the House and the Senate, and have had Mr. Andy Smithy 
 the Record clerk, try to find it for me, and I can not find it. 
 
 The Chairman. I have a copy here as it was reported by th& 
 Senate. . ' 
 
 Mr. Patson. For the purposes of what I have' to say this is not 
 material, Mr. Chairman, so that I proceed that I have seen a copy 
 of it in a report, and it is enough to say that as introduced it was 
 almost identical with No. 6882 of the Fifty-sixth Congress and passed 
 the House in the same form. The Senate committee amended it by 
 giving the head of a Department discretion to determine when an 
 emergency existed which should excuse overtime work. An excep- 
 tion was also made as to the transportation of the mails, and the 
 amended bill in the Senate also excepted the purchase of "ordinary 
 supplies " and also excepted contracts " for materials as may be 
 usually bought in the open market." 
 
 These, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, are all of the bills that have 
 been introduced and passed upon by this committee, and as far as I 
 have been able to learn, and it is enough for the purposes of this 
 statement for me to state. Now, will the gentlemen recall that Mr. 
 Gompers vehemently asserted that the pending bill was the bill 
 which had been so long delayed, hindered, and violently opposed, and 
 that there was no diflference between them? No. T389 in the Fifty- 
 fifth Congress, No. 6882 in the Fifty-sixth Congress, No. 3076 in the 
 Fifty-seventh Congress — all of them as introduced and while being 
 considered were absolute eight-hour bills. What I mean by that is 
 that the friends of these bills were seeking to reach out and embrace 
 within their provisions all matters of labor where the Government 
 was interested, indirectly, through private contract with private 
 individuals, and to make a genuine eight-hour bill which would cover 
 all sorts of employment. 
 
 That was the object and intent of that legislation. It was plainly 
 expressed on the face of the bill, and as we were here year after year- 
 discussing those propositions, it was openly announced on the part of 
 the gentlemen who sit here that it was their purpose to accomplish that 
 which I have indicated by the passage of the bill by securing a gen- 
 
EIGHT HOURS FOB LABORERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. 51 
 
 uine eight-hour bill as to everything ; to secure the limitation to eight 
 hours of labor wherever the Government was interested directly or 
 indirectly. Every line of railroad or water transportation came within 
 them. Every common carrier, under the earlier bills, was penalized. 
 There were no exceptions as to the " ordinary supplies " of the Gov- 
 ernment, whether manufactured " articles or " materials which 
 might be bought in the open market," and for six years, Mr. Chair- 
 man, as you remember and as I stated to you gentlemen who were not 
 members of the conmiittee at that time, those of us who were opposed 
 to these bills fought them, because, among other things, all these cases 
 and all these interests came within the bills. The railroads were 
 compelled to resist then as now. As I stated the other day, I was 
 attorney for the Southern Pacific Company and for the Union 
 Pacific Railroad Company, and they then operated some 12,000 miles 
 of road under the interstate- commerce regulations, and it was in that 
 phase of opposition in its early stages that I did make the remark so 
 sneeringly alluded to by Mr. Gompers two weeks ago in this presence 
 when he said that I had said that" if the bill should be understood I 
 doubted whether any man would support it. I did say so, and I say 
 so still, because there is not a friend of this bill now, so far as I know, 
 who desires that either railroad or water transportation should be 
 included in this legislation, 6r that articles usually bought in the 
 open market should be included, or supplies purchased by the Gov- 
 ernment. 
 
 Again, the McComas bill of the Fifty-seventh Congress, second ses- 
 sion, for which these gentlemen were clamoring then, is as different 
 from No. 11651 of this session as darkness from Tight. The McComas 
 bill makes the eight-hour day apply only to work upon Government 
 contracts, and the language is " upon such work." Do these gentle- 
 men stand for that now? Nay, -^verily. What they now claim and 
 insist upon (and No. 11&51 before you to-day is based upon a demand 
 for it) is an eight-hour day only if part of that day is spent on Gov- 
 ernment contract work. 
 
 Mr. Conner. Allow me to see if I understand you. 
 
 Mr. Payson. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Conner. Your claim is that a practical construction of this bill 
 is that if any part of the work is done for the Government during 
 the day that this law should apply ? 
 
 Mr. Payson. It will apply, 
 ply to i 
 
 Mr. Conner. Will apply to that- 
 
 Mr. Payson. And eight hours is the limit of exertion for that day 
 by the employee. 
 
 Mr. Conner. This law will apply to that factor ? 
 
 Mr. Payson. Yes; certainly. Aay man who spends any portion 
 of the day upon Government work must not work more than eight 
 hours in the aggregate. 
 
 Mr. Conner. Not only as to the portion that is done for the Gov- 
 ernment, but also that portion of the work that is done for private 
 parties ? 
 
 Mr. Payson. Yes; eight hours in all. Do I make myself under- 
 stood? 
 
 Mr. Conner. Yes ; I understand. 
 
 Mr. Payson. That is to say, if A, being an employee in our yard, 
 works an hour on a ship that we are building for the Government that 
 
52 BIGHT HOURS FOR LABORERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. 
 
 employee can not work for us more than seven hours more on thai 
 day, no matter what we pay him. Do I make myself plain ? 
 
 Mr. Conner. Yes. I wanted to find out your understanding of it. 
 
 Mr. Payson. Yes, sir ; there is no doubt about that. 
 
 The Chairman. I might add that that was the intention of the bill. 
 
 Mr. Patson. That has been not only the intention of the bill, but 
 the openly announced position of gentlemen on the other side for the 
 last eight years. I do not misstate your position on that, do I, Mr. 
 Gompers ? 
 
 Mr. Gompers. No; not at all. Only when you speak of this side, 
 I am on the same side of the table with you. 
 
 Mr. Payson. I say the gentlemen on this side of the table [indicat- 
 ing]- 
 
 Mr. Gompers. That would make it 'appear as if we were on your 
 side, and we are not. 
 
 Mj". Payson. No, sir; when I indicate gentlemen sitting in a row 
 on the right-hand side of the table I do not think that it could possi- 
 bly be misunderstood. Those who have read the record on this sub- 
 ject for the last eight years would hardly doubt that gentlemen sitting 
 at my right in a row were those opposed to me on this legislation. 
 
 Mr. GoMPEBS. Mr. Hayden is sitting on this side for the moment. 
 
 Mr. Payson. I do not know where his retainer may be. 
 
 Mr. Gompers. You would not include him as being on the other 
 side, would you ? 
 
 Mr. Payson. No. That is the construction given to the bill by 
 those who framed it. It is the construction of those who insisted 
 upon its passage and now insist upon its passage, and it is the accepted 
 construction of everybody who claims that it would aflfect them 
 directly or indirectly ; and as to the construction, I have never had any 
 doubt in my own mind from the first day down to date. These gen- 
 tlemen broadly claim that where the Government contracts enter into 
 the operation of a plant, either in whole or in part, they expect that 
 eight hours shall constitute a day's work by law, and that to be the 
 limitation of the day's work, and that no man must be permitted or 
 required to work more than eight hours in one day if any portion of 
 that day is spent in work upon the Government work. He must not 
 be permitted to work more than eight hours whether that work is in 
 whole or in part connected with a Government contract. 
 
 In the Fifty-eighth Congress the bill was No. 4064. This bill was 
 referred to the Secretary of Commerce and Labor by this committee 
 on April 7, 1904. Going back a little now, until the McComas bill 
 in the Fifty-seventh Congress, the opponents of this legislation had 
 made every endeavor possible to secure an opinion from the friends 
 of the bill as to its effect upon the varied industries of the country, 
 and utterly failed. The manufacturers of the country universally 
 believed that the bills that I have named would apply to them when- 
 ever they entered into a Government contract and the work was done 
 or the material furnished by their employees with especial reference 
 to the contract, and that as practically all their establishments were 
 upon a longer day than eight hours, and the amount of Government 
 work was relatively small, the application of the eight-hour day 
 would be injurious if not disastrous to their business. Those men 
 knew and believed that to be so. Therefore the bill was important 
 to them, and hundreds of manufacturers were heard, orally or in 
 
EIGHT HOURS FOR liABOEEES ON GOVERNMENT WORK. 53 
 
 ■writing, in opposition to this bill, and the great proportion, Mr. 
 Chairman and gentlemen, of the documents which I displayed be- 
 fore the committee showing the volmne of the hearings before you 
 here the other day (omitting now the arguments which were made 
 by the attorneys and the arguments which were made by gentlemen 
 in opposition to this biU) , the great bulk of that testimony, thousands 
 of pages, was given in this room and the corresponding room at the 
 other end of the Capitol by manufacturers of all kinds of articles 
 used by the Government, under the belief that they were thus affected, 
 and giving reasons why they were thus affected. 
 
 But we could never — and I emphasize that again — ^we could never 
 secure an expression of opinion from gentlemen sitting on my right 
 now, who were in favor of this bill, as to the effect of this bill be- 
 yond the limitation of time. Eight hours of a day was all that we 
 could get out of them for years and years. I served in writing on 
 Mr. Gompers in this room more than seven years ago these questions 
 which I will read,, it being an extract from a hearing : 
 
 Mr. Payson. I ought to say, in conclusion, that not knowing what course 
 would be taken in the argument by the gentleman who is to conclude the hear- 
 ing, Mr. Gompers, I have submitted to him a few questions to which I have 
 asked his special attention, and have asked him to answer them before you, 
 so that his views upon a proper construction of this bill — his intentions in 
 regard to it — may appear in the records of this committee. I volunteer the 
 prediction that, although the questions are simple, every one of them directly 
 to the effect of the second section of this bill, he will not answer any one of 
 them ; and whether he does or not, I ask you gentlemen of the committee to 
 look over them and answer them for yourselves when you shall come to con- 
 sider this bill in executive session with a view to your committee acting upon it. 
 
 Now, these are the questions: 
 
 Is it not your purpose by this bill to bring about the adoption of the eight- 
 hour day for all work in establishments partly doing contract work for the 
 Government, either as contractors or subcontractors? 
 
 That question two years later was answered for the first time, and 
 from that time to now there has never been any misunderstanding 
 as to that pjart of the proposition, that it was the object of this biU 
 and the object of those who were forcing its passage not only to 
 bring about an eight-hour day in Government work, but an absolute 
 eight-hour day in every manufacturing and industrial plant. That 
 is the answer now, but it was not for two years. The next question 
 was: 
 
 Assuming that large establishments of a country, now doing large Govern- 
 ment work in common with private work, could not, and therefore would not, 
 undertake to carry on both lines of work on different hours as a day for each 
 line ; how, in your judgment, would the large work — like ships, armor, struc- 
 tural iron for public buildings, etc. — be carried on? , 
 
 There never has been an answer from that day to this on this 
 record. Again, I asked this question: 
 
 Is it, in your judgment, desirable that large constructions — like public build- 
 ings, ships of war, wharves and docks, etc. — should be done by the Government 
 direct, rather than by contract? Which system is preferable? 
 
 No answer has ever yet been made to that question here. Again, 
 I asked this question : 
 
 Have you any idea, based on inquiry, as to which method would be the most 
 economical to the Government, or do you thinlf the Government could success- 
 fully compete with private establishments for its larger needs, like public 
 buildings, ships, wharves, improvements of rivers and harbors, etc.? Take 
 
54 BIGHT HOURS FOE LABORERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. 
 
 the proposed increase of the Navy, under the recommendations of the Secre- 
 tary of the Navy, i. e., three battle ships, 13,500 tons displacement, to cost, 
 exclusive of armor and armament, $3,000,000 each, and three armored cruisers, 
 12,000 tons displacement, to cost, exclusive of armor and armaments, $4,000,000 
 each. Should these be built by the Government direct, or by contract? 
 
 That question has never been answered in this presence. The next 
 question was: 
 
 Has the Government a navy-yard which could build them as a business prop- 
 osition? What has been the experience of the Government in late years in 
 shipbuilding at its navy-yards, if you know? What proportion of work In any 
 large establishment that you know of is Government work? 
 
 That question has never been answered in this presence or before 
 the committee at the other end, although I may say in passing that 
 Congress has' taken up the proposition in the naval bill as to the 
 building of a ship at a navy-yard in competition with private enter- 
 prise, namely, the Connecticut, which is now being constructed at the 
 Brooklyn Navy-Yard, and the Louisiana, which is being constructed 
 at our yard. What the result of that may be I shall leave to a sub- 
 sequent stage of this discussion, to see what shall be claimed on the 
 other side of this discussion as to that proposition. But at the time 
 these propositions were put Government construction in recent days 
 had not been entered upon. And I wish to say in that connection 
 that I shall be very glad to take up the question, if the proposition 
 shall be advanced by those in favor of this bill, that Government 
 construction is preferable from any standpoint. The next question is : 
 
 You have heard the reasons given to this committee by prominent manufac- 
 turers who contract for the Government work why the diilerent systems of 
 hours for a day's work — namely, ten hours as they work and eight hours as by 
 Ihis bill — could not be carried on in their shops. Do you concede this; or, if 
 not, why do you say they could be? 
 
 I may interrupt myself, gentlemen of the committee who were not 
 present at these hearings, long enough to say that every manufac- 
 turer who has stood in this room and has testified upon the question 
 has said that it was a practical impossibility to carry on the two sys- 
 tems in one plant, and nobody, I do not care who he is — a friend of 
 the bill or otherwise — has ever asserted in this presence that it was 
 possible to do it. But I asked the question; no evidence or opinion 
 came from that side, as I remember : 
 
 You have heard the reasons given to this committee by prominent manufac- 
 turers who contract for this Government work why the different systems of 
 hours for a day's work — namely, ten hours as they work and eight hours as by 
 this bill — could not be carried on in their shops. Do you concede this; or, if 
 not, why do you say they could be? 
 
 Then I asked further : 
 
 Would not this bill reach cooperative societies where their products were for 
 use in contracts with the Government and with special reference thereto? 
 Would not the principal contractor be liable for every breach of the law by all 
 the subcontractors? 
 
 I have never heard any answer to that proposition here yet, and, 
 with the exception of the time when I was ill in the Fifty-eighth Con- 
 gress, I doubt whether I have missed a session in the last eight years. 
 
 Again I asked : 
 
 Do you know approximately what proportion of the material used in larger 
 structures contracted for by the Government is bought in the open market, and 
 would not subcontractors be as largely interested as the principal contractor 
 under this bill? 
 
EIGHT HOURS FOR LABORERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. 55 
 
 That last question has been 'answered repeatedly — ^that every sub- 
 contractor stands in the shoes of the contractor as to all the penalties 
 imposed by this bill, whether the principal contractor had any 
 knowledge or reason to believe that there were any violations by the 
 subcontractor or not. That has been answered time and time again. 
 
 Upon the question — and I may as well put it in here, and make it 
 as symmetrical as I had it in my own mind; whether it is good or 
 not I can not say — as to the desire or the intention or the belief on 
 the part of those who favor this legislation as to the effect of the bill 
 upon the length of a day's service, I quote from a statement made by 
 Mr. Gompers, found in Senate Document 141, the second session of 
 the Fifty-seventh Congress, made on June 3, 1902. Mr. Gompers, 
 having this, matter before him and pressed upon his attention, said: 
 
 We' are endeavoring to secure the limitation of a day's work to eiglit hours. 
 Where Government work enters into the operation of a plant, either in part or 
 in whole, we expect that eight hours shall constitute a day's work by law and 
 the limitation of a day's work. 
 
 Mr. Payson. That is what I wanted you to say. 
 
 Mr. GoMPEBS. I am very glad, because I wanted to say it myself, and I want 
 to emphasize it, if possible. 
 
 And in 1904, two years later, the same matter being under consid- 
 eration by Mr. Gompers, he used this language : 
 
 We have been asked how far does this bill go? How far do you want it to 
 go? If we are candid, and we desire to be, as to how far, we would answer 
 until it reached every man, woman, and child who works in the United States. 
 And I trust that statement will be broad enough and comprehensive enough 
 to satisfy the opponents of the bill. 
 
 Except as to the first and last questions, no answer has ever come 
 from these gentlemen, to my knowledge, although every one of these 
 questions, gentlemen of the committee, must be considered and an- 
 swered by you in any fair treatment of this bill. The opponents of 
 the bills year after year by oral evidence and by documents, prac- 
 tically undisputed, have demonstrated the injustice and the impolicy 
 of this bill. The only argument from the other side was that the 
 proofs came from a biased source. Then the Department of Com- 
 merce and Labor was appealed to as an impartial investigator, a De- 
 partment created especially for labor interests and at the demand of 
 organized labor. The resolution and letter of transmittal are as fol- 
 lows: 
 
 Committee on Labor, 
 House of Representatives, 
 Washington, D. C, April 13, 190^. 
 
 Hon. George B. Cobtelyou, 
 
 Secretary of Commerce and Labor. 
 
 Sm : I have the honor to transmit herewith a copy of H. R. 4064, entitled "A 
 ■bill limiting the hours of daily service of laborers and mechanics employed upon 
 work done for the United States, or for any Territory, or for the District of 
 Oolumbia, and for other purposes," together with a resolution passed by the 
 Committee on Labor of the House of Representatives, which committee has the > 
 bill under consideration, on April 7, 1904. 
 
 The resolution, which is the immediate authority for the reference of the bill, 
 IS the best evidence of its purpose. 
 
 Very truly, J. J. Gardner, Chairman. 
 
56 BIGHT HOXIKS FOE LABOREES ON GOVBENMBNT WOEK. 
 
 RESOLTJTION OF THE. COMMITTEE. 
 
 Be it resolved 'by the Committee on Lalior of the House of Representatives,. 
 That the Secretary of Commerce and Labor be, and he hereby Is, requested to- 
 investigate and report upon the bill now pending in said House (H. R. 4064) 
 entitled "A bill limiting the hours of daily service of laborers and mechanics 
 employed upon vs^ork done for the United States, or for any Territory, or for 
 the District of Columbia, and for other purposes," his said report to state his 
 conclusions vcith regard to the following questions : 
 
 1. What would be the additional cost to the United States of the various ma- 
 terials and articles which it customarily procures by contract, which would be 
 governed by the limitations set out in the said bill? 
 
 2. What damage, if any, would be done to the manufacturing interests af- 
 fected by the provisions of the bill If enacted? 
 
 3. Whether manufacturers who have heretofore furnished materials and 
 articles to the Government under contract would continue to contract with the 
 Government if such contracts were within the peremptory eight-hiaur limitation 
 provided by the said bill? ' 
 
 4. What would be the effect of the enactment of the said bill, if any, upon 
 the shipbuilding industry? 
 
 5. What would be the effect of the enactment of the said bill, if any, upon 
 the export trade of the country? 
 
 6. Are the laborers of the country, organized and unorganized, who would be 
 affected by the proposed legislation willing to have taken away from them the- 
 right to labor more than eight hours per day, if they desire to do so? 
 
 May I read that again, gentlemen ? 
 
 6. Are the laborers of the country, organized and unorganized, who would be- 
 affected by the proposed legislation willing to have taken away from them the- 
 right to labor more than eight hours per day, if they desire to do so? 
 
 7. What effect will this proposed legislation have, if any, upon the agricul- 
 tural interests of the country? 
 
 A report upon this bill along the lines indicated is respectfully requested at 
 the commencement of the next session of Congrefes. 
 Passed at a meeting of the Committee on Labor held Thursday, April 7, 1904.. 
 
 J. J. Gabdnek, Chairman. 
 Attest : 
 
 John G. Shreve, Clerk. 
 
 Then follows a copy of the bill No. 4064, which I have read in your 
 hearing, and which I need not take up in detail now. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, I do not stop at this time to comment upon the in- 
 vestigation of the Department and its report further than to show 
 that this Department, created especially to look after the interests of 
 labor whenever those interests were suggested in proposed legisla- 
 tion, regarded the questions sent to it by this committee as important, 
 but as difficult of ascertainment except from testimony, precisely as 
 the committee had been securing it from manufacturers and employ- - 
 ers who knew as to their own business, rather than from interested 
 theorists who necessarily could not know. The Department also con- 
 cluded that it was absolutely necessary as a preliminary step to de- 
 termine definitely the scope of the bill, and secured the opinion of its 
 official legal adviser, found on page 16 of the report. I do not dis- 
 cuss this opinion now. I shall do that later, but I only refer to it now 
 to show that even the McComas bill in its exceptions from the general 
 ' application of the bill to contracts with the Government is so vague, 
 so liable to a variety of interpretations, that there is no reasonable 
 certainty as to it until a clear interpretation is made by the Supreme 
 Court. Will gentlemen stop to consider for a moment what that 
 means in a practical way? Before that question could get into the 
 courts there would have to be a contract made under the bill, that con- 
 tract entered into, violations of its provisions occur, the contractor- 
 
EIGHT HOURS FOB LABOEEES ON GOVEENMENT WOBK. 57 
 
 fined, and then take his chances in a court, although at that time there 
 was no court to which we could go, but in some way get it into the 
 courts and secure an adjudication. 
 
 Now, does any gentleman suppose that there is any contractor in 
 this country who will undertake any Government contract, large or 
 small, who will enter into a written contract which shall contain a 
 stipulation such as is required by this bill, and then take his chances 
 of a favorable decision under the language of the decision of the 
 Supreme Court of the United States as to the validity of it, for the 
 small profits that grow out of any Government contract that is made ? 
 Nobody can suspect such a thing to be possible. But the Secretary 
 of Commerce and Labor approvingly quotes Senator McComas — that 
 probably 95 per cent of Government purchases would be excepted 
 from this bill, and that practically the shipbuilding and iron in- 
 dustries are the onlj'^ ones affected by it. That was Senator Mc- 
 Comas's conclusion when the bill was before his committee. Senator 
 McComas's statement, made time and time again, as these gentlemen 
 know, was that this bill did not hurt any of these manufacturers who 
 were coming there. Time after time manufacturers would stand up 
 before his committee and say they feared this and that, and Senator 
 McComas would say, from the other end of the table, " This bill does 
 not hit you and can not affect you," until everything had been elimi- 
 nated from the bill except the shipbuilding industries and the iron 
 industries, and nothing else was left, and the Secretary of Commerce 
 and Labor approvingly quotes that interpretation of the law in its 
 effect upon the Government contractors. From the great mass of 
 evidence which was before that committee a portion will be submitted 
 to you later. 
 
 And this leads me to say that it must not be regarded as strange, 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, when Mr. Gompers says he finds here 
 opposed to this bill the same gentlemen that he found all these years 
 opposing it, with the same vehemence with which they opposed it 
 then. It is because of the fact that in that 5 per cent that remained 
 affected under the bill, subject to its provisions, were the shipbuilding 
 and the iron industries, represented then and now by myself and Mr. 
 Hayden and his firm, Mr. Hayden being present here now. The 
 rest of them were " let out " by the exceptions in the McComas bill. 
 This bill is no worse than the original Gardner bill, and it is no 
 better; it is precisely the same. And so if the McComas bill — the 
 bill No. 4064 of the last Congress — were pending here to-day, my 
 opposition to it would be precisely the same as it is now to this, for 
 the interests I represent now, which I represented then— namely, the 
 shipbuilding interests. Now, this, Mr. Chairman, is the eight-hour 
 bill which organized labor was pushing last year. Why the ship- 
 builders and the large ironworks were singled out for this legislation, 
 with their ruin possible, is for me very easily, and at the proper time 
 will be, answered. 
 
 We come now to the present bill. It is not the modified bill of 
 later days, confessedly affecting only two industries, both deserving 
 the best treatment Congress can give instead of the worst, but it is 
 the same old bill of the Fifty-fifth, Fifty-sixth, and Fifty-seventh 
 Congresses, which called out protests from manufacturers all over 
 the land, with the same vices that those bills had. Unlike No. 4064, 
 it does not restrict the labor to eight hours on Government contract 
 
68 EIGHT HOURS FOB LABOREBS ON GOVEENMENT WOBK. 
 
 work. This bill imposes the penalty, " If the employee shall labor 
 more than eight hours," whether the employer knows it or not. Upon 
 mere observation or ex parte investigation by an inspector and report 
 by him the penalties of this act, which possibly might aggregate 
 thousands of dollars in one contract, may be imposed and collected 
 hj retaining the contract money, without a hearing and without a 
 right of appeal to the courts or the Department officials before the 
 fine or penalty is imposed. Nothing could be worse, it seems to me, 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, than that sort of a 
 proposition; and especially when you remember that these same 
 penalties, which in the first instance may be visited upon the con- 
 tractor, go all the way down through to every subcontractor con- 
 nected with the business and with the interests which I represent, 
 numberless almost as to the construction that we have, and about 
 which I will speak later, whether we had any reason to know or even 
 to suspect that the law was being violated. Upon the mere ipse 
 dixit of an officer who is vigilant in protecting the Government 
 against these infractions of the law these penalties are imposed, with- 
 out any hearing before the penalty is imposed. 
 
 Again, all telegraph companies are within this bill. The bill of 
 last Congress, as I stated, contained an exception with regard to all 
 means for " the transmission of intelligence." In these days of prog- 
 ress they are three — the telegraph, the telephone, and the cable, which 
 of course is a branch of the telegraph. I have no clients among tiie 
 telegraph companies, but a statement of the proposition, it seems to 
 me, shows the absurdity of including them in this bill. Take the 
 Western Union or the Postal Telegraph Company; there is an exist- 
 ing contract with the Government for the transmission of Govern- 
 ment messages. There is with every telegraph company. There is 
 with the cabk companies ; there is with the telephone companies. In 
 the performance of the contract is involved the employment of labor, 
 and, as is stated by this bill, any telegraph operator who transmits 
 a Government message is just as much concerned in the performance 
 ■of that Government contract as the man who rivets a bolt on a ship 
 under the contract for the building of a ship. If he sends a mes- 
 sage in a day occupying thirty seconds of time, eight hours is the 
 limit of that day's work under this penalty. It is the same way 
 with the telephone companies. They are not clients of mine, and I 
 am not arguing anything for them, but I am simply citing them to 
 illustrate what I say is the absurdity and vice of the bill; and it is 
 no more absurd as to the cases that I am now stating than it is as to 
 the other industries and manufacturers which I have the pleasure 
 and honor of representing. 
 
 The Chairman. Let me ask you right there if you hold as a legal 
 view that the terms " laborer or mechanic " include a telegraph 
 •operator ? 
 
 Mr. Payson. Undoubtedly; undoubtedly. 
 
 The Chairman. I ask the question in view of this fact, that the_ 
 word " workman " was eliminated from the bill in the Senate, for the 
 reason, as given, that it narrowed its application and omitted a great 
 class of men who would be workmen and would be neither laborers 
 nor mechanics. 
 
 Mr. Patson. In that view did you share ? 
 
 The Chairman. In view of the history of the labor legislation, the 
 
EIGHT HOUKS FOE LABORERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. 59 
 
 construction of the eig:ht-hour bill, and what the courts have said 
 about it, yes; I shared in it. 
 
 Mr. Patson. I would be very glad to be advised if there has ever 
 been a decision on any case that has arisen under the old legislation of 
 1892 or anywhere else between the Government and a telegraph com- 
 pany? 
 
 The Chairman. I am not aware that there has been under the act 
 of 18&2, but there has been under the act of 1868, where the words 
 " laborer, workman, and mechanic " are used. All the adjudications 
 we have had upon the subject have grown out of that bill. 
 
 Mr. Payson. Yes ; I know about that. 
 
 The Chairman. 'Which contains the words " laborer or mechanic." 
 
 Mr. Payson. Let me ask you this : AVhat would you say a telegraph 
 •operator was ? 
 
 The Chairman. I think if he would come within this bill at all he 
 would come in as a workman. I forget the language of the court, 
 but it held that the terms of the act of 1868 meant something, that 
 there was a distinction between " laborer " and " workman " or " me- 
 chanic," and this bill was drawn on the basis of the act of 1868, 
 really. But I do not recall readily 
 
 Mr. Payson. Sure it is, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the com- 
 mittee, that in the interpretation of this bill by members of Congress 
 and at the Senate end — and it is not disrespectful to the committee 
 to say that the members of the Committee on Education and Labor 
 in all these years would compare favorably with the members of this 
 committee — they regarded it as essential for the protection of the 
 telegraph companies that that should be inserted as an exception in 
 the bill, and it was so inserted because it was deemed necessary and 
 upon the suggestion substantially as I have made it here. • 
 
 Proceeding, only "materials such as may be bouglit in the open 
 market" are excepted in this bill. Exactly as in the old bills, 
 manufactured articles contracted for come within the operation of 
 this bill. Now, let it be noticed that all through this proposed legis- 
 lation from first to last a clear distinction has always been taken 
 between " materials " and " articles " for obvious reasons. Mate- 
 rials — that is, the substance or matter of which things are made; 
 the articles — that is, the manufactured things themselves made from 
 the materials. This clear distinction, I say, between materials and 
 articles has always been recognized, and is in this bill by the studied, 
 plain omission of "articles" and "supplies" from the exceptions 
 named in the bill. This bill includes them, and every manufacturer 
 producing them is hit by this bill. No business emergency will 
 permit any overtime work of even so little as five minutes under this 
 bill. And you will be asked later, gentlemen of the committee, 
 to consider this bill not upon platitudes as to the general relations 
 of capital to labor or the theoretic desirability of a general eight- 
 hour day, but upon practical and actual conditions which shall 
 appear from the record which shall be made in this matter. The 
 evidence to be given to you as to facts will show — and let me be un- 
 derstood in this now, for I regard it as fundamental, lying at the 
 very threshold in this discussion — the evidence to be given to you 
 as to facts will show that in every factory or plant where it is done. 
 Government contract work is lafgely the smaller percentage — in 
 every one. You will not find a case, from those where millions and 
 
60 EIGHT HOUES FOE LABOBEES ON GOVEENMENT WOEK. 
 
 millions of dollars' worth of work are done in a year, down to the 
 humblest manufacturer who makes army buttons for the tailor, 
 with the eagle and coat of arms of the United States upon it, not an 
 instance will be cited before this committee where the amount of 
 Government work under Government contract is not largely less than 
 private work. 
 
 It will also be shown that it is absolutely impossible to so separate 
 the two classes of work that the Government contract work shall 
 be operated upon by a distinct part of the workmen. It must ab- 
 solutely, in every case — ^mark what I say, absolutely and in every 
 case— go hand in hand with similar work in that plant on a private 
 contract, from the very smallest article manufactured under contract 
 to the largest that is known in a private way, and that is a battle 
 ship. It will be shown to you that it would be absolutely impos- 
 sible to work any plant doing both kinds of work under, jointly, the 
 eight-hour day on Government contract work and more than eight 
 hours on private contract work. It will be shown to you beyond 
 any question that there is not an establishment in the United States, 
 not one establishment in the United States doing Government con- 
 tract work, that is on the eight-hour basis. It will be shown to you 
 that every manufacturer who testifies — and they are exactly in the 
 same condition as all the rest who will not i appear before you — 
 everyone who testifies before you will say that if this bill should 
 become a law they reluctantly will be compelled to give up seeking 
 Government work, and they will give you the reasons therefor. It 
 will not be shown to you that in a single establishment doing Govern- 
 ment work, except the iron industry, there is any complaint against 
 the manufacturers to-day, either as to the hours of labor or as to 
 the wag^s which the laborers receive. In the thousands of pages 
 of evidence taken on this subject by committees of Congress, so far 
 as I can recall, not such an instance has ever peen proved ; not one. 
 
 Again, this bill, like all the others, is addressed especially against 
 overtime work, and let me call your attention now, gentlemen of the 
 committee, to this point, which I regard as very essential. Over- 
 time work, by all the gentlemen who are favoring this legislation 
 .and pressing it, has been denounced in and out of season and without 
 limit. Now, what is overtime work? Where the day is a limit or 
 a unit of labor in all these establishments, assume it is nine or nine 
 and a half hours a day, it oftentimes happens that there are busi- 
 ness emergencies not necessary to detail where it is desirable that 
 some additional time should be consumed upon the work on which 
 the workmen are engaged. Sometimes it is a matter of necessity 
 to the work itself and sometimes it is merely a matter of dollars and 
 cents to the employer, and he desires an additional output to his 
 plant, and additional time is asked for and always given. Now, this 
 bill prohibits overtime as strongly as it can do it, and especial 
 effort is made to denounce overtime work by gentlemen who are 
 friends of this bill. What I want to say is this, that that proposi- 
 tion if carried to the extent that these gentlemen would desire it, of 
 course creates an absolute revolution in every industrial establish- 
 ment in this country where Government work is performed. Let 
 me state what I believe to be a fact here. Mr. Chairman, there is 
 not an industrial establishment in the United States to-day where 
 the day is the unit of labor where there is not an arrangement for 
 
EIGHT HOTJBS FOB LABORERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. 61 
 
 overtime work in cases of business emergency; not one. I have 
 never heard of it. I have made diligent inquiry from all the 
 manufacturers within the circle of my acquaintance and I have 
 caused inquiries to be made by our people at Newport News, and I 
 iim justified in the statement, from a careful examination of the situ- 
 ation, that there is not an industrial plant in the United States, not 
 one, where there is not some arrangement for the overtime work 
 that is satisfactory to the employer and the employee where the day 
 is the unit of labor. Of course, where the work is by the piece the 
 •question of hours does not cut any figure. But where the day is 
 the unit of labor overtime is universal. 
 
 Now, I want to make another statement, and if I am wrong in it 
 the gentlemen can correct me. I assert that in every agreement in 
 existence, so far as we can ascertain, made with the trades unions — 
 the labor unions— =-in cases where they have absolute control, in every 
 agreement for labor between the trades unions and a manufacturer 
 or employer, there is a provision for overtime work and overtime pay- 
 ment. If I am wrong in that I would be glad to have the gentlemen, 
 in their own time, without stating generally that " Payson is wrong 
 about that," give us the name of a trades union association that has 
 a written agreement with an employer where there is not some agree- 
 ment as to overtime work between themselves and the employers. 
 I have seen copies, many of them, of these trades-union agreements, 
 and I have never seen one that did not contain such a proposition. 
 
 Now, Mr. Chairman, to come down to the interests which I directly 
 represent, my client here is the Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry 
 Dock Company. It is a corporation engaged in the character of 
 work which its name indicates. Its plant is located at Newport 
 News, Va., and in that plant is invested something like $15,000,000. 
 It has upon its pay roll now, of mechanical employees, not including 
 its clerical force and executive officers, something over 7,800 men. It 
 is not an insignificant establishment. We have built and delivered to 
 the Government the battle ships Kentucky, Kearsarge, Illinois, Mis- 
 souri, and Arkansas, and quite a large number of gunboats, the names 
 of which I do not recollect. "We have still at the works and not de- 
 livered to the Government absolutely the battle ships Virginia, 
 Louisiana, North Carolina, Montana, Charleston, West Virginia, 
 and Maryland. We are doing an inunense repair work, as- well as 
 similar merchant-marine construction, and without indulging in any 
 improper comparisons I may say that there is no better plant in the 
 Union, and I am told there is no better abroad. It is a modern and 
 up-to-date plant. It was started some sixteen years ago by CoUis P. 
 Huntington, of whom many of you know, one of the great captains 
 of industry. He picked up a little ship-repair yard there and de- 
 veloped it and built it up to what it is now. And there is none better 
 in the world. We have the largest dry dock in this country, and there 
 is only one larger in the world. We have the largest lifting crane 
 ever manufactured, and we have everything up to date in the way of 
 scientific implements and mechanical uses, and I do not emphasize 
 too strongly when I say that the men at the head of that enterprise, 
 men who challenge the admiration of the world for their business 
 enterprise and genius, regard this bill as the most serious attempt to 
 strike down one form of mdustrial enterprise — that is, shipbuilding — 
 that has ever been made in Congress. We are not alone. The Cramp 
 
62 EIGHT HOURS FOE LABORERS ©N GOVERNMENT WORK. 
 
 establishment at Philadelphia — and I refer to some of thes© indus- 
 tries because the representatives of some of these larger establishments 
 are not present, but will be later, and as illustrating the importance 
 of the industry alone which I represent, which is common to the rest 
 of these people, I call attention to some of the rest of these plants — 
 the Cramp establishment at Philadelphia ; the New York Shipbuild- 
 ing Company at Camden ; the Fore Kiver Shipbuilding Company at 
 Quincy, Mass. ; the Bath Shipbuilding Company in Maine ; the Mary- 
 land Steel Company at Baltimore; the Union Iron Works at San 
 Francisco ; Moran Brothers at Seattle, are all equally interested. 
 
 These that I have named are all equally interested, and their 
 owners believe as we do as to the vicious character of this bill.. 
 These yards, all of them, are not insignificant industrial establish- 
 ^nents, Mr. Chairman. The Cramps have on their pay roll to-day 
 upward of 6,000 men in mechanical employ. The New York Ship- 
 building Company is a mammoth concern, and they have two or 
 perhaps three ships now for the Government, and they do an immense 
 amount of repair work as well. The Fore River Shipbuilding Com- 
 pany, at Quincy, Mass., the largest of its kind in New England, 
 built up by Boston capital, with the intention of making it the finest 
 in the world, has some three Government ships there. Everything 
 is up to date. They have a force there, I am told, of between 5,00(> 
 and 6,000 people at work to-day. The Bath Iron Works, not so large 
 a works, with Mr. John Hyde at the head of it,4s now building the 
 Georgia for the Government. The establishment has 1,500 or 1,800 
 people. That is the extent of their employment now. As to the 
 Maryland Steel Company, I do not speak advisedly as to the number 
 of men that they employ, but it is a first-class establishment. It con- 
 structed the great floating dry dock, the Dewe'g, about which you all 
 know, which is in process of towage to the Philippine Islands, a 
 unique construction, the best of its kind, and very successfully done. 
 As to the Union Iron Works at San Francisco, I take it that all gen- 
 tlemen who are familiar with the history of the countr}? know about 
 the Union Iron Works. It is no insignificant establishment. 
 
 Now, the industrial importance of this matter is such that it 
 demands attention at your hands, and we shall ask you, gentlemen 
 of the committee, to consider these questions that I have stated, and 
 ask you to answer them before you finally decide on this bill. We 
 shall ask you to consider the questions submitted to the Department 
 of Commerce and Labor, and will expect that you shall answer them 
 to your own satisfaction before you pass upon this bill. This is a 
 business bill and ought not to be affected by simply sentimental 
 theories, which Congress, in my judgment, has no moral right to 
 try to work out at the certain expense, injury, and possible ruin of 
 these great manufacturing establishments, and when this record shall 
 be jnade up I shall hope to make some comments upon it. I am very 
 thankful to you for the patience with which you have listened to me. 
 
 Mr. GoMPEES. I would like to ask Mr. Payson a question, if he 
 cares to answer it. 
 
 Mr. Patson. I care to answer any questions that will throw light 
 on this subject. 
 
 Mr. GoMPEES. Is it not true that the questions which were offered 
 in the form of a resolution in the Committee on Labor of the House 
 of Representatives, submitting questions to the Department of Com- 
 
EIGHT HOURS FOK LABORERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. 65 
 
 merce and Labor to answer, were suggested and proposed by counsel 
 for the opponents of this bill? 
 
 Mr. Payson. Yes, sir; suggested. 
 
 Mr. GoMFERS. I want to ask the Judge whether he does not know 
 that the Secretary of Commerce and Labor answered these questions 
 of the committee in the language substantially that the questions 
 covld not be definitely, intelligently, and comprehensively answered? 
 
 Mr. Payson. I will answer Mr. Gompers by saying that I hold 
 in my hand the report of Mr. Metcalf , the Secretary of Commerce 
 and Labor, and what his answers are will best appear by an examina- 
 tion of the document itself. I desire to say that there is not an 
 answer that has been made there that he was not fully justified in 
 making from the facts and the records which were before him, and 
 that he found difficulty in solving all these great questions, so much 
 difficulty in solving, all these great questions that he could not make 
 definite answers to them because of the difficulties of the situation; 
 and the great misfortune of the Secretary of Commerce and Labor 
 in answering these questions, in my judgment, if I may be permitted 
 to say so, was that he did not invoke the aid of the representatives 
 of the American Federation of Labor and take their conclusion as 
 to what he should send to Congress. I say that in all earnestness 
 and sincerity. He would then have had answers, and answers about 
 Avhich there would not have been any great misunderstanding. 
 But he did not do that. 
 
 Mr. Gompers. May I ask you another question ? 
 
 Mr. Payson. Certainly. 
 
 Mr. Gompers. I am always glad to hear the Judge. 
 
 Mr. Payson. Thank you. 
 
 Mr. Gompers. I could hear him speak upon an outside question, 
 with his marked abilitj^ and his large vocabulary and excellent 
 choice of language, of words, with the greatest pleasure, and I 
 am sure that I am always glad to hear him speak except when it 
 seems to me it is not essential to the attainment of results. 
 
 Mr. Payson. Thank you. I am quite content now*with the com- 
 pliment. That is very good. Thank you. 
 
 Mr. Gompers. But I want to ask him now in all candor 
 
 ^ Mr. Payson. Surely, surely. 
 
 Mr. Gompers (continuing). Whether in his judgment there has 
 been a new thought or a new fact substantial in its character or 
 essential to this hearing that he has brought out in his statement ? 
 
 Mr. Payson. Yes, sir; I think there have been several allusions 
 here that have not been elaborated before, and as to matters of 
 which most of the members of this committee are as ignorant as I 
 am of the principles of Mahometanism. 
 
 Mr. Gompers. As a matter of fact, do you not notice that there 
 are present at this time only three members of the committee, and 
 that the other members of the committee will be compelled to rely 
 upon reading your argument in the record? 
 
 Mr. Payson. Yes; there are four members of the committee in 
 the room. Two of them I have never seen in the room before, and 
 I think this is their first term of service. Am I right as to you, Mr. 
 Norris ? 
 
 Mr. NoRRis. Yes ; you are right as to me. 
 
64 EIGHT HOURS FOR LABORERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. 
 
 Mr. Patson. Am I right as to you, Mr. Hunt, that this is your 
 first term of service on this committee? 
 
 Mr. Hunt. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Patson. That is what I say. These gentlemen are strangers 
 to this service. Do I answer your question ? 
 
 Mr. Conner. I think I have a right to assume that the presence of 
 the committee before you has furnished some inspiration to make 
 this explanation. 
 
 Mr. Patson. I am very much obliged to you. 
 
 Mr. NoERis. I would like to say, as a member of the committee, if 
 I reach a conclusion on this matter — and I want to do it in good faith, 
 the same as I would if I were a judge and trying a case — I must get 
 my information either from these hearings or from reading. Now, 
 I am not disposed to ask any man for my benefit to repeat anything 
 here, but I think that out of the great mass of evidence which has 
 been offered heretofore before this committee when I was not a mem- 
 ber of it, if he expects me to pass on it intelligently, and I take it that 
 all gentlemen, no matter what they may think about the bill, want 
 me to do that, he ought to point out to me, if he does not deliver it 
 to me, where I can find what he thinks will be of interest and of 
 benefit to me in reaching a proper conclusion. 
 
 Mr. Patson. May I interrupt you there, to save your saying any- 
 thing further on that ? 
 
 Mr. NoHRis. Certainly. 
 
 Mr. Patson. That is exactly what we propose to do with you. 
 
 Mr. NoEEis. That is what we want. 
 
 Mr. Patson. What I desire is, in as short a time as I possibly can 
 do it, to do my own clients justice, to put the members of the com- 
 mittee in a position of thorough knowledge with regard to the bill, 
 and I propose to produce some witnesses here to state orally the facts 
 in regard to their own business; and then I shall be glad to tender 
 these witnesses for any cross-examination that the advocates of the 
 bill may want to put them through. They may put them under the' 
 strictest sort of an examination, and harrow them any way they 
 please. And I shall read evidence given on former hearings. It has 
 been in my mind to do this to save protracted hearings, because wher- 
 ever evidence has been given heretofore it can be digested, and there 
 can be read in ten minutes what would take a witness an hour to give 
 you if he appeared before you. I have here in my hand a digest of 
 what I shall read, referring in each case to the book and page, giving 
 to this conamittee exactly the position of this bill toward the manu- 
 facturers of the country. When the proper time shall come I will be 
 glad to present this to you. All these facts will be presented to you 
 for your information, and then you can digest them and make an 
 application of them as your conscience shall influence you. 
 
 Mr. NoKRis. I think that those gentlemen who have not heard the 
 former hearings should not be put to the trouble of looking over this 
 vast volume of evidence that has been given. I would be very glad to 
 read it all over, and perhaps it would be very instructive; but most 
 members of Congress are very busy men, and I know that I am, and 
 they have other things to look after, and if I devoted aU my time, 
 much more than eight hours a day to this reading, it would be 
 impossible for me to read all the arguments 
 
EIGHT HOURS FOE LABOEEES ON GOVEENMENT .YOEK. 65 
 
 Mr. Payson. Certainly. 
 
 Mr. XoRRis (continuing). That have been offered at different times 
 and in different Congresses before this and the other committee. 
 Now, if any gentleman has any particular evidence, anything that he 
 thinks ought to be read, if Ije will cite it to me — or at least that is 
 my idea — and tell me where it can be found, I would be very glad to 
 get it and look it up. In other words, I want to reach a conclusion 
 that is justified by the evidence that may be offered before this com- 
 mittee, and I intend to do that the best I can. 
 
 Mr. Payson. May I add a single word before you get through, 
 following in a logical way what Mr. Norris has said ? That is pre- 
 cisely what I intend to do so far as my interests are concerned, not 
 to cite you to it, hut to read from the documents themselves such 
 portions as I thiifimire applicable, and if gentlemen on the other 
 side think that it§mm not gone far enough let them present what they 
 please; but so fa|;^s I represent the concerns for which I appear, 
 it will involve no labor on your part except that of a patient listener 
 to what I regard as material and germane to the questions you are 
 called upon to decide. 
 
 Mr. Conner. This statement that has been made by you is simply 
 the statement of the attorney to the jury outlining what it is Ex- 
 pected to show, outlining the evidence and where it is to be found. 
 
 Mr. NoRHis. Yes; I got that idea. The suggestion that I have 
 made is simply a repetition of that which I made the other day when 
 Mr. Gompers stated that this whole subject had been gone over 
 before : that everything had been said that could be said. 
 
 Mr. Conner. I understood him to say that this was simply pre- 
 paring us for what was to be offered. 
 
 Mr. NoRRis. Yes; I understand that. 
 
 Mr. Conner. And we were simply to sit here and listen to what 
 they give us, and we have nothing to do except to take what they 
 offer. 
 
 Mr. NoRRis. Yes; I understood it. 
 
 Mr. Conner. As /patient listeners. 
 
 Mr. NoRRis. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Morrison. The hearings in regard to this matter have been 
 extremely full and exhaustive, and what you will hear from witnesses 
 is already in the hearings that have been given on this bill before. 
 The question occurs to me whether it would be more difficult for the 
 members of the committee to read the hearings that have been given 
 heretofore, or to read the hearings that will be given. 
 
 Mr. NoRRis. In answer to that question, I am willing to let the 
 gentlemen who are managing the different sides of this proposition 
 manage that for themselves. I take it that you on both sides want 
 to give the committee all the information you can bearing on the 
 questions that we have to decide, and on the side that you favor, and 
 pursue your own course. But it is not sufficient, it §eems to me, to 
 say " Here, we have had all these hearings over and over again, and 
 you can find them in these documents." I could go through the 
 documents and get it all for myself if I had the time. 
 
 Mr. Payson. You could never do it. 
 
 Mr. Morrison. This is the situation. We are here and want action 
 taken, and to have the bill passed. The opponents want the bill not 
 
 EH— 06 5 
 
66 EIGHT HOURS FOE LABORERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. 
 
 passed, and by continual hearings year after year they accomplish 
 their object. It is the same proposition. Judge Payson states that 
 he is presenting this preparatory to calling in witnesses and having 
 new hearings here which will last to the end of the session of Con- 
 gress, and there will be no opportunity for a bill to pass. 
 
 Mr. Hayden. Mr. Chairman, I appear for the Carnegie Steel 
 Company. While I concur in everything that Judge Payson has 
 said, I should like an opportunity to outline the case that I shall 
 present to the committee in opposition to the bill. This bill pos- 
 sesses certain novel features and gives rise to questions which have 
 not heretofore been presented to the committee at all, or have not 
 been elaborated and are not understood. I shall be glad if the com- 
 mittee at its next meeting will permit me to ou^ie my case. Aside 
 from the Carnegie Steel Company, I represe|B|hree of the ship- 
 building companies mentioned by judge Pay so»|qj^ other interests, 
 all having dealings with the Government. ^|i^ 
 
 Mr. GoMPEHS. Mr. .Chairman, if Mr. Norris or any other member 
 of the committee would like to have indicated to them the matters 
 which are of particular moment in support of our contention, I should 
 be glad to indicate in the course of a day where such information can 
 be*had and hand it, in the hearings and arguments before the Com- 
 mittee on Labor of the House and also before the Senate Committee 
 on Education and Labor, to them, but, I may say this now, that we 
 are not going to present the same sort of evidence over and over 
 again to a committee of Congress which we have already presented 
 in such amplified form for more than eight years. The committee 
 may regard, or some of the members of the committee may regard, 
 the committee as sitting as a jury, but there are certain phases of 
 legislation when it goes beyond the committee sitting as a jury, 
 when the facts are already in, and when we know that the opponents 
 to the bill have consistently pursued a policy, as indicated by Mr. 
 Morrison in the brief statement that he has made to you, of delay and 
 procrastination, and which I took occasion to mention at the first 
 hearing of the committee a few weeks ago — the policy of prolonging 
 the hearings until so late in the session of Congress that it is an utter, 
 a physical, a legislative, impossibility to enact the bill into law. That 
 has been the policy. 
 
 It is not the first time that we have met the gentlemen on the other 
 side of this table, and upon any other bill that is pending before 
 Congress or which has been before previous Congresses the gentle- 
 men in their own personality and gentlemen of other names appear- 
 ing as counsel have opposed our legislation, the legislation which we 
 believe is right and just and proper and necessary, upon one ground 
 or another, but always seeking delay, delay, delay. I shall not at- 
 tempt to answer the statement, either now or later, made by Judge 
 Payson. The idea of submitting a number of questions and referring 
 them to me several years ago and now referring to them again ! The 
 very questions themselves are unanswerable, and he can not answer 
 them himself, and in their essence they were submitted to the Depart- 
 ment of Education and Labor, the Secretary of that Department an- 
 swering that the questions made it impossible to give an intelligent, 
 comprehensive, or definite reply. The reference to me and others 
 wh9 favor the bill as theorists must strike every thinking man, I 
 regret to say it, as the height of absurdity ; to refer to the men who 
 
EIGHT HOURS FOB LABORERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. 67 
 
 work, the men who do the work, as theorists. And I take it by 
 inference that counsel for the opponents to our bill are the practical 
 industrials, the men who know. 
 
 I will say again that it has been a question with me — and I have 
 been counseled with by some of our friends — as to whether we ought, 
 mj'solf included, to come before this committee and attend its hear- 
 ings ; and I assure you that it is simply out of respect to some of the 
 members of the committee that we have been in attendance at these 
 hearings of last week and to-day. \ye believe that this thing has 
 gone far enough, and it has passed beyond the stage of hearings. 
 
 Mr. Payson. What do you mean by " this thing? '" 
 
 Mr. GoMPBES. The eight-hour bill. 
 
 Mr. Payson. Oh; 
 
 Mr. GoMPEES. And this opposition to it. 
 
 Mr. Haydbn. We think the bill has gone far enough. 
 
 Mr. GoMPEES. It has gone far enougn, and the dilatory tactics have 
 gone far enough, and we do not think that the Committee on Labor 
 of the House of Representatives should lend themselves to that pro- 
 cedure. We ask for an eight-hour law. We think we are entitled to 
 it for the Avorking people of our country. We do not ask for it in 
 the form of an act that shall include all labor. We realize the limi- 
 tations of the power of government, and we have no desire for the 
 Government to do the things that we can and ought to and will do 
 for ourselves. But Uncle Sam is an employer himself, and in his 
 direct employment of mechanics -and laborers he has decided that 
 eight hours shall constitute a day's work in most Departments. In 
 some that has not yet been accomplished. We believe that the work 
 done for the Government of the United States by contract is let by 
 contract, say, for the convenience of the Government, but in the letting 
 of work by the Government to a contractor for its own convenience 
 the eight-hour law applied by the Government for Government work 
 where the workmen are employed direct should apply also to those 
 who do work for the contractors and do Government work and work 
 for the Government. 
 
 Mr. CoNNBE. Mr. Gompers, I think perhaps you may be a little 
 unfortunate in the use of an expression in which you speak of the 
 committee lending itself to carry out the purposes which you criti- 
 cise. That language might be very offensive if you meant to inti- 
 mate that the committee had taken sides in this matter with a view 
 of defeating proper legislation. 
 
 Mr. GoMPEES. I am not desirous of being offensive, but I am 
 desirous of being understood, and that is 
 
 Mv. Conner; I understand that you come here as a partisan. We 
 come here as gentlemen under oaths to discharge a public duty. Of 
 course it would be a pleasure to have you with us if you desire to be 
 with us. We do not regard it, however, as absolutely essential that 
 you should be here, and whether you are here or whether you are 
 not we have decided — and that is under oath, too — to go ahead with 
 these hearings. Xow, I should not like to have in the start, before 
 we begin to take evidence in this matter, an insinuation made and 
 thrust in our faces that we are lending ourselves to some scheme of 
 somebody else. As far as I am concerned, and I think I can speak 
 for the other memljers of the committee. I think Ave are all acting in 
 the 1 )est faith, and that is Avhy I raise the question as to the language 
 
68 EIGHT HOURS FOR LABORERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. 
 
 you used as possibly offensive, unless you meant it in some other sense 
 than to insinuate what I have said. 
 
 Mr. GoMPEKS. Of course, if your statement implies that if I con- 
 tinue to hold the opinion that I do hold, my presence here before this 
 committee is not agreeable, I shall be 
 
 Mr. Conner. It certainly is agreeable to me to have you here, but 
 it is not agreeable to have reflections cast upon the committee. 
 
 Mr. GoMPEES. I want to say this, that when I know that in the last 
 Congress the Committee on (Labor of the House adopted a series of 
 resolutions containing questions proposed by the counsel of the oppo- 
 sition 
 
 Mr. Payson. Because they were deemed to be proper. 
 
 Mr. GoMPERS. Please do not interrupt me now 
 
 Mr. Payson. All rig;ht. 
 
 Mr. GoMPERS (continuing). For a moment. I shall be glad to 
 yield in a moment, when I have finished what I have in mind to say. 
 AA^hen I know, I say, that in the last Congress the Committee on 
 Labor of the House adopted a series of resolutions at the request of 
 and formulated by the counsel for the opponents of this bill, and at 
 the time the questions wer,:' by others and myself criticised, and it 
 was stated, as I took occasion to say, that these questions can not be 
 answered, they are impossible of definite intelligent answer, and 
 notwithstanding that, the committee did pass the resolution contain- 
 ing the questions, and submitting them to the Department of Labor, 
 the answer of the Department confirmed every word of criticism that 
 my colleagues and myself then made, the effect of the adoption of that 
 resolution by the committee of the last Congress was that no further 
 action was taken by Congress. In several of the papers, and particu- 
 larly one published in Chicago, the Washington correspondent made 
 this statement, substantially — I am quoting from memory, and it is 
 now nearly, if not more, thkn a year ago — 
 
 that no apprehension need he entertrtinecl hy those who are opposed to the 
 eight-hour bill, because in the manner the Speaker has constituted the mem- 
 bership of the Committee on Labor, no tangible measure on the eight-hour bill 
 can be passed. 
 
 Mr. Payson. "WItlo stated that? 
 
 Mr. GojrPERs. Do not interrupt me. 
 
 Mr. Payson. I have a right to ask the question. I want to know 
 who stated that. 
 
 Mr. GoMPERS. I will answer ir. a minute. I do not want you to 
 interrupt my train of thought. That was published at the time. 
 Last September, or sometime later than that in 1905, I addressed a 
 letter to the Hon. Joseph G. Cannon, Speaker of the House, calling 
 his attention to this fact of this publication, and asked that in the 
 makeup of the Committee on Labor, " if this be true — if the state- 
 rnent be true," that he take cognizance of it and appoint a committee 
 that would be somewhat more fairly inclined to the requests and 
 demands of organized labor. Up to this moment there has not been 
 one word in answer to that letter, other than from his secretary, that 
 it would be called to his attention. You may know of the bill of 
 grievances which some of the representatives of labor presented to 
 the Speaker, and that fact was called to his attention. 
 
 Mr. NoREis. Now, Mr. Gompers, just one moment. 
 
 Mr. Conner. Let him get through. 
 
EIGHT HOtJBS FOB LABORERS ON GOVERNMENT WOBK. 69 
 
 Mr. GoMPERS. And this committee has been called together, as 
 stated by Mr. Gardner, the chairman of the committee, at my special 
 rec[uest., so that I might ask for a favorable report from this com- 
 mittee to the House of Representatives on this bill; instead of which 
 the decision reached is to have hearings, without any statement as 
 to how long they shall be carried on, when they shall be completed, 
 when they shall be at an end ; and judging from both the argument 
 of Judge Payson, made this morning, and the statement made by Mr. 
 Hay den, and the presence of Mr. Davenport, and the indications, it 
 appears to me, and I think the inference is not an injustice to anyone, 
 that the present notion is that there shall be hearings, no matter how 
 long they may last, in order to give all the time that anybody 
 may want to be heard, and I take it that among the 80,000,000 people 
 in the United States, of whom probably there are, say 20,000 or 
 30,000 manufacturers, perhaps one-fourth of them may be opposed 
 to this bill, or this species of legislation, and if you have your hear- 
 ings until only one tithe of those who may want to be heard are 
 heard, we shall have the Sixtieth Congress ushered in, and nothing 
 done upon this bill ; and then, perhaps, another Committee on Labor 
 will want to have full hearings and act as a jury. 
 
 Mr. Conner. What I had a desire to ascertain by my inquiry was 
 whether you really meant to cast any aspersions on the committee, 
 and that is the reason I made the inquiry of 3'ou that I did, and I 
 have waited patiently and heard all that you have said as to whether 
 or not you would convey to me the impression that you had that 
 thought in mind, and inasmuch as after you have said all that you 
 have said you have not cleared up that question yet, I want to place 
 in the record here my protest against the language, and to assure you, 
 not only for myself, but for all the members of this committee, that 
 I think we are not lending ourselves to any scheme of the other side, 
 but are here in the best of faith, with the desire to ascertain all we 
 can, and to get all the light that we can, in order that we may act 
 under our oaths intelligently, finally. 
 
 Mr. GoMPERS. I understand this — if I may be permitted — that 
 while I did not use the word " scheme," yet, consciously or otherwise, 
 the action of the committee in determining to have unlimited hearings 
 simply does not free my mind from the impression that the commit- 
 tee is lending itself, either wittingly or unwittingly, to the opposition 
 to this bill. 
 
 Mr. Conner. Not to go into the record at all, but just to show you 
 that you are very extreme in your statements, the truth is that the 
 committee has never decided to have unlimited hearings. You have 
 no authority for that statement at all ; and, besides, it is not the fact. 
 
 Mr. Gompers. But the committee has decided to have hearings. 
 
 jNIr. Conner. Exactly. 
 
 Mr. GoJiPERs. And without a limitation placed upon it there is the 
 other alternative ; and that is conclusive that it is unlimited. 
 
 Mr. Conner. Xo; you are mistaken there again, because that very 
 question arose in our discussion, and we decided to go ahead for a 
 while and see what might be developed, and to keep ourselves in con- 
 trol of the situation and close the hearings whenever we saw fit. 
 
 Mr. GoiMPERS. Is not that unlimited? 
 
 Mr. Conner. No. 
 
70 
 
 EIGHT HOURS FOB LABOBEES ON GOVEENMENT WOBK. 
 
 Mr. GoMPEES. It seems to me if that is not limited it is unlimited, 
 unless my understanding of the ordinary use of language is entirely 
 at fault. 
 
 Mr. Conner. We had the bill before us, and -vFe decided that we 
 would let hearings run a while, and then decide 
 
 Mr. GoMPEBS. I have no knowledge of what the members of the 
 committee had in mind. I am only governed by the facts which are 
 apparent to all. 
 
 Mr. NoEEis. Now, Mr. Gompers, I think you are wrong in Assum- 
 ing, as I believe that you do, that all these newspaper statements that 
 you speak of in regard to the constitution of the committee and writ- 
 ing to the Speaker and getting no answer, are true. I do not be- 
 lieve that there is anything in the statement that the Speaker had 
 constituted the committee with reference to any particular legisla- 
 tion, and my reason for not believing that is — and I am a member of 
 the committee myself — I know that neither directly nor indirectly, 
 in any way, were my ideas or views or wishes consulted when I was 
 placed on this committee. And there has been nothing in my life to 
 indicate, if the Speaker knew about it — and I do not suppose he did — 
 but if he traced it from the time I left the cradle he would never find 
 anything that indicated that I was opposed to labor. On the other 
 hand, I appeared myself the other day several times before another 
 committee in this House in the interests of labor, when Judge Payson 
 was there in opposition to the very bill that I was advocating, and I 
 know that as far as I am concerned there could not possibly have been 
 anything to indicate, when the Speaker put me on this committee, 
 that he was blocking labor legislation. But I am on the committee. 
 I have not been on before. I want to vote on this proposition intelli- 
 gently, and when I do vote I am going to vote as I believe to be right, 
 and I am going to get what light I can. 
 
 Now, it seems to me that you are unreasonable when you demand 
 now that I, coming before this proposition which is admitted to be a 
 great one, should cast my vote without an opportunity to give the 
 matter the consideration that I believe it ought to have. You re- 
 ferred to the fact that there are not many members of the conomittee 
 present. It is very likely true that many of the members of the com- 
 mittee, having heard all these arguments and having read all the evi- 
 dence, are prepared to vote. But I was not. I think there are other 
 • members of the committee that felt that way. It may be unfortunate 
 that it is late and it may take some time, but that is one of the things 
 in all branches of legislation and in every department of life that we 
 have got to meet, and as far as I am concerned I want to^get all the 
 information I can in the best of faith from either side or from any 
 source that has any bearing on this proposition, and I want to get all 
 that there is if it takes ten minutes or ten days, as far as I am per- 
 sonally concerned, and I think that the committee have shown here by 
 their willingness to meet every other day and to take these hearings 
 up that they are ready to hear the evidence, and when the evidence 
 is all in I am going to be ready, and I have an idea that the committee 
 will be, to vote their sentiments, whatever they may be. 
 
 And I do not like to have anyone intimate now — it must apply to 
 me and to the other members of the committee who have recently been 
 placed on the committee here — that we have been put on the committee 
 for the purpose of blocking such legislation. If the Speaker had any 
 
EIGHT HOXJES FOR LABORERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. 71 
 
 such idea in his mind — while it is foolish to think that he had — there 
 is no reason to think it. yet if he did have, it was based on absolutely 
 no ground whatever, and could not have been. 
 
 Mr. Payson. Mr. Chairman 
 
 Mr. GoMPERS. Mr. Payson wanted to ask me a question. 
 
 Mr. Payson. I want to ask what your authority was for assuming 
 to believe that this committee was made up by the Speaker in such a 
 way that no legislation would come from it 'i You said " some cor- 
 respondent." I wanted to ask you who it was. 
 
 Mr. GojiPERS. When you show me your credentials from Mr. 
 Cannon that you are his spokesman I will answer you. 
 
 yiv. Payson. Mr. Chairman, how much of this is outside of the 
 matters before this committee? What warrant is there, when there 
 is a hearing of this committee to hear in a patient way a respectful 
 presentation of the claims of $100,000,000 invested in laudable enter- 
 prises, with 100,000 emiiioyees, satisfied with their condition, a simple 
 statement of what the}' expect to show, to call forth the diatribe that 
 we have had in the last fifteen minutes? I feel personally called 
 upon to respond, because it has been stated here that there is nothing 
 in good faith except what these gentlemen choose to demand. We 
 have been here in good faith for the last eight years. What is there 
 to show that we are not here in good faith? Are the interests of 
 my clients committed to my hands, to my care, interests of this char- 
 acter, involving millions of dollars of capital and the employment of 
 thousands of men, to be disregarded, and am I to say that what Mr. 
 Gompers says is to be the law of the land, and am I- to be intimidated 
 in the performance of my duty in this manner? No man in this 
 House has ever criticised me for undertaking to delay action. Now, 
 let me call your attention to a fact or two. There has never been a 
 minute, Mr. Gompers, since this Congress met, that the chairman of 
 this committee would not have convened it at your request, not a 
 minute, and if there ever has beej> such a minute I challenge the chair- 
 man of this committee to answer now and here whether I do not assert 
 the truth about it. 
 
 Mr. Sulzer introduced a bill the second day of this Congress which 
 is substantially the Gardner bill, and you have allowed five long 
 months to intervene before you have approached the chairman of this 
 committee, five long months after the introduction of that measure, 
 without asking the chairman of this committee to call a session for 
 any purpose; and then, when it was called, after the lapse of more 
 than five months, what was the statement made to us, representing 
 these interests? We got a polite notice, as we always do, from the 
 chairman and his clerk that on a given day a meeting would be had 
 for " hearings upon the eight-hour bill," and we came here, and what 
 was the statement that was made to us ? Made by the chairman, and 
 if I may tell this, Mr. Chairman, I will be very glad to be corrected 
 if I am wrong, that the chairman of the committee had called a meet- 
 ing not for the purpose of formal hearings upon this bill, but at 
 the request of Mr. Gompers, who desired to make the acquaintance 
 of members of this committee, very many of them being new, and 
 he not being acquainted with them; that he desired to make their 
 acquaintance and to make some observations; not to project here a 
 demand that this bill be considered, be reported at once, without 
 consideration. That was Avhat we were called here for, if we chose — 
 
72 EIGHT HOUES FOE LABOKEES ON GOVEENMENT WOEK. 
 
 to listen to a formal introduction of Mr. Gompers, as the chairman 
 of the American Federation of Labor, to the new members of this 
 committee. Well, we came here, and an hour and a half or an hour 
 and three-quarters was occupied by the gentleman at the head of 
 organized labor. You all remember what his argument was, what 
 his statements were, and it concluded with a practical demand upon 
 this committee, a practical demand " that the bill be reported now." 
 He said it was useless to continue this business, and all that sort of 
 thing. 
 
 I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, why it was that this delay occurred, 
 and the gentleman, Mr. Gompers, will not deny it. He believed that 
 he could secure, in other ways than by hearings before this committee, 
 favorable action upon what are termed " labor bills." I propose to 
 speak a little plainly here now. He proposed to do it by reading 
 the riot act to the President of the United States and to the Speaker 
 of the House of Kepresentatives and to the Vice-President of the 
 United States, and threatening them with a political revolution if 
 their wishes were not acceded to, the defeat of the Republican party 
 by so-called " organized labor." It is public property and general 
 notorietj' as to what was done on that occasion. Very properly the 
 President of the United States gave him a snub. Very properly the 
 Speaker of the House of Representatives gave him another. Very 
 properly the Vice-President of the United States treated it as it 
 deserved — with silent contempt. And now the gentleman comes in 
 here and undertakes to read the riot act to you by quoting an un- 
 nan.od correspondent, who represents a paper which may be respon- 
 sible or may not; but I do not care who it is, it is an insult to this 
 committee to say that this committee was put up and organized by 
 Speaker Cannon as adverse to the interests of labor. Mr. Cannon 
 never saw the day that he would listen to an intimation of that char- 
 acter. I have known the Speaker since my boyhood. He has lived 
 in the adjoining district to me. H^ needs no indorsement here; his 
 position is secure; and no insinuation from a newspaper correspondent 
 or the president of the American Federation of Labor will weaken 
 him in his position in the hearts of the American jDeople. I know 
 hov/ they feel toward Joe Cannon. 
 
 Mr. Gompers. Will you permit an interruption ? 
 
 Mr. Payson. No; I will not permit an interruption. I want to 
 say a few words, and I will say them, if the committee will hear me. 
 
 Mr. Gompers. Oh, very well. 
 
 Mr. Payson. It is well known how the Democratic membership of 
 this committee was secured. The Speaker had no more to do with 
 the individual membership than I did. Everybody knows that it 
 was given out by the Speaker that the minority membership would 
 be through the hands of the chosen Jeader of the minority, Mr. 
 Williams, of Mississippi, and if anybody has been putting up a job 
 on Mr. Gompers in regard to the Democratic membership of this 
 committee, it is the minority leader who is guilty of it. But who 
 harbors that thought? Who believes it? Nobody. And yet, be- 
 cause of this " irritating delay on the part of the committee iii taking 
 up and reporting this bill," the gentleman chafes. How much time 
 has been occupied this Congress by the consideration of this bill? 
 Bv actual time of the clock it has had less than an hour. Nearlv six 
 
EIGHT HOURS FOR LABORERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. 73 
 
 months had gone by before you asked for anything to be done with 
 reference to it. 
 
 Then, again, the changes are rung here, Mr. Chairman, again to- 
 day, that tliey are " tired of this thing," " that this thing has gone 
 far enough.'' What thing? "N^liat thing? The orderly considera- 
 tion, under the oaths, the oaths which you gentlemen have taken, 
 each Representative of a constituency at home, to legislate for this 
 great nation according to your best judgment as to what is right. 
 The gentleman is pleased to say that " labor bills must be reported" 
 and " labor must have what it demands." Some things that labor 
 demands of this Congress would not be believed if they were told, 
 if Congress were not in session. May I ptate one or two? And my 
 friend Mr. Xorris, and I am very glad to call him my friend, Avill 
 bear me out. There is a bill now pending in the Committee on 
 Interstate and Foreign Commerce which has grown out of a bill 
 which he and I had the honor of discussion not very long ago before, 
 the committee, introduced by Mr. Esch, of Wisconsin, prepared, as 
 I know, by the representatives of organized labor, written by them 
 and prepared by them, and introduced by request. A'^Tiat does it 
 propose to do as to railway people? That if any man on i\ rail- 
 road train worlts more than the allotted period given in the bill, 
 whether the employer knows it or not, whether he does it to get 
 home to his family or not, if he works more than the allotted time 
 his employer is subject to a fine of $1,000. You are familiar with 
 the last Esch bill, are you not? 
 
 Mr. NoRRis. No, sir; I have not seen it. 
 
 Mr. Go^ri'ERS. Was that advocated by any representative of the 
 American Federation of Labor? 
 
 Mr. Paysox. I say of organized labor. I say that Mr. Fuller 
 is (3ieek by jowl with you in all this, and I do not use that in any 
 offensive sense. 
 
 Mr. GoMPEES. That is an unjust proposition in any sense you 
 put it. 
 
 Mr. Payson. If there has ever been a place that Mr. Fuller has 
 not been on your side in the last eight years I have not heard of it. 
 He assumes to represent organized labor, the railway employees of 
 the country, and I have never heard it questioned that he does so. 
 and I say that that bill was prepared by him and those he repre- 
 sents, and written by them and given out. I know what I am talk- 
 ing about in some of these things. I am not here representing the-c 
 interests that I represent without knowing a little of what is going on. 
 Now, would any gentleman come here and say that a bill that 
 was confessedly unjust ought to be passed by Congress because Mr. 
 Gompers wants it done? How are you to ascertain whether the bill 
 is intemperate in its terms and unjust in its provisions? Yon can 
 only ascertain what it is by examination of conditions. As I have 
 said, and intend to say again if I have the opportunity, the ship- 
 building interests of this country are jeopardized to an extent — and 
 let me measure my words when I say it — are jeopardized to such 
 an extent that if all Government work were taken out of the private 
 shipyards and if this bill should become a law there is hardly a 
 shipyard in this country that would not be in the hands of a receiver, 
 unless it had private capital behind it, within the next year, except. 
 
74 BIGHT HOUES POS LABOBEES ON GOVEENMENT WOEK. 
 
 possibly, our own. It is only proper that I should say, when I make 
 an exception of our own shipyard, why that should be. This ship- 
 yard was a pet enterprise of Collis P. Huntington, Avho was worth 
 many millions of dollars, and his surviving relatives are interested 
 in keeping up this property, and no matter whether it pays dividends 
 or not, no matter whether it makes money or loses money, Henry 
 Huntington and Mrs. Huntington will see that that shipyard runs as 
 long as they live, and they have millions of outside capital to keep 
 it going. 
 
 No industry is at so low an ebb as the shipbuilding industry is 
 to-day outside of Government work. Coming back to this question, 
 we come before you and ask a little time, Mr. Chairman, particularly 
 for the benefit of the new members of the committee, that you will 
 give us a fair deal with reference to it, and these gentlemen who 
 have the honor to be upon this committee say, as Mr. Xorris has 
 said to-day, that under their oaths they do not propose to vote upon 
 this matter until they understand some of the matters upon which 
 this legislation is based. They propose to so understand them; and 
 we do not ask this time for the sake of delay. I have under my 
 hand a digest of what I propose to offer, with the book and page 
 referred to, on behalf of the industry which I represent before this 
 committee; and yet it is said that we are delaying matters as we 
 have delayed them before-, and that procrastination is all that we 
 want. We have never asked it. AATiat we want is a square deal be- 
 fore this committee, and we expect to get it, and if we do not get it 
 it will not be because we do not ask it and in a practical way, and we 
 will never get it bj' coming before you and threatening that we will 
 vote you out of office if you do not give it to us. 
 
 Now. as to Speaker Cannon making up the membership of this 
 committee. I happen to have been a member of the House for ten 
 years, and I think I appreciate fully the dignity of that position. 
 Mr. Gompers says that Mr. Cannon did not answer the letter which 
 he wrote to him. The reason is apparent. If Mr. Gompers wrote 
 such a letter — and he did, because he says so — if he wrote that sort of 
 a letter, representing the interests of the American Federation of 
 Labor with reference to the make-up of this committee, he was guilty 
 of an impertinence such that the mere omission to answer his letter 
 was not a sufficient punishment. He ought to have received a letter 
 from Mr. Cannon denouncing his impertinence. The bankers, we 
 will suppose, are interested in the legislation that comes from the 
 Committee on Banking and Currency, and suppose the president of 
 the American Bankers' Association should direct such a letter to the 
 Speaker of the House, practically directing the make-up of the Com- 
 mittee on Banking and Currency. That would be 
 
 Mr. Gompers. They are not so candid or frank. 
 
 Mr. Patson. I do not know what you mean by that. 
 
 Mr. Gompers. I can not help that. ' That is not my fault. 
 
 Mr. Patson. You should couch it in language that I can under- 
 stand. I understand the English language fairly well. Nobody 
 ever accused me of not being able to understand. 
 
 These bankers did not do that. If they did it, it would be an im- 
 pertinence. Suppose that my clients and the other shipbuilding 
 firms in the United States should undertake to direct the Speaker of 
 the House in the organization and complexion of the Committee on 
 
EIGHT HOURS FOE LABOEEES ON .GOVEENMENT WOEK. 75 
 
 Naval Affairs, because they are interested in ten or fifteen million 
 dollars' worth of contracts on naval work. That would be an act of 
 impertinence on the part of any man who would do it, outside of 
 organized labor, and no less a one on its part than it would be on the 
 part of the bankers or the shipbuilders. These gentlemen have no 
 more rights here than other people. They have the same, but no 
 more. To come into this committee and undertake to overawe it in 
 this way — because that is Avhat it is, for to say that " this thing has 
 
 tone far enough," and to say that in regard to this matter that he 
 oubts whether he will appear further on the committee — is inexcus- 
 able. I am always delighted to have Mr. Gompers here. He adds 
 variety to the exercises, and I am always pleased to see him here ; but 
 I venture to say that if Mr. Gompers should fail to let the light of 
 his countenance shine through the door every time there is a meeting 
 here the meetings would not be suspended. I guess business would be 
 transacted at the old stand on the old terms. I venture to say that 
 that is so. But, Mr. Chairman, I have gone outside of what my dnty 
 was simply as an attorney here in this case in making some sugges- 
 tions as to the general situation ; but it did seem to me, knowing the 
 interests I had in hand and knowing the belief of my own people as 
 to this, that it means the ruin of one of the best industries in the 
 country, that I should make — I have felt impelled to make — this 
 statement. ' 
 
 Mr. Gompers. I am made duly meek by the denunciation of Judge 
 Payson, but in all meekness here I want to say that there is nothing 
 I have said here or elsewhere that I want to qualify or modify in the 
 least. Of course it was a great offense on the part of myself to have 
 written to the Speaker of the House of Representatives calling his 
 attention to the fact that open, direct statements were made by a cor- 
 respondent of a responsible paper that the committee was constituted 
 to prevent a certain class of legislation, and it was a very heinous 
 offense to ask that if this was so, in his committee for the following 
 Congress it might be somewhat fairer and more sympathetic. 
 
 Mr. Payson. Did you believe that for a moment? 
 
 Mr. Gompers. Please do not interrupt me. I did not interrupt you. 
 
 Mr. Payson. Did you believe that when you wrote it ? 
 
 Mr. Gompers. Yes, sir ; I did. 
 
 Mr. Payson. Did you believe it when you said it? 
 
 Mr. Gompers. Yes ; I did. I did believe it. Is ihat plain enough ? 
 
 Mr. Payson. Yes; yes. 
 
 Mr. Gompers. If I did not, I would not have said it. 
 
 Mr. Payson. Yes; that is right. 
 
 Mr. Gompers. I would not say a thing that I did not believe. 
 
 Mr. Payson. That is right; and you call your letter to the 
 Speaker, conveying that intimation or charge, respectful. 
 
 Mr. GosiPERS. A statement was made by Judge Payson as to the 
 hideousness of the fact that any interests should seek to influence, 
 either directly or indirectlj^, the Speaker of the House of Representa- 
 tives in the make-up of a committee. Perish the thought! It is 
 only a great offense when a representative of labor respectfully 
 addresses the Speaker of the House of Representatives upon this 
 subject and makes a request. 
 
 Much has been made here , 
 
76 EIGHT HOTJES FOE LABOEEES ON GOVEENMENT WOEK. 
 
 Mr. Conner. Mr. Gompers, it makes me feel uncomfortable for 
 you to come here and say that you believe that the Speaker of the 
 House of Representatives put up the committee. I may be the 
 fellow that you are hinting at. But I do not believe that it is true 
 of myself. I do not think there is anything in my life that the 
 Speaker could have gotten hold of that would make him believe that 
 I was a good member to put on here to prevent legislation. I was 
 raised as a laboring man, and spent my life until I was of age as 
 a laborer, and certainly there is nothing in it that would make the 
 Speaker select me as a member of this committee for the purpose 
 you suggest. But what I object to is to have you come here, and 
 I do not care whether you say it frankly and modestly or other- 
 wise, to have you still make the charge against us that we are organ- 
 ized here by the Speaker to prevent proper legislation. The charge 
 some way does not set well on me. 
 
 Mr. Gompers. I said that I called the attention of the Speaker 
 to the statement that was published in a Chicago paper from a 
 Washington correspondent, and that I said to him : " If this be true, 
 1 sincerely hope that in the make-up of the next Committee on 
 Labor of the House the membership will be more fairly or sympa- 
 thetically composed " — I do not remember the exact language I 
 used — " toward the reasonable and just requests which labor makes 
 for legislation and relief." I have not said anything in reference to 
 this committee other than what I have said this morning, that the 
 committee has, wittingly or unwittingly, and I do not know which, 
 and I have no right to say which, lent itself to carrying out the 
 policy of procrastination and delay in regard to this legislation. I 
 have no knowledge of what the members of this committee have in 
 mind. Much has been said as though one had committed a very 
 grave offense when I have said, and other representatives of labor 
 have said, that we want this legislation; we want relief from the 
 present conditions, and say that unless we obtain that relief we 
 shall endeavor to exercise our sovereign right as American citizens 
 and vote for some one else, and as if that was some very great and 
 unlawful and unwarranted act. T^liy, the ballot in itself, in the 
 hands of the American citizen, is a threat, or the means to carry 
 out a threat, if you please. 
 
 r am free to say that the v.'orkingmen, most of those employed by 
 the shipbuilding company of which Judge Payson is the attorney, 
 would only be too glad if the eight-hour bill were enacted into law. 
 The idea of saying that the representative workmen or the work- 
 men anywhere do not want the eight-hour law and are satisfied with 
 the hours and conditions and wages of the employment. He omits 
 to call attention to the resolution adopted by the worlanen in Beth- 
 lehem three years ago, a resolution passed unanimously in favor of 
 the eight-hour bill then pending, and that resolution transmitted 
 to this committee and incorporated in the hearings. The idea of 
 saving that the workingmen do not want — well, I do not want to 
 say an}'thing further just now. 
 
 Mr. Conner. I move that we adjourn until Tuesday at 10.30 
 o'clock. 
 
 The motion was seconded; and thereupon the committee adjourned 
 until Tuesday, May 22, 1906, at 10.30 o'clock a. m. 
 
EIGHT HOURS FOB LABORERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. 77 
 
 CojtMiTTEE (>x Labor, House of Representatives. 
 
 Tuesday, May 2Z, 1906. 
 The committee met at 11 o'clock a. m., Hon. John J. Gardner 
 (chairman) in the chair. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. JAMES H. HAYDEN, ATTORNEY FOR THE. 
 CARNEGIE STEEL COMPANY. 
 
 ^Ir. Hayden. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, as I stated at the last 
 hearing of the committee, I desire an opportunity to outline the case 
 that we shall hope to make in opposition to the bill. The bill under 
 consideration is practically identical with H. R. 6882, Fifty-sixth 
 Congress, first session, and absolutely identical with H. R. 3076, of 
 the Fifty-seventh Congress, first session. 
 
 Mr. Stanley. If you will excuse me, I was not here at the former 
 hearings, and I want to get my bearings. 
 
 The Chairjian. Judge Payson occupied the attention of the com- 
 mittee at the last session, outlining the situation, submitting the 
 propositions that they proposed to discuss, and taking up the history 
 of the several bills and showing wherein they differed and to what 
 extent the present bill or the old bill differs from the bill in the 
 Fifty-eighth Congress, or, in other words, how far the bill in the 
 Fifty-eighth Congress had been modified by amendments from the 
 sweep (for want of a better word) of the older bill in the present bill. 
 
 Mr. Stanley. The gentleman now addressing us 
 
 The Chairman. Mr. Hayden. 
 
 Mr. Stanley. Represents whom? 
 
 Mr. Hayden. I represent the Carnegie Steel Company and other 
 interests. I intend to outline the case that we expect to make in 
 very much the same way that Judge Payson did. I shall avoid 
 repeating matters that he discussed, but representing a different line 
 of manufactures and industries, I shall touch upon points somewhat 
 different. 
 
 Mr. Hunt. "Would you name some of those for whom you appear 
 here? 
 
 Mr. Hayden. At the present time I prefer not to, but shall later. 
 
 Mr. Hunt. Then you will confine yourself for the present 
 
 Mr. PIayden. To the interests of the Carnegie Steel Company. 
 ^Ir. Chairman and gentlemen, this bill is not new to this committee. 
 That is to say, the Committee on Labor of the Fifty-sixth and Fifty- 
 seventh Congresses considered it. but that was a long time ago — in 
 the winter of 1899-1900 and the winter of 1901-2. The bill which 
 is freshest in the recollection at those who may be termed the old 
 members of the committee is the Hitt-McComas bill, which was 
 taken up l\v this committee and that of the Senate in the winter of 
 1903^. It seems to me inconceivable that those who were members 
 of this committee in the Fifty-sixth and Fifty-seventh Cpngresses 
 can have jireserved a clear recollection of all the evidence and state- 
 ments that were submitted both for and in opposition to the bill 
 now under consideration, and it is very clear to me that it would be 
 a bewildering task for a gentleman who was not then a member of 
 the committee and who has not heard statements indicating the issues, 
 
78 BIGHT HOURS FOE LABORERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. 
 
 between the parties to take up the record of which these four vol- 
 umes constitute a fragment [indicating hearings] and familiarize 
 himself with the facts, learn what the bill means, and determine 
 what would be its effect upon the industries of the country. There- 
 fore my aim will be to refresh the recollection of the old members of 
 the committee and to lay before the new members, in the most con- 
 crete form, material parts of the statements that were made. So 
 far as possible I shall use the records of this committee and those of 
 the Senate committee, but where I find that the evidence is defective 
 or that new evidence has been found I shall offer it in the form of 
 authenticated documents or depositions of witnesses. It will rest 
 with this committee to say at any time that it considers a certain 
 line of evidence immaterial or that it is purely redundant, and that 
 it can not devote time to that matter. That right the committee 
 reserves, and I shall not trespass upon the committee's time. 
 
 The questions presented by this bill are of vast importance from 
 the standpoint of economics and expediency, but more than all else 
 because they deal with the power of Congress to curtail the liberties 
 and proprietary rights of the citizens of the United States, guaran- 
 teed to them by the Constitution, these being natural rights inherent 
 in all freemen, whereby they may dispose of their energies, their time, 
 and their property as they see fit, limited only to this extent, that 
 they must so use what is theirs as not to invade the rights of others. 
 The bill under consideration provides for the imposition of penalties 
 upon any person having a contract of a certain kind with the United 
 States, or with a Territory or the District of Columbia, and who shall 
 require any mechanic or laborer in his employ to work more than 
 eight hours in any day, if in the course of that day the laborer for a 
 moment attends to work being done in the performance of a contract 
 for the Government; that is to say, if a manufacturer employing 
 several thousand men has one in his employ who for five minutes, 
 Avithout his knowledge, performs work on a Government contract and 
 afterwards works for seven hours and fifty-six minutes on purely 
 private work, that employer is to be liable for a penalt3^ 
 
 Mr. Stanley. I did not catch that last. 
 
 Mr. Hatden. Under this bill now before you the limit of time that 
 any laborer or mechanic may work in a day is eight hours, provided 
 that in the course of that eight hours he shall for any time whatever 
 do anything connected with the performance of work being done un- 
 der a Government contract. He may work under the Government 
 contract for only five minutes, but if at the end of that five minutes, or 
 in addition to it, he works for seven hours and fifty-six minutes in the 
 employ of the contractor on purely private work he makes his em- 
 ployer liable to fine. 
 
 Mr. Stanley. That is, if he works on private work after he gets 
 through with the Government work ? 
 
 Mr. Hayden. Yes; that is what this bill provides. The Hitt- 
 McComas bill did not so provide. 
 
 Mr. Stanley. Will you jjoint me to that section ? 
 
 Mr. IIayden. Yes, sir; with pleasure. This is from the present 
 bill, beginning Avith the third line on the first page : 
 
 That each and every contract hereafter made to which the United States, any 
 Territory, or the District of Columbia is a party, and every such contract made 
 for or on behalf of the United States or any Territory or said District, which 
 
EIGHT HOURS FOR LABORERS OX GOVERNMENT WORK. 79 
 
 mny require or involve the employment of laborers or mechanics, shall contain a 
 provision that no laborer or mechanic doing any part of the work contemplated 
 l)y the contract, in the employ of the contractor or any subcontractor contract- 
 ing for any part of said work contemplated, shall be required or permitted to 
 work more than eight hours in any one calendai^day. 
 
 That is, any laborer doing any part of work required to perform a 
 Government contract must not Avork in any manner more than eight 
 hours a day. 
 
 Mr. NoRRis. I tliink that is conceded, 
 
 Mr. Haydex, Yes. 
 
 Mr, Stanley, That is, any work ; he can not work more than eight 
 hours ? 
 
 Mr. XoRRis. Yes, 
 
 Mr. Stanley, That is your understanding of that, Mr, Chairman? 
 
 The Chaieman, Yes; there never was any doubt about that. If he 
 could do work for five minutes over the eight hours, he could work 
 five hours over it, and if he could work five hours over it he could 
 work eight hours over it. 
 
 Mr. Stanley. I am not objecting to it. That is a phase of the bill 
 that I had not had my attention called to. 
 
 The Chairman. I am only mentioning it as the fair construction, 
 
 Mr, Ha^-den, The Hitt bill confined the limitation to work done in 
 performance of Government contracts. After a provision like the 
 one which I liave just read it contained these words, " upon such 
 work." That is to say, the laborer or mechanic could be required or 
 permitted to work for eight hours on Government work and there- 
 after could be required or permitted to work as long as he pleased on 
 private work. In that particular there is a marked diflference be- 
 tween the two bills, and I shall have occasion to refer to that differ- 
 ence hereafter. 
 
 Again, if a laborer having worked for eight hours under the super- 
 vision of a contractor or his agents were dismissed fbr the day and 
 thereafter did further work for himself or for a third party, the con- 
 tractor would be subject to the penalty, for the bill not only forbids 
 the contractor to compel his laborers or mechanics to work more 
 than eight hours for him, but also compels him to see that they do not 
 perform any more work under any circumstances. If the contractor 
 dismisses the laborers from his employment and then they do work 
 for some one else, the contractor becomes liable for penalty. 
 
 The Chairjian, On that point I would differ with you, that the bill 
 would go any longer than the employer had jurisdiction over the em- 
 ployee, 
 
 Mr. Hayden. But, Mr. Chairman, read the bill. If we are to take 
 it as it is written, its meaning is as I have stated it. The employer 
 is bound absolutely to see that the laborer works no more than eight 
 hours in any one calendar day. 
 
 Mr. Stanley. You are an attorney? 
 
 ]Mr, Hayden. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. St.vnley. The onus probandi would be on the Government, and 
 it would be on the Government to show that it was done with his 
 knowledge or procurement ? 
 
 ]Mr. Hayden, I do not think so. Take another instance. Without 
 the knowledge of the employer and without any order to do it a 
 laborer in a large ironworks or a shipyard works five minutes on 
 
80 EIGHT HOURS FOE LABOEEES ON GOVERNMENT WOEK. 
 
 work being done under a Government contract, and after that he is 
 put at his regular task and works more than seven hours and fifty- 
 tive minutes. Under such conditions there could be no criminal in- 
 tent, no knowledge on the^part of the contractor that he was violat- 
 ing the law; but nevertheless he would be subject to the penalty. 
 His good intentions would go for naught. 
 
 Mr. Stanley. That is not the point. The Government would have 
 to establish the fact that it Avas done either with his knowledge or 
 consent, that he either forced it or permitted it to be done, that he 
 hkd some instrumentality in it. He could not be held responsible for 
 the act of an employee not instigated or permitted by him. 
 
 Mr. Hayden. It is my understanding of this bill, that it would ren- 
 der the contractor responsible if the laborer should do more than 
 eight hours' work in any one day, having in course of the eight hours 
 touched Government work. 
 
 Mr. Stanley. Do you think you would be up against that propo- 
 Kition, to use the popular phrase? Would you have any difficulty in 
 getting fellows to quit work at the end of eight hours ? 
 
 Mr. Hayden. That would depend upon the circumstances. If a 
 laborer had a grudge against his employer he might work more than 
 eight hours with the deliberate intention of subjecting him to the 
 penalty. 
 
 Mr. Stanley. Do you not think that would relieve him of any re- 
 sponsibility ? 
 
 Mr. Hayden. No, sir; the employer would be charged to see that 
 the laborer stopped work within the specified time. He could not 
 permit him to work over the time. 
 
 The Chairman. Just how far do you go with that view, so that we 
 may understand you? Suppose that the laborer on his way home, as- 
 !-uming that he is a ship carpenter, going home from Cramps ship- 
 yard, stops on the way in some other locality and helps a fellow out 
 for a couple of hours who is building a boat. And then another 
 proposition: Suppose instead of doing that he goes home and goes 
 to work in his garden and plants a patch of potatoes for himself ; that 
 is labor. 
 
 Mr. Hayden. Yes, sir. This bill would seem to make it the duty 
 of his employer to see that having done eight hours' work in Cramps 
 shipyard he should do nothing further that day. 
 
 Mr. Hunt. Anywhere — is that j^our view of it ? 
 
 Mr. Hayden. That is what this bill provides. 
 
 The Chairman. By what part of the bill, or what construction of 
 the common or any other law does the employer get authority over 
 him ? ' 
 
 Mr. Haydex. He gets none, sir; but nevertheless he is subject to 
 penalty. He is left liable to penalty without means of protecting 
 himself against it, and that is why I object to the first paragraph of 
 the bill as it stands. It seems to me that it would create an intoler- 
 able situation. 
 
 Mr. Hunt. Then the fact that the proponents of the measure only 
 seek to place its exactions upon Government work would not amount 
 to anything under your construction of the law ? 
 
 Mr. Hayden. Good intentions, sir, avail nothing after a statute has 
 been passed. The courts take it as it is in black and white. 
 
EIGHT HOURS FOK LABOKERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. 81 
 
 Mr. Hunt. Against any law that is proposed and enacted? 
 
 Mr. Hayden. But the intention of Congress is gleaned from the 
 language contained in the statute, and not from what has been said 
 in committee. This bill, unlike the Hitt-McComas bill, does not 
 confine the operation of the eight-hour limitation to work done under 
 contract with the Government. 
 
 Mr. Hunt. Am I to understand that the McComas bill would come 
 nearer to meeting the views of yourself and your clients than this 
 bill? 
 
 Mr. Hayden. I will not say that, but it would be less disastrous in 
 its effect. 
 
 Mr. Stanley. This bill is very much like the statutes of nearly all 
 the States. For instance, they prohibit an innkeeper from permit- 
 ting or assisting in any way in any game of chance. That, I suppose, 
 is a statute of j'^our State. It is of nearly every State in the Union. 
 Now, two men go into the hotel and they engage in a quiet game of 
 poker with the door locked. Do not the courts uniformly hold that 
 the innkeeper must have had Imowledge of what was going on, and 
 if he did not have notice and knowledge of it, or as a reasonably 
 prudent man should not have had, he is not responsible? Did you 
 ever hear of the case of a hotel keeper being fined for permitting a 
 game of chance in his place of business where they did not show 
 knowledge on the part of the innkeeper ? 
 
 Mr. Hayden. I do not think you will find anything in any of the 
 statutes comparable to the bill before us. 
 
 Mr. NoRRis. Under this word " permit " here it seems to me your 
 construction would be reasonable that the employer would be liable 
 even though he had no knowledge if this work was done in his 
 employ. 
 
 Mr. Hayden. Unquestionably; yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. NoREis. I think that is correct. I think that would be a fair 
 construction of it, but the court would construe this word' in connec- 
 tion with the entire act and the objects sought. It seems to me that 
 no court would go so far as to hold that the word " permit " would 
 necessitate that the employer should follow the employee around and 
 prevent by force his doing some labor for some one else, or doing 
 as the chairman suggests, some labor for himself during the balance 
 of the day. But the word " permit," in connection with the statute 
 itself, would very likely go as far as to hold the employer liable, 
 even though he had no knowledge, if the work was done for him. 
 But do you think that any court would hold that after a man had 
 worked the eight hours on the Government work, if on his way 
 home he stopped and worked for a quarter of an hour for a neighbor, 
 or worked for himself awhile, that that would render his employer 
 liable? 
 
 Mr. Conner. According to your theory the laboring man is not 
 permitted to run at large ? 
 
 Mr. Hayden. No, sir ; not under this bill. Or he may run at large, 
 but his employer is at his mercy. 
 
 Mr. Conner. He is penalized ? 
 
 Mr. Hunt. He may run at large, but not work for a living; is 
 that it? 
 
 Mr. Hayden. Something to that eflPect. 
 
 B H— 06 6 
 
82 EIGHT HOTJES FOE LABOEEES ON GOVEENMENT WORK. 
 
 Mr. Stanley. Your inference, taking the reasonable construction 
 as I see it, is that this word " permit " means to encourage or to receive 
 the benefit of or to have done with his knowledge; that is the legal 
 construction of the word ? 
 
 Mr. NoEEis. I think so. 
 
 Mr. Stanley. Are not your Carnegie steel shops — I believe Mr. 
 Carnegie is no longer in the steel business ? 
 
 Mr. Hayden. He has i/ot been in active business for some years, sir. 
 
 Mr. Stanley. Are not those works thoroughly organized? By 
 that I mean do you not have your foremen and the like of that, over 
 each piece of work ? 
 
 Mr. Hayden. They are thoroughly organized ; they have a perfect 
 organization. 
 
 Mr. Stanley. Every man works under a foreman? 
 
 Mr. Hayden. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Stanley. The average laborer does not work on his own hook, 
 does he, anywhere ? 
 
 Mr. Hayden. No. 
 
 Mr. Stanley. Now, if after the eight hours are over a foreman 
 orders his men to quit work on that particular job, is there any other 
 place in a shipyard where a malicious laborer could go and work 
 without the knowledge of the foreman in charge of the business ? 
 
 Mr. Hayden. That is difficult to say. In a large shipyard it might 
 be done. 
 
 Mr. Stanley. Would not he have to get permission, in some way? 
 Would not he be immediately observed and detected if he tried to ,go 
 elsewhere and work after the time? 
 
 Mr. Hayden. Under the foreman he might work a few minutes 
 overtime. 
 
 Mr. Stanley. Should you not give notice to the foreman not to 
 allow his men to work overtime? 
 
 Mr. Hayden. That might be done; but suppose a foreman should 
 make a mistake; or suppose that he should not go to the man and 
 make him stop work on the stroke of the clock, and the man should 
 work for two or three minutes overtime — what would happen? The 
 inspector would see the laborer work overtime and he would report 
 that fact. The inspector is made the arbiter. There is no appeal 
 from his decision and no opportunity to show the employer's lack of 
 knowledge or absence of the intention to violate the law. The fact 
 that the laborer has worked for more than eight hours would render 
 the employer liable, and no court nor any official of the Government 
 would be authorized to remit the fine. 
 
 Mr. Stanley. Of course it is the universal theory of the law that 
 ignorance of the law does not excuse. 
 
 Mr. Hayden. I am not referring to ignorance of the law, but ig- 
 norance of the fact that the laborer has worked overtime, when the 
 employer could not have ascertained it by any means. 
 
 Mr. Stanley. Would not that ignorance! constitute a valid defense ? 
 
 Mr. Hayden. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Stanley. And could the employer permit a thing of which he 
 had no knowledge? 
 
 Mr. Hayden. Yes ; I think this bill makes it his duty to know what 
 each one of his laborers is doing, and to make him stop, using force if 
 that should be necessary. 
 
EIGHT HOTJBS FOB lABOEERS ON GOVERNMENT WOKK. 83 
 
 Mr. Hunt. Then this bill does away with all ordinary discretion 
 such as involves the obedience to all law now upon the statute books ? 
 
 Mr. Hayden. It seems so to me. The result of such a limitation 
 would be that all of the larger firms of the country would withdraw 
 from Government work. They would do that for the reason that 
 they could not adopt the eight-hour rule and still compete in the do- 
 mestic or foreign trade. They would abandon Government work 
 altogether. Small firms that could make a living by taking nothing 
 but Government work would doubtless do it, but they would be abso- 
 lutely debarred from competition in general trade. I shall prove 
 that to the satisfaction of the committee. The cost to the Govern- 
 ment of everything that it consumes would be increased from 12^ to 
 '25 per cent for everything that it bought. I can prove that as 
 ■clearly as a general proposition of that kind is susceptible of proof. 
 The extra cost to the Government would not be due to an extra charge 
 added arbitrarily by the contractor, but would be due to the extra cost 
 of production. I shall show you that in one of the mills of the Car- 
 negie Steel Company a trial was made of the eight-hour limit for 
 labor ; that is to say, it worked three shifts of men during the twenty- 
 four hours. Prior to that time it had been working two shifts, each 
 working twelve hours. It was found after very careful test that the 
 products of that factory were decreased under the eight-hour system 
 by 20 per cent, although under both systems the mill was run through- 
 out the twenty-four hours. The result proved that two men could 
 do more work in twenty-four hours, working twelve hours each, than 
 three men could do4n twenty-four hours, each working eight hours. 
 With the consent of the men, who were glad to resume the twelve- 
 hour schedule and an equivalent scale of wages, that schedule wa^ 
 renewed, and the eight-hour day has never been resumed in the Car- 
 negie works. 
 
 Mr. Stanley. Do they work twelve hours now ? 
 
 Mr. Hayden. That was an exceptional circumstance. I mentioned 
 it because it was described by a witness who appeared before this 
 committee some years ago, and at the proper time I shall read his 
 testimony to the committee. 
 
 Here is another feature of the bill to which I object: It would 
 make an inspector — a mere subordinate — the final arbiter as to 
 whether a contractor had violated the eight-hour clause of his con- 
 tract or not. Now, however drastic the Hitt-McComas bill would 
 have been, and however much we were opposed to it, it did provide 
 that whenever the contractor violated the eight-hour clause in his 
 contract he might obtain a review of the inspector's ruling by the 
 head of the Department making the contract, and, if still aggrieved, 
 might have a review by the Court of Claims. This bill makes the 
 inspector — a subordinate — the final arbiter, and leaves the contractor 
 with no redress whatever. In fact, it forbids the head of an Execu- 
 tive Department to review the finding of the inspector and to remit 
 or' rebate the penalty imposed unless he investigates the question and 
 finds as a matter of fact that the laborer did not work more than eight 
 hours a day. Those are the only circumstances under which he can 
 do it. Absolute innocence on the part of the employer, ignorance of 
 the fact that his laborer or mechanic has worked more than eight 
 hours, is no defense. 
 
84 EIGHT HOURS FOB LABOEEES ON GOVEENMENT WOEK. 
 
 Here is another point : The present bill applies the eight-hour limi- 
 tation to corporations and individuals engaged in the transmission of 
 intelligence, such as telegraph companies, telephone companies, and 
 wireless signaling companies. Such firms are classed as common 
 carriers, and as such their obligations to the public are measured. 
 There seems to be no reason why any privilege or discrimination 
 made in favor of one common carrier should not be extended to all — 
 whj' railroads should receive any further consideration from this 
 committee than telegraph companies — and yet, whereas the Hitt- 
 McComas bill excepted companies engaged in the transmission of in- 
 telligence from the operation of the eight-hour limitation, this bill 
 does not except them. 
 
 Mr. Stanley. They are not common carriers in that respect. 
 
 Mr. Hayden. I hold that they are common carriers and!^ should be 
 excepted from the eight-hour limit, if any common carrier is to be 
 excepted. You will see at the bottom of page 2 of this bill, lines 21 
 to 25, this provision : 
 
 Nothing in this act shall apply to contracts for transportation by land or 
 water, nor shall the provisions and stipulations in this act provided for affect 
 so much of any contract as Is to be performed by way of transportation. 
 
 The Hitt-McComas bill read as follows : 
 
 Sec. 2. That nothing in this act shall apply to contracts for transportation 
 by land or water, or for the transmission of intelligence. 
 
 That excluded all common carriers. 
 
 Mr. Stanley. Would the insertion of that, " or for the transmis- 
 sion of intelligence," in this bill materially affect your opposition 
 to it? 
 
 • Mr. Hayden. In behalf of one client. Of course every telegraph 
 company in the country and the wireless signaling companies in this 
 country would all be interested. But they do not know about the 
 pendency of this bill. They do not know that they would be affected 
 by its passage. They have had no opportunity to be heard. 
 
 Mr. HtJNT. Are they among the other interests that you represent ? 
 
 Mr. Hayden. I represent one wireless signaling company, which 
 has not asked me to appear in its behalf before this committee, nor 
 have I brought the bill to its attention ; but I can see what the effect 
 of the passage of the bill would be upon its work. It is supplying 
 the Government with wireless apparatus, and hopes to do so in the 
 future ; but if this bill should be passed it would certainly withdraw 
 from that field. 
 
 Mr. Stanley. You think it might apply to the laborer in the 
 making of the apparatus, but not to any laborer engaged in the sig- 
 naling of intelligence from one point to another? 
 
 Mr. Hayden. I do not know why not. Suppose a station belonging, 
 to this company receives pay from the Government for receiving and 
 transmitting messages to or from war vessels ; it seems to me that the 
 operator would be classed as a laborer or mechanic, and that if he 
 were to work more than eight hours the company would be held liable 
 for the penalty. 
 
 Mr. Stanley. He would have to work continuously for more than 
 eight hours in transmitting that intelligence before it would affect 
 him. ' 
 
 Mr. Hayden. Not intelligence relating to Government work. 
 
EIGHT HOTJKS FOB LABOEEES ON GOVEEXMEXT ^^•OEK. 85 
 
 ISlr. NoRRis. If he works more than eight hours in any one day for 
 somebody. 
 
 Mr. Hayden. If he sent a message to a naval vessel that took him a 
 minute, and then worked for eight hours on private messages, the 
 company would be liable. 
 
 Another point to be considered will be the portion of the bill which 
 provides for the exception from the general eight -hour limitation of 
 contracts calling for the delivery of such material as may usually be 
 bought in open market. Because of its uncertainty that clause is 
 highly objectionable. Does anyone know precisely what it means? 
 " Such material as may usually be bought in open market, whether 
 made to conform to particular specifications or not." 
 
 Mr. NoREis. I would like to call jour attention to some remarks 
 made by Judge Payson on that subject. He drew a distinction be- 
 tween the word " materials " and the word " articles." 
 
 Mr. Hayden. Yes. 
 
 Mr. XoREis. Which, if his distinction was properly drawn, would 
 be quite a material subject of consideration in this bill, it seems to 
 me. He said, as I remember it, that " materials " was more of a 
 general term, and applied to things out of which " articles " were 
 made. I am not trying to quote him, but I think that I give his idea. 
 For instance, the Government buying shoes for soldiers, we will say — 
 he did not give this illustration, but to illustrate his idea I will give 
 it, and I want to get your idea on the subject — those shoes would be 
 called •■ articles " and not " materials." Hence they would not be 
 in the exceptions in the bill. I presume if the Government con- 
 tracted for leather out of which to make shoes, the leather would be 
 ■classed as " materials." 
 
 Mr. Hatden. Yes ; I think so without a doubt. ' 
 
 Mr. XoRRis. Is that your idea of the distinction there ? 
 
 Mr. Hayden. I have not given careful consideration of that mat- 
 ter, and I should very much prefer to have Judge Payson discuss it 
 when he resumes the floor. 
 
 Mr. XoRRis. He did discuss it to quite an extent. 
 
 Mr. Hayden. But I take up the matter in a somewhat different 
 way. and shall proceed if you will permit me to. 
 
 Mr. XoRKis. All right. 
 
 Mr. Hayden. I do insist that with the possible exception of such 
 things as coal, flour, and firewood the exception in the present bill 
 would amount to nothing. No one would know what was expected 
 from the eight-hour limitation and what was not. The only way 
 in which any manufacturer could find out whether his product was 
 such a material as might be ordinarily purchased in open market 
 would be to ■nait until some one had been fined or some one had de- 
 livered materials of the same kind, not observing the eight-hour limi- 
 tation, and had not been fined. You would have to make the test 
 on each thing to see whether it was regarded as a material such as 
 might ordinarily be purchased in open- market. Take the case of 
 buttons. Now, buttons, broadly speaking, can ordinarily be had in 
 the open market, but a button carrying the crest of the United States, 
 it is not a material such as can be ordinarily obtained in the oper^ 
 market. Suppose that a man contracts to deliver military buttons to 
 the Government. Is that a material the manufacture of which would 
 Tie affected by the eight-hour limitation or not ? 
 
86 EIGHT HOUES FOE LABOEEES ON GOVEENMENT WOEK. 
 
 r 
 
 The Chairman. Excuse me, I do not want to interrupt you 
 
 Mr. Hayden. I am very glad to have you do so, sir. 
 
 The Chairman (continuing). But, that we may keep clear, that 
 precise point was discussed here three or four Congresses ago at 
 great length, so that all subsequent bills, and that bill, carried the 
 added phrase "whether made to conform to particular specifica- 
 tions or not." 
 
 Mr. Hayden. Yes; I have read the whole clause, and I am con- 
 scious of that. Now, let us take another case. SJiips may be char- 
 tered and may be bought in open market any day, but not battle 
 ships. Would a contract for a battle ship be one for material such 
 as might ordinarily be purchased in open market differing from 
 others simply because she conforms to specifications prescribed by 
 the Navy Department? Now, what, in principle, is the difference 
 between a military button and a battle ship ? 
 
 The. Chairman. A military button is like all other buttons. A 
 battle ship is a peculiar thing. I do not think this question arises 
 under this bill, but that question arises under the McComas bill. 
 
 Mr. Hayden. I think, sir, it arises under both bills. I think the 
 McComas bill is very obscure. 
 
 The Chairman. We admit that the ship is an article, but hardly 
 that she is material. . 
 
 Mr. Hunt. Battle ships are not usually kept in stock. 
 
 Mr. Hayden. Military buttons are not. 
 
 Mr. Hunt. I say battle ships are not kept in stock. 
 
 Mr. Hayden. Military buttons are not, either. 
 
 Mr. Hunt. In stock? 
 
 Mr. Hayden. They may be, by accident. 
 
 Mr. Hunt. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Hayden. But you would hardly expect to find them so kept. 
 
 Mr. Hunt. I am a regular landlubber myself, and I do not ]piow 
 anything about it. 
 
 Mr. Hayden. I mean that ships can be chartered or bought at the 
 New York Maritime Exchange any day, if you want to go there 
 and buy one or charter one. A battle ship is only one type of ship, 
 just as a military button is only a particmar type of button. Now,, 
 why is not a contract for a battle ship a contract for material such 
 as may be ordinarily obtained in open market? A ship may more 
 properly be termed an article than material, but take an example 
 among things ordinarily classed as material; take a gun. A gun 
 is classed as material. Military rifles are kept in stock to a certain 
 extent 
 
 Mr. GoMPBRS. May I ask you a question there? 
 
 Mr. Hayden. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. GoMPERS. If a battle ship and a gun may be regarded as mate- 
 rial and held in stock and can be bought in the open market, and 
 need not conform to the provisions of the eight-hour law as con- 
 templated by this billj where does your opposition come in ? 
 
 Mr. Hayden. I believe they both would be governed by the pro- 
 posed eight-hour limitation. I am not arguing that they would not 
 be. The clause is so uncertain and indefinite that every contractor 
 and Government official would be embarrassed and no one would know 
 where he stood. The provisions should be made definite and explicit. 
 This bill should express what its advocates really want — that is, 
 
EIGHT HOTJBS FOB LABORERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. 87 
 
 provide an eight-hour limitation for the construction of vessels for 
 the Xavy or war material, because it is at those interests alone that 
 the advocates of the measure are aiming their blow. I do believe 
 that, with the exception of such commodities as flour and coal and 
 firewood, the eight-hour limitation would apply to every contract 
 made by the Government. I can not say whether those a&ected would 
 aggregate 90 or 99 per cent of all the contracts let, but the aggregate 
 of them would be a very large percentage of the whole. Here is an 
 instance showing the uncertainty clause. At a hearing before the 
 Senate committee on the Hitt-McComas bill a manufacturer of dyna- 
 mos appeared protesting against its passage. The chairman, after 
 learning of the man's business and the nature of his product, told him 
 that the bill would not apply to him ; that he would come under the 
 exception, his dynamos being materials or articles such as migha 
 ordinarily be obtained in open market. Now, as a matter of fact that 
 man made various kinds of dynamos, some of them adapted for use 
 in merchant vessels and some peculiarly designed for naval vessels. 
 That man went awaj- reassured and happy, but I submit that he was 
 misled. He made dynamos for naval vessels under subcontracts with 
 the firms having contracts to deliver the vessels, and had the bill 
 passed he unquestionably would have been held to be a subcontractor, 
 a lid as such he would have been governed by the eight-hour limitation. 
 
 That was the advice given him by the chairman of the committee, 
 who now occupies a prominent position on the United States bench, 
 and the advice, I think, was clearly wrong. 
 
 The emergency clause of this bill, found on the third page, lines 6 
 to 9, is this : 
 
 No penalties shall be exacted for violations of such provisions due to extraor- 
 dinary emergency caused by fire or flood, or due to danger to life or loss to 
 property. 
 
 The only emergencies there specified are those caused by fire or 
 flood, or where human life is in danger, or where there has been a loss 
 of property, perhaps necessitating overtime work to save the wreck- 
 age. There is no recognition of emergencies necessitating overtime 
 work necessary to save property. The committee must appreciate 
 that in the performance of a great work such as the construction of a 
 battle ship, and notably at the time of her launching, there must be 
 many emergencies when, if men were compelled to desist on the stroke 
 of the clock, property worth millions of dollars would be imperiled 
 and damaged or perhaps destroyed; and yet the inspector would not 
 be allowed to declare that an emergency. Agaih, I shall show that 
 in the manufacture of steel or forgings or armor plate there are many 
 occasions when, in order to render it possible to obtain a product 
 meeting the requirements of a contract, skilled laborers or mechanics 
 must remain on duty until a result has been attained. The work of 
 these men is measured by results, not by hours. Unlike common 
 laborers employed to shovel dirt or carry bricks, you can not substi- 
 tute a new man for the man actually engaged in the performance of 
 that work. 
 
 Mr. Conner. Can you give some instances of where you can not 
 substitute men to do the work that is being done ? 
 
 Mr. Hayden. I shall read to the committee in due course the testi- 
 mony of experts who showed that when conducting what is known 
 
88 EIGHT HOTJES FOE LABOEEES ON GOVEESTMENT WORK. 
 
 as a heat of steel it is not possible for the man in charge to be 
 relieved until the heat is completed. The length of time that he must 
 stand on duty varies. Sometimes his result is accomplished within 
 eight hours, or perhaps less. Sometimes it may be nearly double that. 
 But the map who has conducted the operation from the start must 
 stay at his post and watch it to the end in order to get a proper result 
 and avoid risk of losing all of the material. That will be clearly 
 brought out by a deposition which I shall read to the committee. 
 
 Mr. NoERis. It seems to me that on that point it may be impossible 
 to avoid it, but it seems to me that the difficulty will come oftener 
 from the determination as to whether there has been an extraordinary 
 emergency, as provided for in the bill, to determine whether there has 
 heen such an emergency, but whereas the liability to the penalty 
 »would be a question of fact upon which men might honestly disagree. 
 It seems to me that that difficulty 
 
 Mr. Hatdbn. Is not that a serious one, sir ? 
 
 Mr. NoRRis (continuing). It is the most serious one connected with 
 this provision. 
 
 Mr. Hatden. But you see this bill does not provide for any busi- 
 ness or industrial emergencies designed to save property from loss 
 or damage. I do not know what the last exception is intended to 
 cover, but it reads, " due to danger to life or loss of property." 
 
 Mr. Hunt. That emergency that you just cited, with refei-ence to 
 the heat in the manufacture of steel. Would not that involve a loss 
 of property? 
 
 Mr. Haydex. The bill does not pro^-ide for such an emergency, but 
 only an emergency that occurs after the property has been lost. 
 That is the language of the bill; perhaps it is designed to cover 
 work necessary to save wreckage. But a loss of property must have 
 occurred bsfore an emergency, mentioned in this bill, can be declared 
 and relieve the contractor from the eight-hour limitation. 
 
 In due course I shall submit to the committee the proposition that 
 the present bill contemplates an unconstitutional and unwarranted 
 invasion of private rights and liberties. That matter has been dis- 
 cussed in this committee heretofore, but I want to summarize the 
 arguments which have been made and to repeat them for the benefit 
 of the new members. 
 
 Eight-hour bills have been considered all over the United States, 
 and there is very considerable conflict among the decisions, due to 
 the fact that the laws are not uniform. Here, in the Supreme Court 
 of the United States, we have no definite ruling on the right of 
 Congress to invade purely private work and fix a limitation upon 
 the hours of labor, but we have dictum to the effect that that ques- 
 tion presents a very, very serious constitutional problem. It appears 
 in the opinion of Mr. Justice Harlan, in the case of Atkin /•. Kansas 
 (191 U. S., 207). There was drawn in question a statute of the 
 State of Kansas pro\'iding that eight hours should be the limit of 
 a day's work for any laborer in the employ of a person having a 
 contract with the State or any municipality, and forbidding such 
 employers to bargain for a longer term of daily service. In this case 
 considered, a contractor had made an agreement with a laborer to 
 work ten hours daily on a public street. The Supreme Court held 
 that the Kansas statute was valid, as applied to work on public 
 
EIGHT HOURS FOR LABOBERS OX GOVERNMENT WORK. 89 
 
 >tre(;ts — that is, to public works — but it limited the effect of its 
 decision right there, Air. Justice Harlan saying: 
 
 No question arises here as to the power of the State, consistently with the 
 Federal Constitution, to malce it a criminal offense for an employer in purely 
 private work, in which the public has no concern, to limit or require his em- 
 ployees to perform daily labor in excess of the prescribed number of hours. 
 ******* 
 
 We re-it our decision upon the broad ground that the work, being of a public 
 character, absolutely under the control of the State and its municipal agents, 
 acting by its authority, it is for the State to prescribe the conditions under 
 which it will permit work of that kind to be done. Its action touching such a 
 matter is final, so long as it does not, by its regulations, infringe the personal 
 rights of others, but that has not been done. 
 
 I shall contend that work done by a person having a contract with 
 the Government to deliver to it a chattel — be it a gun, a battle ship, 
 a pair of shoes, or a button — is not Government work. His bargain 
 is to deliver a chattel meeting certain requirements, and the Govern- 
 ment has no interest in his work or in his product until it has been 
 completed and delivered and accepted. In that I am borne out by 
 the opinion of the Supreme Court in the case of Clarkson v. Stevens 
 (160U. S., 505). 
 
 Mr. Payson. That was a ship contract, was it not ? 
 
 Mr. Hayden. It was a contract for the construction of a naval 
 vessel. The Government required the contractor to give bond to 
 deliver the ship in due course and meeting certain requirements, and 
 it paid for her in installments, as the work progressed. Before any 
 material went into the ship, and as work was done on the ship it 
 was passed and preliminarily accepted. The question was, Did the 
 partially completed ship belong to the Government or did she belong 
 to the contractor ? The Supreme Court said that she belonged to the 
 contractor. 
 
 Mr. Hunt. Was that the case that we read of in the newspapers 
 some years ago, where a contractor sought to retain control of a vessel 
 built under contract, and the Government official went aboard that 
 vessel and took possession of it ? 
 
 Mr. Hayden. Oh, no, sir. 
 
 Mr. Hunt. If I remember rightly. I only speak from memory 
 
 Mr. Hayden. Xo, sir; the case of which I speak grew out of a con- 
 tract let in the early sixties. 
 
 Mr. Hunt. Of course I only speak from memorj-. 
 
 Mr. Payson. That was another ship. It was a >liip contracted to 
 be built by the Triggs, at Richmond. 
 
 Afr. Hayden. Yes; and the Crescent Shipyard, too. 
 
 Mr. Hunt. Judge PaAson, 3-011 probably know more about this 
 than I do. I would like to get this only for my own information. 
 In listening to the gentleman, speaking as to his train of thought, I 
 believe that this officer did take possession of the vessel. 
 
 Mr. Payson. That did not go into the courts. That w^s (settled 
 between the parties themselves. Pending the construction of the ves- 
 sel, the elder Trigg died, and then it was sought to compel the con- 
 cern to go into bankruptcy, and the Federal officers came in and said 
 that they had a right to take the ship and have it completed at the 
 yard, and the creditors insisted that they had a right over here, and 
 that they could reach her under the bankruptcy law ; but the matter 
 was finally adjusted between them. 
 
90 EIGHT HOURS FOR LABORERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. 
 
 Mr. Hunt. The Government maintained its position undei; the 
 contract ? 
 
 Mr. Payson. The Government maintained its position, and the 
 ship was completed in the Norfolk Navy- Yard. 
 
 Mr. GoMPEES. Is not this a fact in connection with that very case,. 
 that either the creditors or the contractors contemplated selling that 
 vessel to a foreign government, and that the authorities of the United 
 States stepped in and claimed that it had the prior claim ? 
 
 Mr. Payson. That was iiot this case. 
 
 Mr. Hayden. I do not think that question arose. 
 
 The Chairman. That would have been on the ground that the 
 Government had an interest in her on account of having paid the 
 money. 
 
 Mr. Hayden. The Supreme Court of the United States has never 
 passed on that question, where installments have been paid by the 
 -Government, except in that case of Clarkson v. Stevens, and in 
 principle that decision applies to contracts for the manufacture of 
 all sorts of chattels. 
 
 Mr. Payson. In connection with that part of your argument to 
 the committee, it might not be improper for you here to suggest what 
 you know as well as I — that to cover the question of payment in 
 installments by the Government, the contractor has to put up an 
 immense bond in the first instance. 
 
 Mr. Hayden. Oh, yes. 
 
 Mr. Payson. Which bond is conditioned for the repayment of these 
 advances in case that the ship shall not be finally accepted. 
 
 Mr. Hayden. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Payson. That should be stated here. 
 ■ Mr. Hayden. That was a material consideration with the Supreme 
 Court in disposing of the case of Clarkson «. Stevens. It found, in 
 the requirement that such a bond be given,' expression of the parties' 
 intention that an amount equal to the installments paid should be re- 
 turned if the vessel were not completed in accordance with the con- 
 tract. It supported the conclusion that the uncompleted vessel did 
 remain the property of the contractor. That proposition I shall 
 argue- at length hereafter. 
 
 The Chairman. Would you state just what, if any, distinction you 
 make between a pair of shoes, which you say that the Government 
 has no interest in until completion and! inspection and delivery, and 
 a public building? 
 
 Mr. Hayden. A public building is affixed to the soil. 
 
 The Chairman. Admitting that the building is being erected on 
 soil owned by the Government ? 
 
 Mr. Hayden. It is affixed to soil which belong to the Govermnent, 
 and under one of the oldest legal maxims a building passes to and 
 becomes the property of the owner of the soil as work thereon 
 progresses. Every stone set in place belongs to the Government 
 prior to the completion and acceptance of the building; but work 
 done in the manufacture of a chattel is not done for the Govern- 
 ment. The contractor is working for himself. The Government's 
 right is a personal one against the contractor. He is obligated to 
 deliver the chattel in accordance with his bargain and the work 
 done by him is private. Work done on a public street, as Judge 
 Harlan said, is a public matter, and one that it may regulate as it 
 
EIGHT HOXTES FOB LABORERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. 91 
 
 pleases; but when you attempt to invade private establishments and 
 say how private work shall be done, then I submit that Congress 
 would be invading the rights guaranteed to citizens of this country 
 by the Constitution and the rights which naturally belong to free 
 men. 
 
 The Chairman. Is there any other gentleman present who desires 
 to go on further this morning? 
 
 Mr. Conner. We have reached that point now. have we not, where 
 the taking of evidence should begin? 
 
 Mr. Da^tinport. Mr. Chairman, I wish to be heard, and to be 
 heard at some length, but I had supposed that to-day these gentle- 
 men would occupy the time. I have been under the weather. If you 
 could let me begin on the opening of the next day I would be glad 
 of it. 
 
 Mr. Conner. You wish to be heard preliminary to the introduc- 
 tion of the evidence ? 
 
 Mr. Davenport. I propose when I begin to put in a very large 
 amount of evidence; but it will not be in the way of oral testimony 
 for the present. 
 
 The Chairman. You are not ready to go on now ? 
 
 Mr. Davenport. I would like to begin at the beginning of the 
 session. 
 
 Mr. Stanley. Could you begin now and take up the first half 
 hour or so, and then resume again? 
 
 Mr. Dave:S;port. I would prefer to begin at the beginning of a 
 session. 
 
 Mr. Hunt. Is there anyone else here who would care to be heard 
 before the committee? 
 
 Mr. Xewcomb. I would ask permission to make a brief statement 
 on behalf of the Delaware and Hudson Company. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MB. H. T. NEWCOMB, ATTORNEY, OF WASHING- 
 TON, D. C. , REPRESENTING THE DELAWARE AND HUDSON COM- 
 PANY. 
 
 Mr. Xewcomb. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, it seems to nie that 
 it is very unfortunate that anyone should be here asking you to 
 evade by an act of Congress the constitutional guarantee of the 
 liberty of every individual. I shall not say that this proposed bill 
 does not successfully evade the protection which the Constitution 
 gives to the liberty of those who choose to labor on terms satisfactory 
 to themselves, but I believe there will be no one who will deny that 
 it is an attempt to evade that provision. 
 
 Mr. Stanley. What specific provision do you refer to? 
 
 Mr. Newcomb. The fifth amendment, that no one shall be denied 
 liberty without due process of law. That does guarantee to every 
 man who wishes to labor — anyone except perhaps those in the em- 
 ploy of the Govemment^-the right, if he is an adult and if he 
 wishes to labor in a healthful occupation, a safe and healthful occu- 
 pation, the right to work as many hours as he chooses to work, and 
 for such price as he chooses to sell his labor for. 
 
 Now, it is proposed, because the Government is an employer, 
 and because it ought to be a fair and perhaps a generous employer, 
 to make use of these relations with a certain class of industries, to 
 compel, not merely the men who work for the Government exclu- 
 sively, but to compel everybody to observe the eight-hour day. It 
 
92 EIGHT HOXJES FOR LABORERS ON GOVERKTMEUTT WORK. 
 
 is proposed to impose upon all the people of this country an eight- 
 hour day. If an eight-hour day is a good thing and ought to be 
 established, there is a proper way to establish it. It should be estab- 
 lished by the contracts and agreements between these workingmen 
 and those who employ them, between the organizations, if you will, 
 and those employers who choose to make contracts and agreements 
 with them. Let them, first establish the eight-hour day in that way, 
 and then let them come before the Government and ask the Govern- 
 ment to do the same thing; or if it is established in these industries 
 generally, it will by virtue of its establishment there take effect in 
 the classes of industries covered by this measure. But they have 
 no right to saddle upon the company which I represent — the em- 
 ployees of that company who are taxpayers — the burden of support- 
 ing on Government work an especially favored class of employees, 
 and they must do one of these two things : They must by this legis- 
 lation either vastly increase the cost of all Government work to 
 which it applies, or they must by virtue of this act impose the eight- 
 hour day upon all industries in this country. 
 
 Some people have been talking about the possible tyranny of the 
 majorities. I remember that Judge Grosscup declared in a decision 
 which he rendered in the case of the United States v. James et al. 
 (60 Fed. Rep., 257) : 
 
 The oppression of crowns and principalities is unquestionably over, but the 
 more frightful oppression of selfish, ruthless, and merciless majorities may yet 
 constitute one of the chapters of future history. * 
 
 The tyranny that is proposed to be imposed upon the people of the 
 country by the enactment of such a statute as this, if it does impose 
 this eight-hour day everywhere, is not even the tyranny of a major- 
 ity. It is the tyranny of a small group which believe that by the 
 possession of the balance of power or by claiming to possess the 
 balance of power, by convincing a few people that it does possess it, 
 it can impose its will upon all the people of this country. It is 
 nothing less than an invasion of the liberties of the people, and of 
 what Adam Smith calls the most sacred and inviolable of all prop- 
 erties, the property which every man has in his own labor. And 
 that is what is proposed to be accomplished. Now, it seems to me 
 that it is unfortunate that anybody should be asking that, and espe- 
 cially that that request should come from the class, if there is such 
 a thing as a class in this country, to whom every detail of liberty is 
 most essential and most important. And I believe that if ever this 
 thing can be accomplished it will react most seriously upon those 
 who are here asking for it. 
 
 A great deal of the industry of this country under present condi- 
 tions must be carried on very much more than eight hours per duy. 
 The millions of farmers in this country and all the farm laborers in 
 this country are tied by inexorable conditions to the longest hours, 
 the most arduous toil, and they are largely the people who pay the 
 taxes. 
 
 Mr. Stanley. Does this bill in any way affect the farmer? 
 
 Mr. Nbwcomb. No, sir; it does not, except that it imposes upon 
 every farmer and every farm laborer the burden of supporting a 
 class who will be the special favorites of Government in the treat- 
 ment accorded to them by this bill. In enhances the demands that 
 the Government must make upon the taxpayers in order to support 
 
EIGHT HOTTRS FOE LABOBERS ON GOVEKNMENT WOBK. 93 
 
 certain industries that are required to be carried on under expensive 
 and extravagant conditions. This favors a limited class, and it 
 throws this burden upon everybody who pays taxes. The farmers 
 I spoke of because they are peculiarly required by the conditions 
 of the industry in which they are engaged to work long hours, to 
 toil very hard, and because they are peculiarly the people who sup- 
 port our Government and pay our taxes, and they can not escape 
 irom these conditions. 
 
 Now, why should they be required to pay more taxes to support 
 others who are made especial favorites of legislation ? 
 
 Mr. Stanley. As I understand you, the result of this legislation 
 would be that the increased burden, the increased cost of the product, 
 would fall on the consumer? 
 
 Mr. Newcomb. The increased cost of the product that the Govern- 
 ment pays Avill fall on the taxpayers, and, of course, the Government 
 is the only institution which can indefinitely increase its cost. But 
 there is not any check upon its extravagance. If you gentlemen who 
 legislate for us chose to impose upon the Govemmejit costly methods 
 in any way, by treating labor employed by the Government as a 
 specially favored class, or in any other way, the taxpayer must go 
 down in his pocket and get the money to pay the bill. 
 
 Mr. Stanley. In that event, the manufacturer will not be hurt ? 
 
 Mr. Newcomb. I said there were two possibilities in this legisla- 
 tion. I do not pretend to say which of them is going to result. 
 Either you impose upon all industries in this country, except, per- 
 haps, agriculture and a few others where it is impossible for the 
 eight-hour day, by which you are doing a tyrannous act that is only 
 possible through the evasion of the constitutional provision which 
 was intended to prevent precisely that thing, or else you vastly 
 increase the cost of everything that the Government buys, and 
 thereby vastly increase the burden of the taxpayer. In any case 
 the farmer, of course, gets the worst of it, because you are bound to 
 increase the taxes that he has to pay by every cent that you add to 
 the cost of the articles purchased by the Government, and even if 
 you succeed in imposing this restriction of ordinary methods of busi- 
 ness upon other industries, you can not impose it on agriculture. 
 But that is only taking an extreme case. There are a great many 
 industries to which the hand of Congress can not reach, which will 
 not be touched by this bill, which are profitable taxpaying industries,, 
 and you would burden every one of them, and particularly the men 
 engaged in them. 
 
 Mr. Stanley. I am interested in your argument. Do you repre- 
 sent the farmer in any other than a sentimental way here? 
 
 Mr. Newcomb. Well, I am a farmer myself, and I suppose that I 
 dislike to pay taxes as much as anybody else. I represent a company 
 which is a heavy taxpayer, which employs a great many men who are 
 heavy taxpayers, who are compelled by the conditions of the busi- 
 ness in which they are engaged often to work more than eight hours 
 a day, and their taxes are a burden upon the business in which they 
 are engaged. They are a burden upon the traffic which the railway 
 handles, and I think perhaps it is from the aspect of the taxpayer 
 that the greatest hardship in legislation of this sort is to be found, 
 unless it is in some particular industry to which the TdIU directly 
 reaches. 
 
94 EIGHT HOURS FOE LABOEEES ON GOVEENMENT WOEK. 
 
 Mr. Conner. How is your industry directly affected by this legis- 
 lation ? 
 
 Mr. Newcomb. It is not directly affected at all. It is only affected 
 as a part of the industries of the country which would feel this heavy 
 hand of legislation. 
 
 Mr. Conner. You do not manufacture for the Government at all? 
 
 Mr. Newcomb. No, sir; but we serve those industries which do 
 directly serve the Government, and a railway can not be prosperous 
 unless its patrons are prosperous. 
 
 Mr. Stanley. What is the Delaware and Hudson Company? 
 
 Mr. Newcomb. It was first a mining company, chartered as a min- 
 ing company for the mining of coal, and it was afterwards given the 
 right by the State of Pennsylvania to construct and own canals and 
 engage in the business of a common carrier. It operates under one 
 of the oldest charters- in existence in the State of Pennsylvania, and 
 is one of the two companies — the Delaware, Lackawanna and Hud- 
 son being the other — which are authorized by their charters to oper- 
 ate the business of both a miner and a carrier. 
 
 Mr. Stanley. That is not a very promising field for agriculture 
 up there. 
 
 Mr. Newcomb. I was struck in looking over this bill with the 
 absolutely socialistic origin of propositions of this sort, and it led 
 me to turn over the pages of Lecky's monumental work on Democ- 
 racy and Liberty, wherein he speaks of the consequences when a 
 cruel and ruthless majority chooses to assert its will to the detriment 
 of the rest of the people, when they propose to appoint inspectors to 
 regulate our daily life; and I am going to ask you to listen to a 
 sentence or two which ap^ies to this precise proposition. This is 
 from page 380 of Lecky's Democracy and Liberty: 
 
 The legal eight hours, however, has long been prominent In the continental 
 socialist programmes, and it has made great progress in England. The move- 
 ment has taken several forms. One demand is that it should be the rule in tha 
 case of all persons employed either by the state or by municipalities, or by any 
 other publics, body. If this were established by law, it would become a model 
 which private employers would be soon forced to follow ; and if the state and 
 the local bodies lost by the transaction they had always the purses of the tax- 
 payers and ratepayers as their resdurce. 
 
 And, as I have said, government can not be so reckless and so ex- 
 travagant in its methods that there is not always that resource, and 
 the taxpayer is nearly always the last man to successfully put in his 
 appearance and successfully to make his protest. It seems to me that 
 it is fundamentally wrong that a reform, if these gentlemen choose to 
 call it a reform, of this sort should begin at the expense of the men 
 who can least afford to bear the burden, at the expense of the tax- 
 payers. It is so easy — I have seen it so often — for men to say, " Here, 
 we can take the money of the Government and be generous with it," 
 and it is so hard to remember that when you are generous with that 
 money you are taking little by little, by driblets, away from men who 
 get it with great difficulty and who toil the hardest and the longest 
 hours; that every generous act of that sort is doing innumerable 
 wrongs to people who can least bear wrongs of that character. 
 
 Mr. Stanley. As I imderstand, you are opposed to any law whose 
 operation will be to increase the prosperity of the individual at the 
 cost of the taxpayer ? 
 
 Mr. Newcomb. I am opposed to any law which proposes to in- 
 
EIGHT HOURS FOB LABORERS ON GOVEKKMENT WOBK. 95 
 
 crease the prosperity of one individual or class of individuals at the 
 expense of a great niultitud,e of individuals. Congress has not any 
 business to say that certain men, because they are in the employ of 
 the Government, or in the employ of those who do business for the 
 Government, shall work three, four, six, or eight hours, while all the 
 vast multitude of the people of this country work ten or twelve or 
 sixteen hours. When I say sixteen hours I am talking about the 
 farmer, and there are many of them who do. It is a cruel, ruthless, 
 and merciless use of this power that these gentlemen think that they 
 have. I know that they do not recognize that it is that sort of a use, 
 but if they can use the political power that they claim to possess in 
 order thus to impose their will upon the people of the United States 
 it is nothing less than a cruel and merciless use of that power, and I 
 warn them that it is well to have a giant's strength, but that it is 
 highly improper to use that strength like a giant. I do not know 
 that there is anything further that I desire to say. 
 
 Mr. GoMPEES. Can I have just a few minutes. Mr. Chairman? 
 
 The Chairman. All right, sir. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MB. SAMUEL GOMPERS, PRESIDENT OF THE 
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR. 
 
 Mr. GoMPEES. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, it is not my purpose 
 to enter into any argument in regard to this bill or in regard to the 
 merits of the bill, but being present and hearing the statements and 
 arguments made at the last three hearings, I could not escape its 
 influence. The statement made this morning by Mr. Hayden would 
 lead the members of the committee to believe that in the Carnegie 
 works the eight-hour day was introduced, and being introduced was 
 found to produce great economic loss, loss of production, and that 
 thereby you are to draw the inference that two shifts of men working 
 twelve hours a day is more economic and more advantageous in the 
 productivity of the laborer, not only in the works to which he referred, 
 but by implication that that is an economic fact in industry. I shall 
 not take up the time of the committee to recall the incidents as they 
 transpired at the former hearings of the committee, but I think it is 
 undisputed by real investigators that the eight-hour day has been, 
 wherever given an ample opportunity, economically advantageous, and 
 that the laborer, per man, has been a greater producer and a producer 
 of better material than under a longer workday. Economy in plant 
 and rent and management, in the introduction of the better, higher de- 
 veloped machines and power is an economic fact which by implica- 
 tion I have heard disputed for the first time this morning. 
 
 In one of the hearings of 1902 I come upon a letter which I may 
 read to you. This is on page 208 of the volume of hearings of 1902 : 
 
 JoLiEr, III., March 10, 1902. 
 J. E. Ralph, Washington, D. 0. 
 
 Friend Joe: Tours of the 8th instant to hand. In reply will say that this 
 plant has been working eight-hour turns (tonnage men only) for four years at 
 the request of the men, and I believe that it has been a benefit to the plant, as 
 the men work more regular and do not object to being pushed ; besides, I be- 
 lieve it has a tendency to make them more manly men in every respect, which 
 I did not believe before we tried it. With best regards, I remain. 
 Tours, truly, 
 
 I. Cook Nobton, 
 General Superintendent of the Joliet Steel Works. 
 
y6 EIGHT HOURS FOB LABOBEES ON GOVBENMENT WOEK. 
 
 Mr. Stanley. Not to interrupt you, but while you are on that pointy 
 is it not a fact generally conceded by those who have made a scientific 
 study of this question, without regard to any particular industry or 
 any pecuniary interest, that six hours' mental work and eight hours' 
 active manual labor are the maximum that the human body and mind 
 will endure without material detriment to one or the other? 
 
 Mr. GoMPERS. Yes, sir. Men speak of farmers working long hours. 
 It is true that farmers do 
 
 Mr. Stanley. Occasionally. 
 
 Mr. GoMPERS (continuing^. Work long hours during farming sea- 
 son, and they have considerable siesta at other seasons of the year. 
 Then we often hear of men engaged in mental work and who say that 
 they work from early morning until late at night, and that is very 
 true ; but it is for a certain brief period or for a season. And usually 
 men, in the professional classes especially, have long vacations in 
 which they have opportunities for mental and physical recuperation, 
 which, of course, is out of the question so far as manual laborers are 
 concerned. I do not wish, either now or later — I do not know that I 
 will later — at any time before the committee to submit arguments in 
 contravention of what has already been said, or may be said; but, as 
 a matter of fact, except the extraordinary statement by Mr. Newcomb, 
 I want to repeat that there has not been a new fact or a new thought 
 expressed by the opponents of this bill that has not already been 
 expressed in one way or another and in almost the exact same lan- 
 guage. The arguments of Judge Payson and Mr. Hayden have been, 
 as they have already said and indicated, simply preliminarj^ to the 
 introduction of evidence, of witnesses, and the presentation of testi- 
 mony, depositions, and so forth. 
 
 Mr. Davenport has indicated his desire to address the committee at 
 length and to then present in some form some depositions or testimony 
 of some sort in opposition to the bill. I will venture to say that after 
 all it will be cumulative. If the committee will consent to have this 
 entered into, it will be cumulative, and a repetition of that which this 
 committee has had several times, and the Senate Committee on Edu- 
 cation and Labor has had several times, and which is in print. The 
 opponents of the bill come here with four volumes, covering probably 
 2,000 or more pages of printed hearings and arguments and testimony. 
 For two Congresses the opponents have urged that this subject-matter 
 should be given an investigation running along even during the in- 
 terim of the meetings of Congress, or that it be investigated by some 
 Department. I am not sure whether they suggested the Census, but 
 I do think that they did suggest the Department of Labor, or the 
 Department of Commerce and Labor. A resolution was adopted 
 containing questions that the opponents prepared and submitted, and 
 the investigation was had. That has been printed. The request of 
 the committee was that the answer be made by the Department some- 
 time before the beginning of this session of Congress. I take it that 
 the suggestion or the proposition for such an investigation had in 
 view this fact — that the investigation by the Department of the sub- 
 jects submitted by their questions would be sufficient, that such a 
 report would be convincing to this committee, and that this committee 
 of Congress could then take up the matter in a comprehensive form 
 with all the data obtainable secured, so that then the committee could 
 take up the consideration of the bill or such bills bearing on this 
 
EIGHT HOURS FOE LABORERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. 97 
 
 question as the committee desired to favorably report, or to reject; 
 in any event, to determine finally -what the policy is, what the views 
 of the members of the committee are or should be relative to an eight- 
 hour law. 
 
 Mr. Davenport. May I inquire whether the Secretary of Commerce 
 and Labor did not apply to you for assistance in his investigation, 
 and you declined to give him any ? 
 
 Mr. GoJiPERS. I declined. I wish that I had a copy of the letter 
 with me. 
 
 Mr. Davenport. Is it not a fact that you declined to give him any 
 assistance in this investigation ? 
 
 Mr. GosiPERS. I will be glad to answer the question as best I can, 
 but I want simply to make my answer more full than your question 
 would warrant. I declined to assist the Secretary of Commerce and 
 Labor in that investigation for the same reason that I objected to the 
 adoption of the resolution calling for that investigation. 
 
 Mr. Davenport. The question that I asked was whether you did 
 not decline to give him any assistance ? 
 
 Mr. GoMPERS. Then, I said that I declined to give him any assist- 
 ance in that investigation and for the same reason that I objected be- 
 fore this committee to the adoption of that policy. And, first, not 
 for the mere sake of consistency, but because I knew then what the 
 Secretary of Commerce and Labor has demonstrated beyond the per- 
 adventure of a doubt, that the questions submitted by the committee 
 were incapable of an intelligent ansM'er; and the Secretary so states 
 in his answers to each of the questions, except one, and that has ref- 
 erence to the position of labor. So far as the other six questions are 
 concerned, the Secretary states that each and every one of them is in- 
 capable of definite intelligence or comprehensive answer. 
 
 Mr. Hayden. Where do you find that ? 
 
 Mr. Gompers. I did not want to burden the hearings with a state- 
 ment. 
 
 Mr. Payson. Just let me ask you 
 
 Mr. GoMPERS. One moment. 
 
 Mr. Payson. I do not want 
 
 Mr. Gompers. No ; no ; no. I want to answer that question. 
 
 Mr. Payson. Mr. Gompers, would not this more properly come in 
 when the case is made ? That is all that I wanted to ask. 
 
 Mr. Gompers. No ; I have been asked a question. 
 
 Mr. Hunt. Let him go on. 
 
 Mr. Gompers. The first question asked of the Secretary of Com- 
 merce and Labor is : 
 
 What would be tbe additional cost to the United States of the various mate- 
 rials and articles which it customarily produces by contract which would be 
 governed by the limitations set out in said bill? 
 
 That is the question. The Secretary's answer to this is : 
 It is clearly impossible to give a definite answer to this question. 
 
 The Secretary then proceeds to give his reasons for his answer, but 
 what I have quoted is his answer. 
 Question 2 is : 
 
 What damage, if any, would be done to the manufacturing interests affected 
 by the provisions of the bill If enacted? 
 
 EH— 06 7 
 
98 EIGHT HOURS FOR LABORERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. 
 
 The answer of the Secretary is : 
 
 This inquiry can not be answered definitely for the same reasons as are 
 stated iij connection with the first inquiry. 
 
 He then proceeds to give his reasons why it is incapable of definite 
 answer. 
 
 Question 3 is: 
 
 , Whether manufacturers who have heretofore furnished materials and articles 
 to the Government under contract would continue to contract with the Govern- 
 ment if such contracts were within the peremptory eight-hour limitation pro- 
 vided by said bill ? 
 
 To this the Secretary answers : 
 
 This question can only be answered by the contractors themselves, and it is 
 doubtful whether a definite reply could be given by them unless the bill were 
 actually in operation and they were confronted by the conditions resulting there- 
 from. 
 
 He then proceeds to give his reasons for that answer. 
 
 Mr. Payson. Now, please read another line or two right there. 
 
 Mr. GoMPEES. I will, just to please Judge Payson. 
 
 Mr. Payson. That is right. 
 
 Mr. GoMPERS (reading) : ' 
 
 The majority of those who have expreissed opinions, which are tabulated in 
 the report, are confident that they could not continue to contract with the Gov- 
 ernjnent if such contracts were within the peremptory eight-hour limitation pro- 
 vided by the bill. 
 
 But that simply emphasizes my statement that the Secretary of 
 Commerce and Labor gives that, as he does other matters, in support 
 of his answers that the questions of the committee were incapable of 
 definite answer. 
 
 Question 4 reads : 
 
 What would be the effect of the enactment of the said bill upon the ship- 
 building industry? 
 
 To that the Secretary answers : 
 
 This inquiry offers the same difiBculties when a reply is sought. 
 
 He then proceeds to give his reasons why he can not answer that. 
 
 Section 5 is : 
 
 What would be the effect of the enactment of the said bill, if any, upon the 
 export trade of the country? 
 
 The Secretary answers : 
 
 This inquiry is likewise not susceptible of definite reply. 
 
 He then proceeds to give his reasons for his answer. 
 Section 6 is : 
 
 Are the laborers of the country, organized and unorganized, who would be 
 affected by the proposed legislation, willing to have taken away from them the 
 right to labor more than eight hours per day, if they desire to do so? 
 
 The Secretary answers : 
 
 This question has already been answered by the representatives of organized 
 labor who have appeared before the committee from time to time. 
 
 The only one of these questions that he answers has already been 
 answered. 
 
EIGHT HOURS FOR LABORERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. 99 
 
 The seventh question is : 
 
 What effect will this proposed legislation have, if any, upon the agricultural 
 interests of the country? 
 
 To that he answers : 
 
 The same difficulties are met with in this question as with the preceding ques- 
 tions when a definite reply is attempted. 
 
 , He then proceeds to give his reasons for his inability to answer 
 the questions, because the questions are incapable of intelligent 
 answer. 
 
 I merely call your attention to these facts in order that you may 
 more clearly understand that these arguments and these proposed 
 liearings and the submission of testimony that is proposed to be sub- 
 mitted to you are nothing more nor less than means of delay. I 
 acquit these gentlemen of ev^il intentions. They are opposed to this 
 legislation, and without aspersing their motives in the slightest, I 
 simply assert that their policy in opposing this bill is to drag out the 
 hearings as long as possible, so that it shall drag on to the close of the 
 Congress, and make it impossible to enact this legislation, make it 
 impossible that Congress /shall have an opportunity of voting upon 
 this question. Some gentlemen, members of this committee, have 
 taken umbrage at remarks that I have made. My friend. Judge 
 Payson, has waxed eloquent, and when he waxes eloquent it is a treat 
 to hear. But in spite of his denunciation and rebuke of myself, I 
 am always glad to hear him talk ; it is always a pleasure to hear him 
 talk. I think I would be willing to pay to hear him talk upon an 
 interesting subject, upon a subject in which his heart would be en- 
 listed as well as his mind. 
 
 Judge Payson. You never will have to pay to hear me. 
 
 The Chairman. Get into a lavvsuit and it will be legitimate to pay 
 to hear him. 
 
 Mr. Payson. You can always nave a complimentary ticket to hear 
 me. 
 
 Mr. GoMPERS. No, no ; I would be willing to pay. 
 
 Mr. Payson. You shall never have to pay. 
 
 Mr. GoMPERS. That is one thing that I must decline. 
 
 Mr. Payson. What is that? 
 
 ilr. GoMPERS. I have always declined to accept. 
 
 Mr. Payson. Complimentary tickets? 
 
 Mr. GoMPERS. Yes, sir; of all sorts. But I thank the judge for 
 his good intentions. Some members of the committee have believed 
 that it was my purpose to cast reflections upon them. That was not 
 my intention. It was not my purpose. I simply wanted to call their 
 attention to the fact of the very cleverness of the gentlemen opposing 
 this bill and this species of legislation, and to say under the pre- 
 sumption that their proposition is a fair one, and superficially taken, 
 it is; when the facts are not known their position is incontestable. 
 They have quoted from or referred to these four volumes of printed 
 hearings and arguments before this committee, dating — ^the printed 
 hearings — from 1892, and there were many hearings which are not 
 now in print and others that were not taken stenographically, and 
 when all these facts are borne in mind is it not fair to assume that 
 these hearings and these arguments ought to have been exhausted and 
 concluded by this time, and that where matters are in print and easily 
 
100 EIGHT HOURS FOE LABORERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. 
 
 accessible to the members of this committee as well as to all members 
 of Congress, their object is to take up time in order that time may be 
 consumed — I will not say wasted, but consumed— and thereby drag 
 to the very death the opportunity of the enactment of this bill ? 
 
 Gentlemen again this morning, in a milder form, but yet in its 
 essence, made the same statement— that we are desirous of holding a 
 club over you of our political power, to force you by using that politi- 
 cal power to support or oppose any given number of men for the pur- 
 pose of accomplishing this legislation. First, I would say that I 
 do not know that appearing before this committee or before other 
 committees of Congress, we have not tried to maintain ourselves as 
 men with some conceptions of the rights and immunities among men. 
 That we have been disappointed — and bitterly disappointed— is too 
 true, and that we have been disappointed by reason of the ability of 
 the opponents to make it appear to the Members of Congress that all 
 that they wanted was fairness and justice, and simply that they might 
 be heard and simply that they might submit testimony in order to 
 convince you that we are wrong, is true. I venture to say this, 
 that there has not been a committee of Congress, of either this House 
 or the United States Senate, which has sat and heard the arguments 
 of the opponents, as well as the poor appeals that we were able to make, 
 that were not convinced that our opponents were wrong and that we 
 were right; so much so that the Committee on Labor of the House 
 of Representatives three times reported this bill — substantially this 
 bill, the Gardner bill — favorably, and on two occasions the House of 
 Representatives voted by an almost unanimous vote in favor of its 
 passage, and the bill went to the Senate. And, further, there has 
 never yet been a time when the Senate Committee on Education and 
 Labor has had this bill under consideration but what it reported the 
 bill favorably. If this measure had been a new proposition, I grant 
 you, gentlemen, the time ought to be taken in order that a full under- 
 standing may be had of the proposition of this bill. I have been 
 quoted time and again by the opponents as to what this bill means, 
 and I have each time given my assent to its broadest interpretation. 
 Let me say this: Judge Payson, at the last hearing, made some 
 statement in regard to five months having elapsed before a hearing 
 of this committee was had upon it. 
 
 Mr. Payson. Before a hearing was asked for, I said. 
 
 Mr. GoMPEES. Was asked for. Let me say that the bill had not 
 been introduced until 
 
 Mr. Payson. January 12 was when the Gardner bill was introduced . 
 
 Mr. GoMPEES. January 12. 
 
 Mr. Payson. But the Sulzer bill was introduced the' second day of 
 the Congress. 
 
 Mr. GoMPERS. I do not think that we want to discuss the Sulzer 
 bill. I do not want to do it. 
 
 Mr. Hunt. Mr. Gompers, you will pardon me, I do not like to in- 
 terrupt you, but we have already gone over our time, and we have 
 forfeited a roll call in the House. 
 
 Mr. GoMPEES. I want to revert to one statement that was made, 
 and simply call your attention to it without making any argument 
 upon it, and that is a statement made, I think by Mr. Hayden, that it 
 is essential to success of a certain process in making a certain product 
 that the men who start the process at the beginning should remain 
 
EIGHT HOURS FOE LABORERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. 101 
 
 with it until the final result is achieved. That statement was made 
 time and time again by the opponents of the bill and was exploded by 
 the practical men who work in the mills, who showed that under the 
 present operations the changes occur without any loss of any sort 
 in any of the processes to which reference has been made. In view 
 of the statement of Mr. Hunt regarding the time of the committee, 
 I will not say anything more than that now. 
 
 Mr. Hunt. Probably we have lost this roll call, and we will have 
 to suspend the hearing now, but it is not from any desire to abridge 
 your statement, or the statements of any other gentleman. 
 
 Mr. GoMPERS. I do hope, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, that the 
 committee may determine to report this bill without any further 
 delay. 
 
 (At this point the committee adjourned until Thursday, May 24, 
 1906, at 10.30 o'clock a. m.) 
 
 Committee on Labor, 
 House of Representatives, 
 
 Thursday, May 2J^, 1906. 
 The committee met at 11 o'clock a. m., Hon. James P. Conner 
 (acting chairman) in the chair. 
 
 Mr. Conner (acting chairman). Mr. Davenport, I believe that you 
 are to be heard to-day. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MB. DANIEL DAVENPORT. 
 
 Mr. Davenport. I am an attornev at law, and I reside in Bridge- 
 port, Conn. I represent, in opposition to this measure, the American 
 Anti-Boycott Association. That organization, as has been previously 
 stated to this committee, was formed for the purpose of resisting the 
 boycott and for the purpose of preserving and getting enforced the 
 laws for the protection of the right of every man to run his own 
 business and the right of every man to work, whether he belonged to 
 a union or not. As I explained here before, owing to the circum- 
 stances under which that organization was formed, its membership 
 was private ; but I would say that it includes a very large number of 
 manufacturers all over the United States whose capital invested 
 amounts to very many hundreds of millions of dollars, and who em- 
 ploy many hundreds of thousands of workingmen. They regard this 
 measure as an attempt to boycott, by law, every concern in the coun-, 
 try doing business with the United States Government who will not 
 consent to run their business on' an eight-hour basis. 
 
 I will endeavor, now, to talk about this proposition as a business 
 proposition. There seems to be no dispute between the proponents 
 of this measure and its opponents as to the real purpose of this legis- 
 lation. You know that it has been the subject of consideration for 
 many years by this committee and the Senate Committee on Educa- 
 tion and Labor, and throughput all those hearings it has been con- 
 tended by those who oppose it that the effect of it would be to compel 
 every concern that does business with the Government, under the 
 provisions of this bill, to run their shops exclusively on an eight-hour 
 
102 EIGHT HOURS FOR LABORERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. 
 
 basis, and such has been the confession and avowed purpose of those 
 who favor it. 
 
 At a hearing held before this committee in 1902 the distinguished 
 president of the American Federation of Labor, Mr. Gompers, stated 
 it very concisely in the following words : 
 
 Judge Payson did me the bonor and did our movement the honor to state 
 candidly our position, so far as this bill is concerned. That is what we hope to 
 accomplish. We believe exactly what some of the employers who have ap- 
 peared before this committee and other committees upon the subject say. We 
 believe it will not be long when the eight-hour law shall pass ; and I trust it 
 may pass. If this bill 
 
 this very bill 
 
 shall become a law it will not long be possible to operate one branch of a plant 
 on the eight-hour basis and another upon the ten-hour basis. No ; we know 
 what the effect of it will be, and it is because they. too. know the effect of what 
 that law would be tha-t they oppose it. But we say that they are standing in 
 their own light in opposing It, and that they ai'e doing themselves a wrong, and 
 that they are belittling their own intelligence and foresight In so doing. 
 
 That such is the purpose of those Avho advocate this legislation and 
 such will be the necessary effect of its operation we may take as es- 
 tablished. And that brings up, then, the very interesting question 
 whether or not it is for the interest of the Government of the United 
 States to enact such a measure into law, whether it will be for the 
 interest of that large portion of the community who own and operate 
 plants — manufacturing plants — and whether it will be for the interest 
 of the employees and the working people generally of the country, as 
 well as that greater body of citizens who are neither in the ranks of 
 organized labor nor are engaged in mamifacturing, but are citizens 
 of our country and taxpayers. I am going to try to talk to you gen- 
 tlemen as regards this matter in the light of a business proposition. , 
 
 Mr. GoEBEL. Let me interrupt you just there before you get on to 
 that. Leave out, now, for the moment, the inconvenience or the addi- 
 tional expense or the impossibility of operating one part of a plant for 
 eight hours and another part for ten hours. I say leave all that out 
 for the moment, do you not think as a general proposition that it is 
 better for, this country to get down to an eight-hour basis ? 
 
 Mr. Davenport. Oh, I think not. It is not only getting down to an 
 eight-hour basis, you must remember, but it is absolutely prohibiting 
 anybody working more than eight hours, and such ii condition as 
 that ■ 
 
 Mr. GoEBEL. I was not speaking particularlj^ with reference to this 
 bill. I was speaking upon the general proposition, whether it would 
 not be far better for the country and better for the laboring man and 
 better for the employer if we do really get down to an eight-hour 
 basis? 
 
 Mr. Davenport. That is, not to work more than eight hours a day ? 
 
 Mr. Goebel. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Davenport. I do not. I think it would be a most unfortunate 
 condition of affairs, and as I have often said, it would be the most 
 unpopular measure that could ever be attempted, as I will attempt 
 to illustrate a little further on. 
 
 Mr. Conner. Answer me this questicfii: "Would you be opposed to 
 the eight-hour day if it could be brought about without an eight-hour 
 liiw? 
 
EIGHT HOTJBS FOB LABORERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. 103 
 
 Mr. Davenport. That is to say, to have that a standard of work, 
 the normal day's work, with the privilege of everybody working 
 longer if they desired ? 
 
 Mr. Conner. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Davenport. Answering it categorically, I would say no; I 
 would not be in favor of that. But, gentlemen, I was about to say 
 that you are the legislative department of this Government and you 
 are asked to enact a law which shall command the officers of the de- 
 partment whose business it is to make contracts for work in behalf of 
 the Government to exact certain stipulations in the contracts which 
 they make. I take it that you all feel your responsibility as repre- 
 pentatives of the American people, as representative of the taxpayers, 
 and you feel the responsibility to have the Government of the United 
 States conducted as economically and as wisely and as efficiently as it 
 is possible to do it. You do not want to waste the money of the tax- 
 payers; you do not want to impose upon the officers of the Govern- 
 ment impossibilities, to increase their difficulties ; you do not want to 
 impair the efficiency of the Government as a great business machine, 
 and it is my purpose to say something now upon that phase of the 
 matter. ^ 
 
 Naturally the first question that occurs to you is, What is the ex- 
 isting law upon this subject? How long has it been in force and 
 operation? What has been the effect of it? Is the policy a wise 
 one? Has it been proved to be a wise one so far as it has already 
 gone and been applied? If so, would it be wise to extend it in any 
 direction, and especially in the direction which is contemplated by 
 this measure? 
 
 The next thing you naturally want to know is, AVhat, precisely, 
 is this bill; what are its provisions; what does it cover? And the 
 next question would be, What will be the effect of such a bill, first, 
 upon the Govei-nment, and, second, upon the great business interests 
 of the country who have dealings directly or indirectly with the Gov- 
 ernment, and, third, upon the business affairs of the country gener- 
 ally? 
 
 It is probably known to you that in 1868 Congress passed a law 
 providing that eight hours should constitute a legal day's work. It 
 was enacted on the 25th of June, 1868 : 
 
 That eight hours shall constitute a, day's work for all laborers, workmen, and 
 mechanics now employed or who may hereafter be employed by or on behalf of 
 the Government of the United States, and that all acts and parts of acts 
 inconsistent with this act be, and the same hereby are, repealed. 
 
 When that law took effect the different officers of the Government 
 whose business it was to act under it assvimed.that, as in fact it did, 
 it made eight hours a standard for a day's work, and in administer- 
 ing it they proceeded to consider that while it cut down the hours 
 of work it also justified them in reducing the pay of the employees. 
 Thereupon President Grant issued a proclamation on the 19th of 
 May, 1869, which said : 
 
 That from and after this date no reduction shall be made in the wages paid 
 by the Government by the day to such laborers, workmen, and mechanics on 
 account of any such reduction of hours of labor. 
 
 Later, in May, 1872, President Grant issued a second proclamation 
 referring to the former. 
 Mr. NoRRis. ^Vhat year was that last one ? 
 
104 EIGHT HOURS FOB LABOREES ON GOVERNMENT WORK. 
 
 Mr. Daa'enpoet. 1872. 
 
 Mr. NoREis. I thought you said 1862. 
 
 Mr. Davenport. Among other things he said : 
 
 And whereas it is now represented to me that the act of Congress and the 
 proclamation aforesaid have not been strictly observed by all officers of the 
 Government having charge of such laborers, workmen, and mechanics ; now, 
 therefore, I, Ulysses S. Grant, President of the United States, do again call 
 attention to the aforesaid act, and direct all officers of the Executive Depart- 
 ment of the Government having charge of the employment and pay of laborers, 
 workmen, and mechanics, employed by or on behalf of the Government of the 
 United States to make no reduction in the wages paid (or the Government by 
 the day for such laborers, workmen, and mechanics on account of the reduction 
 of the hours of labor. 
 
 Seven days later Congress passed this act : 
 
 That the proper accounting officers be, and hereby are, authorized and re- 
 quired, in the settlement of all accounts for the services of laborers, workmen, 
 and mechanics employed by or on behalf of the Government of the United 
 States between the twenty-fifth day of June, eighteen hundred and sixty-eight, 
 'the date of the act constituting eight hours a day's work for all such workmen, 
 laborers, and mechanics, and the nineteenth day of May, eighteen hundred and 
 sixty-nine, the day of the proclamation of the President concerning such pay, 
 to settle and pay for the same without reduction on account of reduction of 
 hours of labor by said act when it shall be made to appear that such was the 
 sole cause of the reduction of wages, and a sufficient sum for said purpose is 
 hereby appi-opriated out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appro- 
 priated. 
 
 In other words, Congress passed this act to pay those workmen 
 whose wages had been reduced on account of, the reduction of the 
 hours of labor between the time of the passage of the act of 1868 and 
 the date of the proclamation of President Grant, to reimburse them, 
 and the next piece of legislation we find on the subject is in the urgent 
 deficiency bill of May 30, 1888, when it was enacted : 
 
 And the Public Printer is hereby directed to rigidly enforce the provisions of 
 the eight-hour law in the department under his charge. 
 
 On the 24th of May, 1888, in an act it was provided : 
 
 That hereafter eight hours shall constitute a day's work for letter carriers 
 in cities or postal districts thereof, for which they shall receive the same pay 
 as is now paid for a day's work of a greater number of hours. If any letter 
 carrier is employed a greater number of hours than eight, he shall be paid 
 extra for the same in proportion to" the salary now fixed by law. 
 
 The Department of Justice had hejd : 
 
 That the provisions of the act of June 25, 1868, were not applicable to me- 
 chanics, workmen, and laborers who are in the employ of a contractor with the 
 United States. That act was not intended to extend to any others than the 
 immediate employees of the Government. 
 
 So that this may be* fairly stated to be the fact, that in 1868 Con- 
 gress enacted a law which made the standard day's labor eight hours, 
 and by act of the Executive the same pay was required to be given 
 for the eight hours that had been previously given for a ten-hour 
 day, and that the Congress had to reimburse and pay those workmen 
 whose pay had been reduced prior to the Executive action, and that 
 they made the same rules specifically in regard to those in the public 
 printing establishment and the letter carriers. 
 
 Mr. GoMPERS. May I interrupt you for a moment, not to make any 
 other observation than I believe you would have appear in the record 
 for the sake of accuracy ? 
 
EIGHT HOURS FOE LABORERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. 105 
 
 Mr. Davenport. Very well. 
 
 Mr. GoJiPERS. You made the statement that the proclamation of 
 President Grant was that the pay for the eight -hour day should be 
 the same as for the ten-hour day. I think you will not dispute that 
 the hours of labor of many of the employees were nine, some more 
 than ten. I merely wanted to have the correction go in that it was 
 the eight-hour day as against the longer workday. 
 
 Mr. Davenport. Why, ]Mr. Gompers, 1 think it is correct to state 
 that the action of the Executive Department was to pay for the eight- 
 hour day whatever they had received for the longer days, but there 
 was nothing in the law which prohibited anybody working more than 
 eight hours. The law contemplated that they should be permitted 
 to work more than eight hours and should be paid for the overtime. 
 
 Mr. GoEBEL. But did not that only apply to the Departments? 
 
 Mr. Davenport. No, sir; it applied to others. We have an eight- 
 hour law in my own State. The Connecticut legislature about the 
 same time, I think, in 1868, declared that in the absence of an agree- 
 ment eight hours should constitute a legal day's work. 
 
 Mr. Hunt (to Mr. Goebel). It applied to the custom-house in your 
 State about that time. 
 
 Mr. Davenport. Now we come down to the year 1892, when an act 
 was passed to which I invite the careful attention of the members 
 of this committee as well as all others who are interested in this 
 subject. It is chapter 352 of the acts of 1892, whatever the session 
 of Congress was. This chapter is as follows : 
 
 Chap. 352.— AN ACT Relating to the limitation of the hours of daily sevvice of laborers and 
 menhanios employed upon the public works of the United States and the District of Co- 
 lumbia. 
 
 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States 
 of America in Congress assembled, That the service and employment of all 
 laborers and mechanics who are now or may hereafter be employed by the 
 Government of the United States, by the District of Columbia, or by any con- 
 tractor or subcontractor upon any of the public works of the United States or 
 of the Said District of Columbia, is hereby limited and restricted to eight 
 hours in any one calendar day, and it shall be unlawful for any officer of the 
 United States Government or of the District of Columbia or any such contractor 
 or subcontractor whose duty it shall be to employ, direct, or control the 
 services of such laborers or mechanics to require or permit any such laborer 
 or mechanic to work more than eight hours in any calendar day except in case of 
 extraordinary emergency. 
 
 Sec. 2. That any officer or agent of the Government of the United States 
 or of the District of Columbia or any contractor or subcontractor whose duty 
 it shall be to employ, direct, or control any laborer or mechanic employed 
 upon any of the public works of the United States or of the District of Co- 
 lumbia who shall intentionally violate any provision of this act shall be 
 deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and for each and every such offense shall 
 uppn conviction be punished by a fine not to exceed one thousand dollars or by 
 imprisonment for not more than six months, or by both such fine and imprison- 
 ment, in the discretion of the court having jurisdiction thereof. 
 
 Sec. 3. The provisions of this act shall not be so construed as to in any manner 
 apply to or affect contractors or subcontractors or to limit the hours of daily 
 service of laborers or mechanics engaged upon the public works of the United 
 States or of the District of Columbia for which contracts have been entered 
 into prior to the passage of this act. 
 
 Now, that is the law to-day. Soon after the passage of that law 
 the Attorney-General of the United States was called upon to inter- 
 pret it, and suffice it to say for the present that he very much re- 
 stricted the scope of it by the interpretation that he put upon it. 
 
106 EIGHT HOURS FOR LABORERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. 
 
 That law the officers of the Government have been working under 
 since. You will notice that it relates to all laborers and mechanics 
 who are now or may hereafter be employed by the Government of 
 the United States, the District of Columbia, or by any contractor or 
 subcontractor upon any of the public works of the United States or 
 of the said District of Columbia, and no contractor and no officer of 
 the Government and no subcontractor can intentionally permit any 
 person to work more than eight hours in a calendar day without be- 
 ing liable, unless it be in the case of an extraordinary^ emergency. 
 
 Mr. GoEBEL. Let me ask you, "What was the restriction of the At- 
 torney-General in that regard? You say that he limited it. 
 
 Mr. Davenpoet. This was the substance of it: 
 
 The act of August 1, 1892, chapter 352, is of general application, and the 
 limitation as to public works in said act applies only to such persons as are 
 in the employ of contractors and subcontractors. Whether or not specified 
 persons are such laborers is a question of fact not for the Attorney-General 
 to determine. 
 
 This opinion was by Attorney-General Miller, and later Mr. Olney 
 when Attorney-General, in 1894, made another ruling. Now, what 
 I am bringing your attention directly to in connection with this 
 bill is that the representatives of organized labor have been endeav- 
 oring from that day to get some further legislation along the same 
 lines. It has taken all sorts of forms. It has taken all sorts of 
 methods. But they have persistenly pursued before the committees 
 of Congress legislation having that end in view, and have now asked 
 this committee to report a particular measure, which is that known 
 as the Gardner bill, and, as I said when I began, the first question 
 that we want to consider is, Wliat is the scope of that law? What 
 does it cover? How does it change the existing law ? 
 
 Now, I will read the bill, so that we may see precisely what is 
 apparently covered by its language : 
 
 That each and every contract hereafter made to which the United States, 
 any Territory, or the District of Columbia is a party, and every such contract 
 made for or on behalf of the United States or any Territory or said District, 
 which may require or involve the employment of laborers or mechanics, shall 
 contain a provision that no laborer or mechanic doing any part of the work 
 contemplated by the contract, in the employ of the contractor or any subcon- 
 tractor contracting for any part of said work contemplated, shall be required 
 or permitted to work more than eight hours in any one calendar day. 
 
 And then it goes on to provide that each contract shall contain a 
 stipulation, and so forth. • 
 
 The first question that occurs to any thoughtful man is. Does that 
 law embrace the contracts that are covered by the act of 1892? 
 
 Mr. GoEBEL. Right there I want to ask a question. The act of 
 1892 provides that no contractor or subcontractor shall be required 
 to work more than eight hours. 
 
 Mr. Daveni'ort. No employee. 
 
 Mr. Goebel. No emjjloyee, and so on. Now, there is the act, which 
 expressly prohibits more than eight hours. Does not this simply 
 stipulate that that contract, now, shall contain simply this clause? 
 Is it anything more than that? 
 
 Mr. Davenport. Noav, is it? 
 
 Mr. Goebel. I will ask you that; and does it change the existing 
 law? 
 
EIGHT HOURS FOE LABOBEES ON GOVEENMEXT WOEK. 107 
 
 Mr. Davenport. I will ask Mr. Gompers, who is a highly intelli- 
 gent man, and who has given great consideration to these matters, 
 and who is urging this bill, whether or not he understands that this 
 law, if it was passed, would relate to the contracts for the public 
 works of the United States and in the District if Columbia. 
 
 I want simply to have you state whether or not it is your concep- 
 tion of this bill that, for instance, i'f the Government of the United 
 States was to contract to build another building like these two office 
 buildings that are in process of erection here, or if the District of 
 ■Columbia was to contract to erect another building, whether or not 
 this bill would relate to those contracts? 
 
 Mr. GosiPERs. Well, if the gentleman wants me to answer a ques- 
 tion of such importance 
 
 Mr. Davexport. "Well. 
 
 Mr. Gompers (continuing). Categorically, yes or no, I must de- 
 cline to do so. 
 
 Mr. Davenport. Yei'y well. 
 
 Mr. Gompers. If he will give me about two minutes, I think that 
 I could. 
 
 Mr. Davenport. I will give you two minutes. 
 
 Mr. Gompers. Very well. See if I can not do it, by the clock. 
 
 Mr. Davenport. I will not hold the watch on him, either. 
 
 Mr. Gompers. Very well. 
 
 Mr. Davenport. I have no doubt that he will endeavor to do it. 
 
 Mr. Gompers. Having been associated with the friends of labor 
 for more than thirty years in the effort to secure an eight-hour law, 
 the existing law and the amendments since that law, I think I am in 
 a fair position to say that by the law of August 1, 1892, it was the 
 intention of the designers of the present law, as well as it was the 
 intention of those Members of Congress and others with whom we 
 were associated in passing the bill and in urging its passage before 
 Congress, that the then bill and the present bill, if enacted, should 
 a,pply to the contractors and subcontractors. 
 
 If you will read the opinions rendered by the Attorney-General 
 you will find he makes reference to a comma, either rightly or 
 Tvrongly placed in the engrossing, which changed the very purpose 
 of the law and which gave him either the opportunity or the right 
 to say that it limited the intention and puri^ose of the law. The 
 jaresent bill, the Gardner bill, after going through various phases of 
 elimination, in its present form is the expression of what we hope 
 to accomplish ; and upon the interpretation of the words " Govern- 
 ment work " we believe that the intention of the law was not only to 
 cover Government work, but work done for the Government, and 
 this bill is to provide in contract form for that which was the pur- 
 pose of the law of 1892. for the recognition and establishment of the 
 eight-hour day applied to laborers, whether employed by the Govern- 
 ment direct or on Government works, by the contractors or subcon- 
 tractors on Government works, or work done for the Government, 
 other than can be bought in the open market. 
 
 Mr. Davenport. I understand, then, Mr. Gompers's conception 
 of this bill to be that it would apply to the very things that are 
 covered by the act of 1892, and he further says that it is the hope 
 and expectation to have it apply to things that they thought were 
 covered, but which on construction were held not to be covered. In 
 
108 EIGHT HOURS FOE LABORERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. 
 
 other words, if a contractor contracts to build a building for the 
 United States Government here in the District of Columbia or any- 
 where in the United States, to build the Panama Canal, or a fort, the 
 innumerable things that we call public works within the definition 
 of it will be subject not only to the act of 1892 but to the present 
 proposed act. That was my un4erstanding of the law. I supposed 
 that the matter was so plain that nobody could have any doubt about 
 it. • If a contractor working upon this building down here, provided 
 this law had been in force, voluntarily required or permitted a man 
 to work more than eight hours, he would be guilty of a misdemeanor 
 and would be liable to punishment. 
 
 Mr. GoEBBL. Are you speaking under the act of 1892? 
 
 Mr. Davenport, "i'es. And if this law applied further than that, 
 he would be liable to the penalty of $5 for each man that he per- 
 mitted to work more than eight hours in any one calendar day. 
 
 Mr. GoEBEL. If that be true, what is the objection to this provi- 
 sion that there might be inserted in the contract that the hours shall 
 be only eight? 
 
 Mr. Davenport. Oh, I am coming to that. You divert me for 
 the moment from what I wanted to say. 
 
 Mr. GoEBEL. I did not intend to do that. 
 
 Mr. DA\rENPOET. Is not that too plain for question, that when 
 anybody is called on to make a contract for the building of a build- 
 ing here, or for the Government of the United States anywhere, that 
 they have got to stipulate in that contract that in case he permits a 
 man to work more than eight hours a day he will pay or forfeit $6 ? 
 
 Now, if that is true, the bill would apply to public works as fol- 
 lows: 
 
 (o) Buildings, ineluding structural steel, stoue, and other contract work 
 entering into tbe buildings. 
 
 (6) Fortications, with similar inclusions. 
 
 (c) River and harbor contract work, with similar inclusions. 
 
 Mr. Metcalf was called upon to give this committee certain advice 
 with regard to it. The bill was not the same as this, but in this 
 respect it was the same. What was the opinion of the solicitor of the 
 Department? You will observe tha,t in the concluding portion of 
 this bill there is this language : 
 
 Nothing in this act shall be construed to repeal or modify chapter three hun- 
 dred and 'fifty-two of the laws of the Fifty-second Congress, approved August 
 first, eighteen hundred and ninety-two, or as an attempt to abridge the pardon- 
 ing power of the Executive. 
 
 Apparently that was put in there for the purpose of preserving the 
 criminal features of the law so far as it relates to the class of work 
 covered by the act of 1892. The acting commissioner says in his 
 letter to the Secretary of Commerce and Labor : 
 
 It would seem necessary, also, to consider the effect of the last sentence in 
 the bill so far as it concerns the law of August 1, 1892. Should this sentence 
 add nothing to that law, it would probably remove from the " articles and mate- 
 rials " to be covered the items of public works (a), (6), and (c), referred to 
 above. 
 
 Mr. Metcalf says on page 19 of his report : 
 
 It should be stated in this connection that the Solicitor of the Department 
 supplemented the report made in the above letter by a verbal statement to the 
 effect that, according to his interpretation of the last sentence in the bill, the 
 
EIGHT HOURS FOB LABORERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. 109 
 
 contracts fajling within the scope of the law of August 1, 1892, would not be 
 affected in any way by the proposed bill, but would continue to be governed by 
 the provisions of that law. 
 
 There is the law officer of this Department called upon to construe 
 this law, and he advises the Secretary of Commerce and Labor that 
 the scope of this bill and the phraseology of this bill are such that 
 the very class of contracts which the drafter of this bill sought to 
 co^-er, and which Mr. Gompers says he considers is covered, is not 
 covered by it at all. Of course you can see the position in which it 
 would at once place the officers of the Government who are called upon 
 to make these contracts, the uncertainty, the confusion, the absolute 
 doubt as to whether or not the great class of works which the advo- 
 cates of this measure seek to cover by this measure are covered by it 
 or not. 
 
 Mr. GoEBEL. The effect of that would simply be that it does not 
 carry out or include those items which Mr. Gompers 
 
 Mr. Davenport. Why, of course it would be, if it was true. 
 
 Mr. Gompers. This bill is simply supplementary to the existing 
 law. 
 
 Mr. Davenport. In other words, the criminal provisions apply, and 
 also the contract provisions apply. 
 
 Mr. Gompers. No. 
 
 Mr. Davenport. Certainly. 
 
 Mr. Gompers. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Davenport. It is supplemental. That is the conception that 
 Judge Goebel has of it. And yet I see here, when the law officer of 
 the Department of Commerce and Labor was called upon to construe 
 this bill, the Secretary said: 
 
 It should be stated in this connection that the Solicitor of the Department 
 supplemented the report made in the g.bove letter by a verbal satemeut to the 
 effect that, according to his interpretation of the last sentence in the bill, the 
 contracts falling within the scope of the law of August 1, 1892, would not be 
 affected in any way by the proposed bill, but would continue to be governed by 
 the provisions of that law. 
 
 Mr. Goebel. That had only reference to the criminal part, did it 
 not? 
 
 Mr. Davenport. That the contracts would not be affected? 
 
 Mr. Goebel. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Davenport. The contracts falling within the scope of the law 
 of August 1, 1892, would not be affected. In other words, every con- 
 tract that relates to the public works of the United States would not 
 be within the provisions of this law. 
 
 Mr. Goebel. In other words, to put it the other way, it would be 
 under the act of 1892? 
 
 Mr. Davenport. That is to say, that so far as the act of 1892 is 
 concerned, if a contractor or subcontractor or officer of the Govern- 
 ment intentionally violated the law they would be subject to a crimi- 
 nal prosecution. 
 
 Mr. Goebel. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Davenport. But the contractors for any such kind of work as 
 that would not be within the provisions of this bill, this proposed 
 law. They would not be required, nor would they be authorized, to 
 insert in any contract they made, for instance, for the building of 
 a capitol or a post-office or a light-house, or for doing the work upon 
 
110 EIGHT HOURS FOR LABORERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. 
 
 the canal, or for any other of the vast number of things which the 
 Government builds, any such provision; and these things which are 
 covered by the definition of " public works " would not be within the 
 provisions of this bill at all. 
 
 ]Mr. GoEBEL. AVhy, it would come under the provisions of this bill. 
 
 Mr. Davenport. Why, I said, and I have always thought, and Mr. 
 Gompers thought and still thinks, and it was, I thought, the opinion 
 of everyone that heard the language read, that every contract for the 
 Government, whether it related to public work or whether it related 
 to things that were furnished to the Government under contract, 
 would be covered by the provisions of this bell. But that is not the 
 construction which the Department of Commerce and Labor put upon 
 this bill in giving its advice to this committee. I say " this bill," 
 because the provisions of the bill that was referred to them and the 
 provisions of this bill are identical. 
 
 Mr. Goebel. Then the only effect that that would have is that it 
 does not go as far as the proponents of it would like it to go or 
 expect it to go? 
 
 Mr. Davenport. If I have succeeded in the purpose that I had in 
 mind, it was to show to this committee the absolute uncertainty that 
 would exist in the mind of every person who was called upon to 
 contract for that kind of work whether or not they were covered 
 by it ; the officers of the Government could not tell, and as a business 
 proposition, running the Government on business principles, do 
 you want to enact a law with any such provision as that in it, so 
 obscure? It is a vital defect in the bill. It is a thing that needs 
 to be very carefully considered. The effect of it would be disas- 
 trous to the business of the Government. 
 
 Now, if you take any particular construction you will find your- 
 self in the same difficulty in regard to that. You make the doing of 
 a certain thing a criminal offense, permitting a man to work more 
 than eight hours. That is a crime. You insert in the contract a 
 provision that if he commits that crime, he shall, in addition to the 
 criminal liability, be subject to a forfeiture under the terms of his 
 contract. At once you make a great distinction between the classes 
 of contractors. Those who are doing work upon what are known as 
 public works are subject not only to the criminal provisions of this 
 bill, but they are subject also to the enormous penalty of $5 for each 
 man each day that is permitted to work upon it, not only whether 
 they intentionally violate that law or whether they involuntarily 
 do it; whether it is done by them directly or by their agents or by 
 their employees. 
 
 Mr. Conner. I understand, according to the opinion that you have 
 read, this law would not apply 
 
 Mr. Davenport. It would not apply to the Panama Canal, foi 
 instance. 
 
 Mr. Conner. It would not apply to the works which are included 
 and described by " public works ? " 
 
 Mr. Davenport. That is everything. 
 
 Mr. Conner. That that is covered by the law of 1892? 
 
 Mr. Davenport. And that alone. That all those matters are 
 covered by that law. 
 
 Mr. Conner. If that is true, that is good law; these additional 
 penalties would not apply to that kind of work. 
 
EIGHT HOURS FOR LABORERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. Ill 
 
 Mr. Davenport. To that kind of work, but it would apply to all 
 other kinds of work. Which is right? Is the opinion of the Solic- 
 itor right, or is the opinion of Mr. Gompers or myself or any other 
 gentleman who reads this correct? Can language be any more 
 comprehensive than this : 
 
 That each and every contract hereafter made to which the United States, any 
 Territory, or tlie District of Columbia is .1 party, and every such contract made 
 for or on behalf of the United States or any Territory or said District which 
 may require or involve the employment of laborers or mechanics, shall contain 
 a provision that no laborer or mechanic doing any part of the worli contemplated 
 by the contract, etc. 
 
 It covers every kind of contract. It is broad enough to cover the 
 contracts that are pro\'ided or dealt with under the act of 189'2. 
 
 Mr. NoRRis. I presume the opinion of the Solicitor cited there by 
 ]\Ir. Metcalf , that oral opinion, has the effect merely of making every- 
 thing covered by the existing law an exception to this law ? 
 
 Mr. Davenport. Yes ; and it makes it so doubtful that nobody can 
 lell; that is the point. Now, you can begin and take this bill from 
 beginning to end, and if you pass it you impose upon your officers the 
 duty of interpreting it and applying it. No mortal man can tell to 
 Avhat it does apply, what is its scope, what the scope of that law is, 
 and if you are faithful servants of the people and expecting to do 
 your duty, as doubtless you are, in instructing these executive officers 
 it will be necessary to provide a law which is intelligible ; otherwise it 
 would seem as though the business of the Government of the United 
 States was to be practically paralyzed because the officers would not 
 know Avhat to do, the parties to that contract would not know what 
 to do, what the liabilities would be, and it would only be when some- 
 body had made a contract and it had been tested in the court or had 
 gone through in some form or other to an adjudication that anybody 
 could know where he stood". And I say, as a business man talking to 
 business men, do you want to put the business of the Goveriunent of 
 the United States in any such condition? 
 
 But that is the only one striking trouble about this bill. We come 
 to the very first part of the bill, for it provides that every such con- 
 tract — 
 
 shall contain a provision that no laborer or mechanic doing any part of the work 
 .contemplated by the contract, in the employ of the contractor or any subcon- 
 tractor contracting for any part of said work contemplated shall be required 
 or permitted, etc. 
 
 "What does " subcontractor " cover? It is well known to those who 
 have to do with affairs of the Government or of any large establish- 
 ment that a contract is made by a contractor and he makes a number 
 of subcontracts with others, and they in turn make contracts with 
 others, and it ramifies and ramifies until there may be iOO contracts 
 of near or remote degree. Does that law reach beyond the first sub- 
 contractor ? 
 
 It is very easy for you gentlemen sitting around here to guess at it. 
 It is very easy for Mr. Gompers to say, " Well, I think it means 
 so and so." It is very easy for those gentlemen to say, " Well, let the 
 thing be settled by the courts." But as a practical proposition, when 
 men have immense sums of money depending upon it, what is the con- 
 struction that is going to be put upon that bill? It apparently is 
 penal. Its purpose is to punish a man for the heinous offense of 
 
112 EIGHT HOUES FOR LABORERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. 
 
 letting a man work more than eight hours a day. Is it to be con- 
 strued strictly, or is it to be construed broadly ? My own construction 
 o!E it, my own guess, is that it is intended to and probably does cover 
 every contractor, every subcontractor, and every subcontractor of a 
 subcontractor down to the remotest degree. The question imme- 
 diately occurs to any sensible man, any business man, How is the 
 contractor going to protect himself from this ? 
 
 Mr. NoEEis. On that proposition have you ever heard anyone ex- 
 press any doubt that your construction there is correct ? Is there any 
 doubt on the proposition ? 
 
 Mr. Davenport. I am going to call your attention to the innumer- 
 able holes and diflSculties that the Senate Committee on Education 
 and Labor found in this measure, and I think there is something bear- 
 ing upon that. But is it not a question of doubt? And as long as it 
 is a question of doubt, what is the officer of the Government going 
 to do ? 
 
 Mr. NoEEis. I do not think it is a question of doubt, myself. 
 
 Mr. Davenpoet. Well, is it so that in vast enterprises, when great 
 financial interests were involved to you, you would be sure that it 
 did not apply or did apply to subcontractors of subcontractors? 
 
 Mr. NoEEis. It would be just as sure as anything else. A man is 
 never sure of anything in this world but t,axes and death. 
 
 Mr. Davenport (continuing). Until the matter had been tried out 
 in the courts. 
 
 Mr. NoERis. But that would apply to any bill that anybody might 
 pass. 
 
 Mr. Davenport. Then, I assume that if the Congressman was an 
 officer of the Government making a contract for, say, a battle ship 
 he would expect to have the builder of the battle ship stipulate that 
 not only would he not permit or require any person to work more than 
 eight hours in any one calendar day, but that no subcontractor of 
 his, and that no subcontractor of that subcontractor would do so, 
 down to the remotest ramification. That being' the case, what could 
 the contractor do to protect himself from the risks that he would 
 run? This only provides that the penalty shall be withheld from 
 the compensation of the contractor. Now, how is the contractor 
 going to deal with the subcontractor? 
 
 Mr. Stanley. Not to interrupt you, if you were going to write 
 a bill — if the purpose of this bill were, and I think it is as Mr. 
 Norris has suggested, to bind every man, whether the original con- 
 tractor or any person laboring under him, to work not to exceed eight 
 hours a day, or upon the character of materials stipulated in this 
 contract 
 
 Mr. Davenpoet. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Stai?ley (continuing). Now, if you wanted to make that 
 specific, how else would you word it than this bill words it? 
 
 Mr. Davenport. If that is the purpose, I should think it could be 
 specifically stated. But the question is. Would any man in his senses, 
 acting for the Government of the United States, put any such pro- 
 vision as that in a bill ? Just follow it for a moment. 
 
 Mr. Noreis. Of course that is a reasonable' proposition, as I can 
 see, that you are making there; but how, as to the construction of 
 it \ 
 
EIGHT HOURS FOB LABORERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. 113 
 
 Mr. Stanley. I would like to hear him on that question- of the 
 advisability of it. 
 
 Mr. Davenpokt. I am going to call your attention to it. Of 
 course when he makes his subcontract he may say it is stipulated 
 that if you permit anybody to work more than eight hours a day, or 
 violate the bill 
 
 Mr. GoEBEL. '■ It is stipulated in my contract," he says : " not in 
 the subcontractor's contract, but in my contract." 
 
 Mr. Davenport. Yes; if you do it 
 
 Mr. GoEBEL. I am liable. 
 
 Mr. DA^-EXPORT. You are liable. But I am talking now about the 
 subcontractor, the contract that the contractor exacts from his subcon- 
 tractors. I want you to stipulate that if any of your employees or 
 subcontractors violate any of these provisions you shall pay me $5, 
 or it shall be withheld out of your compensation, or he has got to 
 get a bond out of him, one or the other. 
 
 Mr. GoEBEL. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Davenport. The subcontractor having done that, as is neces- 
 sary to be done, he in turn makes his subcontracts, and so you have 
 perhaps in the first, second, third, fourth, and fifth degrees a series 
 of contractors and of stipulations. 'Suppose it comes to pass that 
 an inspector or a person authorized to carry out this thing reports to 
 the proper officer of the Government that one of these subcontractors 
 has violated the provision ; that he has, under an emergency, perhaps, 
 let 500 men work ten days. 
 
 Mr. NoERis. Ten hours, j'ovi mean? 
 
 Mr. Davenport. Xo ; that he has let them work ten clays overtime. 
 That would be $25,000. What is going to happen under this bill in 
 such a case ? In the first place, by the terms of it, it is the duty of the 
 man that i3ays the bill to withhold that $25,000 from that contractor, 
 and there is no power on earth to rebate or remit any of that penalty 
 to that contractor. In the meantime, the subcontractor of the sub- 
 contractor says, " Why, what do you mean by this ? I have not done 
 anything of the kind. I have not violated anything. It is false." 
 Well, the contractor next above him finds himself in a very difficult 
 230sition, and so on up.. To bring the thing right down, at last the 
 subcontractor of the subcontractor brings a suit against the subcon- 
 tractor for his money according to the terms of his contract. Where 
 is that suit going to be brought ? It is an action at law ; if it is be- 
 tween citizens of the same State, it has got to be brought in a State 
 court. If it involves more than $20, it has got to be tried before a 
 jury, and there the question is fought out and determined, and the 
 jury finds either that the subcontractor of the subcontractor did not 
 violate the law or that in some way or other under some of the cir- 
 cumstances that subcontractor in some wa^' waived that provision in 
 his contract, and he is cast in damages. 
 
 That subcontractor has got to pay that bill. Suppose instead of 
 that it was the subcontractor himself, directly from the contractor. 
 Suppose it was the Carnegie Steel Company and the Cramp Ship- 
 building Company. They are both citizens of Pennsylvania. Do 
 you not see. gentlemen, as men of common sense, that you would put 
 that subcontractor between the upper and the nether millstones? 
 He has got to pay that bill to that subcontractor because the verdict 
 
 BH— 06 8 
 
114 BIGHT HOURS FOE LABOBEBS ON GOVEKKMENT V>'OEK., 
 
 of the jury has determined that he owes it, and on the other hand the 
 sum of money which he has received from the Government has been 
 covered into the Treasury, and remains there, and can not under the 
 provisions of this bill possibly be gotten out. Do you suppose that 
 the business affairs of this great Government in all these matters 
 where the Government buys everything from a taclv up to a battle 
 ship, when it is the largest and most diversified customer in the coun- 
 try, and perhaps in the world, can be coiiducted in any such way by 
 .your officers? Do you not know that every man ^\i\l absolutely re- 
 fuse, necessarily, to put himself under such onerous conditions as 
 that ? 
 
 Mr. Stanley. "Would not that be obviated by putting in the sub- 
 contract the same provision as the original contractor had, and will 
 it not be presumed that the jury will find the facts as they are? 
 
 Mr. Davenport. In other words, you would propose to shut out 
 the subcontractor from the privilege of showing that it is not true — 
 that he did not violate the contract? You see, it is the relation be- 
 tween two citizens of the same State. It is clear beyond the purview 
 of this law. There is nothing in this law that requires or author- 
 izes I 
 
 Mr. Stanley. In the State court that would be a valid defense if he 
 made the contract. 
 
 Mr. Davenport. What? 
 
 Mr. Stanley. That he did work them over eight hours. 
 
 Mr. Davenport. Yes; but if he did not? 
 
 Mr. Stanley. If he did not, the courts would so find. 
 
 Mr. Davenport. And if he did not, he would recover from his con- 
 tractor. 
 
 Mr. Stanley. Not at all. 
 
 Mr. Davenport. If he did not work them over eight hours. 
 
 Mr. GoEBEL. He would get his money. 
 
 Mr. Davenport. He would get his money. 
 
 Mr. Stanley. The money would not be covered into the Treasury 
 in that event. 
 
 Mr. Hunt. Is the subcontractor at the present time made a party 
 to the original contract? 
 
 Mr. Hayden. Never ; not in any contract with the Government. 
 
 Mr. Hunt. He is not held up by the contractor who contracts with 
 the Government ; he is not held up on the stipulations of the contract 
 exacted of him by the Government ? 
 
 Mr. Hayden. No, sir; it is only a bargain between the contractor 
 and the subcontractor. 
 
 Mr. Hunt. I asked as to the contractor. Is not the subcontractor 
 nnder the supervision the same as the original contractor, following 
 out certain specifications, details, etc., pertaining to the original con- 
 tract, and thereljy does it not become a part of the original contract? 
 
 Mr. Hayden. That depends upon the bargain between the con- 
 tractor and subcontractor. 
 
 Mr. Ht^nt. One moment. I would like to get my mind clear on 
 this. To begin with, I am not a lawyer. I haA^e signed a few con- 
 tracts in my time. My understanding of it is that where you are 
 the general contractor under the Government and I accept a subcon- 
 tract from you, I would become, by an exactment of yours, if not 
 an original or first party to the contract, at least a party to that con- 
 
EIGHT HOtTRS FOB LABORERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. 115 
 
 tract by you as the general contractor in order for you to protect 
 yourself against me. Is not that true? 
 
 Mr. Davenport. I do not think it is. 
 
 Mr. Stanley. He takes his contract subject to the pains and pen- 
 alties of the original form. 
 
 Mr. DA^'ENP0RT. The party takes his subcontract, and if the other 
 party does not pay him he goes into the State court, and it is not 
 within the power of Congress to keep him out of it. 
 
 Mr. Htjnt. Pardon me a monaent. Suppose that I subcontract 
 with you to build a screen. You are the general contractor. The 
 inspector comes along and finds something wrong with that screen. 
 Hunt goes to Mr. Davenport for his pay. Davenport says, " I can 
 not pay you for that screen; the Government inspector refuses to 
 receive it. Under your agreement with me you accepted the responsi- 
 bilities of the inspection, and until you satisfy the Government, Mr. 
 Hunt, I can not pay you for that screen." 
 
 Mr. Davenport. If stipulations of that kind are put in the con- 
 tract, of course it is so. 
 
 Mr. Hunt. Are they usually put in? 
 
 Mr. Davenport. I can not say. 
 
 Mr. Eainey. If this bill should become a law, your idea is that the 
 violation will probably be by some subcontractor who employs the 
 labor, if there is any violation? 
 
 Mr. Davenport. There may be no violation of it. 
 
 Mr. Eainet. If there is any violation it will be by the subcon- 
 tractor who employs the laborer? He will be the man who is amen- 
 able to this penalty ? 
 
 Mr. Davenport. Who? 
 
 Mr. Rainey. The subcontractor. 
 
 Mr. Davenport. No, sir; this law relates only to the contract be- 
 tween the contractor and the Government. 
 
 Mr. Goebel. Except that the contractor 
 
 Mr. Davenport. Could protect himself. 
 
 Mr. Goebel. Could protect himself. 
 
 Mr. Davenport. Protect himself the best he can. But he can not 
 protect himself so that the subcontractor can not go into a court and 
 according as the jury finds, recover. You know that not only could 
 he say that he had not broken his contract, but that if he had, the 
 other party had waived, by some conduct or other, the stipulations 
 of it. 
 
 Mr. Stanley. Do they not labor under these same hardships now ? 
 For instance, a contractor agrees to build this office building, arid he 
 agrees to put a certain kind of stone in it, and he goes to the sub- 
 contractor and contracts for the stone, and this man goes to a third 
 man for the cutting of it, and that is done in the State of New York. 
 The inspector refuses to take the stone, and the fifth contractor sues 
 the man just above him for the delivery of the stone. 
 
 Mr. Davenport. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Stanley. He might recover for the stone. 
 
 Mr. Conner. I desire to call attention to the fact that it is now 
 12 o'clock and the House is calling us. 
 
 (At 12 o'clock m. the committee adjourned until Monday, May 27, 
 1906, at 10.30 o'clock a. m.) 
 EH— 06 — ^9 
 
116 EIGHT HOURS FOE LABOREKS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. 
 
 Committee on Labor, 
 
 House or Representatives, 
 
 Monday, May 28, 1906. 
 The committee met at 10.45 o'clock a. m., Hon. John J. Gardner 
 (chairman) in the chair. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. DANIEL DAVENPORT— Continued. 
 
 Mr. Davenport. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Cowles, of Cleveland, who is 
 himself a contractor, as well as a subcontractor, for Government 
 work and who also represents the National Metal Trades, desires to 
 make a short statement, and he can not be here to-morrow, and with 
 the permission of the committee, af t«r going on for a while, I would 
 like to suspend my statement in order to give him an opportunity 
 to fit in his. 
 
 The Chairman. Perhaps it would be equally agreeable to let him 
 get his in now, and then you have the time remaining, so that there 
 would be no question about his finishing his statement. 
 
 Mr. Davenport. Which do you prefer, Mr. Cowles ? 
 . Mr. Cowles. I will do anything that is agreeable to the chairman 
 and yourself. 
 
 Mr. Davenport. How long a time do you want? 
 
 Mr. Cowles. I think twenty minutes or a half an hour would 
 cover anything that I have to say, without questions. 
 
 Mr. Davenport. After I have said a few things that I have to 
 say I will suspend and give Mr. Cowles an opportunity to make his 
 statement, and if there is any time left after he finishes I would 
 like to continue and discharge my obligations in this matter. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, I was calling attention the other day to a remark- 
 able outcome of the reference of the bill that was pending last year 
 to the Secretary of the Department of Commerce and Labor. The 
 interpretation of the law adviser of that official who construed this 
 bill, or rather the bill which was referred to them, which contains 
 the same provisions as this bill, was that it did not apply to any 
 of the public works of' the United States that are covered by the 
 act of 1892. I do not know whether your attention has been called 
 to that fact. I laiew how familiar you were with these matters. 
 
 The Chairman. Please state that again. 
 
 Mr. Davenport. The solicitor of the Department of Commerce and 
 Labor, being called upon by the Secretary of Commerce and Labor 
 to advise them as to the scope of the bill, which was referred to 
 them, expressed the opinion that it did not cover any of the works 
 or contracts which were embraced within the act of 1892. In other 
 words, all contracts which are made for the erection of public build- 
 ings, custom-houses, and light-houses, river and harbor work, the 
 Panama Canal, work done for the District of Columbia are not 
 covered by this bill, and it does not apply to them in any way. 
 
 The Chairman. I have not seen any such opinion. 
 
 Mr. GoEBEL. But the act of 1892 does apply to all those? 
 
 Mr. Daa'enport. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. GoEBEL. And the purpose of this bill is to include all that has 
 not been included. 
 
 Mr. Davenport. That is not the opinion. 
 
EIGHT HOI'ES FOR LABORERS OX GOVERNMENT V\-OKK. Il7 
 
 The Chaihmax. The language is. " Nothing in this act shall be 
 construed to repeal or modify." 
 
 Mr. Davenport. Yes; and the effect of that is to except from the 
 operation of this bill, according to the opinion of the solicitor, all 
 such matters. 
 
 The Chairman. That might be so in the opinion of the solicitor. 
 That would not be so in Xew Jersey. To " repeal or modify " does 
 not prevent the extension or limit it. 
 
 Mr. Davenport. I drew attention to the fact of the peculiar 
 phraseology of this bill and the many uncertainties pertaining to it, 
 and that is one. Xow. I want to call the attention of the chairman 
 to this 
 
 Mr. NoRRis. I think you brought that out at the last hearing. 
 
 Mr. Conner. The chairman was not here at the last hearing. 
 
 Mr. NoRRis. Oh, yes. 
 
 Mr. Davenport. Mr. Gardner was not here. The Secretary of 
 Commerce and Labor said : 
 
 It should be stated in this connection that the solicitor of the Department 
 supplemented the report made in the above letter by a verbal statement to the 
 effect that, according to his interpretation of the last sentence in the bill, the 
 contracts falling within the scope of the law of August 1, 1892, would not be 
 affected in any way by the proposed bill, but would continue to be governed by 
 the provisions of that law. 
 
 That was evoked by the statement in the letter of Mr. Hanger, the 
 Acting Commissioner, to the solicitor, in which he called attention to 
 this. He said: 
 
 It would seem necessary, also, to consider the effect of the last sentence in 
 the bill, so far as it concerns the law of August 1, 1892. Should this sentence 
 add nothing to that law, it would probably remove from the " articles and 
 materials" to be covered the items of public works (o), (6), and (c) referred 
 to above. I am not able to find, however, that this conclusion was reached by 
 anyone testifying before the committees. On the other hand, it was suggested 
 that it might add to the act of August 1, 1892, the penal clause contained in the 
 present act. The words " repeal or modify," however, contained in the last 
 sentence of the bill must be carefully considered in this connection. A copy of 
 the law of August 1, 1S92. is transmitted herewith. 
 
 The Chairman. Let me ask you this right there: I agree with 
 the solicitor on that, that as to the work done upon the public works 
 of the United States, all that this act was intended to do as to those 
 public works or those contracts was to reach over onto the adjoin- 
 ing lot. There has been no complaint from any source of the work- 
 ing of the act of 1892 on public buildings and public works, save one, 
 that contractors rent the adjoining property, and a large part of 
 the work is done on that leased ground, and being done on that 
 leased ground is held to be free from the act of 1892, because it is 
 not done on the public works of the United States. 
 
 Mr. Da^tenport. Mr. Chairman, the point is here : Is it your inten- 
 tion, or is it your construction of this act, rather, that if the govern- 
 ment of the District of Columbia shall hereafter make a contract or the 
 Government of the United States shall hereafter make any contract 
 for public works in the sense in which it has been used here, that the 
 contractor would have to sign a contract with a stipulation of this 
 kiid in it? 
 
 The Chairman. Beyond question. 
 
 Mr. Davenport. That is not the 
 
118 EIGHT HOXJHS FOR LABORERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. 
 
 The Chairman. The act of 1892 is a penal statute imposing pen- 
 alties for doing certain things. It says nothing about any contracts. 
 It is all said when it is said that it is a naked penal statute. This 
 act provides that every contract hereafter made on behalf of the 
 District of Columbia, etc., shall contain these clauses. 
 
 Mr. Davenport. I understood that that was the construction put 
 upon this act by those who drew it and favored it, and that it was 
 the construction put upon it by those who were opposed to it; but 
 the solicitor of the Department says that this proposed law does not 
 apply in any waA^ to those contracts. Those contracts that are cov- 
 ered by the act of 1892 are not touched. 
 
 Mr. GoEBBL. Now, grant that ; what of it ? 
 
 Mr. Davenport. The point that I was making in connection with 
 this, as in very many other respects that I will call your attention 
 to, was that this act as it stands is so obscure that it would be im- 
 possible of practical enforcement by the officers of the Government 
 to whom you are giving these instructions. The first question that 
 will arise is, What does this act mean? Now, of course everybody 
 that deals with the Government has got to have these matters set- 
 tled, and they have got to act upon it. If it does not apply to that 
 lot of contracts, it does not accomplish the purpose which those 
 who are advocating and urging this bill seek to accomplish by it. 
 
 Mr. GoBBEL. Then the act of 1892 applies in that instance, does 
 it not? 
 
 Mr. Davenport. It does, certainly ; but 
 
 Mr. GoEBEL. The purpose of this act is to include these things not 
 included in the act of 1892. 
 
 Mr. Davenport. You will observe that the chairman himself, who 
 is as familiar with this bill as anybody, insists that it does apply to 
 those. The practical question is whether this act as it does stand does 
 apply to those contracts. Here you have the law adviser of the Gov- 
 ernment saying that it does not. If it does not apply, then one of the 
 great purposes that those who advocate this legislation are seeking to 
 accomplish fails. But all the while there is the uncertainty as to 
 whether it does or not. Now, what makes that uncertainty? ~Ble- 
 cause this act provides that nothing in this act shall be construed to 
 repeal or modify chapter 352 of the acts of the Fifty-second Congress, 
 approved August 1, 1892. " To repeal or modify." 
 
 The act of 1892 is a very different act from this, because that, in the 
 first place, does not seek to make, of course, the contractor responsible 
 for the sins of the subcontractor ; neither does it make him responsi- 
 ble for any act unless it is an intentional violation by the party. You 
 are assuming to direct the officers of the Government as to what sort 
 of a contract they shall draw up and procure to be signed, and the 
 very first thing they are confronted with is the uncertainty as to 
 whether or not this law requires them to put such a stipulation in all 
 contracts that relate to the doing of public work, so called, which of 
 course you might say is the principal part of the Government work. 
 
 In the course of my remarks the other day, also, may it please the 
 chairman, I stated to the committee that the terms of this law applied 
 to the contract made by the contractor with the Government ; that it 
 did no reach over and attempt to control directly the contracts made 
 between the contractor and the subcontractor, and between the sub- 
 
EIGHT HOURS FOR LABORERS GST GGVERIs'^MENT WORK. 119 
 
 contractor and the subcontractors with him, and so on ; that its pro- 
 vision was that in every contract that was made the contractor would 
 have to stipulate that he would be responsible for all the acts of any 
 subcontractor down the line, or the agents or employees of such sub- 
 contractor, and the question arose, Hojr would the contractor protect 
 himself from such conduct, forbidden by this bill, on the part of his 
 subcontractor, his agents or employees, or his subcontractor or agents 
 or employees ? 
 
 Mr. GoEBEL. In what respect does this provision differ from any 
 other provision in the contract ? 
 
 Mr. Davenport. Let me call the attention of the committee to that 
 remarkable distinction. He would either have to ihsert a clause in 
 his contract with his subcontractor, stipulating that the amount of 
 moneys that he was to pay over to the subcontractor should be held 
 back to meet the amount of any penalties that were incurred by such 
 subcontractor, or his subcontractor, and so on, or he would have to 
 exact from that party a bond that he would pay, that he would hold 
 harmless and reimburse, the contractor. Now, there is this great 
 difference, that no man can tell the amount of the penalties which the 
 subcontractor may make the contractor liable for. 
 
 It may be that the subcontractor undertakes to build a machine that 
 is worth $500 for this contractor. He may, in doing that work, incur 
 $5,000 of penalties for the contractor; very easily if he puts men 
 enough at work upon the job at the close of the day to incur this pen- 
 alty. So that it would be utterly impossible as a business proposition 
 for any contractor to protect himself from the faults and failures of 
 the subcontractor. It might be illustrated. Judge Goebel, if we con- 
 sidered the contractor as, we will say, the main trunk of the tree. 
 It branches out into subcontractors, and then each subcontractor has a 
 lot of subcontractors, and so on. The remotest one in the line in 
 succession may incur a great amount of penalties for a very small 
 part of the work. 
 
 Now, the practical thing is that no contractor outside of bedlam 
 would ever sign such a contract, by which he became liable without 
 the possibility of protecting himself. In addition, as I pointed out, 
 the contractor having made this stipulation on the officer of the Gov- 
 ernment being notified of the fact of such violation, the Government 
 retains this money from the payments to the contractor, and that 
 money remains in the Treasury, and there is no possible way of get- 
 ting it out. 
 
 On the other hand, any one of these contractors or subcontractors 
 is at liberty to bring a suit on his contract with his contractor, the 
 other party to the contract, in the State court, and have the matter 
 tried and determined by a jury; and notwithstanding the fact that 
 the officer of the Government has peremptorily and tyrannically 
 ordered the paying officer — the disbursing officer — not to pay those 
 claims, and he can not get the money out, that jury may find either 
 that there has been no violation by the subcontractor, or the subcon- 
 tractor of any subcontractor at all, and he would recover in the suit 
 against the contractor, or they could find that that subcontractor had 
 in some cases waived the stipulation in his contract. 
 
 So that you put, as I said the other day, the contractor with the 
 Government between the upper and nether millstones, and again I 
 
120 EIGHT HOURS POK LABOEEES ON GOVBENMENT WOEK. 
 
 say that no sensible man, no contractor, would ever make such a con- 
 tract with the Government. And that brings us around to the ques- 
 tion, What is the Government going to do, in conducting its business, 
 if you enact a law of this kind ? 
 
 Mr. Hunt. One moment, while you are on that point. Could not 
 that subcontractor sue that general contractor, even if there were no 
 violation ? 
 
 Mr. Davenport. Certainly he could. 
 
 Mr. Htjnt (continuing). If he saw fit? His right as a citizen 
 would give him the right to sue, would it not? 
 
 Mr. Davenport. Yes; of course the contractor can stipulate as 
 agains\; that that the money that he is to pay shall not be paid 
 unless the work comes up to the specifications and all that. But here 
 is something that is wholly outside of that and is wholly uncertain 
 and on a $500 job might amount to $5,000, which the subcontractor 
 might have fastened upon the contractor. And is not the statement 
 'too plain for discussion that the effect of such a stipulation as this in 
 the contract would be, if there were nothing else in the matter, enough 
 to deter every contractor having business with the Government from 
 entering into such contracts and to make them cease Government 
 business altogether ? 
 
 It has been stated here by Mr. Gompers, and it has been stated here 
 very many times before by the representatives of organized labor, that 
 year after year they have been coming to this committee and to the 
 corresponding committee of the other body and begging and entreat- 
 ing and insisting upon legislation of this character. They have put 
 in their proof, they have presented their evidence, they have made 
 their statements, the other side have presented theirs, and yet session 
 after session of Congress has passed by without any action, and Mr. 
 Gompers insists that the time for action is again here. 
 
 Wliat has been the reason for the failure to act on the part of Con- 
 gress heretofore? Has it been because the members of this commit- 
 tee have been hostile to the working people of this country ? Every- 
 body knows that that is not so. Is it because the conunittee of the 
 Senate is hostile to them? Everybody knows that is not so. What 
 has been the reason for it? The reason is that no attempt that has 
 ever been made to deal with this question has ever resulted in any- 
 thing that is practicable and workable, and no Congressman or no 
 Senator who is not willing to write himself down incompetent has 
 ever deliberately in the end been able to support any legislation or any 
 measure that has been presented to the committees. 
 
 The other day I traced a little of the history of this legislation 
 down to 1892, when this act was put upon the statute books to which 
 reference has been made. That bill became at once unsatisfactory to 
 the representatives of organized labor, and from that time to this they 
 have been here demanding action, having in view the compelling of 
 contractors doing work for the Government to work their men upon 
 the eight-hour basis, and I can appeal to the chairman to confirm my 
 statement that every attempt that has been made hitherto by the 
 friends of such a movement has resulted in their falling back in utter 
 dismay as to the legislation sought to be obtained; and I want right 
 now to call the attention of the committee to a very interesting 
 colloquy that occurred in this very room in 1900 between his honor 
 the chairman and Judge Payson. 
 
EIGHT HOURS FOE LABORERS OX GOVERXMENT WORK. 121 
 
 This occurred on the 15th of February, 1900. Mind you, this was 
 eight years after the act of 1892 had been passed, and during every 
 session of Congress since that time Mr. Gompers and all his friends 
 and sympathizers and allies in politics and out had been endeavoring 
 to accomplish something in this direction. Mr. Payson said : 
 
 Before proceeding in an informal way, perhaps it would be better to under- 
 stand one another. The chairman of the committee announced when I was in 
 my seat that this bill originated in the committee; that nobody had requested 
 to be heard except those he mentioned, and I would be glad to ask the chair- 
 man exactly what he meant by that — that this bill originated in the committee — 
 that is, it was the bill that passed the last Congress? 
 
 The Ghaikman. What the Chair meant precisely by that is this : There is no 
 secret about it. 
 
 Mr. Payson. There ought not to be. 
 
 The Chairman. There have been bills — certainly a bill, and I think bills — 
 aiming at just what this bill aims at, so far as the intention goes, before the 
 Labor Committee of every Congress of which I have known anything by per- 
 sonal contact. They have always been favored and contested here in com- 
 mittee during the whole of Congress and have generally gone down, I think, 
 for the reason that the fullest discussion of them has seemed to develop the 
 fact that none of the bills, if passed, would accomplish the end at which they 
 have been aimed. 
 
 Mr. Payson. To wit? 
 
 The Chairman. The reaching of work done for the Government of the 
 United States by contract or otherwise. That has always been the expressed 
 desire of those who have appeared in behalf of the measure, and I think I am 
 correct in saying — Jlr. Morrison, I think you have nearly always been present? 
 
 Mr. Morrison. Yes, sir. 
 
 The Chairman (continuing). That the bill has finally met its fate because 
 its friends have become convinced that it would not reach the contracts at 
 which it was aiming. In the last session, a number of such bills coming in, the 
 chairman of this committee was requested to put in form, if possible, and in 
 constitutional form, the objects that had been sought by such attempted legisla- 
 tion through several Congresses. The bill precisely, I believe, in the form, 
 with the exception of what we know as the Lacey proviso 
 
 Mr. Payson. I do not vemember that. 
 
 The Chairman. It is the one excepting public military or naval works in 
 time of war. So, so soon as the House met this year Mr. Sulzer introduced a 
 bill— 
 
 I suppose of like character to the former bills — 
 
 and it was a matter of rumor — I might say notoriety — that a flood of such bills 
 was coming in, and it was thought, to avoid all matter of pride of opinion be- 
 tween gentlemen who might introduce this bill, that bill, and the other bill 
 approved by the former Committee on Labor had better be introduced, and as 
 T happened to be chairman of the committee in each Congress, I have introduced 
 it both times- The draft of the bill is mine, the chairman of the committee. 
 
 Mr. Payson. And, assumedly, the bill which we know as the Sulzer bill is 
 the bill acted upon last Congress? 
 
 The Chairman. No; not the Sulzer bill — 6882. 
 
 That is the bill before the committee. There you have the history 
 of this legislation down to 1900. I think nobody will dispute the 
 position of the chairman that every time, from 1892 down to 1900, 
 the reason that legislation failed up to that time was that the bills 
 that were urged here, after full and free discussion before the com- 
 mittee, were finally rejected because the friends of the measure them- 
 selves were satisfied that nothing could be accomplished by them. 
 Well, we have had a run of six years since then. 
 
 Mr. GoJiPEKS. Just a moment, if I may interrupt you. 
 
 Mr. Davenport. Certainly. 
 
 Mr. Gompers. Do you know that the committee really did report 
 the bill favorably to the House? 
 
122 EIGHT HOTJES FOR LABORERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. 
 
 Mr. Davenport. Why, certainly. 
 
 Mr. Gompers. I mean the bill which you say that the committee 
 rejected. 
 
 Mr. Davenport. Not the committee. We have the statement of the 
 chairman, acquiesced in by Mr. Morrison, that these bills all failed 
 for that reason. 
 
 Mr. Hunt. In the committee or in the House ? 
 
 Mr. Davenport. The chairman said what I have just read you: 
 
 The bill has finally met its fate because its friends have become convinced 
 that it would not reach the contracts at which it was aiming. 
 
 Mr. Hunt. In the committee or in the House ? 
 
 Mr. Davenport. In the committee and in the House. 
 
 Mr. Hunt. Botb places ? 
 
 Mr. Davenport. And in the Senate. 
 
 Mr. Hunt. If it met its fate in committee, how did it get into 
 the House ? 
 
 Mr. Davenport. Sometimes they did not report. 
 
 Mr. Hunt. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Davenport. And sometimes they did report, and it went to 
 the House. 
 
 Mr. Hunt. It went to the House ? 
 
 Mr. Davenport. Not this bill. 
 
 Mr. Hunt. Which bill do you speak of ? 
 
 Mr. Davenport. I am speaking of the different efforts that have 
 been made from 1892 down to this date to accomplish the purpose 
 Which the friends of this legislation want accomplished. Mr. Gom- 
 J^ers has endeavored to represent before this committee, or has seemed 
 to represent, that they presented the matter here and had insisted 
 upon action year after year and year after year, and by some hugger- 
 muggery on the part of the committee or the members of the two 
 Houses, or one house or the other, they had never succeeded. 
 
 Now, what I am attempting to demonstrate is that the reason it 
 has always failed up to the present time is that when the bills that 
 have been urged here have been examined, discussed, and argued, and 
 dissected not one of them would ever accomplish the purpose which 
 their advocates wanted; and I have called the attention of the com- 
 mittee to the fact that that was true down to the year 1900. 
 
 The Chairman. I want to say right there, admitting a carelessness 
 there, in that I never revised the record as to any break I might 
 fhdke here, that I never said nor intended to say that as to the bills 
 that went from this committee to the House 
 
 Mr. Davenport. I do not say you said that. I say the bills before 
 the, committee. 
 
 The Chairman. Oh ! / 
 
 Mr. Davenport. Now, from 1897 the committee, and you yourself 
 as chairman, took the matter in hand for the purpose of drafting a 
 bill which would hold water, which the friends of the legislation 
 could get enacted, with the purpose of accomplishing the result. 
 What has been the history since then ? 
 
 Mr. Hunt. What year ? 
 
 Mr. Davenport. This statement was made in 1900. 
 
 Mr. Hunt. Did not a bill similar to this bill here— to the present 
 bill under consideration — pass the House? 
 
EIGHT HOURS FOR LABORERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. 123 
 
 Mr. Davenport. Oh. certainly. 
 Mr. Htint. In 1900? 
 Mr. DA^'ENPOET. I am coming to that. 
 Mr. Hunt. You are coming to that? 
 
 Mr. Davenport. But I am endeavoring to make plain to the com- 
 mittee why any bill that lias been considered by this committee or 
 the other committee of the other House was doomed to failure was 
 because of its manifest and utter inadequacy to accomplish any of 
 the purposes which the advocates and fnends of the measure sought 
 to accomplish. 
 
 The Chairman., All I want to say at this time is that that lan- 
 guage used by me refers to bills introduced prior to that Congress. 
 Mr. Davenport. Yes. 
 
 The Chairman. And did not refer to the bill introduced into that 
 Congress in 1898. 
 
 Mr. Davenport. I am coming to that. I say that from 1892 to 
 1900 the failures had been due to the trouble with those bills. How 
 has it been since? The learned chairman of this committee, and 
 none is abler, and none has given more thought to this matter, and 
 none shows greater ability than he in dealing with the intricacies 
 and difficulties of this question, prepared a bill; and what has been 
 the fate of that bill ? It has been the same fate as attended all the 
 others. It passed the House of Representatives, it was referred to 
 the Senate Committee on Education and Labor, and that committee 
 absolutely tore this bill to pieces, as you will see when you examine 
 their report. 
 
 And they evolved what they considered to be a bill that would get 
 around the objections to this bill, after hearing all j)arties and think- 
 ing it over. And those men were not men hostile to labor. The 
 chairman of that committee was almost fanatical in his zeal to secure 
 ¥^ome legislation of some character bearing upon this subject, no doubt 
 from the best of motives. They prepared another bill, in which they 
 had practically changed this bill completely, and that bill they re- 
 ported to the other House. That was not acted upon by the Senate, 
 and with the coming in of the last Congress, the Fifty-eighth Con- 
 gress, the friends of organized labor did not stand any longer upon 
 the bill which we have before us, the bill which had been so carefully 
 drawn ; not the bill which is before us, which is this bill. 
 
 They have introduced in the two Houses the bill which was the 
 amended Senate bill of the previous Congress, which was as different 
 from this bill as it was possible to be, and they came here and they 
 urged its passage, and by that bill, while it was shown that it got 
 around a great many of the objections that we have here, yet in 
 attempting to get around them they had got themselves into ten 
 times worse difficulties..' In seeking to avoid Scylla they had run 
 upon Charybdis. And when it came before this committee and was 
 ■discussed, then in its changed form, the matter was referred to the 
 Secretary of Commerce and I^abor. Well, we know what happened 
 to it there. We know the report that was made. 
 
 Now, this committee, as sensible men, before they take a leap in the 
 dark and before they enact a law that is going to affect the business 
 interests of the Government and the great interests of the country, 
 ought to have some idea as to how it is going to work, what will be 
 
124 EIGHT HOUES FOB LABORERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. 
 
 the effect of it, what is going to be the effect upon Government busi- 
 ness, what is going to be the effect upon those who contract with the 
 United States, what is going to be its general effect upon the business 
 of the country. 
 
 Mr. Gompers said here the other day that when this committee 
 solemnly resolved to seek that light they were lending themselves to 
 an attempt to defeat this legislation, and when asked to state the 
 reasons he said, " Why, because those questions can not be answered ; 
 it is impossible to answer them." And from that he argued that be- 
 cause they can not be answered that is a reason why the committee 
 should at once go to work and pass the bill. 
 
 What are those questions ? I submit to you that unless those ques- 
 tions can be answered in a way that would not be detrimental to the 
 Government or the parties who deal with the Government no such 
 leap in the dark as this should be attempted. What was the first 
 question ? It was : 
 
 What would be the additional cost to the United States of the various ma- 
 terials and articles which it customarily procures by contract which would be 
 governed by the limitations set out in the said bill? 
 
 Woiild you not like to know as to whether it would increase them, 
 and to what extent it would increase them, before you enacted such 
 a bill? Mr. Gompers says you can not answer that question; there- 
 fore they want this bill passed. I submit that because such a ques- 
 tion as that can not be answered definitely and in a manner to 
 enlighten this committee is an abundant reason why no such legis- 
 lation as this should be enacted. What did the Secretary of Com- 
 merce and Labor say? He said: 
 
 It Is clearly impossible to give a definite answer to this question. Manufac- 
 turers having contracts with the Government have, in answering this ques- 
 tion, been practically unanimous in expressing the opinion that there would 
 be an increased cost to the United States should the bill become a law, but 
 just what the increased expense would be has not been definitely shown. 
 On the other hand, it has not been clearly proven whether or not there would 
 be any additional cost in the manufacture of those commodities not affected 
 by the bill. Other influences than that of the hours of dally labor so greatly 
 affect the cost of production that it is impossible at present to ascribe any 
 definite portion of an additional cost to the operation of such a law. No 
 comparative figures are obtainable to show the cost of production and quan- 
 tity of product per man in establishments engag'ed in part on Government 
 contracts under an eight-hour day and in part under a longer day upon com- 
 mercial work, as no such condition now exists. Where definite results have 
 ■ been given by manufacturing establishments such results are presented in 
 tables in the report. 
 
 Mr. GoEBEL. Mr. Davenport, do you claim that because the ques- 
 tion could not be answered, therefore you have a right to conclude 
 that there would be a loss to the Government ? 
 
 Mr. Davenport. I say unless you are satisfied that it will not result 
 in increased cost to the Government you ought not 
 
 Mr. GoEBEL. Is it not dependent upon practical demonstration? 
 Because these questions can not be answered, does it therefore follow 
 that you should assume that there must be a loss to the Government ? 
 
 Mr. Davenport. But that is a questioii with which you should deal. 
 
 Mr. GoEBEL. Is not the difficutly that it could not be practically 
 demonstrated ? 
 
 Mr. Davenport. So far as this question goes, as to the increased 
 cost, Mr. Gompers says that is a question that can not be answered, 
 
EIGHT HOURS FOR LABOREBS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. 125' 
 
 and therefore you should pass the bill. I say that because it can not 
 be answered therefore you ought not to pass the bill. 
 
 Mr. GoMPEES. I want to say that I made no such 
 
 Mr. Davenport. I object to being interrupted. 
 
 Mr. GoMPEES. Yes ; but you have made this statement, misquoting 
 me entirely. I did not intend to interrupt you, but when you re- 
 peated it I could not longer restrain myself in asking to be heard, 
 for a moment. 
 
 Mr. Davenpoet. If I have misrepresented you in any way 
 
 Mr. GoMPEBS. I say that for the reason that this question can not 
 be answered, therefore this committee should report the bill, and the 
 bill should pass. I said that it was an economic proposition that no 
 man could answer definitely and absolutely, and what I urged was 
 that the history of industry demonstrated beyond peradventure of a 
 doubt that wherever and whenever the hours of labor have been re- 
 duced the cost price of the finished article has been lessened by reason 
 of the fact of the introduction of new processes, new machinery, and 
 new power, which has increased the productivity of the laborer with 
 the machine, thereby lessening the cost price of the finished product ; 
 and that is without a break the history of industry wherever the hours 
 and whenever the hours of labor have been reduced. 
 
 And the inference that I wanted the committee to draw, and which 
 I drew, was that a reduction in the hours of labor, the establishment 
 of the eight -hour workday, would not increase the cost to the Gov- 
 ernment of the United States for those things for which it contracts r 
 that it would not involve an increased cost for the articles for which 
 the Government would contract. 
 
 Mr. Davenpoet. Mr. Gompers contends that the reduction of the 
 hours of labor would not increase the cost of articles to the Govern- 
 ment. Now, what I say is, before you pass a law of this kind you 
 ought to know whether or not it will. If you are not sure that it 
 will not, it is a reason why you should not pass the bill. And so of 
 each of the other questions. The second question is : 
 
 What damage, if any. would be done to the manufacturing interests affected 
 by the provisions of the bill, if enacted? 
 
 To this the Secretary answers : 
 
 This inquiry can not be answered definitely for the same reasons as are 
 stated in connection with the first inquiry. 
 
 As to whether they would be affected, and as to the extent to which 
 they would be affected, no man has advised the Secretary. No man 
 has advised the Secretary, except for the general statement on the 
 one side that in the opinion of those who advocate this bill it would 
 not hurt them. On the other hand I have here that class of letters 
 sent to this committee by the most intelligent men in the country to 
 the effect that it will. 
 
 My point is that it is not enough to say that we can not answer 
 these questions, and therefore you should enact a bill of this character ; 
 but you ought to be clear in your minds that it does not hurt them. 
 
 Tte third question is : 
 
 Whether manufacturers who have heretofore furnished materials and arti- 
 cles to the Government under contract would continue to contract with the 
 Government if such contracts were within the peremptory eight-hour limita- 
 tion provided by the said bill? 
 
126 EIGHT HOUES POE LABOEEES ON GOVEEKMENT WOEK. 
 
 The fourth question is : 
 
 What would be the effect of the enactment of said bill upon the shipbuilding 
 industry? 
 
 To that the Secretary's answer was : 
 
 This inquiry offers the same difficulties when a reply is sought; According 
 to the opinion of the solicitor, this industry would probably be the principal 
 one affected by the bill, and it is impossible to forecast the effects of its enact- 
 ment upon such establishments in this industry as are under contract with the 
 United States Government or upon those establishments which are not under 
 contract. 
 
 The fifth question is : 
 
 What would be the effect of the enactment of said bill, if any, upon the' 
 export trade of the country? 
 
 To this the Secretary answered : 
 
 This Inquiry is likewise not susceptible of definite reply. 
 
 The sixth question is : 
 
 Are the laborers of the country, organized and unorganized, who would be 
 affected by the proposed legislation, willing to have taken away from them the 
 right to labor more than eight hours per day, if they desire to do so? 
 
 To that he answers : 
 
 This question has already been answered by the representatives of organized 
 labor who have appeared before the committee from time to time. As regards 
 the desire of unorganized labor in the matter, it is doubtful whether the 
 individual wage-workers of the country would be able to make reply to the 
 inquiry, unless they were more denitely informed as to the respects in which 
 they would be affected by the proposed legislation. 
 
 The seventh question was : 
 
 What effect will the proposed legislation have, if any, upon the agricultural 
 interests of the country? 
 
 To this he answered : 
 
 The same difficulties are met with in this question as with the preceding 
 questions, when a definite reply is attempted. It is apparent that the effect 
 would be indirect in nature, but the extent to which these interests would be 
 improved or damaged, or whether they would be affected at all, can not be 
 stated. 
 
 Now, the point is here: These are questions which every honest 
 man, every faithful servant of the people, everybody who is inter- 
 ested in the welfare of this country, ought to have answered affirma- 
 tively before he could safely, wisely, and judiciously take this step. 
 And when Mr. Gompers heretofore, as now, has said that notwith- 
 standing the fact that no man around this table can tell the effect in 
 its different respects, nevertheless they want this bill passed, and that 
 because the committee sought light from the Secretary of Commerce 
 and Labor they were lending themselves to an unfair mode of defeat- 
 ing this measure, I say that it is not warranted by the facts. 
 
 Another thing that I want to say, another word or two, before I 
 give way to Mr. Cowles. Is it or not true that the different con- 
 tractors of this country would cease to make contracts with the 
 Government? That is a very important question, of course. You 
 recognize the fact that the United States Government has to have an 
 infinite number of articles and things. 
 
 It can not itself manufacture them. If it undertakes to build a 
 ship, or if it undertakes to build a gun, it has got to resort to contracts 
 
EIGHT HOURS FOE LABOEEKS ON GOVEKNMEXT WOEK. 127 
 
 with people to furnish the things that they use in the manufacture. 
 It is impossible for the Government itself to carry on this business, 
 the business of the different persons that contract with the Govern- 
 ment. On the other hand, there is not a concern in this country that 
 can exist exclusively upon Government business. Contracts are too 
 uncertain. The proportion that the amount of the work of any par- 
 ticular concern bears to their total output is insignificant except in 
 case of the shipbuilding industry. 
 
 Every concern in this country which deals with the Government 
 has got to depend upon commercial business as well as upon Govern- 
 ment business. That is too plain for argument. The next is too plain 
 for discussion, it seems to me — that the necessary result of the enact- 
 ment of this bill would be either to force those concerns that do deal 
 with the Government to go to an absolute eight-hour basis iii all their 
 business or to decline Government work. 
 
 Mr. Hunt. What hours are they working now ? 
 
 Mr. Davenport. Nine and ten. 
 
 Mr. Hunt. What would be the average — nine and a half hours? 
 
 Mr. Davenport. Oh, it is nine and ten. I can not say the average, 
 but it is over eight. Now, they have got to do one of two things if 
 this bill becomes a law, unless you emasculate the bill, as was done in 
 the Senate committee, by putting in the words '■ upon such work." 
 They have got to come down to the eight-hour basis or else they have 
 got to decline Government work. Why? Do you propose to reduce 
 the men who are put only upon eight hours a day to 20 per cent less 
 pay than the other people ? 
 
 Mr. GoEBEL. Are not the majority working upon piecework? 
 
 Mr. Davenport. It does not make any difference whether it is upon 
 piecework or not ; this bill applies. Mr. Gompers says, " No ; we do 
 not intend to cut down their wages." Well, what is going to be done 
 with the people that work ten hours in the same factory? Are they 
 going to work for the same as the other man,or are they going to have 
 their pay reduced to that of the other man ? You have got to come 
 to the basis of wages. 
 
 Mr. Hunt. But, Mr. Davenport 
 
 Mr. Davenport. Let me finish this. 
 
 Mr. Hunt. Yes; sure. 
 
 Mr. Davenport. Now, you have got, yovi see, from the wages propo- 
 sition alone a necessary condition that you have got to have your work 
 all on the eight-hour basis. But, further than that, there has got to 
 be in the organization of that industry, of that plant, from neces- 
 sity, an eight-hour limitation as to all employees, because you can not 
 practically run part of the plant on an eight-hour schedule and the 
 other part on a nine or ten hour schedule: and that is conceded by 
 Mr. Gompers ; and that is the reason, he says, they want to have this 
 law passed — because it will force them to go to the eight-hour basis. 
 
 Mr. Hunt. Now, will you get through pretty soon on this line ? 
 
 IVIr. Davenport. When I do finish it I will let you interrupt me. 
 
 Mr. Hunt. Will you give me an opportunity to put this question 
 to you right now ? ' 
 
 Mr. Davenport. Not now. 
 
 Mr. Hunt. Not now ? 
 
 Mr. Davenport. But immediately after I finish this. Now, can 
 a concern that does this 
 
128 BIGHT HOURS POK LABOEEES ON GOVBENMENT WOEK. 
 
 Mr. Hunt. You are taking up a new train of thought right there, 
 are you not? 
 
 Mr. Davenport (continuing). Eun in competition with the con- 
 cern that runs nine or ten hours ? 
 
 Mr. Hunt. You are taking up a new line right there. Let me 
 ask you this: What percentage of the industrial classes are repre- 
 sented here by Mr. Gompers, according to your opinion ? 
 
 Mr. Davenport. According to my idea, a very small proportion 
 of them. 
 
 Mr. Hunt. What would you say as to the proportion ? 
 
 Mr. Davenport. I said here two years ago that I represented more 
 workingmen than he did. 
 
 Mr. Hunt. What concerns do you represent? 
 
 Mr. Davenport. The concerns that I represent represent an enor- 
 mous number. 
 
 Mr. Hunt. In your opinion 
 
 Mr. Davenport. I do not want to be diverted from this point. 
 
 Mr. Hunt. I am looking for information, and you are here to give 
 it, if you are here at all. 
 
 Mr. Davenport. Yes ; pardon me. 
 
 Mr. Hunt. I rcifepect your position and you must respect mine. 
 
 Mr. Davenport. Oh, I do. 
 
 Mr. Hunt. I asked what percentage of the industrial classes were 
 represented here by Mr. Gompers. 
 
 Mr. Davenport. I think a very small per cent. 
 
 Mr. Hunt. What would you say; would you say 6 per cent or 
 8 per cent ? 
 
 Mr. Davenport. I should say not. 
 
 Mr. Hunt. Would it be 5 per cent? 
 
 Mr. Davenport. It is my opinion — I should guess less than that. 
 
 Mr. Hunt. You guess about 5 per cent? 
 
 Mr. Davenport. Hardly that. 
 
 Mr. Hunt. Would it be 4 per cent ? 
 
 Mr. Davenport. Well, I do not know. 
 
 Mr. Hunt. What do you think it would be, about 4 per cent? 
 
 Mr. Davenport. Possibly. 
 
 Mr. Hunt. Possibly 4 per cent. Now, what I want to get at is 
 this : In view of the fact that Mr. Gompers represents 4 per cent of 
 the industrial classes, and this committee, a majority of it, represents 
 about li per cent of the Congress of the United States, you want this 
 committee to throttle this bill with 1^ per cent of its representative 
 power left from consideration thereof, according to your own calcu- 
 lation, admitted figures of this man here [indicating Mr. Gompers], 
 who represents about 4 per cent. 
 
 This committee, seven of them constituting a quorum, out of about 
 4Y6 members of the House and Senate would make a percentage of 
 1^ per cent, and you ask 1^ per cent of the Congress of the United 
 States to throttle this legislation. 
 
 Mr. Davenport. I ask this committee, as well as all other commit- 
 tees of the House, to give any matter before them careful investiga- 
 tion. 
 
 Mr. Hunt. Every communication that I have received here is beg- 
 ging me not to report this bill. 
 
EIGHT HOUES FOR LABOEERS ON GOVEEJTMENT WORK. 129 
 
 Mr. Davenport. I suppose they have a right to petition you not to 
 report the bill. 
 
 Mr. Hunt. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Davenport. But this is the point, gentlemen of the conunittee : 
 Nine-tenths of the work that is done for the Government, apart from 
 the work upon public buildings, is machine work, and it is plainly 
 demonstrable that a man running a machine for eight hours a day 
 can not produce as much as a man running it nine and ten hours. 
 They start together and work, one eight hours and then the others 
 continue on. The machines running eight hours can not do an equal 
 amount of work. Consequently no concern doing commercial work 
 in this country can compete one on the eight-hour basis with one 
 on the nine and ten hour basis. 
 
 The Chairman. I understood you to say that this gentleman is 
 waiting here who can not be heard to-morrow. 
 
 Mr. Davenport. Yes. 
 
 The Chairman. You are doing him an injustice. 
 
 Mr. Davenport. I will stop now. 
 
 Mr. Hunt. I would like in the intermission to submit a paper 
 which was submitted to me by Captain O'Brien. 
 
 The Chairman. This gentleman here wants to be heard. 
 
 Mr. Hunt. I just wish to submit this and hand it to the stenog- 
 rapher. You will recognize this, Mr. Chairman? You are in the 
 chair. It is a petition of the American Pilots' Association, with some 
 resolutions, which has been sent to me by Capt. J. Ed. O'Brien, of 
 Pensacola, Fla., president of this association. 
 
 The Chairman. If there is no objection on the part of the commit- 
 tee, it will be included as a part of the record. 
 
 Mr. Hunt. Now, I want to say that in five minutes I will move 
 that this committee go into executive session, Mr. Chairman. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MB. W. B. COWLES, OF CIiEVELAND, OHIO. 
 
 Mr. CoAVLES. I am vice-president of the Long Arm System Com- 
 pany, of Cleveland, Ohio. 
 
 Mr. NoRHis. If j^ou gentlemen will permit an interruption 
 
 The Chairman. Mr. Norris. 
 
 Mr. NoRRis. I spoke to the chairman and said that I would have 
 to leave a little before 12 o'clock, as I have to be in the Supreme 
 Court of the United States, and it will be necessary for me to go, 
 I think, now, as it is nearly 12 o'clock. 
 
 (Mr. Norris here left the room.) 
 
 Mr. CowLES. I also represent the National Association of Manu- 
 facturers and the National ]\Ietal Trades Association. I have only 
 a few words to say, and not in any analytical discussion of this bill. 
 
 Mr. GoEBEL. "Wliat is the Long Arm Company? 
 
 Mr. CowLts. The original cause and reason for the existence of 
 the Long Arm System Company was to manufacture electric power 
 doors and hatches for the preservation of ships. It now has a lot 
 of other business besides, and it is a contractor with the Government 
 and a subcontractor for Government work on battle ships and cruisers 
 and for ship fittings, as well as the power doors. 
 
 I can speak for my associates, the two national associations men- 
 tioned, and say without any hesitation that those of them who are 
 
130 EIGHT HOURS FOE LABORERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. 
 
 Government contractors and subcontractors will not attenipt, any 
 further than they have done already, to analyze or discuss or protest 
 against this bill. They have protested against it strongly already. 
 They siniphr will not — those of them who can possibly get out of it — - 
 continue doing Government work under any such impossible propo- 
 sition. Any man who is a business man or affairs and who knows 
 the manufacturing business would not attempt to run his work under 
 any such impossible conditions. 
 
 He would simply cut it out and say, " Life is too short." You 
 heard, I think you must have heard, all of you, the reasons from the 
 manufacturers why. You have heard a lot of reasons on the other 
 side from gentlemen who know one side of it and who undoubtedly 
 are honest in their own opinion. But they can not see both sides of it. 
 ^aw, you are doing something by this bill that will immensely 
 increase the cost of Government work, and the people have got to 
 pay for it. But that is only one part of it. Maj^be the people will 
 pay for it without a kick; but the manufacturer is going to with- 
 draw largely. The result will be unquestionably that Government 
 work by contract will be done by a very much less number of people. 
 
 The Government will not get the competition that it gets now, 
 and the natural result will be that in every line you will have fewer 
 manufacturers, less competition, and finally no competition, and the 
 Government will be in the hands of a few who can charge it what 
 they please, instead of having wide-open competition, as there is 
 now. Government work — and I say it as a Government contractor — 
 is not so attractive now, even, as to lead one to take on more burdens 
 in connection with Government work. One more straw on the 
 back of the Government contractor, and I speak feelingly, will 
 make him cut it out. 
 
 Mr. Rainey. Is it not true in your business, the manufacture of 
 electrical supplies 
 
 Mr. CowLES. Electric-power doors especially, but ship fittings also. 
 
 Mr. Rainey. Yes. Is it not true that in that business the great 
 factories in Germany have in the last few months adopted an eight- 
 hour day? 
 
 Mr. CowLBS. I am not sure about that, but it has not come to my 
 mind to any large extent ; very small, I think. 
 
 Mr. Rainey. Are they not working their men on shifts eight hours ? 
 
 Mr. CowLES. Let me answer right there. I think — pardon me. 
 You go ahead and finish, and then I will answer. 
 
 Mr. Rainey. Do you know whether the Westinghouse Company 
 manufacture in England now ? 
 
 Mr. CowLES. In a general way I do; at Trafford Park, I suppose 
 you mean. 
 
 Mr. Rainey. I want to ask for my own information. 
 
 Mr. CowLES. They manufacture machinery and largely trolley 
 work and electrical work and power plants. 
 
 Mr. Rainey. Is not it the same stuff that you manufacture ? 
 
 Mr. CowLES. No, sir ; it is largely different. 
 
 Mr. Rainey. Is it not true that in the last few weeks the English 
 branch of the Westinghouse Company has lost a contract of a million 
 dollars in the attempt to compete with a German company manufac- 
 turing the same supplies and working on an eight-hour day ? 
 
 Mr. CowLES. I do not think it has anything to do with an eight- 
 
EIGHT HOURS FOR LABOEEES ON GOVEENMENT WOEK. 131 
 
 hour day. The Germans do not win by an eight-hour day. They 
 win by cutting the prices of the material and the labor. The material 
 is awaj^ down, and labor is away down. It is not on account of the 
 eight-hour daj' at all. They are beating the earth,' but it is by cutting 
 the prices of material and of labor. 
 
 ]Mr. Rainey. I have a statement of the manager who went over to 
 reorganize the AVestinghouse Company a week ago to that effect. 
 
 Mr. CowLEs. On that jjoint, in comparing the eight-hour product 
 in a manufactory where they build thousands of things of the same 
 kind, and applying it to Government work and Government con- 
 tracting, there is a big difference, and it does not apply at all. 
 
 This reduction of costs in manufacturing applies in fields such as 
 trolley work, or such as railway motor cars, where there are thou- 
 sands, yes, millions of them to be made, and where they can apply 
 such machinery. But in Government contracting work you can not 
 do anything of that kind, because the field is not big enough. It is 
 comparativel}' small; it is always small when it comes to the ma- 
 chine work, and usually special. 
 
 Mr. Baetholdt. Do your men work by the day, or do they do 
 piecework ? 
 
 Mr. CowLES. They work by the hour. 
 
 Mr. Baetholdt. JBy the hour? 
 
 Mr. CowLBS. By the hour. 
 
 Mr. Baetholdt. And you say that the cost to the Government 
 would be increased ? 
 
 Mr. CowLES. Undoubtedly. 
 
 Mr. Baetholdt. By this bill ? 
 
 Mr. CowLBS. Yes, sir. ' 
 
 Mr. Baetholdt. Would you not, for instance, reduce wages in pro- 
 portion to the time they worked ? 
 
 Mr. CowLBS. I would pay by the hour. If they worked eight 
 hours a day they would get eight hours' pay, and if they worked ten 
 hours a day they would get ten hours' pay. You can not get some- 
 thing for nothing. 
 
 Mr. Baetholdt. How would the cost be increased to the Govern- 
 ment under this bill? 
 
 Mr. CowLES. The cost of the labor would be increased by the re- 
 duction of the hours to a large extent on everything that was a fixed 
 charge. 
 
 Mr. Baetholdt. If you pay only for eight hours, you only charge 
 for eight hours. 
 
 Mr. CowLES. But that is only a very small part of the increased 
 cost of that establishment of mine, even if I pay the eight-hour day 
 and not the ten-hour day for the eight hours on Government work. 
 See the position that it puts me in. Say that I have $100,000 of 
 Government contracts and $100,000 worth of private contracts. I 
 am forced to choose — because, as I have said to some people, I will 
 not consider this impossible proposition of trying to do eight hours' 
 and ten hours' work in the same place — I will have to choose between 
 the eight-hour and ten -hour work. 
 
 Mr. Hunt. Are you working ten hours now ? 
 
 Mr. CowLBS. Ten hours for five days in the week the year around, 
 and a Saturday half holiday for the people, winter and summer. 
 
 EH— 06 10 
 
132 EIGHT HOURS POE LABOBEBS ON GOVERNMENT "WOEK. 
 
 Mr. Hunt. Working the ten hours does not involve any additional 
 expense, does it ? 
 
 Mr. CowLES. If you are a manufacturer, you know that it does 
 involve an enormous expense, even if you do not pay for but eight 
 hours a day for eight hours' work. Of course in every manufactur- 
 ing establishment there are many men by the year, and all your fixed 
 charges, all your overhead charges, go on, and your earning capacity 
 is cut down by 20 per cent, and if you are a Government contractor 
 you have got to cut out Government work, or if you are doing 
 private work you have got to cut out the private work and do Gov- 
 ernment work purely. I do not care to discuss it. It is not a thing 
 that is reasonable to discuss from a business man's standpoint, this 
 question of whether or not you can do eight and ten hours' work in 
 the same establishment, which any man must know, as a business man 
 and a practical man, that you can not do. 
 
 Mr. Hunt. Have you not admitted that there are some men paid by 
 the day and some paid by the hour ? 
 
 Mr. CowLES. There are in every establishment. 
 
 Mr. Hunt. You are able to do that, ares you not ? 
 
 Mr. CowLES. Certainly. You pay a lot of them, engineers and the 
 helping force, by the day or by the month. 
 
 Mr. Hunt. Pardon me, but my reason for saying it is that there 
 was a time when I had men working for me, and some of them 
 through lack of an organization did not work eight hours, and some 
 more of them did. It was found to be practicable to get the addi- 
 tional hour or two from those men who were not in a position to exact 
 the shorter hours. 
 
 Mr. CowLES. Do I understand you to say that if this bill passed, 
 and I had the work in my own place, that I could work some of the 
 men eight hours on this bill and then switch them for the balance of 
 the time onto other work? 
 
 Mr. Hunt. It is not within my power or within the province of my 
 thought to know what you are capable of doing. I simply tell you 
 something that has been done. Men have worked ten hours in shops 
 where a major part of them worked only eight hours for a time. 
 
 Mr. CowLES. I say that it is not a systematical thing to do, and we 
 must run our business on systematic lines or fail. 
 
 Mr. Hunt. That, of course, is according to our own notions of what 
 is systematic. 
 
 Mr. CowLES. There is only one notion about systematic procedure. 
 
 Mr. Hunt. You are a practical manufacturer ? 
 
 Mr. CowLES. I am. 
 
 Mr. Eainey. And understand about machinery ? 
 
 Mr. CowLES, Yes. 
 
 Mr. Eainet. Is it not true that machinery deteriorates more 
 rapidly when it is riot being' tun than when it is being run ? 
 
 Mr. CowLES. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Eainey. Does it not rust out more rapidly when it is standing 
 idle? 
 
 Mr.'Co^vLES. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Eainey. Yes. Now, in view of the immense amount of money 
 invested in our American plants, how does it happen that you gentle- 
 men who are' Manufacturers, and who are so industriously opposing 
 this eight-hbuf proposition, do not take into consideration the ad- 
 
EIGHT HOUBS FOR LABORERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. 133 
 
 visability of running your plant the whole twenty-four hours, in 
 three shifts, as the Germans are now doing? 
 
 Mr. CowLBS. My dear sir, that has been carefully considered by 
 myself and by men who are very much more able than myself, and they 
 have turned down the proposition because almost always the work 
 on a machine involves and necessitates the continuous mind on the 
 individual machine. You can not break off at eight o'clock or at 
 noon with Tom Jones and put Dick Robinson onto that same thing 
 and make your plant run properly on most kinds of machinery. If 
 you are manufacturing cement you could do it, or if you are making 
 bricks you can do it, but not with machines. 
 
 Mr. Hunt. If Tom went on strike you would soon get Dick to take 
 his place? 
 
 Mr. CowLES. I would do everything in my power to get the other 
 man to take his place. 
 
 Mr. GoixPERS. You would probably have a union shop? 
 
 Mr. CowLES. Xo, sir. 
 
 Mr. GoMPERS. You would have a union shop instead of an open 
 shop? 
 
 Mr. CowLES. Never, as^ long as you live and I am an American 
 citizen. 
 
 Mr. Raixey. Is it not true that the German factories within the 
 last six months, conducting their business on the eight-hour basis, 
 are now capturing the English markets as against our own American 
 companies ? 
 
 Mr. CowLES. My dear sir, there is no more comparison between 
 Germany and America on the hour basis 
 
 Mr. Rainey. Well. 
 
 Mr. CowLES (continuing). Because you have materials, and you 
 have the price of labor, and you have got the tariff, and how can you 
 compare on the hour basis? Also you have got living expenses 
 different. The two things are almost as different as night and day, 
 and they are very different between Germany and England, and any 
 man who tried to make these comparisons on one basis alone is 
 going to lead himself astray, it does not make any difference how 
 smart and how honest he is. 
 
 If he will not look at all of it, but only at one thing, he is going to 
 come to a wrong conclusion. 
 
 Mr. Bartholdt. What are your men making? 
 
 Mr. CowLES. From 24 to 30 cents an hour. 
 
 Mr. Bartholdt. From 24 to 30 cents an hour ? 
 
 Mr. CowLES. Yes, sir. Some of them make above that. The aver- 
 age run in there. 
 
 Mr. Bartholdt. Do you know what the wage in Germany is in 
 the same line? 
 
 Mr. CowLES. I did know, and I have got the comparative tables, 
 but I can not recall now. I would not venture to guess from memory. 
 
 Mr. Bartholdt. Is it as high as ours ? 
 
 Mr. CowLES. Nowhere near as high for the same mechanics. The 
 wages are less than half. 
 
 Mr. Bartholdt. Less than half? 
 
 Mr. CowLES. Yes, sir. I know that from my own connections in 
 business over there. 
 
184 EIGHT HOURS FOR LABORERS ON" GOVERNMENT WORK. 
 
 Mr. Rainey. Do you know what the living expenses over there are 
 as compared Avith those here ? 
 
 Mr. CovvJjES. They run very much in accordance with the differ- 
 ence in wages. The living expenses are very low there as compared 
 to our living expenses. 
 
 Mr. Rainet. Then merely the wages, taking that into considera- 
 tion, are about as high? 
 
 Mr. CowLES. The amount of product or output which you can buy 
 Jn Germany for a mark is not very far different from what you can 
 buy here for 50 or 60 cents, a mark being 24 cents. No; a mark is 
 25 cents. 
 
 Mr. Baetholdt. You were right in the first place ; it is 23^^ cents. 
 
 Mr. CowLES. Yes, that is right; it is 24 cents. It is the 96-cent 
 dollar, the 4 marks. Those comparisons have always been, to my 
 observation, misleading, usually because they are made to bring out a 
 certain result. 
 
 The Chairman. What do you mean by the different grade of liv- 
 ing? Do you mean that you can buy as much of the same thing — 
 that a man can live as well ? 
 
 Mr. CowLES. No, sir ; I mean that they live according to their tra- 
 ditions and the surrounding conditions that they haye always been 
 used to. I"do not think that the German machinist, for instance, lives 
 as well and has as many luxuries as the machinist in America has. 
 That is a part of the gain. He gets more for his living. 
 
 Mr. Rainey. You do not mean to say that the Germans for the last 
 several hundred years have not developed the best type of citizens, 
 do you ; the best type of men ? 
 
 Mr. CowLES. That is going a good deal into statecraft, which I 
 would not attempt to answer. I do not think that Germany has re- 
 mained steadfast and backward by any means. I think that she is 
 one of the best and most progressive countries on the earth to-day. 
 But she does not do it by running eight-hour shifts. 
 
 Mr. Rainey. She has just commenced that in the last six months. 
 
 Mr. CowiiES. Then it is too early to draw any conclusions. You 
 can not judge of it in six months. 
 
 Mr. Rainet. She .has captured the English contracts now. 
 
 Mr. Cowles. But she did not do it in that way. Five years ago a 
 certain German gentleman in Hamburg was selling forgings and 
 making money. To-day he is selling those same forgings and making 
 them in Germany, in Glasgow. Up to five yea'rs ago they were manu- 
 factured in England and sold in Germany, and now they are manu- 
 factured in Germany and sold to England. But that is not because 
 of the hours of work per day. There are reasons far more important 
 than the hours of work per day which hold good and made that 
 change. Gentlemen, I only want to say that the manufacturers' end 
 of this thing, his view of it, is that this eight-hour bill is absolutely 
 rotten, and it will not work. 
 
 Mr. GoEBEL. To what extent are you a Government contractor — 
 just in round figures? 
 
 Mr. CowLBS. In 1904 I did, for instance, over $600,000 worth of 
 work for the Government. That is a small subcontracting proposi- 
 tion, both direct and indirect, through the shipbuilders, and 
 
 Mr. Hunt. What was that amount? 
 
 Mr. CowLES. A little over $600,000. 
 
EIGHT HOXJBS FOB LABOBEBS ON GOVEENMENT WOEK. 135 
 
 Mr. Hunt. In the last year? 
 
 Mr. CowLES. No, sir; that was in 1904. Not nearly so much 
 in the last year. Shipbuilding has not been so much in 1905. I 
 have switched off onto other work, and am preparing to switch off 
 more, so that if this bill should pass I can give up Government work 
 entirely. 
 
 ]VIr. Hunt. If the question is not impertinent, what proportion of 
 your total output in that year would this $600,000 form? 
 
 Mr. CowLES. That year it was most of the total. But before that 
 and since that the Government work has been the minority of the 
 total, and I hope that it will become more and more in the minority. 
 
 Mr. Hunt. Is it the severity, or the 
 
 Mr. CowLES. It is not the severity. My training is such that I 
 admire the martinet ; but I want him to be fair. 
 
 Mr. Huxt. Which is pretty hard to find in the average inspector. 
 
 IMr. Co^\LES. I have known some of the inspectors who were just 
 as fine men as ever came down the pike, and I have known others 
 Avho were honest but did not know their business. 
 
 Mr. Hunt. That is true, too. 
 
 Mr. CowLES. Now, the man who does not know his business is a 
 pestilence everywhere. 
 
 Mr. Hunt. That is true, whether he is taking Government con- 
 tracts or private contracts. 
 
 Mr. CowLES. Yes. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I am very much 
 obliged to you, and if you have no further questions, I have finished. 
 
 Mr. Conner. I desire to offer a communication which I have here 
 from Mr. O. M. Brockett. of Des Moines, Iowa, who represents the 
 State Manufacturers' Association of the State of Iowa and the Busi- 
 ness Men's Association of the city of Des Moines, who says that he 
 wants to be heard. He does not say whether he is interested in Gov- 
 ernment contracts or not. 
 
 Mr. GoEBEL. I think you also got one of those communications, 
 Mr. Chairman. 
 
 The Chairman. We have a load of applications here. I have not 
 laid them before the committee. They ask for hearings. They do 
 not state the nature of their interests. 
 
 (At 12.45 p. m. the committee adjourned until to-morrow, Tuesday, 
 May 29, 1906, at 10.30 o'clock a. m.) 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I appear before the commit- 
 tee for the purpose of presenting to you the following credential, which has 
 been sent me by the labor organizations of my home city, Pensacola, Fla., 
 and also a set of resolutions signed by the leading oflaclals of the representative 
 organizations which met in join session and adopted them unanimously. 
 
 I desire to say that I feel honored in being privileged to appear before 
 your committee and to represent the people that I do, knowing them per- 
 sonally and also knowing that they comprise a large part of the best citizen- 
 ship of the city of Pensacola and the State of Florida. 
 
 There have been numerous speeches and remarks made upon the question of 
 what is known as the eight-hour bill, so that it has been thrashed out, es- 
 pecially from the standpoint of the wage-earners, to such an extent that it 
 would not be right for me to take up the time of the committee on what might be 
 my private views, but I will simply say that I coincide with such men as 
 Hon. Samuel Gompers, president of the American Federation of Labor, and I 
 
136 BIGHT HOUEa FOE LABOEEES ON GOVEKNMENT WOBK. 
 
 am sure that the gentlemen whom I have the honor to represent here to-day 
 feel that whatever President Gompers might say on this question is what they 
 want. 
 
 I appreciate that by this time all the members of the committee understand 
 the question thoroughly, and I therefore wish to thank them for giving me 
 the opportunity of presenting these resolutions, which embody the wishes of 
 my friends and fellow-citizens in Pensacola, Fla. 
 
 J. Ed. O'Bbien, 
 President American Pilots' Association, Pensacola, Fla. 
 
 Pensacola, Fla., May 16, 1906. 
 The House Labor Committee : 
 
 We, the different labor organizations of the city of Pensacola in convention 
 assembled this date, do hereby appoint the Hon. J. Ed. O'Brien as our repre- 
 sentative to represent our side of this question and to use every endeavor to 
 make a favorable report upon any eight-hour bill that may be pending before 
 your honorable body at present. 
 
 James M. Johnson, 
 
 Chairman. 
 Dan. MtTBPHY, 
 
 Secretary. 
 Sam. B. Fltnn, 
 
 Assistant Secretary. 
 S. A. Manly. 
 Feank J. RiEW. 
 John O'Brien. 
 Thos. Johnson. 
 W. B. Paul. 
 P. McLellan. 
 W. A. Watts. 
 A. L. MoClive. 
 J. B. Wn-TERS. 
 J. T. Mitchell. 
 W. E. Rowland. 
 
 Pensacola, Fla., May 16, 1906. 
 Whereas, in view of the fact that the National Association of Manufacturers 
 of the United States of America, through it oflicers, D. M. Parry, president; 
 F. H. Stillman, treasurer, and Marshall Gushing, secretary, are praying through 
 confidential letters to commercial bodies and business men throughout the 
 country to use undue influence against the eight-hour bill now before the House 
 Labor Committee, 
 
 Be it resolved, hy the lal>or organizations of Pensacola, Fla., and surrounding 
 district, assembled on this date. That our Representative, Hon. J. Ed. O'Brien, 
 be respectfully requested in the interest of good law and order, good patriotism, 
 good public policy, and for the benefit of the laboring class in general, to use 
 his influence and vote in favor of any eight-hour bill that may come up ; also 
 to use every available influence with the House Labor Committee to make a 
 favorable report on the same. 
 
 Be it further resolved, That a copy of the confidential letters be attached to 
 these resolutions for your more explicit information. 
 
 Thos. Johnson. 
 John O'Brien. 
 Dan Murphy. 
 Frank J. Riem. 
 Jas. M. Johnson. 
 Sam B. Fltnn. 
 
 J. B. WiLTERS. 
 
 W. E. Rowland. 
 W. N. Lounsberry. 
 W. A. Watts. 
 
EIGHT HOURS FOB LABORERS ON GOVEENMBNT WORK. 137 
 
 Des Moines, Iowa, May 26, 1906. 
 Hon. J. P. CoNNEK, Washington, D. G. 
 
 My Dear Judge: I am the legal representative of the State Manufacturers' 
 Association of the State of Iowa and the Business Men's Association of the 
 city of Des Moines, Iowa, and as such desired to appear before the (Committee 
 on Labor of the House, of which you are.a member, at the hearing on the 16th 
 instant in opposition to a favorable report on the so-called "eight-hour bill." 
 It was impossible for me to be present at that time on account of engagements 
 in my practice from which I could not be relieved. 
 
 I am now advised that application has been made for further hearings at 
 a date not earlier than about the 6th or 7th of June. I would esteem it a 
 persona] favor, as well as being able to assure you that it would be regarded 
 as a great courtesy to the associations mentioned, if you could use your influ- 
 enfe to have such arrangement made. 
 
 The Des Moines Business Jlen's Association includes practically all the rep- 
 resentatives of business interests of importance in the city, and the State 
 Manufacturers' Association Includes in its membership the representatives of 
 the leading manufacturing interests of the entire State. They entertain very 
 strong feeling in opposition to the proposed legislation. Perhaps nothing could 
 have served to make them appreciate the effect of such legislation better than 
 the consideration of its influence upon the army post located here. They are 
 quite anxious that they have a fair opportunity to be heard, and to have that 
 consideration of their views and sentiments on the subject to which they feel 
 themselves fairly entitled, and if you could be instrumental in helping to 
 secure that opportunity at so late a date in the session, your services in that 
 behalf would be fully appreciated. 
 
 With assurance of personal regard, I am. 
 
 Very truly, yours, O. M. Brockett. 
 
 Committee on Labor, 
 House of Representatives, 
 
 Tuesday, May 39, 1906. 
 The committee met at 11 o'clock a. m., Hon. John J. Gardner 
 <' chairman) in the chair. 
 
 STATEMENT OF HON. L. E. PAYSON— Continued. 
 
 Mr. Payson. Mr. Chairman, I will read first a statement by Chief 
 Constructor Francis T. Bowles in a letter written by him as Chief 
 Constructor of the Navy on February 14, 1903, found in the hearings 
 of 1904 at page 450, first session of the Fifty-eighth Congress, ad- 
 dressed to a Senator, but the name not given : 
 
 Department of the Navy, 
 ' Bureau op Construction and Repair, 
 
 Washington, D. C, Pehruary H, 1903. 
 
 My Dear Senator ; Complying with the request contained in yours of the 
 12th instant I have examined H. R. No. 3076, as rejported in the Senate by Mr. 
 McComas, with amendments, and known as " the eight-hour bill." 
 
 It does not appear from the printed^ reports of hearings in the Senate that 
 any testimony has been taken on the part of the Government to indicate the 
 effect of this bill upon the interests of the Government. I have therefore con- 
 sidered the bill with particular reference to the effect of its provisions upon 
 the construction and repair of naval vessels, matters which are under my 
 official charge, and also with regard to the effect upon the shipbuilding indus- 
 try of the United States, with whose success the efficiency of the Navy is 
 inseparably connected. The remarks which follow are confined to these con- 
 siderations. 
 
 My objections to the bill are contained in the following points : 
 
 First. The exceptions to its operation, as contained in lines 18 to 23, are too 
 vague. They will admit of a great variety of interpretations by executive offl- 
 •cers of the Government, the manufacturers concerned, and the labor organiza- 
 
138 EIGHT HOURS FOE LABOEEES ON GOVEENMENT WORK. 
 
 tions. These will involve the Government in delay, expense, and form a stand- 
 ing invitation to strikes and labor troubles. 
 
 Second. So far as the Navy is concerned, there are certain articles, or objects, 
 which are clearly within the operation of the law. For instance, the hulls of 
 vessels, propelling machinery, boilers, pumps, blowers, and other special ap- 
 purtenances of the machinery, windlasses, steering engines, boat cranes, ammu- 
 nition hoists, ventilating blowers, dyiamos, motors, means of communication, 
 armor, guns, ammunition, all special structural material or materials for 
 armament which can not usually be purchased in the open market and whicU 
 will include structural steel, nickel steel, forgings for crank shafts, propeller 
 shafts, rudders, turret mechanism, and a long list of other details of a similar 
 character. The cost to the Government of all these articles will be largely 
 increased, probably from 15 to 30 per cent of the present cost, and the time 
 required for delivery in the same proportion. 
 
 Third. The competition for Government work by private parties will be 
 largely diminished by the practical impossibility of simultaneous manufacture 
 of Government and commercial work. This reduction of general competition 
 would Inevitably result in a great loss of efficiency in naval vessels, which is 
 now promoted by commercial Rivalry and the wide range of inventive talent 
 now at its disposal. 
 
 Fourth. The inevitable tendency would be to force the Government to build 
 its own ships, to manufacture its armor, guns, steel, forgings, dynamos, engines, 
 and blowers in Government establishments. 
 
 Fifth. The number of inspectors and clerical employees of the Government 
 would be necessarily increased in order to execute this act. 
 
 Sixth. The Indirect additional expense ultimately caused to the Government 
 by this act it is impossible to estimate. 
 
 Seventh. The private shipyards in the United States capable of building ocean 
 vessels would be crippled if not destroyed by this act. These shipyards and 
 their technical staffs have been actually built up and educated by the building 
 of the new Navy in the lastrtwenty years. Under the operation of this law they 
 would be obliged either to adopt the eight-hour day, with the impracticable and 
 drastic provisions of this act, or to give up naval work. Either of these alterna- 
 tives means the practical destruction of their business under the present cir- 
 cumstances. 
 
 It would be easy to proceed and explain in detail under each one of these 
 points the detailed considerations upon which these conclusions are based, and 
 I will be prepared to do so if desired. These conclusions represent the opinions 
 which I should have expressed in the interest of the Government if called upon 
 to testify as to the merits of this bill, and you are at liberty to make any use of 
 them which you may think proper. 
 
 Very respectfully, yours, F. T. Bowles, 
 
 Chief of Construction V. 8. Navy. 
 
 In the hearings of the first session of the Fifty-sixth Congress, 
 page 195, was given a statement of Mr. F. W. Wood, president of the 
 Maryland Steel Company, which is a large shipbuilding concern, its 
 name not indicating' its entire purpose. Gentlemen may remember 
 that the Maryland shipbuilding Company is the concern that built 
 the large dry dock, the Dewey, which is now being towed to Manila, 
 and they have done a large amount of Government work in the last 
 twelve or fifteen years. Mr. Wood says : 
 
 STATEMENT OP E. W. WOOD, PRESIDENT OF THE MARYLAND 
 STEEIi COMPANY. 
 
 Mr. Wood. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I come here to pre- 
 sent very briefly certain objections to the adoption of this bill from our stand- 
 point as shipbuil(^ers. While we are engaged primarily in the manufacture of 
 Steel rails and billets, one of our most important departments is engaged in the 
 building of ships for the Government and for general commercial purposes. The 
 restrictions in the matter of hours of labor would absolutely prohibit us from 
 taking Government work, because we can not see our way to work men eight 
 hours and ten hours side by side, and the commercial work will form the larger 
 portion of our business in the future. 
 
EIGHT HOURS FOE LABORERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. 139 
 
 Again, we do not see our way, and do not consider it practicable, to assume 
 responsibility for the numerous subcontractors with whom we have to deal in 
 obtaining various parts of a ship which we do not manufacture — the electrical 
 apparatus, the special types of pumps, the distilling apparatus for fresh water, 
 articles which we can not possibly manufacture ourselves and which we 
 believe — it is our opinion — we could not, without assuming undue risk, contract 
 for elsewhere under the provisions of this bill. From the standpoint of the 
 workman, and I wish to say that I have been very closely in touch with work- 
 men engaged in various lines of iron and steel manufacture for the past twenty 
 years, I can not believe that there is a universal demand for a restriction of 
 the hours of labor. There certainly is a very large element which will not wish 
 to have its profits restricted in any way ; and by profits I mean the difference 
 between earnings and expenses. 
 
 Again, in the execution of a contract, we are bound at one end by the contract 
 in the matter of time. In the execution we have to deal with variables. 
 Those variables are chances which we have to face in the manufacture of the 
 various parts. For instance, attempts to make castings are frequently failures, 
 and they have to be made sometimes two or three times, resulting in delay and 
 making it impossible to construct the different parts of the ship on schedule. 
 Our only way. so far as our present knowledge goes, to overcome these difficul- 
 ties is to at times get our men to work overtime. It is done entirely with their 
 consent, and they are paid at a higher rate of wages for it. This bill, as I 
 understand it, would entirely prohibit anything of that kind. 
 
 In short, so many diflSeulties that seem to us to be insurmountable would 
 result from the passage of the bill that I can only say now that it would prevent 
 our bidding on Government work. 
 
 The Chairman. What rate of wages do you pay for overtime work? 
 
 Mr. Wood. Our rates are substantially the same as those paid up and down 
 the Atlantic coast. Our men are largely men who work for a time in one yard 
 and then go to another, and move about. 
 
 A Membee. He wants to know the extra 
 
 The Chairman. I ask the question in this light : It is evident from what the 
 gentleman has said that these inevitable delays would result in an increase of 
 cost to the original contractors. 
 
 Mr. Wood. Yes ; certainly they do. We are obliged to take chances ■ 
 
 The Chairman. What I mean is, assuming that the regular wages are 37 
 cents an hour, what rate do you pay for overtime? 
 
 Mr. Wood. For overtime, during week days, time and half time. 
 
 The Chairman. Time and half? 
 
 Mr. Wood. Yes. sir ; and on Sundays, double time. 
 
 The Chairman. You build ships in your yard? 
 
 Mr. Wood. Yes, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. As near as you could give the information readily, how many 
 other contracts does the original contract for building a ship involve — that is, 
 how many subcontracts? First, how many do you make, and then, so far as 
 you know, how many do your subcontractors make? 
 
 Mr. Wood. It would be impossible for me to trace beyond the contracts we 
 make with subcontractors. I should assume — I should say that in the case of 
 the Government vessels at least thirty subcontracts were made in which the 
 articles contracted for — that is, subcontracted for — are specified in the original 
 contract. 
 
 The Chairman. You, in the first instance, make probably thirty? 
 
 Mr. Wood. I think so ; probably more ; at least thirty. 
 
 The Chairman. And your subcontractors make some? 
 
 Mr. Wood. Doubtless they do. 
 
 The OgAiRMAN. You do not know how many, but have you any idea about it? 
 
 Mr. Wood. Well, shipbuilding embraces about 37 different trades, and taking 
 the products of 37 different trades it is very difficult to trace the ramifications. 
 I wish to stop with the subcontractors. I do not wish to carry the argument 
 to the point where it can be construed as ad absurdum. 
 
 The Chairman. I do not want to be inquisitive, but if there Is no objection 
 to stating it, about what proportion of the cost of building these ships is that 
 which is expended in your yard ; or, to state it differently, assuming the cost 
 of the ship to be $1,000,000, what proportion of that million do you pay away to 
 subcontractors ? 
 
 Mr. Wood. Dependent on the type of the ship, which determines the relative 
 proportion of labor and material, I should say 30 per cent is expended — from 
 30 to 40 per cent — on account of the subcontracts. 
 
140 EIGHT HOUES FOE LABOEEES ON GOVEENMENT WOEK. 
 
 The Chairman. And that reaches at least thirty different trades? 
 
 Mr. Wood. Yes, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. Located in different parts of the country? 
 
 Mr. Wood. Tes, sir. 
 
 Mr. FuRUSETH. Tou are building ships? 
 
 Mr. Wood. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. FtJKUSETH. How many hours do you work in your yard? 
 
 Mr. Wood. Ten hours. 
 
 Mr. FuRUSiSTH. On the outside or on the inside, or both? 
 
 Mr. Wood. Both. 
 
 Mr. FuRUSETH. Both? 
 
 Mr. Wood. Yes, sir. ' 
 
 Mr. FuKUSETH. Do you know of any other shipbuilders, or do you know of 
 any shipbuilders who work less than that? 
 
 Mr. Wood. Not any who are engaged in a similar class of work, competing 
 for the same class of work. I wish to say that our yard is engaged largely in 
 the construction of cargo ships, the type of ship which corresponds to the 
 English tramp, and the ship which we have got to depend on for the revival of 
 our merchant trade, and in order to build which we have got to work in 
 competition with the yards of England and Germany, and work and cut the 
 corners as close as possible in every respect. We have at this time, I wish to 
 say also, nearly completed the first two experimental cargo ships of large 
 capacity, intended for general trade the world over, just as the English tramp 
 is intended. These two ships are now under construction. 
 
 Mr. FuRUSETH. You say you build tramps? 
 
 Mr. Wood. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. FuEUSETH.: And you have to compete with England? 
 
 Mr. Wood. And Germany. 
 
 Mr. FuRTJSETH. And Germany? 
 
 Mr. Wood. Yes, sir — that is, in order to induce our people to invest in ships 
 of that kind, we have got to make the cost of our ships near the cost of foreign- 
 built vessels to justify their investment 
 
 Mr. FuRUSETH.' Your plant is a very modern plant, isn't it? 
 
 Mr. Wood. It has been built about — the shipbuilding department has been 
 built about eight years, or nine years, I think. 
 
 Mr. FuRUSETH. Got all modern appliances? 
 
 Mr. Wood. Probably not all ; a fair proportion of them. 
 
 Mr. FuRUSETH. Do you compa're favorably as to modern appliances with the 
 shipbuilding yards on the Tyne, say, or at Glasgow? 
 
 Mr. Wood. I should consider so, from the last and best information I have. 
 
 Mr. Ftjbuseth. Do you think you employ more men in the building of one ves- 
 sel than would be employed on the Tyne? 
 
 Mr. Wood. I think so. 
 
 Mr. FuRTJSETH. More men? 
 
 Mr. Wood. Yes, sir ; I think so. 
 
 Mr. FURUSETH. In the building of one vessel? 
 
 Mr. Wood. I think so. 
 
 Mr. FuBUSETH. In other words, the men you employ can not do as much work, 
 then, as the English workmen? 
 
 Mr. Wood. I think not. 
 
 Mr. FuKUSETH. That would be the reason, then, that you necessarily would 
 have to have longer hours of labor than the English shipbuilder? 
 
 Mr. Wood. That is one reason. 
 
 Mr. FuRUSETH. Do you know how many shipbuilding plants there are in this 
 country that work eight hours on the outside? 
 
 Mr. Wood. Not on this class of work. I do not know of any that work eight 
 hours at all. Some work nine hours, I believe, but not on this class of work. 
 
 Mr. FuRUSETH. You do repair work, don't you? 
 
 Mr. Wood. Very little. 
 
 Mr. FURUSETH. Very little up to the present? 
 
 Mr. Wood. Yes, sir ; very little. It is almost entirely new construction which 
 we are competing for in that class of work. 
 
 In reply to your question regarding the efficiency of the men : The difference 
 comes chiefly from the fact that on the other side the work is largely classified, 
 and the piecework system is universal. Certain men work on certain types of 
 work almost constantly. The great volume of the shipbuilding there is the pri- 
 mary reason for this increased efflcieiicy. ,In the yards in this country up to 
 this time it has been necessary to moveodr' men'kbout, working one day on a 
 
EIGHT HOURS FOB LABOEEES ON GOVEENMENT WOEK. 141 
 
 passenger ship, shortly afterwards on a freight carrier constructed entirely of 
 iron, and next on a torpedo boat, and they do not acquire the same proficiency 
 in the handling of the different parts, and can not turn out the same amount of 
 work for the same cost as they do on the other side. 
 
 Mr. McCuEARY. That is largely due to the fact that we do not build as many 
 ships? 
 
 Mr. Wood. That is the prime reason, and when we have a great volume of 
 work for our shipyards that difference will gradually melt away. 
 
 Mr. McOleaby. In fact, if you were to express an opinion, you think the 
 American mechanic will be able to do more work rather than less when he has 
 the same opportunity? 
 
 Mr. Wood. I think so, but he can not when he is changing about from one type 
 of work to another three or four times a year. 
 
 Mr. McCleaby. He can not become an expert in any one? 
 
 Mr. Wood. No, sir. 
 
 The Chairjian. And that is a condition that does not seem to relate person- 
 ally to the people on the two sides of the water? 
 
 Mr. Wood. The same would be true of two American shipyards doing the 
 same class of work — that is, the same difference would exist between the men 
 of the two yards ; that is, the difference is between the two sides of the water 
 rather than 
 
 The f'HAiBMAX. It is a matter of classification of the work? 
 
 Mr. Wood. Yes, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. And the same differences would exist here? 
 
 Mr. Wood. Yes, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. It is a difference of volume? 
 
 Mr. Wood. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. FrRUSETH. Do you know the Brooklyn Dry Dock Company? 
 
 Mr. Wood. The people who control the Erie Company? 
 
 Mr. FuKUSETH. Do you know what hours they work? 
 
 Mr. Wood. I do not. I think nine hours, howeyer. I am not sure, but I 
 think so. The matter of ship repairs, however, is entirely different from con- 
 structing of new worlc in competition with other concerns on this side and on 
 the other side of the water. For repair work, unusual, extraordinary prices 
 are charged, and there is not the competition, because a ship coming into port 
 and requiring repairs must have those repairs made then and there, no matter 
 what the cost is. 
 
 Mr. Fdeus'eth. The hours of labor in some of the shipyards on the eastern 
 coast — that is, in the New York district — have been reduced in the last year, 
 have they not? 
 
 Mr. Wood. I do not know whether any change has been made or not. I 
 think some of them are working nine hours, but whether that is a recent 
 change I do not know. 
 
 Mr. PuRUSETH. Have you had any call made upon you or any request from 
 your workmen at all to reduce hours of labor? 
 
 Mr. Wood. Certain elements in our yards did ; yes. We explained the situa- 
 tion to tliem, showed them the competition that we were engaged in, and the 
 result was that practically all the men returned to their work. 
 
 Mr. Riordan. If the hours of labor were reduced, then their salary per day 
 would be reduced at the same time, would it not? 
 
 Mr. Wood. That is right. 
 
 Mr. Riordan. Did they come to you and ask for a reduction of the hours of 
 labor under this consideration, that there would be a proportionate reduction of 
 wages? 
 
 Mr. Wood. No ; they would expect the wages to remain the same. It is 
 equivalent to asking for an advance. 
 
 Mr. Riordan. An advance of wages? 
 
 Mr. Wood. An advance of wages and also reducing the output of the yard. 
 
 Mr. GoEBEL. Is that very lengthy ? 
 
 Mr. Payson. This is the first extract that I have read from the tes- 
 timony which bears upon my side of the case in regard to tlie ship- 
 building industry which I particularly represent, from a man who 
 knows. 
 
 Mr. GoEBEL. It seems to me that as it is printed you might indi- 
 cate to us what part you desire us to read. 
 
142 EIGHT HOURS FOB LABORERS ON GOVERKMENT WORK. 
 
 Mr. Patson. There are points that no member of the committee 
 would ever see if we offered it to them to be read by them, because no 
 one would have the hardihood to suppose that you would go through 
 with it and deal with it in any such thorough manner. This is a mat- 
 ter of very great moment to us, and I do not feel at the present time 
 like offering any apology to the committee for the hour and a half 
 that I so far have taken up before the committee. I will skip parts 
 of this as I see opportunity while reading it. 
 
 Mr. Hearst. That seems to be the difficulty, that nobody seems to 
 feel like offering any apology for taking up the time of this com- 
 mittee. Is not this from the proceedings had before this committee ? 
 
 Mr. Payson. .Yes, sir; I have so stated. 
 
 The Chairman. I would say for the benefit of yourself, Mr. Hearst, 
 and Mr. Goebel, in regard to the recent proceedings of this committee, 
 that a hundred people, perhaps, have applied for hearings. 
 
 Then the contention was made by the friends of the bill that the 
 hearings had been had, and that nothing new could be said. To 
 that the reply was made that there were many new members of the 
 committee who had not been present at those hearings and did not 
 know what they contained, and that they would not and probably 
 could not, as a physical task, go through all the hearings that had 
 been had and extract from them that which was pertinent to this 
 bill. Out of that situation grew the proposition, on the part of the 
 Newport News shipyard and other interests, that they would go 
 through those hearings .and select what they considered to be perti- 
 nent, and submit it here to shorten the work of the committee, and 
 out of that grows this method. 
 * Mr. GoEBEL. I did not know that. I beg pardon for interrupting. 
 
 Mr. Payson. I will say, for the benefit of Mr. Hearst particularly, 
 that this is the first minute that I have occupied the time of the 
 committee in behalf especially of the interests that I represent here, 
 of the Newport News Shipbuilding Company. 
 
 Mr. Hearst. Of course I do not want to interrupt unduly, but it 
 seems to me that if we have had difficulty in getting this bill 
 reported in previous Congresses, we are going to have increased 
 difficulty if we review all the previous hearings in addition to what 
 Ave will have of our own, and would it be too much to expect of the 
 committee, if they are really anxious to get the bill through, that 
 they should acquaint themselves with the previous hearings at some 
 time other than during the hearings of the committee? 
 
 The Chairman. They had acquiesced in the proposition that the 
 quickest way to get at the meat of the hearings was to have the 
 counsel go over and mark those parts which they considered impor- 
 tant. 
 
 Mr. Hearst. So far as I am concerned, if that is the chief object, 
 1 shall not make any objection. 
 
 Mr. Payson. It is not only the chief object, but the only object, so 
 far as I am concerned, Mr. Hearst. 
 
 Mr. Hearst. Then I shall not make any objection. 
 
 Mr. GoEBEL. I was not here, and of course I did not know what 
 action had been taken. 
 
 Mr. GoMPERS. As I understood the offer of the gentlemen who 
 opposed this bill, it was that after they had submitted their argu- 
 
EIGHT HOURS FOE LABORERS ON" GOVERNMENT WORK. 143 
 
 merit in opposition to the bill they would then point out, and, in as 
 succinct a form as possible, direct the attention of the members of 
 the committee to that part of the testimony already had before 
 committees of the previous Congresses which they considered im- 
 portant, for the convenience of the members of the committee. I 
 am sure that I had never heard intimated, much less suggested, that 
 the gentlemen opposed to the bill would in the presence of the mem- 
 bers of the committee and in the presence of those who favor the 
 bill undertake to read the testimony and letters that were alread}' in 
 print. 
 
 Surely if the\members of the committee have not the time to look 
 up for themselves the testimony I can scarcely see where the reason 
 comes in to sit in committee and hear the testimony read. It seems 
 to me that most all of you gentlemen — I am sure, speaking for myself, 
 that I can — can read faster for yourselves than it can be read for us, 
 having even so good a reader as Judge Payson read to us. I sumbit to 
 the consideration of the members or the committee whether the inti- 
 mation or the statement I made in the earlier part of these hearings 
 is not justified, namely, that the policy of the opponents of the bill 
 was by every means and contrivance in their power to delay the hear- 
 ings of this committee so as to make it impossible to report the bill. 
 
 At a former hearing of the committee umbrage was taken at what 
 I said as to the policy of procrastination practiced by the opponents 
 of the bill for years and years, and an attempt was made to rebulie 
 me because I said that either wittingly or unwittingly the committee 
 was permitting itself to be used to prolong inordinately the hearings 
 before this committee; but that is proven every moment which the 
 committee meetings are held. I again say that I can understand 
 these gentlemen. They are opposed to this bill and they are going to 
 resort, I was going to say, to every lawful means-^yes, I am per- 
 fectly willing that the statement should stand — to all the lawful 
 rights to which they are entitled in order to defeat the bill ; and their 
 main object, the main policy that they have pursued, has been that of 
 delay. 
 
 It is not a matter of yesterday or the day before, but it has been a 
 matter of years and years, and every man who has been in attendance 
 at these committee meetings knows that what I have said is true. I 
 did not intend and I do "not intend to reflect upon any member of this 
 committee. That is not my purpose. But I do think that it is my 
 duty to call to your attention the policy that these gentlemen have 
 successfully pursued for so many years, and are pursuing now, and 
 under what appears on the surface a fair proposition. Some of the 
 members of the committee are new to this committee and to this work, 
 and superficially it appears, " Well, surely the members ought to know 
 the thing upon which they are asked to report." 
 
 But we are sitting here and listening to the reading of testimony 
 submitted here years and years ago — some years ago — a reading of 
 the testimony, a reading of the record in every word, not because any 
 particular point bears upon any particular feature of the bill, but a 
 reading of every trivial question and answer given and recorded, all 
 over and over again. I wonder if they could not — it seems to me it 
 would be economy of time for the members of the committee — to take 
 those hearings, having pointed out to them by .the opponents of the 
 
144 BIGHT HOURS FOR LABORERS OlST GOVERNMENT WORK. 
 
 bill, and, if you please, by those who favor the bill, those portions 
 which we desire to submit to your consideration in advocacy of or in 
 opposition to the bill and read them for themselves. 
 
 Mr. Payson. Mr. Chairman, when Mr. Gompers says that it was 
 his distinct understanding and the understanding of every member of 
 this committee that after the arguments had been made against this 
 bill, then there was simply to be a reference to such items as gentle- 
 men who were opposed to the bill thought right and proper to be read 
 by the members of the committee at their convenience, he is guilty of 
 two errors, both of them under the matter so far as this observation 
 is concerned. 
 
 Every member of the committee who was present knows that the 
 arrangement distinctly was that those who were in favor of the bill 
 should take the opening, and Mr. Gompers declined to make any 
 statement, and said that he was content with the knowledge that the 
 committee had, and then in an orderly way it was said that those who 
 were opposed to the bill could be heard; and those who did me the 
 honor to listen to what I had to say will remember that at the outset 
 I stated that I did not propose to argue the merits of the bill at all, 
 that I desired as a lawyer — because that is the only business that I 
 have had since I have been in business life — to outline the case that 
 I hoped to present before this committee, and to call the attention of 
 the committee to the difference between this bill and those bills which 
 preceded it; and that statement I was compelled to make because 
 Mr. Gompers, with the vehemence which he always manifests when 
 he gets to talking about this bill, had asserted that the bill now being 
 considered by the committee was the same bill which was considered 
 all these years before the committees of Congress at both ends of the 
 Capitol. 
 
 I disputed that, and then he repeated it, and then you, Mr. Chair- 
 man, set him right by an explanation of the substantial differences 
 between the bill now before this committee and the so-called Hitt 
 bill of the last Congress, and the McComas bill, and the bill of two 
 Congresses before that. You set him right in detail. Then I made a 
 statement before the committee as to what I expected to show, and it 
 was called out by the suggestion from Mr. Norris, the gentleman from 
 Nebraska; and I then had in my hand the paper which I now have 
 here, in which I said I had digested from the different hearings the 
 statements and letters that I would ask to read to the committee, 
 thinking that would be easier and more conducive to economy of 
 time than to call the gentlemen themselves here and put them at 
 this end of the table to make verbal statements, and that it would be 
 concise and would be readily accessible and would afford members 
 who cared to read it an opportunity to know what my side of the case 
 was so far as the shipbuilding industry was concerned; and I said 
 at that time, and this I repeat tor the benefit of you, Mr. Hearst, par- 
 ticularly, that the hearings are composed of these four volumes 
 which I have here and these three volumes which I have here, and 
 two others which I do not have, aggregating over 5,000 pages of testi- 
 mony, and I said that I doubted whether there was a member of Con- 
 gress who would even read through the index, much less read what 
 1 desired to present here. 
 
 (At this point Mr. Gompers rose.) 
 
 Now, Mr. Gompers, I do not care to be interrupted at this time. I 
 
EIGHT HOTJES FOB lABOKEKS ON GOVEKNMENT WOEK. 145 
 
 have, as you know, the utmost respect for you, but I must insist that 
 when I let you interrupt me for a single sentence you go on for half 
 an hour. 
 
 Mr. GoMPERS. But you always misinterpret my position and mis- 
 quote me, and it appears with the intent, perhaps, to place me 
 
 Mr. Patson. Not at all. 
 
 Mr. GoMPEES (continuing). In an improper position. 
 
 Mr. Payson. Not at all. 
 
 Mr. GoMPEES. And I shall ask the committee to be heard for a 
 moment. 
 
 Mr. Payson. Certainly; I am not insisting; but while I have the 
 floor and. I am pursuing a certain line of thought I prefer to pursue it 
 to the end. You may interrupt me for a question. 
 
 Mr. GoMPEES. The gentleman being interrupted, if it be an inter- 
 ruption, because Judge Payson has said that he never regarded any- 
 thing as an interruption when he was speaking 
 
 Mr. Payson. When I am making an argument ; no. 
 
 Mr. GoMPEBS. He was interrupted; he was interrupted by Judge 
 Goebel, and the interruption has been continued ever since, and now 
 I ask that I may be heard for a minute or so in order at this stage of 
 the proceedings to correct the position in which Mr. Payson im- 
 properly places me. 
 
 The Chairman. Are you Mailing to yield now ? 
 
 Mr. Payson. Oh, surely ; only do not let it be said hereafter that 
 this amount of time is being consumed by us, the opponents of this 
 bill. 
 
 Mr. GoMPEBS. All right ; it is in my time, then. 
 
 In the first place, Mr. Chairman, I want to saj' that I did not say 
 that the members of this committee knew or could know the merits 
 of this bill, and that I was willing that the members of the committee 
 should rest on their knowledge of the arguments or the facts upon 
 which this bill rests. What I did say was that most of the members 
 of this committee knew the arguments and knew the facts, and those 
 who were new members of the committee could easily obtain them in 
 the printed hearings and arguments, and, which is essentially so 
 even in this committee, as you know, at some meetings of the com- 
 mittee there has been a quorum, and at other times there has not been, 
 and upon what will those members of the committee who have been 
 absent from the committee hearings have to rely? Either upon 
 their knowledge of the facts upon which this bill is based, the argu- 
 ments, the advocacy of its beneficent purposes, or they will have to 
 consult the printed hearings and arguments just exactly as in this 
 case. 
 
 Now, as for the other point, in attributing to me a statement that 
 this is the same bill as in the last Congress, I think he is shooting 
 far from the mark. What I did say was its purpose was the same ; 
 that in its essential features the object was the same; that there was 
 considerable difference in its language and in its scope, but the pur- 
 pose of the bill, the reasons for advocating it, were the same. And I 
 think it would not be amiss to have statements which are made, so 
 far as they apply either to one side or the other, submitted with a 
 greater accuracy than that which usually characterizes those made 
 with reference to us who advocate the passage of the bill. 
 
146 ■ EIGHT HOUES FOE LABOEEES ON GOVEENMENT WOEK. 
 
 Mr. Payson. Proceeding to what I was about to say, the gentleman 
 with earnestness insisted that all this opposition had been purely- 
 factious, and nothing had resulted from it but delay. Now, in a 
 word, may I say for the benefit of some of the members who were 
 not here when the statement to which I am about to refer was made, 
 Mr.. Eainey and Mr. Hearst, that the opposition to this bill by those, 
 including myself and other gentlemen, who have opposed it from the 
 beginning, resulted in eliminating from the bill more than 95 per 
 cent of the manufacturers of the country who did Government work. 
 In other words, the early bill, the original Gardner bill, as this bill, 
 covered more than 95 per cent of the purchases by the Government of 
 the manufactured articles which the Government has occasion to use 
 and which it requires. 
 
 This Mil does it. I am prepared at a later stage to show that. I 
 have the documents in my gripsack now to show it, something that 
 never has been brought before this committee before; and in your 
 own time T challenge a denial of that statement, Mr. Gompers. In 
 our opposition to this bill we succeeded, not with my -own particular 
 interest, because I have always been in this bill — shipbuilders have 
 always been under the ban of this bill — but the opposition to it suc- 
 ceeded, the cloud of manufacturers who came to this Capitol suc- 
 ceeded, in securing the inclusion in the exceptions to the bill more 
 than 95 per cent of the articles which the Government requires. 
 
 Now, we have come back to the same old ground that we had eight 
 and ten years ago. And when the gentleman says that he was not 
 clamoring particularly for any ill-advised or too early action on this 
 bill, I repeat again for the benefit of those who were not here at the 
 first meetings of this committee that at the very first meeting that this 
 committee had, where we were told that the only object of the meet- 
 ing was that Mr. Gompers might make the acquaintance of the new 
 members of this committee and make some statement with reference 
 to the bill, we were met then, at the end of something like an hour 
 and a half's oration from Mr. Gompers, with the demand from him 
 that the bill be taken up now and here and reported. 
 
 It looks to me as though there was a little indiscreet, haste in mak- 
 ing that sort of demand and at that time. But coming back now to 
 the present situation, I have occupied about an hour in stating what 
 the position of my clients is. I have read four printed pages, and 
 that is the extent of the consumption of time by me in behalf of an 
 interest, Mr. Chairman, that is one of the most important aiSFected by 
 the operation of this bill, with millions of dollars of capital honestly 
 invested, thousands of workmen, content with the existmg situation, 
 and the industry itself threatened with injury, if hot absolute dis- 
 aster, by the passage of this bill, and we are simply asking in behalf 
 of this committee a patient consideration of it, and less than two and a 
 half hours' time at this session of Congress has been occupied by me 
 up to this time — ^not so long by the clock as the time my friend Mr. 
 Gompers has occupied in denouncing our attitude and clamoring for 
 immediate action on the bill. 
 
 Mr. Hearst. I do not think that the committee is trying to limit 
 you unduly ; but as you will probably want to say something in addi- 
 tion after you have read all the previous hearings 
 
 Mr. Payson. Not all of it. 
 
 Mr. Hearst. Well, a part of it. 
 
EIGHT HOUES POK LABOBEBS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. 147 
 
 Mr. Patsdn. Not a percentage of it. 
 
 Mr. Hjiaest. We thoiught that you might speedily get to that point. 
 
 Mr. Patsdn. I will make it as speedy as I can. 
 
 Mr. BbABST. There is a limit to our inability to understand this 
 situation, and 
 
 Mr. Payson. I do not quite understand that. A limit to your ability 
 to understand it ? 
 
 Mr. Hearst. I used the word " inability." 
 
 Mr. Payson. Oh, yes. What is the pleasure of the committee? 
 May I proceed in order ? 
 
 The Chairman. Certainly, sir. 
 
 Mr. Payson. I continue on page 199. Mr. Gompers now takes up 
 the dialogue. 
 
 Mr. Hunt. What year is this ? 
 
 Mr. Payson. These are the hearings of 1900, the first session of the 
 Fifty- sixth Congress. 
 
 (Reading:) 
 
 Mr. GOMPEBS. When you were called upon by the committee to reduce the 
 hours of labor, what number did this committee consist of — how many? 
 
 Mr. Wood. I can not answer that positively, because the call was made on our 
 manager of our shipbuilding department in my absence. 
 
 Mr. Gompers. How many employees have you in your yard? 
 
 Mr. Wood. About 800. 
 
 Mr. GoMPEBS. Did this committee say that they represented the men in your 
 -employ ? 
 
 Mr. Wood. They represented certain portions of the men — that is, the iron 
 ■workers and the machinists, I think. 
 
 Mr. GoirpEBS. The boiler makers? 
 
 Mr. Wood. I do not think the boiler makers were represented. I am not posi- 
 tive about that. But in numbers they claimed to represent, I think, about three- 
 quarters of the employees of the yard. 
 
 Mr. Gompers. You say you discussed this matter with this committee, or your 
 representative discussed it 
 
 Mr. Wood. Certainly ; that is our policy always. 
 
 Mr. Gompers (continuing). With this committee, and urged the close compe- 
 tition in the business as tlie reason why you could not accede, or your com- 
 pany could not accede, to the request for a reduction of the hours of labor? 
 
 Mr. Wood. That was the reason. 
 
 Mr. GoMPEES. And that practically all of them returned to work? 
 
 Mr. Wood., They did not return to work immediately. 
 
 Mr. GoMPEBS. How long were they out? 
 
 Mr. Wood. There was an interval of, I suppose, three days, or two days, It is 
 possible, and then they came back in small detachments. 
 
 Mr. Gompers. Who, for instance, went out — how many of your employees? 
 
 Mr. Wood. Probably three-quarters. 
 
 Mr. Gompers. In other words, it was a little over 600 out of your 800 em- 
 ployees? ' 
 
 Mr. Wood. It was enough to completely stop the work of the yard, practically. 
 
 Mr. Gompers. They were out on strike, then, for a few days, to enforce the 
 demand for a reduction in the hours of labor? 
 
 Mr. Wood. That is doubtless true of a portion. I think the majority, however, 
 were out waiting to see the outcome of the demand, and for fear that they 
 would be subjected to uncomfortable experiences if they returned to their work. 
 
 Mr. Gompebs. They were out on strike? 
 
 Mr. Wood. A portion 
 
 Mr. Gompers. Of those 600 or more employees were out on strike endeavoring 
 to enforce that demand? 
 
 Mr. Wood. I do not think 600 were out on strike, from the information we had. 
 I think only a small portion were on strike. 
 
 Mr. Gompers. What were they all doing, then? Why is it that they did not 
 return to the employment ; why did they 
 
 Mr. Wood (interrupting). If you are familiar with the operation of bodies of 
 workmen, you know very well that if a portion only quits working the balance 
 
 E H— 06 11 
 
148 EIGHT HOURS FOE LABORERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. 
 
 hesitate for a long time, on account of tlie numerous hardships and disagreeable 
 experiences which they are always subjected to by those who have taken the 
 initiative. 
 
 Mr. GoMPERS. I presume you are aware also that on the other side, if your 
 statement is correct, there are some workmen who will remain in an establish- 
 ment for fear that they might lose what they regard as the only haven of oppor- 
 tunity for employment. 
 
 Mr. Wood. There are all kinds of people in a large industrial establishment. 
 
 Mr. GoMPERS. I would like you to state to the committee and explain — you 
 said that there were only a very small number or proportion of your employees 
 who really wanted a shorter workday 
 
 Mr. Wood. I do not think I stated that. I said that only a small portion quit 
 their work and took the initiative in shutting up the establishment because they 
 wanted a shorter workday. 
 
 Mr. GoMPERS. I had no reference to the latter part of your testimony. 
 
 Mr. Wood. I beg your pardon, I think what you referred to, and I think if 
 you will refer to the notes you will find it, was that I said : " There is always 
 a considerable element in any body of workmen which does not wish to have its 
 hours of labor and its earning power restricted or interfered with. In other 
 words, they do not want to have their profits curtailed. They wish, as people 
 in any other line of business do, to be free to make all the profit they can ; and 
 by the workman's profit I mean the difference between his living expenses and 
 his earnings." 
 
 Mr. Htjnt. Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that there is a quo- 
 rum of this committee, and s&me of the members have something to 
 bring up before the committee, I move that we go into executive 
 session. 
 
 The Chairman. That motion is in order. 
 
 Mr. Hearst. I second the motion. 
 
 The Chairman. It is moved and seconded that the hearings be 
 discontinued at this point, and that the committee go into executive 
 session. 
 
 The question was taken ; and the motion was agreed to. 
 
 The Chairman. The ayes have it, and it is so ordered. 
 
 (At this point the committee went into executive session.) 
 
 LETTERS AND RESOLUTIONS RECEIVED IN REFERENCE TO THE EIGHT-HOUR 
 BILL PENDING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE. 
 
 Boston, Mass., DecemUer 29, 1905. 
 Hon. John J.-,Gaednee, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. 0. 
 Dear Sir : We see that the Gompers eight-hour bill is already under your 
 consideration again as the chairman of the House Committee on Labor. As 
 we have previously taken occasion to protest respectfully ' but emphatically 
 against this proposed legislation, we will not now take up your time with 
 further argument. We feel bound to repeat, however, that we consider this 
 an utterly needless and decidedly dangerous measure. 
 We sincerely hope that it will be killed in committee. 
 Yours, truly, 
 
 The Caster's Ink Company, 
 By Richard B. Cabtek, President. 
 
 MiLLiKEN Brothers, 
 New York, January 31, 1906. 
 Hon. John J. Gardner, 
 
 Oom/imttee on Laior, Bouse of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 
 Dear Sir : As large employers of labor we write to you to urge you to use 
 your great influence against what is known as the " Gompers national eight- 
 hour bill." 
 This bill has been before Congress several times, and always at times when 
 
EIGHT HOURS FOR LABORERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. 149 
 
 the supposed political aud economic influence of the so-called labor vote was 
 esteemed to be of very much greater weight than at the present time, and this 
 bill has always heretofore failed to secure a favorable report in committee. 
 
 Since that time public opinion— which was at least tolerant, if not favorable, 
 to the pretensions of the labor unions — has undergone a very great change, 
 and the other 80,000,000 people In this country not only object to class legisla- 
 tion for the less than 3,000,000 organized members of labor unions, but are 
 alarmed and incensed at the excesses of the unions; the total disregard by 
 the unions of the interests of the balance of the community, and of the obli- 
 gations entailed on the unions in the contracts or agreements which they 
 make, and at the constant resort by the unions to intimidation, violence, and 
 even murder, of which crime there were no less than 163 instances during the 
 past year committed by union upon nonunion workmen. 
 
 We speak feelingly on this matter, as we have had more than our fair share 
 in the past in combating the vagaries and the crimes of labor leaders, Sam 
 Parks being the delegate in our industry with whom for some years we were 
 obliged to deal. These conditions entailed on us a fight which cost us $75,000 
 or $100,000 directly and cost the building Industry in this city millions of dol- 
 lars directly and indirectly, and a loss of enormous sums to the real estate 
 and investing interests, and occupied the attention of men of affairs for 
 months to the exclusion of more profitable duties. 
 
 We feel. In view of our experience, that we are competent to hold an opinion 
 on the benefits and losses from labor unions as they are conducted, and we 
 know whereof we speak when we state that they are a curse to the employed 
 luite as much as to the employer, not only because the former are the more 
 helpless, but (and more important) because the union principle strikes at the 
 foundations of American citizenship and saps that individualism which, after 
 all, Is the basis of this country's greatness. 
 
 The genius of the American character may be fairly described as industrial- 
 ism, not for the money that is in it, but as work for work's sake, and the 
 present preeminence of American industrialism has been won through con- 
 stant and enthusiastic application to the day's work, and surely not through 
 any voluntary or involuntary curtailment of effort or interest. 
 
 •The inevitable tendency and the consequence of unionism Is to create a level- 
 ing effect preventing the rise of men from the ranks and reducing all to the 
 level of the poorest workman, teaching men to rely on organization, rather 
 than on individual effort. The uneducated masses are taught to believe that 
 the total demand for labor is a fixed quantity, and that therefore the less any 
 one mechanic performs the more demand for labor remains to be divided among 
 the others, so that by cutting down the hours of work, or what Is the same 
 thing, the amount performed within a stated time, they. In effect, prolong 
 their tenure of employment. 
 
 The actual result is to increase the cost of the finished product, which in 
 the end, whether in rents, as In the building Industry, or In the necessaries of 
 life, as In other trades, falls most hardly again upon the very workmen them- 
 selves. 
 
 We vfould further point out to you that the compulsory reduction from nine 
 hours to eight hours in the day's work means that even If wages per diem are 
 correspondingly reduced (which it Is not likely they would be) the cost of the 
 finished product is nevertheless very greatly enhanced, and by more than the 
 corresponding benefit, If any, which would accrue to labor. 
 
 The profit In manufacturing is made In the profitable turning over of the 
 manufacturer's capital as often as possible, whether that capital be employed in 
 materials or in plant or in his pay rolls for labor. For instance, a manu- 
 facturer employing a capital of $1,000,000 and turning over a business of 
 $4,000,000 per annum would, for example, on the basis of 8 per cent profit on 
 his overturn, earn 32 per cent on the capital Involved. On the other hand, to 
 the extent that his shop facilities are Idle, his ability to secure a return on the 
 capital invested Is not only correspondingly reduced, but very much more 
 greatly reduced, in view of the above considerations, and also because his 
 general expenses, selling costs, Interests, superintendence, insurance of various 
 kinds, depreciation, etc., go on just the game during the idle hour or hours. 
 
 The statistics of the last census show that the average annual income of 
 qualified practicing physicians in this country Is less than $600. These men 
 are educated men; their education has taken several years of their life and 
 cost thousands of dollars ; their profession calls for the exhibition of the finer 
 qualities of mind and heart, such as are not commonly involved in the pro- 
 
150 EIGHT HOURS FOR LABORERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. 
 
 fession of day labor. Tliese men work more than eight hours per day ; they 
 often work night and day. The mechanics in our trade, on the other hand, 
 can be fitted for their profession in a few weeks without any expense beyond 
 their mere cost of living meantime. They are to-day earning incomes running 
 from $1,200 to $1,500 per annum ; they do not have to even read and write, but 
 take their orders from a gang boss. Comment is needltss. 
 
 On the other hand, if, even assuming that it were possible to enforce a law 
 preventing mechanics from working beyond eight hours per day, it is obviously 
 impossible to enforce such a law in the case of agricultural hands, domestic 
 servants, professional men, and others, whose wages run to-day less than the 
 favored few belonging to la,bor unions. 
 
 ' Of course were is possible for some benevolent dictator to insure that no 
 one in any class of life should work more than so long we would all then be 
 just where we were before in respect to each other, but so long as this is 
 obviously impossible, the net result is merely legislation as the demand of a 
 class, for a class, and to that extent against the masses. 
 
 The influence of labor unions can best be observed in Great Britain, which 
 Ms been union ridden for years, and to a greater extent than any other 
 cotmtry, and where the labor cost in the manufacture of machinery has ruled 
 England out of many markets. In the building trade in London the union 
 limits the number of bricks set by a mason to 300 per diem, whereas 1,800 and 
 sometimes 2,000 and even 2,300 bricks are laid by a mason in one day, not 
 only in this country, but this has been done with British workmen within 
 three years, but without union interference. The result of all this union inter- 
 ference on behalf of the workmen certainly does not show any increase in the 
 earnings of mechanics, but, on the contrary (largely due to these very con- 
 ditilons), that country is to-day suffering from thousands of men who are unem- 
 ployed. The unions can not point to Great Britain, where they have had full 
 scope, as any testimonial or indorsement of the correctness of their theories. 
 
 In our own trade wages for outside men have increased within the past 
 eight years from $2.75 and $3 per day to $4.50 per day, but the cost of erection — 
 that is, the work which these men do — has increased from $4 and $6 per ton to 
 $15 and $18 per ton for the same work under similar conditions, and at a time 
 too, when improved methods and appliances should have produced a different 
 result. 
 
 The upshot of this is that while the cost of this work to the consumer has 
 increased three or four fold, wages have only increased perhaps 60 or 70 per 
 cent in the same time. The missing difEerence represents waste and loss to the 
 consumer and absolutely no benefit to the mechanic. 
 
 It is an accepted fact, on the other hand, that instead of getting eight hours' 
 work out of a mechanic, we do not get the equivalent of over four or five hours' 
 work, due solely to the fact that the man is working for the unions and not for 
 his employer. The question of whether a man works under these conditions 
 eight or nine hours per day is comparatively immaterial, and the theory that 
 he will spend the extra hour in spiritual or even intellectual improvement is a 
 fallacy. 
 
 Wages have risen in this country very largely within the past few years, but 
 not owing very largely to the influence of the labor unions. Comparing the 
 index number for the year 1887, which was 1885, with the index number for 
 1905, which was 2342, it will be observed that the cost of living has increased 
 almost 50 per cent. The present high wages are of course in part due to the 
 increased cost of living, but mainly due to the unexampled prosperity which 
 this country is at present experiencing. On the other hand, the increased cost 
 of living is undoubtedly due in considerable part to the effects of labor unionism, 
 for the reason that the working out of these theories is not economic in any 
 sense, but extravagant and harmful in a cumulative degree. 
 
 We would beg to point out to you also that the greatest hardship and injus- 
 tice in connection with this proposed legislation would be an indirect one, and 
 the laborites well know this. The bill provides, of course, that it has reference 
 to work being done for the Federal Government. It is impossible, however, 
 for any manufacturer to run his plant- partly on an eight and partly on a nine 
 or ten hour basis, and it is impossible for ninety-nine manufacturers out of a 
 hundred to run their plants entirely on Government work. The result is there- 
 fore that either a manufacturer must refuse all work directly or even indirectly 
 for Government account, or else he would be forced to go on the eight-hour 
 basis for commercial or private work. 
 
EIGHT HOURS FOR LABORERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. 151 
 
 The alternative result of the proposed bill, therefore, is twofold: First, of 
 indirectly increasing the cost of manufacture, and by reducing the number of 
 competitors on Government work the cost to the Government of all its pur- 
 chfises is very largely increased, and the taxpayers (which means the rest of 
 the country) are unjustly taxed for the benefit of a class, or else, 
 
 Secondly, the cost of all manufacture Is increased by all manufacturers 
 going on an eight-hour basis, tO' the end that the cost of commodities and the 
 cost of living to the entire country is enhanced for the benefit of one special 
 class. , 
 
 In the particular business in which we are engaged — the manufacturing of 
 structural steel and its fabrication — it is an absolute impossibility for us to run 
 our plant on an eight-hour basis. Many of the processes are of their nature 
 necessarily continuous, and should this bill become a law, we would be obliged 
 to refuse to figure on or to furnish any work destined even ultimately to be 
 used by the United States Government. What is of importance, if America 
 is to retain her industrial supremacy, is that anything giving aid and comfort 
 to the present labor trust is shortsighted and injurious as affecting the welfare 
 of the entire people. 
 
 We are opposed root and branch to anything and everything favoring the 
 unions as they are and have been conducted, because they are illogical and 
 impracticable, and very largely hurtful in their aim and essence, and vicious 
 and often criminal in their practical working out. 
 
 We trust that you will pardon the length as well as the franlmess with which 
 we have stated our views on a subject to \^hich, in common with all other 
 American manufacturers, we have been giving a great deal of thought in the 
 past five or six years. 
 
 Very respectfully, yours, Edw. F. Milliken. 
 
 MiLLiKEN Brothers, , 
 
 Neio York, April 5, 1906. 
 Hon. John J. Gardner, 
 
 Chairmuii Committee on Labor, House of Representatives, 
 
 Washington, D. G. 
 Dear Sir : Referring again to Gompers's national eight-hour bill in relation 
 to hours of labor, I beg to call your attention to the decision of Judge Stafford 
 of the supreme court of the District of Columbia in granting an injunction 
 against the -union printers of that city, now on strike, which injunction is, 
 similar to that wtiicli lias just been made permanent l)y Justice Greenbaum ii^ 
 this city against the Typographical Union here. 
 In granting this injunction Judge Stafford says: 
 
 " There is something more important than fair wages, and that Is the right, 
 to work for any wages the workman is willing to accept. There is something 
 more important than an eight-hour day, and that is a free day. Any enhance- 
 ment of wages, any lessening of the hours of labor, any improvements in the 
 conditions of employment would be too dearly bought by the surrender of the 
 smallest fraction of individual liberty." 
 
 " Very truly, yours, E. F. Milliken. 
 
 Milliken Brothers, 
 
 .Vew York, May %k, t906. 
 Hon. John J. Gardner, 
 
 Chairman Committee on Labor, House of Representatives, 
 
 Washington, D. C. 
 Dear Sib : Supplementing our previous letter to you, we desire earnestly to 
 protest against House bill No. 11651, known as the "Bight-hour bill." This 
 company is engaged in business as manufacturers and contractors of all kinds 
 of iron and steel work, and is the incorporation of the old-established business 
 of the former partnership of Milliken Brothers. We are now completing oa 
 Staten Island a very large plant for the manufacture and rolling of steel, 
 which we propose to have In operation before the 1st of November, when we 
 will be in position to compete even more largely than heretofore as contractors 
 and manufacturers for almost any kind of iron and steel work which the Gov- 
 ernment may require. 
 
 Should this bill, however, become a law of the United States, we will be 
 obliged to refrain from bidding on or furnishing any Government work what- 
 
152 EIGHT HOUES FOR LABORERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. 
 
 ever, either as contractors or subcontractors, and it is the judgment of tlie 
 officers of this company that contractors and manufacturers will very generally 
 be obliged to decline to enter into contracts for work or materials for the Gov- 
 ernment upon the conditions required by this bill, which are arbitrary, unjust, 
 burdensome, and inimical to the contractor and manufacturer for the following 
 manifest reasons, among others : 
 
 (o) The contractor or manufacturer would be at the mercy not only of the 
 Government inspectors and minor olficials in charge of the work, but also at the 
 mercy of his own employees and of all his subcontractors and their employees 
 to the en4 of the line. 
 
 (6) The inspector would be the witness, judge, and jury, upon whose dictum, 
 right or wrong, true or false, just or unjust, the contractor is to be deprived 
 of part, perhaps, of all of the contract price, not because his work is not in ac- 
 cordance with the plans and specifications, but because it is charged by an 
 inspector that mechanics or laborers — ^perhaps in the employ of other parties- 
 have on certain alleged occasions worked even a fraction of a day more than 
 eight hours per day. 
 
 (c) It is impracticable, and we allege impossible, to run our work on shifts 
 of eight hours, for steel can not be made in that time and the furnaces must be 
 kept going during the process or chill and be ruined. To try and run the works 
 with three shifts of eight hours — which involves a reduction of between 30 and 
 40 per cent in the output — and for other practical reasons is out of the question. 
 It is not possible either to run our works, or any other steel plant, partly on 
 eight hours on Government contracts and partly for longer hours on private 
 work. 
 
 (d) As this bill is framed, it would be necessary for a contractor or manu- 
 facturer to employ men with watch in hand at all parts, places, and stages of 
 the work to drive every mechanic and laborer from his work the very minute 
 he has worked eight hours, for if he is " permitted " to work an instant over- 
 time the contractor is liable for the penalty, whether or not he is innocent of 
 any intentional breach of the contract. How unreasonable Is a law which does 
 not punish the violator — the laborer, who knowingly and intentionally works 
 overtime — and punishes only the employer, who has neglected, perhaps through 
 ignorance of the fact or inadvertence, to interfere and to stop the workman at 
 the right moment. 
 
 The bill is objectionable as being against public policy, against the interest of 
 tl>e Government itself, and in the attempted though futile benefit of a class 
 only ; as being grossly unfair to the rest of the people who are not laborers or 
 mechanics employed on Government works, by enormously increasing the cost 
 of public work ; as containing provisions outside of the legitimate functions of 
 the CongreFS, etc., all of which objections, of course, have been fully and 
 exhaustively argued before your committee by others, and which we will, there- 
 fore, not enlarge upon at this time. 
 
 We respectfully request that you will not favor reporting this bill in any form. 
 Very respectfully, yours, 
 
 E. P. MiLLiKEN, Vice-President. 
 
 E. D. Wood & Co.. 
 Philadelphia, May 7. 1906. 
 John J. G-wjoneb, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 
 
 Dear Sie : Pardon us for writing you another letter regarding legislation, 
 but we take it that our Congressmen are sent to Washington to attend to that 
 part of our business. 
 
 We are referring to bill H. R. 13651, limiting the hours and daily services of 
 laborers and mechanics employed on work done for the United States, etc., to 
 eight hours. 
 
 In the past we have furnished the Government considerable pipe, but should 
 this bill pass we can see no way in which, under its provisions, cast-iron pipe 
 can be manufactured, as eight-hour shifts will not permit the work to be done. 
 
 We take It that Congress in passing this bill will, at the same time, arrange 
 for the erection of cast-iron-pipe foundries and such other manufacturing 
 establishments whose business is of such a nature as to call for longer shifts 
 than eight hours, as in the case of vessels, or perhaps the Government will be 
 
EIGHT HOURS FOR LABORERS OK GOVERNMENT WORK. 153 
 
 satisfied to go without materials of this character, as it will be impossible 9)v 
 them to purchase them if the conditions stated in this bill are to become the law 
 of the country. 
 
 Pardon this crude way of stating the proposition, but it Is- the easiest manner 
 of Illustrating how this bill will operate in not only our business, but many other 
 kinds of manufacturing. 
 
 Tours, very truly, R. D. Wood & Co. 
 
 Bkistol, Conn., May 7, 1906. 
 Hon. John J. Gabdneb, M. C, 
 
 Chairman Labor Oommittee, Washington, D. C. 
 Deab Sie: We wish to enter our emphatic protest against H. K. 11651, as we 
 believe that this bill is unjust and unfair both to the Government and to all 
 parties concerned. 
 
 Respectfully, yours, W. E. Sessions, President. 
 
 Wateebitby, Conn., May 7, 1906. 
 Hon. John J. Gabdneb, M. C, 
 
 Washington, D. O. 
 Deab Sib: We wish to enter our emphatic protest against bill H. R. 11651. 
 We consider it an unjust, discriminating piece of legislation, which would cer- 
 tainly work against the interest of the Government and would certainly not be 
 beneficial to labor Interests in the long run. 
 Respectfully, yours. 
 
 The Novelty Manufactubing Company. 
 
 Camden, N. J., May 7, 1908. 
 Hon. John J. Gardner. 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 
 
 Dear Sib : We are very much interested in the progress of bill H. R. 11651, 
 entitled " Bill limiting the hours of daily service for laborers and mechanics 
 employed upon work done for the United States, or any Territory, or District 
 of Columbia, etc." We very strongly protest against the passage of this bill, 
 as it is interfering with the rights and privileges of individuals. We are 
 supposed to be living in a free country, where the rights and privileges of in- 
 dividuals are equal, and it will be diSicult to conduct one branch of work upon 
 certain hours per day while perhaps the balance of the plant would be run on 
 the regular standard time adopted by the majority of manufacturers. 
 
 An equalization of the cost of labor is probably justifiable, but that is no 
 doubt a thing fhat will regulate itself. We do not think, however, that any 
 law should be passed that would interfere with a contract that may be made 
 between an employer and the employed. The restriction in the hours will not 
 likely be productive of better results. We think that the contrary is likely to 
 be the result of an experiment of that kind, for the reason that leisure time 
 is not usually used by the laboring classes for advantageous purposes, and 
 particularly is this so with the class of laborers with which the country has 
 to contend at the present time. In addition to this the present system of 
 labor organization has a tendency to raise the poorer class of workmen to the 
 level of the better class, and experience seems to teach the fact that the dis- 
 position is to render the smallest amount of service possible for the compensa- 
 tion received. There are exceptions, however, to the rule, but in a general way 
 we think you will find this correct. Under the circumstances we hope that 
 you may feel justified in using your influence against the passage of the bill 
 in question, keeping before you the fact that we are living in a free country, 
 where the rights of each and every individual should be recognized. 
 Very respectfully, yours, 
 
 J. Eavenson & Sons, Inc., 
 Wm. J. Eavenson. Treasurer. 
 
154 EIGHT HOURS TOE LABORERS ON" GOVERNMENT WORK. 
 
 • Philadelphia, May 7, 1906. 
 
 Hon. John J. Gabdner, M. C, 
 
 Washington, D. 0. 
 Deab Sik : As manufacturers and citizens we must respectfully protest 
 against the favorable reporting of H. R. No. 11651. The passage of this bill 
 would rule out all manufacturers in competitive work, except those whos& 
 establishments were conducted on a strictly eight-hour basis, and there is no 
 justification for the passage of such an act. 
 
 Tours, truly, Schofield, Mason & Co. 
 
 Danbuey, Conn., May 7, ^,906. 
 Hon. John J. Gaednee. 
 
 Deae Sie : Bill H. R. 11651, now before your honorable body, constitutes a 
 measure of unwarranted interference with the right of individual liberty and a 
 dangerous invasion of the natural laws of trade, which are shortening the 
 hours of labor as speedily as commercial conditions permit and humane treat- 
 ment of labor demand. Socialistic and radical legislation, enforcing arbitrary 
 periods of employment, is highly objectionable and decidedly detrimental to 
 our general welfare, and we therefore hope that this bill will not receive your 
 favorable action, but that you will use your able influence to kill this measure. 
 Very respectfully, yours, 
 
 Simon & Keanb. 
 
 Louisville, Ky., May 7, 1908. 
 Hon. John J. Gabdner, 
 
 Chairman House La'bor Committee, Washington, D. C. 
 
 Deae Sik : In the name of the Employers' Association and also the Building 
 Contractors' Exchange of this city I beg most earnestly to ask that this organi- 
 zation be given a chance to be heard in opposition to any eight-hour bill that 
 Congress may be called on to consider, provided your committee intends to 
 have any hearings on any bill of this nature. The first-named organization in 
 the above paragraph is composed principally of large and small manufacturers 
 and business men, and the second of contractors in the building trades. We are 
 deeply interested in the proposed legislation, and feel that we are not seeking 
 more than our due when we ask that a hearing be accorded us. We would also 
 like to claim your indulgence to the extent of being given at least an liour or 
 two, in order that we may present our case thoroughly and properlj-. 
 
 Thanking you for anything that you may do for us in this matter, and assur- 
 ing you of our very deep interest, we beg to remain, 
 
 Very truly, yours, E. A. Quaeres. 
 
 Dayton, Ohio, May 7, 1906. 
 Hon. John J. Gaednee, 
 
 Chairman House Committee on La'bor, Washington, D. G. 
 
 Snt : In the event of your committee giving consideration to the eight-hour 
 bill with a view of taking action upon it at the present session, the Employers' 
 Association of Dayton, Ohio, respectfully requests that it be heard in opposition 
 to said bill. It earnestly urges that a time be designated for the appearance 
 of its representatives before your committee and that several hours be as- 
 signed to them. 
 
 If the Committee on Labor, the Congress, and the Government would make a 
 summary disposition of those who seek to disturb conditions which are satis- 
 factory to 95 per cent of all the people, even if it be to meet this ques- 
 tion as it was recently met in Paris, it were well. The present policy is sim- 
 ply sowing seed of anarchy and revolution. 
 
 This opinion is expressed with becoming respect to the committee and its: 
 chairman. 
 
 I have the honor to be. 
 
 Tour obedient servant, A. C. Marshall, Secretary.. 
 
EIGHT HOUBS FOB LABOEEBS ON • GOVEBNMENT WOEK. 15 5- 
 
 Haveehiul, Mass., May 7, 1906. 
 Hon John J. Gabdnek, 
 
 House Committee on Labor, Washington, D. C. 
 My Deab Mb. Gabdnee : So far as the favorable report or passage of H. R. 
 11651, a bill limiting the hours of daily service and fixing penalties therefor, is 
 concerned, the same would be an outrage against American liberty. It should 
 be the right of every man in this country to worli as many hoflrs as he pleases 
 and as many as he can get paid for, In order to better his condition. 
 
 Very sincerely, yours, Chas. K. Fox. 
 
 RocHESTEB, N. Y., May 7, 1906. 
 Hon. John J. Gardner, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 
 Dear Sir: We have before us H. R. bill 11651. It hardly seems to us neces- 
 sary to write a representative of either branch of Congress about such a bill as 
 this is. It is class legislation of the worst kind, and how anyone could look at it 
 differently we can not see. It is a bill for the purpose of advising everybody 
 who wants to do business with the Government to do it in only one way, and 
 you can readily see that there is no general competition open, and in most 
 instances it is utterly impossible to compete at all. 
 
 We hope you will use your influence against this bill and do what yoj can- 
 in committee to kill it in some way. 
 
 Yours, truly, E. P. Reeq & Co. 
 
 Saoinaw. Mich., J/aj/ 7\ 1906. 
 Hon. .ToHN J. Gardner, 
 
 Chairman House Labor Committee, Washington, D. C. 
 Dear Sir : Our attention has been called to bill H. R. 11651, now before the 
 House of Representatives, limiting the hours of daily service of laborers and 
 mechanics employed upon work done for the United States or any Territory or 
 District of Columbia, and we wish to register our protest against this bill as au 
 unwarranted interference with the right of individual liberty and a dangerous 
 invasion of the natural laws of trade. We are quite desirous that this bill 
 should not be acted favorably upon in the House of Representatives, believing 
 that the indirect effect of the labor situation will be most disastrous if the 
 House of Representatives should pass the bill. 
 Yours, truly, 
 
 Meeshon, Schuettb, Parker & Co., 
 By F. E. Parker, Secretary. 
 
 Rome, N. Y., May 7, 1906. 
 Hon. John J. Gardner, 
 
 Washington, D. C. 
 Dear Sir : We beg to call your attention to bill H. R. 11651, and would state 
 that we have in the past been in the habit of bidding on supplies wanted by 
 the Government. It would be impossible for us to bid on such matters if the- 
 bill should become a law ; the result would be that the material would cost the 
 Government more than it now costs them, and we really believe if the bill 
 passes that it would be impassible for the Government to purchase supplier 
 from any mill in this business. 
 
 We therefore respectfully protest against its passage and trust you will agree- 
 with us. 
 
 Yours, truly, Rome Brass and Copper Co., 
 
 By J. S. Haselton. 
 
 New York, May 7, 1906. > 
 Hon. John J. Gardner, 
 
 Chairman House Committee on Labor. 
 Dear Sir: We desire to report to you our opposition to House bill 11651^ 
 limiting the hours of service of employees. We do not object to arranging wltb 
 employees that they should not work more than eight hours a day. What we- 
 
156 EIGHT HOUES FOR LA'bOEEES t)N GOVEEIfMENT WOEK. 
 
 do object to is a forced a'rrfingenient of that kind, for we think such a forced 
 arrangement is an interference with personal liberty and a wedge whereby the 
 paternal governmental methods which have prevailed so disastrously both to 
 employees and employers in Europe will become gradually permanently intro- 
 duced in this country. 
 
 Yours, very truly, . Geo. Carlton Comstock. 
 
 New York, May 8, 1906. 
 Hon. John J. Gardner, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 
 Sir : I write to express my very serious opposition to the bill introduced by 
 yourself, H. R. 11651, limiting the hours of daily service of laborers. The bill 
 would add very greatly to the expense of Government work, which is already 
 far in excess of private work, and would be a serious restriction upon parties 
 who are wishing to compete for the same. In view of the constant and alarm- 
 ing increase of governmental expense in every direction, it seems that such 
 propositions are most objectionable. 
 
 Yours, respectfully, David Wili.oox. 
 
 Bridgeport, Conn., May 8, 1906. 
 Hon. John J. Gabdner, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. 0. 
 Dear Sir: We wish to protest against the passage of the eight-hour bill, 
 H. R. No. 11651. We will not burden you with the details of our views against 
 this bill at the present time, but we believe it to be inimical to the best interests 
 of all manufacturers. 
 
 Very truly, yours, S. T. Davis, Jr., President. 
 
 Chicago, May S, 1906. 
 Hon. John J. Gardner, of New Jersey, 
 
 Washington, D. C. 
 Dear Sir : We are owners of the Pedrick & Ayer plant, at Plainfield, N. J., 
 therefore, as manufacturers in your State, we appeal to you in connection with 
 the labor bill, H. R. 11651. 
 
 We believe that any such bill is unfair and unwarranted — unfair to manu- 
 facturers, and unwarranted because it is an interference with the individual 
 rights. 
 
 We desire to be placed on record accordingly. 
 
 Yours, very truly, C. F. Quincy. President. 
 
 Thompsonviixe, Conn., May S, 1906. 
 Hon. John J. Gardner, 
 
 Washington, D. C. 
 
 Dear Sir : Referring to bill H. R. 11651, we beg to place ourselves on record 
 as unalterably opposed to its passage and to ask you to well consider it in this 
 light and its effect on manufacturers, especially where Government work is ever 
 done. 
 
 We often build machinery for the Government use, and the passage of such 
 a bill would completely bar us from accepting the Government work. Were 
 the above bill to become a law the manufacturing industry of this country would 
 receive a shock and setback that would be incalculable In its disastrous effects, 
 and one of the probable effects would be to make the Government manufacture 
 its own supplies in every detail, which, for example, in our case would entail 
 a serious expense in the way of patterns and shops for making special machin- 
 ery. We have for a great many years furnished the Government special presses 
 from time to time, that we have patterns for, and seem to be very satisfactory 
 in its several departments. 
 
 This is only to illustrate the many lines of manufacture the Government has 
 to purchase from who would be in the same position, namely, not able to esti- 
 mate on their wants, for we certainly could not operate our factory and com- 
 
EIGHT HOURS FOR LABORERS ON GOVERNMEIfT WORK. 157 
 
 pete with other rountries on eight-hour basis. This, of course, is only an 
 entering wedge of the labor leaders to g^t an eight-hour day all over this 
 couuti-y, which we are certain the manufacturers of the country are in no con- 
 dition to stand. The mechanic at work in the factory seems to be well satis- 
 fied with the conditions as they are, and is earning good wages, better than 
 ever before, and if the manufacturing industry should receive a blow, that we 
 believe the bill would give it, it certainly would be detrimental to the mechanic 
 as well ns the owner of the factory. 
 
 We trust thie bill will be killed in the committee room. We might go on very 
 much at length on the above lines, but think this will give you an outline of 
 the matter that possibly you are familiar with. If it would not be asking too 
 much of your valuable time we would appreciate a reply, stating your views on 
 the above. 
 
 Tours, truly. G. H. Bushnell Pbess Co. 
 
 M. W. BusHiiTELL, Manager. 
 
 WoECESTEB, Mass., Map 8, 1906. 
 Hon. John J. Gabdnee, 
 
 Washington, D. C. 
 Dear Sir : Our attention has been called to bill H. R. 11651, introduced Jan- 
 uary 12, 1906, and we write to say that we think this bill, if allowed to become 
 a law, would be one of the most unjust acts that a Representative could lend 
 his aid and support to. It would cut off the manufacturer's right to run more 
 than eight hours on any work not for the Government that he may have in 
 progress at the same time he has a Government contract. It is possible that 
 we may never have a Government contract, but in the interest of fair play we 
 do not believe that you or any other Representative should pass any such bill, 
 iind with respect, we remain. 
 
 Tours, truly. Harrington & Richardson Asms Co. 
 
 Geo. F. Brooks, Treasurer. 
 
 Philadelphia. May 8, 1906. 
 Hon. John J. Gardner, 
 
 Chdirman House Committee on Lal)or, Washington, D. C. 
 De.\b Sib : We desire to protest against affirmative action on H. R. bill 116-51, 
 Entitled "A bill limiting the hours of daily service of laborers and mechanics," 
 etc., and to invite your refusal to report it for passage, on the following grounds : 
 
 (1) That it constitutes an unwarranted interference with the right of per- 
 sonal liberty and puts a handicap on the industry and energy of the individual. 
 
 It was not by legislative weighting down of the able and ambitious that 
 American mechanical and manufacturing supremacy was attained, nor will 
 that supremacy continue under such legislation. 
 
 (2) That it is unnecessary. There is work in plenty for all who will take or 
 do it and no reason for a forced distribution. 
 
 (3) The bill reduces hours on Government work from the ten or nine which 
 rule at present to eight, involving either a reduction of 20 or 11 per cent in wages 
 paid, or a like addition to cost of all labor employed on Government contract 
 work. 
 
 It is not to be inferred that such reduction in wages is contemplated by the 
 framers of the bill. The additional cost must therefore be paid by the Govern- 
 ment. 
 
 (4) It is further obvious that no manufacturer can run partly on an eight 
 and partly on a nine or ten hour basis. Unless, therefore, he can secure on 
 Government contracts an extra profit amounting to 11 or 20 per cent, as the 
 case may be. on his entire pay roll, he will be unable to undertake them. 
 
 The resulting embarrassment to the Govoi-nment is not to be expressed In 
 figures and should be ground for rejection of the bill were no other reasons 
 presented. 
 
 Respectfully, yours. 
 
 The Link-Belt Engineering Company, 
 S. Howard Smith, Treasurer. 
 
158 EIGHT HOURS FOR LABORERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. 
 
 Bbooklyn, N. Y., May 8, 1906. 
 Hon. John .J. Gabdner, Washington, D. G. 
 
 Deab Sib: Referring to H. R. 11651, introduced into the House of Repre- 
 sentatives January 12, 1906, vvliich has been referred to your committee, we 
 desire to call your attention to the fact that we think this bill is detrimental to- 
 the interests of manufacturers and worljingmen alike, as it prevents anyone 
 from working as many hours as one chooses. It would legally boycott, as far 
 as the Government is concerned, all manufacturers who do not run their plants 
 upon an eight-hour basis, and in our opinion constitutes an unwnrrauted inter- 
 ference with the right of individual liberty and is a dangerous invasion of the 
 natural laws of trade, which are shortening the hours of labor as speedily as 
 commercial conditions permit and humane treatment of labor demands. 
 Yours, very truly. 
 
 The Knox Hat Manufactueing Company. 
 R. J. MacFabland, General Manager. 
 
 Habtfokd, Conn., May 8, 1906. 
 Hon. John J. Gabdnee, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. 0. 
 Deab Sib : Referring to House bill H. R. 11651, now before your committee,, 
 permit us to enter our protest against a hill which is so eminently unfair botb 
 to manufacturers and the Government. 
 
 There are no manufacturers in our line, for instance, working fewer hours, 
 than ourselves, viz, nine. We have been supplying the Government with work 
 for the Isthmus, Philippines, etc. — ^work that the GdVernment does not make 
 and must have. 
 
 The action of the bill would be to forbid our making the harness and force 
 the Government to stop work, as they would be unable to obtain any in this 
 country. 
 Regretting the necessity which compels us to encroach on your time, we are. 
 Yours, respectfully. 
 
 The Smith-Wobthington Company. 
 Olcott B. Colton, Treasurer. 
 
 Ansonia, Conn., May 8, 1906. 
 Hon. John J. Gabdneb, 
 
 House of Representatives. Washington, D. C. 
 Dear Sib : Our attention has been called to H. R. 11651, limiting the houi-s of 
 daily service upon work done for the United States. 
 
 May we enter a protest against the passage of this bill? Our reason is as 
 follows : 
 
 We are manufacturers of insulated wire and electric bells. Our business, 
 in line, we believe, with every other manufacturer in this country, is on the 
 ten-hour basis, and to quote on any of the requirements of the Government we 
 would simplv have to charge for ten hours' labor for eight hours' production, 
 as of courseit would be impossible to use a machine for other work which was 
 occupied eight hours per day with Government work. 
 
 Of course, if the Government can stand it we can, but it doesn't seem like a 
 business proposition. 
 
 Yours truly, The Ansonia Electbical Co. 
 
 L. F. Anschutz, Treasurer. 
 
 Wateebuey, Conn., May 8, 1906. 
 Hon. John J. Gabdnee, il. C, 
 
 Washington, D. C. 
 
 Deab Sib : It seems to us that any favorable consideration of bill H. R. 11651 
 would be deplorable, and we beg to briefly present our view point 
 
 The manufacturer, or " machine builder " in our individual case, would be 
 powerless to undertake to supply special goods to the Government were any 
 restraint (and penalty for violating) placed on the number of hours that an 
 emnlovee mav work. We would prefer not to work more than nine or ten hours 
 daily but owing to the difficulty of getting the services of a sufficient number of 
 
EIGHT HOUBS FOB LABOBEKS OX GOVEBXMEKT WOEK. 159 
 
 <-ompetent machiniists we are compelled occasionally to work evenings; other- 
 wise we could not give to an important job the good attention that the circum- 
 stances of the particular case may warrant or may demand. 
 
 Any law in the direction of preventing a man worlsing more than eight hours 
 or any given number of hours for the Government is but the entering wedge, 
 the initial step toward obtaining precisely the same universal legislation. Such 
 a step would be an interference, a discouragement to the ambitious worlsing- 
 luan ; would be a blow to American freedom. 
 
 ******* 
 
 Most earnestly we protest against the passage of any bills that may at all 
 resemble the bill H. R. 116.51. 
 
 Vei-y respectfully, Wm. E. Fultox. 
 
 • Bbidgepokt, Cosn.. May 8, 1906. 
 
 Sib : AVe have the honor to address you in connection with H. R. 11651, and 
 ■enter protest against enactment of this or other measures of a similar nature. 
 
 We do considerable work for the United States Government and it would be 
 impossible to run our plant on a basis of eight hours' work for the Government 
 and ten hours for our commercial work. We trust, therefore, that the manu- 
 facturers' view of this iiill will be given careful consideration. 
 ' Respectfully. 
 
 .\MEBICA?> AND BRITISH >IFG. Co., 
 
 By C. L. Gllick. Manager. 
 Hon. John J. (Jvbdxeb, 
 
 Chairman House Labor Committee, 
 
 Bouse of Representatives, Washiiniton. D. C. 
 
 Plaisfield, X. J., May 8. 1906. 
 Hon. John J. Gabdneb, M. C, 
 
 Chairman House Labor Commutes, 
 
 Washinoton. D. C. 
 
 Dear Sib : We understand that hearings have just commenced on bill H. R. 
 11651 before your committee, and we wish to protest against the passage of this 
 measure, as it would legally boycott us so far as the Government is concerned, 
 as we do not run our plant upon the eight-hour basis. 
 
 The disastrous effect of the passage of this measure to the Interests of the 
 Government is also, we believe, very apparent to you. 
 
 We further object to the passage of this bill as constituting an unwarranted 
 interference with the right of individual liberty and a dangerous invasion of the 
 natural laws of trade, which are shortening the hours of labor as speedily as 
 commercial conditions permit. 
 
 We have in the past done considerable manufacturing for the Government, 
 such as building lathes for turning, boring, and rifling 10-inch, 12-ineh, and 
 16-inch guns, and the manufacture of disappearing carriages for the mounting 
 of said guns for coast defense. Were this bill passed It would be impossible 
 and impractical for us to do Government work. We are at present running 
 our plant fifty-five and one-half hours per week, making ten hours on Monday, 
 Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday, and five and one-half hours on 
 Saturday. By this schedule the men get the half holiday. This is our practice 
 the year through. 
 
 You can very readily see that if we had Government work in process it would 
 be impractical to employ our men on Government work eight hours out of 
 the ten, and on other work the remaining two hours. 
 
 Hoping we have made ourselves clear, we are, 
 
 Yours, very truly, J. T. W. Mubbat, 
 
 General Manager. 
 
160 EIGHT HOURS FOE LABORERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. 
 
 Hackensack, N. J., May 9, 1906. 
 Hon. John ,T. Gardner, 
 
 House of Representatives, Wushlnyton, D. C. 
 Dear Sir : We emphatically protest against the enactment of the parcel-post 
 (consolidation) bill, as it will work to the serious, if not fatal, injury of the 
 retail hardware trade throughout the country. 
 
 It is not necessary to enter into the whys and wherefores, as they have been 
 fully covered by other remonstrances sent your honorable body. 
 Yours, respectfullyj 
 
 Romaine Hardware Co., 
 Theodore Romaine. 
 
 Watebbury, Conn., May 9, 1906. 
 Hon. John J. Gardner, 
 
 Chairman HoK-ie Lahor Committee, Washington, D. C. 
 Dear Sir : We beg to call your attention to bill H. R. 11651. The passing of 
 this bill would prevent this concern from competing for Government work. 
 We believe a bill of this character is calculated t<3 embarrass the Government 
 in its purchases by limiting competition. 
 
 Yours, very truly, Chase Rolling Miij, Co. 
 
 F. S. Chase, Treasurer. 
 
 Wilkes-Baree, Pa., May 9, 1906. 
 Hon. John J. Gardner, 
 
 Chairman, Washington, D. G. 
 My Dear Sir : I wish to protest against reporting favorably bill H. R. 11651. 
 I have had nearly fifty years' experience in business ; I have tried the experi- 
 ment of running our factory eight hours, nine hours, and ten hours. I have 
 never yet been able to make any money running our business on the eight-hour 
 basis. I believe it would be a great mistake and would be purely class legisla- 
 tion for the Government to make a law prohibiting men from working more 
 than eight hours a day on anything that is being manufactured for the Govern- 
 ment. It is useless for me to make a long argument on this subject. It is 
 enough for a man with the experience in business that I have had to say to 
 you that he thinks it would be a mistake to pass such a bill. This simple 
 statement would no doubt have as much influence with you in regard to the 
 bill as a long argument. I wish to ask you to use your influence against report- 
 ing this bill favorably. 
 
 Very sincerely, J. E. Patterson. 
 
 The Norwich Belt Manufacturing Company, 
 
 J\^ormch, Conn., May 10, 1906. 
 Hon. John J. Gardner, 
 
 Washington, D. C. 
 Dear Sib: We beg to call your attention to H. R. bill 11651, which has been 
 referred to your committee. The effect of this bill would be damaging to manu- 
 facturers of goods in our line who contract with the Government and furnish 
 supplies. It is also too sweeping in its character and, in our opinion, wholly 
 uncalled for, and we believe that the interests of employees would not be 
 promoted by such legislation. 
 
 Yours, very truly. The Norwich Belt Mfg. Co. 
 
 H. H. Gallup, Treasurer. 
 
 Niagara Falls, N. Y., May 10, 1906. 
 
 Hon. John J. Gardner, M. C, 
 
 Washington, D. C. 
 Dear Sir : The McComas eight-hour bill now before your committee is one 
 of those revolutionary measures pressed by coercive unionism which is fraught 
 with danger to the manufacturers of our State, and we desire to enter a protest 
 against its passage. Any attempt to arbitrarily restrict contractors and manu- 
 facturers to shorter hours on State work than is required for similar work 
 
EIGHT HOURS FOR LABORERS ON GO^TIRNMENT WORK. 161 
 
 under corporate or individual control is a direct tax upon the citizens for the 
 benefit of a small minority combined in a trust. Such class legislation is 
 iniquitous and revolutionary. We trust your committee will not report this bill. 
 Yours, very respectfully, 
 
 A. H. G. Hakdwicke, Secretary. 
 
 RiVEESiDB, N. J., May 10, 1906. 
 Hon. John J. Gaedneb, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washmgton, D. C. 
 
 Deab Sib: We understand that bill H. R. 11651 is now before the House 
 Committee on Labor, and we desire to take this opportunity of expressing our 
 opinion that should this bill become a law It would work serious injury both 
 to the Government and to many manufacturers in this country — to the Gov- 
 ernment in that it would absolutely prevent Its purchasing certain lines of 
 goods which are made exclusively by manufacturers who would decline to 
 accept contracts which would necessitate the running of their plants, or a 
 certain number of their employees, on a different tune than that under which 
 the plant regularly operates ; and that in many instances it would deprive the 
 Government from purchasing its materials and supplies at as low a price as 
 it could do if every manufacturing concern in the different lines of business 
 were free to bid in competition. 
 
 The injui-y to the manufacturers would be that there are many concerns that 
 are doing a certain amount of work for the Government that would be forced 
 to discontinue this, for the reason that it would not be practical to operate 
 their works on a basis of two different times as representing a day's labor, 
 and if they were to attempt to operate their entire plant on the eight-hour 
 basis it would put them entirely out of competition on that portion of their 
 business which Is done outside of Government contracts. 
 
 Speaking for ourselves, we have always done more or less work for the 
 Government, and just at this time we have in contemplation certain plans 
 which if put In operation would place us In position to do a very large amount 
 of Government work, and which would mean the erection of large additions 
 to our plant and the employment of large numbers of additional workmen, 
 which would enable us to supply the Government with certain classes of goods 
 of a quality and at prices which they have never had before; and yet, if this- 
 bill were to become a law we should be compelled at once to change our plans, a& 
 we should not be justified in catering for Government work upon the eight- 
 hour basis, as the Interference with our regular business would be too great 
 to make it practical. 
 
 We therefore take this opportunity of entering our earnest protest against 
 the passage of bill H. R. 11651, believing that it will worlc injury to the Gov- 
 ernment, injury to the American manufacturers, injury to the American 
 workman. 
 
 Tours, very truly. The RrvBESiDE Metal Company,. 
 
 W. P. McGlynn, General Ulanaoer. 
 
 Boston, Mass., May 10, 190S, 
 Hon. John J. Gaedneb, 
 
 House Labor Committee, Washington, D. 0. 
 Mt Deab Sib : I write you at the direction of the executive committee of the- 
 Employers' Association of Boston, which is one of 437 other organizations of 
 a like character scattered over the United States and centralized in the 
 National Citizens' Industrial Association of America, whose headquarters are 
 at 1135 Broadway, New York City, to say that it Is the unanimous opinion of 
 the executive committee of this association that the legislation now proposed 
 before your committee, and known as the " McComas eight-hour bill," which 
 Gompers et al. are pressing before your committee, should by all means not 
 receive the support of your committee in the shape of a recommendation that 
 it do pass. They recognize that this is a part of a plan of unionized labor to 
 force the eight-hour day by legislation upon the American employing public. 
 They know by past experience that this would work a great wrong upon this 
 nation, and particularly so when the condition of public unrest, which Is now 
 very apparent, is considered. 
 
162 EIGHT HOURS FOE LABORERS ON GOYERNMENT WORK. 
 
 The individual members of this association and all others who are at all 
 Interested realize the fact that such legislation as this will bring about all 
 sorts of lawlessness, intimidations, and boycotts and will accentuate the fact 
 that is palpable to every thinljing person, that organized labor under its pres- 
 ■ent leadership is but a menace to the foundation of this Republic, and they 
 desire you to know that as Individuals and as associations they will not 
 stand for any further coercion or attempted coercion by legislative means, if 
 in their power to prevent It. 
 
 The voters of this country are fast realizing the" fact that two millions of or- 
 ganized labor have long enough controlled in the legislative halls of Congress 
 and in the State legislatures upon questions of this character, and if the 
 fiervants of the people are bound to be guided by the domination of this organi- 
 zation, then the larger and greater organizations are prepared by their ballots 
 to show that they are bound to be heard when the time comes upon this ques- 
 tion in their different Congressional districts. 
 
 We in Boston are thoroughly alive and fully awake and are awaiting the 
 action of your committee, and we expect that your action will be for the best 
 interests of the greater number. 
 
 Tours, very respectfully, Albion P. Pease, Seoretary. 
 
 Toledo, Ohio, May 11, 1906. 
 Hon. John J. Gaedner, 
 
 Washington, D. C. 
 
 Dear Sir : We have just learned that you are a member of the House Labor 
 •Conmiittee and that the McComas eight-hour bill is being pressed to a favor- 
 able report. 
 
 This company wishes to be placed on record against any such a bill, as it 
 -would be ruinous to the larger part, if not all, of the smaller manufacturing 
 institutions in the United States. 
 
 We do not believe that any manufacturing institution employing less than 
 100 men could subsist on the profits they are able to make out of their men 
 during eight hours' work on the part of the men. 
 
 Take the ordinary manufacturing institution. They are required to have a 
 manager, secretary, bookkeeper, two to three stenographers, shipping clerk, 
 foreman, draftsman, timekeeper, and considerable nonproductive labor. The 
 wages paid to these people, together with all expense of advertising, traveling, 
 and all incidentals, must be charged up against the product of any manu- 
 facturing institution, and the more goods we are able to turn out the smaller 
 the percentage of expense to be charged against its cost. 
 
 In other words, the standard overhead expense in the factories the size 
 above mentioned is about 60 per cent on nine to tenl hours' workday. If you 
 cut this workday down from nine hours to eight hours you are increasing the 
 overhead expense 15 per cent, which means that a manufacturer will make 15 
 per cent less profit. 
 
 If you will make proper investigation you will find there are very few manu- 
 facturing institutions over the country that makes 15 per cent on everything 
 they s«nd out. Fact is, we would nearly all be highly pleased to make 10 per 
 -cent, and if this eight-hour labor day goes into eftect it will close down more 
 manufacturing institutions than anything our Representatives or Senators 
 Ivave ever done for us. 
 
 We therefore request that you use your earnest endeavor to see that no 
 report is made on this eight-hour hill. 
 
 Labor already has the manufacturing institutions of this country in such a 
 shape that it Is a question whether or not they are serving their own best 
 "interests by remaining in business. 
 
 If some of your Representatives could deal directly with labor for about a 
 jear you would take a different view of their supposed wrongs. 
 
 We should appreciate your reply to this letter and be glad to know that you 
 Intend using your Influence against an eight-hour bill. 
 Yours, very truly, 
 
 The Advance Machinery Company, 
 J. A. Taqgabt, President. 
 
EIGHT HOTJES FOE LABOEEES ON GOVEENMENT WOEK. 163 
 
 Newark, N. J., May 11, 1906. 
 Hon. John J. Gabdnee, 
 
 Member of Congress, Washington, D. C 
 
 Deak Sib: I am very sorry to see that the old McComas eight-hour bill is 
 being again pressed by the labor unions, and for our own firm, Carter, HoWe 
 & Co., and the Manufacturing Jewelers' Association of the city of Newark I 
 wish to enter a most vigorous protest against reporting such a bill. I per- 
 sonally appeared before your committee a year or two ago against these or 
 similar measures. While the manufacturing jewelers take no Govermnent 
 contracts, their success depends upon general business prosperity, and the least 
 attempt to unsettle business conditions is always disastrous. 
 
 To deprive an American citizen of the right to worli when and as long as 
 he pleases, in fact to make him a criminal if he fails to obey the behest of a 
 self-constituted power, seems so absolutely unjust as to demand no refutation. 
 However, as a paid lobby (against which the States of New York and New 
 Jersey are in protest), in this case the so-called "labor representatives," who 
 do no work, are so persistent in this agitation, we are compelled to again 
 enter a vigorous protest. This legislation greatly affects our entire cbuntry 
 and interferes with our prosperity. We therefore ask that you use your 
 influence to save us from any form of class legislation. All we ask Is justice 
 and a square deal. 
 
 Very respectfully, Geo. R. Howe, President. 
 
 New Bbitain, Conn., Map 11, 1906. 
 Hon. John J. Gabdnee, 
 
 Washington, D. G. 
 
 Deae Sib : We hare before us a copy of H. R. 11651, limiting the hours Of 
 daily service of laborers and mechanics employed upon work done for the 
 United States or any Territory or the District of Columbia. This bill is 
 designed to legally boycott all manufacturers operating their plants longer 
 than eight hours per day who desire to enter into competition for Government 
 contracts. This is, indeed, the avowed ofeject of the advocates of this bill. 
 
 In our field of industry — builders' hat-dware — there is not a single firm of 
 any prominence or responsiWlity that is not running its plant at least nine or 
 ten hours per day. Many are running overtime. They can not affofd to do 
 otherwise. The same conditions are general throughout the industrial world. 
 
 Government work is not of sufficient importance to any hardware manu- 
 facturer to warrant the reduction of his hours of labor to eight for the sake of 
 placing himself in a position to execute Government work according to the 
 terms presented by this bill. Consequently, if the bill were passed, the Gov- 
 ernment would be obliged to purchase of small and irresponsible makers, com- 
 petition would be eliminated, and the Government obliged to buy hardware of 
 an inferior grade at any price its makers might choose to ask. So much for 
 its effects upon Government interests. 
 
 Regarding it from our side, we claim that it Is an impudent invasion of our 
 rights to run our plant what hours our men are willing to work and the right 
 of our men to work ten hours or longer if they desire to labor so long. It makes 
 the Government the agent of the unions in imposing union hours on all who 
 participate in Government contracts, and makes It party to wholly unjustifiable 
 discrimination. 
 
 The bill is a mischievous interference with natural trade conditions and with 
 the worklngman's right of contract. We have no quarrel with the eight-hour 
 principle, and believe that it will eventually become the general period of labor. 
 It should come, however, in the working out of commercial evolution, as other 
 reductions in working hours have come, and not as a result of harassing 
 legislation. 
 
 We protest against this bill as a measure framed to benefit one class in the 
 community at the expense of another and as a meddlesome interference with 
 individual rights ; and we venture to express the hope that your influence may 
 be opposed to this bill as well as to any other proposed legislation of a similar 
 character. 
 
 Yours, very truly, Russeix & Ebwin Mandtacttjeing Co., 
 
 I. D. Russell, Treasurer. 
 
 EH— 06 12 
 
164 EIGHT HOURS FOR LABORERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. 
 
 WiNSTBD, QoNN., May 11, 1906. 
 Hon. J. J. Gabdner, M. C, 
 
 Washington, D. C. 
 
 Deab Sib : We desire to offer our suggestions In regard to the eight-hour labor 
 bill, which we understand is now being pressed upon the Labor Committee for 
 consideration. 
 
 As a manufacturer of fifty years' experience, I think I can speak from some- 
 thing besides a theoretical standpoint. 
 
 We believe that no legislation is necessary on this matter. Every person, 
 corporation, or municipality should have the right to make such terms with their 
 employees as to hours and wages as the parties concerned can agree upon. 
 The Federal Government has no more right to settle the number of hours a man 
 may work each day than it has to try to settle the question of how much money 
 an employer shall pay for service of any kind. This will be, if enacted, class 
 legislation of the rankest kind in our opinion, and should not be allowed to be 
 reported for action by the House at all. 
 
 The Government has the right to say how many hours labor shall be per- 
 formed each day by its employees, and regulate the wage. The laborer has the 
 right to elect if he will accept the job or not. Is this a free country? If so, 
 then every man, woman, corporation, or otherwise has -a perfect right to say 
 whether they wish to run their business on an eight, nine, or ten hour basis, 
 and when such a condition ceases to exist then we are not a free people. The 
 question should be left to the parties concerned to settle such points, we think. 
 
 The question of establishing by law how many hours a man may run his 
 factory, if enacted, will be followed soon by another law of how many dollars 
 per day he shall pay laborers, all of which we believe to be unconstitutional, 
 unbusinesslike, and not calculated to promote the best interest of either 
 employer or employees, nor the country at large. 
 
 When I first commenced to manufacture, custom had established eleven hours 
 as a day's work. Later the views of business men generally seemed to be that 
 ten hours would be a better basis to do business on, and a change came about in 
 a natural way. No law was made concerning it that I ever heard of. Later 
 still a nine-hour day has come to be quite common in many of the large towns 
 and factories, but not general by any means, but if experience and common 
 sense finally show that a nine-hour basis is the best for everybody concerned, 
 all will gradually accept it without the enacting of laws to force it along, and 
 tiie same results will be obtained as to the elghtrhour basis if shown by experi- 
 ence that it is for the good of all concerned. The idea that Government can 
 say to one class of employers, " You shall not run your business but eight hours 
 per day," while other lines of industry are undisturbed by such laws, is one- 
 sided and unfair. .. 
 
 The idea that contractors taking jobs from the Government must be hampered 
 by any law recognizing an eight-hour day is a very unwise and malicious thing, 
 and should not be tolerated at all. It does not require any argument to show 
 why, either. The employing part of the public have rights that must be guarded 
 as well as the employed part, and, as with all such questions, it should be left 
 to time to thrash it out on a basis that will stand, without revolutionizing the 
 whole country. 
 
 We wish most earnestly to impress upon your committee that the employing 
 public, so far as our observation goes, does not desire any such law enacted, 
 and hope it will not be reported at all. 
 
 With best wishes for your future, we are. 
 Yours, truly, 
 
 Wm. L. Gilbeet Clock Co., 
 
 J. G. WooDEUFE, President and Treasurer^ 
 
 Trot, N. Y., May 11, 1906. 
 Hon. John J. Gardner, 
 
 Washington, D. C. 
 
 Dear Sir : We sincerely trust you will use all the infinence you can bring to 
 bear against a favorable report on any eight-hour bill now pending before 
 Congress. 
 
 We believe the people are heartily tired of the unreasonable attitude of 
 unionism and will not stand for coercion through Congressional action. Any 
 •ight-hour bill is a menace and uncalled for, except by unionist agitators.. 
 
EIGHT HOURS FOR LABORERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. 165 
 
 The great mass of workers are satisfied with present conditions. Shorter hours 
 would mean increased cost of production, hence a corresponding advance in 
 the necessaries of life. 
 
 We trust you will give this important matter your earnest attention, as we 
 are thoroughly satisfied that adverse action will be for the best interests of the 
 country at large. 
 
 Very truly, yours, Feixows & Co. 
 
 Boston, May 11, 1906. 
 Hon. John J. Gaedner, M. C, 
 
 Washington, D. C. 
 Dear Sib: There is a bill before Congress — the McComas eight-hour bill — 
 which puts our business of manufacturing brushes in jeopardy. 
 
 We have a considerable and growing trade in exporting brushes manufac- 
 tured by us to Australia, South Ajnerica, Mexico, and England, all of which 
 are sold in competition with English and German brush manufacturers. Our 
 factory is run on the nine-hour basis, and it is a difl5cult problem now to hold 
 our own in getting and retaining foreign trade. A cutting down or hampering 
 us to make a shorter workday distinctly means that we will have no export 
 trade,'and we need it. 
 
 , This is only one of the objections to the bill named, but it alone, as relating 
 to brushes and other goods seeking foreign markets, is so important that ttie 
 principle should not prevail. 
 
 We trust you will use your endeavors to prevent the bill, or any eight-Hour 
 bill, becoming a law. 
 
 Very truly, yours, John L. Whiting & Son Co., 
 
 Lew C. Hill, Secretary. 
 
 Syracuse, N. Y., May 11, 1906. 
 Hon. John J. Gardner, M. C, 
 
 Member of " House Labor Committee," 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 
 
 Dear Sir : We understand that the labor lobbyists are still continuing their 
 efforts to get a favorable report from your committee on the " McComas eight- 
 hour bill," and believing that this bill is revolutionary in its character, not for 
 the best interests of the country or the so-called labor element, and that the 
 manufacturers of the country are sick and tired of the constant attempts of 
 the labor agitators to carry out their plan of coercive unionism to force the 
 eight-hour day into all the factories of the country, it is very patent to anyone 
 at all familiar with the matter that the present effort to adopt this eight-hour 
 law in all Government Departments and in all places where work for the Gov- 
 ernment is performed is but an entering wedge to include every manufacturing 
 interest in the country. 
 
 We believe it entirely wrong to discriminate in the manner provided for in this 
 bill against manufacturers who are not Government contractors, and that the 
 time has arrived when the Congress should see to it that they do not assist 
 the labor agitators in their lawlessness, boycotts, intimidations, and strikes by 
 the passage of this bill, which, as stated above, is simply an entering wedge 
 to enforce it in all manufactories of the country. 
 
 We believe that the great majority of the people who employ labor are with 
 us in the suggestion that you do not allow this bill to be reported favorably 
 out of your committee, and we hope and trust that you will sit down on it, 
 and sit down on it hard. 
 
 Yours, very truly. The Engelberg Huli.er Co. 
 
 A. A. ScHENCK, Secretary. 
 
 New York, May 11, 1906. 
 Hon. John J. Gardner, 
 
 Washington, D. C. 
 
 Dear Sir : We understand that the labor lobbyists are pushing the eight-hour 
 bill again, and we ask you to kindly lend your best efforts to defeat any such 
 measure. It is hard enough for us, as manufacturers, to compete with cheap 
 foreign labor, and we ought not to be called upon to reduce working hours. A 
 
16<6 BIGHT HOUBS FOB LABOEEES ON GOVEENMENT WOBK. 
 
 bill making eigbt hours compulsory would bring great hardship, not alone to 
 the manufacturers, but to the workingmen, as manufacturers would gradually 
 have to close their factories owipg to their inability to compete with foi'eign 
 labor. We believe that ten hours is a fair working day, and if workmen are 
 paid well for the hours they work no one should object to the length of the 
 present worlfing day. 
 
 Very truly, yours, Lehmaiee, Schwabtz & Co. 
 
 J. L. S. 
 
 Newakk, N. J., May 11, 1906. 
 Hon. John J. Gardner, 
 
 House Labor Committee, Washington, D. G. 
 
 Deae Sir : We understand that there is a bill before your committee in the 
 House known a9 the McComas eight-hour bill, and we beg most respectfully 
 to enter our protest against the passage of any such measure, which is inimical 
 to the manufacturing interests of this country. It would simply mean increased 
 cost of production if any attempt is made to put such laws in general practice. 
 With the prevailing excessively high cost of all raw materials the manufacturer 
 IS at his wits end to produce his goods at anywhere near a marketable cost, 
 and the limit must be reached Home time, both as regards the high cost of raw 
 materials and excessive demand of labor agitators. 
 
 We hope that your committee will not I'ecommend the passage of this 
 measure. 
 
 YQurs respectfully, Stengel & Rothschild. 
 
 Philadelphia, May 11, 1906. 
 Hon. John J. Gardner, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. G. 
 Dear Sib : We address you concerning the eight-hour bill now before the 
 House Labor Committee, of which you are a member, and beg to request your 
 adverse vote on same. 
 
 ■ In the present state of the country and of the restrictions and coercions of 
 labor unions a national eight-hour bill would be, in our opinion, a great mis- 
 fortune. We employ 400 people, all of whom, we believe, are content and 
 prosperous, running our factory flfty-flve hours per week. We beg to assure 
 you that the sentiment of the employers of labor in this country is strongly 
 against any national eight-hour bill. 
 
 Yours, truly. Pioneer Suspender Company. 
 
 Frank A. Freeman. 
 
 Philadelphia, Pa., May 11, 1906. 
 Hon. John J. Gardner, 
 
 Chairman House Committee on Labor, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 
 
 Dear Sir: I understand that the McComas eight-hour bill, or a bill in effect 
 the same as the McComas bill, is now before your committee for consideration. 
 I suppose that there can be no doubt that the advocacy of this bill comes chiefly 
 from the labor unions or from those working in their interests. I venture to 
 ask your attention for a moment, because I have been for thirty years at the 
 head of industrial establishments, where I have been directly responsible for 
 the relations between the corporations I represented and their labor. 
 
 I may say, further, that there has never been a general strike, or a prolonged 
 or bitter strike of any department in any establishment that I have managed, 
 which I take to be evidence that the men under my management have been gen- 
 erally satisfied and pleased with the conditions of their employment. I can not 
 Dut feel, however, that the harmonious relations, the mutual confidence that has 
 always existed between me and the men under me, is in constant jeopardy on 
 Recount of the general and growing influence of the trades unions, and I think 
 that the same danger hangs over thousands of industrial establishments where 
 
EIGHT HOURS FOE LABOEEES ON GOVEENMENT WOEE. 167 
 
 pleasant relations and mutual confldenee between heads and subordinates has 
 existed for years. 
 
 The point I wish to make after this introduction is that the trades unions are 
 acquiring in this country a power no longer used for defense, but for mischief; 
 that the objects of this influence are in many cases as truly selfish and oppres- 
 sive as those of the great trusts of the worst sort ; that their methods are often 
 subversive to liberty and out of harmony with the spirit of our institutions. 
 Labor unions are rapidly getting to be no longer a proper combination to resist 
 injustice, but a great power acting without corporate responsibility, often with 
 ruin to- certain industries, and always with a purpose to unreasonably tax the 
 community, whose laws they defy for the benefit of a limited class. 
 
 There are many practical objections of great weight to an eight-hour bill, 
 but with these you are undoubtedly quite familiar. The real question in my 
 mind is whether our National Congress shall foster special interests already- 
 grown so powerful as to seriously menace individual liberty and the integrity 
 of our laws. . 
 
 A'ery truly, yours, The American Pulley Company, 
 
 Charles A. Brinley, 
 
 Wanaginy Director. 
 
 Newburoh, N. Y., May 11, 1906. 
 Hon. John J. Gardner, M. C., 
 
 Washington, D. C. 
 Dear Sir : We understand that the House Labor Committee, of which you 
 are chairman, have a bill before them in favor of a general eight-hour law. In 
 my opinion, this would be a great damage to the textile industry of this coun- 
 try, and I hope you will not report it to the House for passage. The textile 
 industry is too much handicapped by labor unions already, without placing 
 this additional burden upon it. 
 
 Yours, truly, Harrison & Gore Silk Company, 
 
 James Harrison, President. 
 
 ■Worcester, Mass., May 11, 1906. 
 Hon. John J. Gardner, M. C, 
 
 Washington, D. C. 
 
 Dear Sir t As a member of the House Labor Committee, we take the liberty of 
 offering you our most sincere protest to favorable consideration on the part ol 
 your committee to the so-called McComas eight-hour labor bill, which we under- 
 stand is coming up next weeli. The labor conditions of the manufacturers, 
 especially in New England, are becoming very serious. You probably appre- 
 ciate we have no natural advantages and are dependent entirely upon the pro- 
 ductive ability of our workingmen to compete with the rest of the country 
 more fortunately situated. 
 
 Favorable consideration of this bill will tend to force the same short hours in 
 our private work as will be required for Government worii — that is, we do 
 more or less Government work upon which, we understand, we could only allow 
 our 'men to work eight hours. It will be very hard to separate this work from 
 our regular run. We do not believe the demand is called for, except by profes- 
 sional labor agitators, who have everything to gain and nothing to lose. We 
 know our men are satisfied with present conditions, and we believe this is the 
 case with the great bulk of the laboring men all over the country. 
 
 Thanking you for your attention, and again urging our protest, we beg to 
 remain. 
 
 Yours, truly, Spencer Wire Co. 
 
 H. W. 6., Presiaent. 
 
 Newark, N. J., May 11, 1906. 
 Hon. John J. Gardner, 
 
 House Labor Committee, Washington, D. C. 
 Dear Sir : Referring to the McComas eight-hour bill, which we believe we 
 wrote you about previously, we understand this is coming up again for consid- 
 eration, and we trust you will use your every effort in not allowing this bill to 
 be recorded. It is vicious in its conditions and revolutionary in its principles 
 and will certainly work harm among the manufacturers of machinery or sup' 
 plies who are furnishing same to the Government. 
 
 Yours, very truly, Gould & Bbebhabdt 
 
 C. E. H. 
 
168 EIGHT HOUKS FOK LABOEEES ON GOVBENMENT WOEK. 
 
 PiTTSBUBG, Pa., May 11, 1906. 
 Hon. Jno. J. Gardner, 
 
 Washington, D. 0. 
 Dear Sir : The Builders' Exchange League of Pittsburg, with a membership 
 of 1,000 representative contractors and manufacturers, desire, through the House 
 Labor Committee, to protest against the McComas " eight-hour bill " now being 
 urged in an arbitrary manner by certain bodies, unauthorized by the State, 
 who believe only in a rule-or-ruin policy. 
 
 It is a further demand for mastery under the guise of shorter hours, and if 
 carried to its ultimate conclusions would bring disaster and ruin to all indus- 
 tries and equal disaster to its advocates, thus endangering the entire industrial 
 ieommunity. 
 
 The public is sick and tired of restrictions and coercions of unionism, as ex- 
 hibited in their strilces, lawlessness, intimidations, and boycotts, and our asso- 
 ciation faithfully hopes your committee will not present a favorable report, or, 
 in fact, permit to be reported any eight-hour bill whatever. 
 Very respectfully. 
 
 Builders' Exchange League. 
 W. W. Campbeix, 
 
 ' Assistant Secretary. 
 
 New York, May 11, 1906. 
 Dear Sib : My attention has been called to the McComas eight-hour bill, which 
 is now, I believe, before your committee. It seems, from my point of view, to 
 be unnecessary to protest against the passing of this bill. I believe it most 
 revolutionary, and in every way undesirable ; and as a practical business man 
 I should like to be numbered among those who are unqualifiedly against the 
 acceptance of any such measure by our lawmakers at Washington. 
 Respectfully, yours, 
 
 F. N. Doubledat. 
 Hon. Jno. J. Gardner, 
 
 Washington, D. G. 
 
 Syracuse, N. Y., May 11, 1906. 
 Hon. John J. Gardner, 
 
 Washington, D. G. 
 Dear Sir : We understand there is a movement being made to have the Mc- 
 Comas eight-hour bill reported and acted upon. 
 
 Without going into any extended argument, we are opposed to this kind of 
 legislation. The supply and demand has, and we believe will, regulated the 
 price of labor and the hours. The small proportion of unionized labor are 
 asking entirely too much and are too aggressive and tyrannical, and should not 
 receive the consideration they do until their methods are materially changed. 
 They are but a small proportion of the population of this great country, and we 
 hope your committee will prevent any consideration of this bill at this time. 
 Yours, truly. 
 
 The Paragon Plaster Co., 
 W. K. Squier, 
 
 Treasurer and Manager. 
 
 Troy, N. Y., May 11, 1906. 
 Hon. J. J. Gardner, 
 
 Washington, D. G. 
 Dear Sir: Trusting you will not deem us presumjptuous, we most respectfully 
 request and urge you not to press to a favorable report the McComas eight- 
 hour bill or any other eight-hour bill. It is our firm conviction that it would 
 be a great wrong, especially in the present condition of public unrest, to force 
 any such measure upon the national community. 
 
 Yours, very truly. Covert Mfg. Co. 
 
EIGHT HOTJKS FOE LABORERS ON GOyERNMENT WORK. 169 
 
 PiTTSFiELD, Mass., May 11, 1906. 
 Hon. John J. Gabdner, 
 
 House Labor Committee, Washington, D. C. 
 Dear Sib : Can we hope that you will use your influence against the McComas 
 eight-hour bill? We would wish that you could see your way clear to oppose 
 even a favorable report on this bill. It seems to us that this is favored only 
 by the labor element, and the public in general are becoming sick and tired of 
 the restrictions and coercions imposed upon them by the unions. We think that 
 you will understand that the bill simply applying to the Government work is to 
 be used as an opening wedge, and that they will work from that to have it com- 
 pulsory throughout the country. We are under the impression that there was 
 a hearing before "your committee last year, at which time many facts and 
 figures were presented which showed the injustice that would be worked upon 
 the manufacturers in general. We hope that you understand that we feel very 
 strongly in this matter and look to you as a member of this committee to safe-, 
 guard our interests. 
 
 Yours, truly, S. N. & C. Russell Mfg. Co. 
 
 Tboy, N. Y., May 11, 1906. 
 Hon. John J. Gabdneb, 
 
 Washington, D. C. 
 Dear Sm : We believe that it is to the interest of the country at large .that 
 all labor bills be pushed aside for this session of Congress. 
 
 With the upward tendency of prices and the cutting down of the hours of the 
 working day, it will react ; and the laboring man that does work will have to 
 pay for it. It is our observation In these matters that there is a professional 
 agitation for a shorter day rather than agitation from the actual workers ; 
 that it is a man that draws a salary for representing a labor organization that 
 talks it. 
 
 Yours, truly, H. C. Cubtis & Company, 
 
 By 0. G. Clbminshaw, Treasurer. 
 
 Dayton, Ohio, May 11, 1906. 
 'Hon. John J. Gabdneb, M. C, 
 
 Washington, D. C. 
 Dkab Sib : As one of the large manufacturers of this city and also of the 
 country, we beg to lay before you our opposition to the eight-hour labor bill, 
 which we understand comes before your committee for recommendation. We 
 desire to enter our protest against a favorable report on this bill, and we trust 
 that you, as one of the committee, will not report same favorably. 
 Yours, truly. 
 
 Buckeye Ieon & Brass Wobks, 
 W. B. Anderson, Secretary. 
 
 MiDDLETOWN, N. Y., May 11, 1906. 
 Hon. John J. Gabdneb, 
 
 Washington, D. C. 
 
 Dbab Sib: We understand that the McComas eight-hour bill is before your 
 committee, and we write urging you to use your influence with the committee 
 not to have this bill reported, or, if reported, that same will be unfavorable. 
 
 We consider any eight-hour bill is revolutionary and dangerous and would 
 be discriminatory in time upon all manufacturers not Government contractors. 
 We consider it is part of the plan of coercive unionism to force the eight-hour 
 day into all the factories of the country, and that it would be a great wrong, 
 especially in the present condition of public unrest, to force such a thing upon 
 the national community, and that the people are sick and tired of the restric- 
 tions and coercions of unionism as illustrated in their strikes, lawlessness, 
 intimidations, and boycotts, and will not stand for any further coercion or 
 attempted coercion by legislative means. 
 
 Aside from all this general objection, it would be ruin to people in the tanning 
 industry, for reason that it is necessary to work at least ten hours in order 
 that our raw material will not spoil in first stages of process. 
 
170 BIGHT HOXJKS FOE LABOKBKS ON GOVERNMENT -WOEK. 
 
 We did not think it necessary to write to all the members of the committee, 
 so write to you as chairman, and would appreciate it if you would bring this 
 matter to attention of all. 
 
 We thank you in advance for anything you can do for the general good. 
 Tours, very truly, 
 
 The Howell- Hinch man Co. 
 T. E. HoYBR, Secretary. 
 
 Baldwinsville, N. Y., May 11, 1906. 
 Hon. John J. Gardner, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. C 
 Dear Sir: We understand that the McComas eight-hour bill is now before the 
 Legislature. 
 
 We desire to protest against favorable action upon it, either by your com- 
 mittee or on the floor of the House. We think it is a revolutionary and dan- 
 gerous measure, and as manufacturers we protest against its passage. 
 We trust, therefore, that you will use your influence to defeat the bill. 
 Yours, very truly, 
 
 ■Morris Machine Works, 
 R. C. Scott, Secretary. 
 
 NoRRiSTOWN, Pa., Moj/ 11, 1906. 
 Hon, John J. Gardner. 
 
 Member of House Laior Committee, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington; D. 0. 
 • Dear Sir : We understand that there is to be presented to your committee a 
 bill known as the " McComas eight-hour bill," which is being pressed by the 
 labor organizations. 
 
 We feel sure that the representatives of the people will not allow such a 
 measure as this to be reported favorably. It would so revolutionize the manu- 
 facturing interests of our country that the prosperity which they have been 
 enjoying for the past several years, in which the employees have been partici- 
 pants! would be very seriously affected. While the bill in question would 
 apparently affect only such concerns as are worldng for the Government, it 
 would naturally be the entering wedge for a measure of this character to be 
 presented^ and we can not see how it is possible to discriminate between fac- 
 tories employed upon Government work and those that are not. 
 
 The position which has been taken by the labor organizations during the past 
 year or two has been such as to thoroughly disgust all fair-minded people, in 
 consequence of their restrictions and coercions, as illustrated in their strikes, 
 lawlessness, intimidations, and boycotts. We beg, therefore, to protest most 
 vigorously and very seriously against the favorable report of such a measure 
 on the part of your committee, and trust that we may be favored with a reply 
 from you as to your views on the subject. 
 Yours, respectfully, 
 
 Eameo & Regar (Incorporated), 
 Per Jos. S. Rambo, President. 
 
 Medina, N. Y., May 11, 1906. 
 Hon. John J. Gardner, 
 
 House Labor Gonvmlttee, Waslwngton, D. 0. 
 
 Dear Sir: As manufacturers we are very much interested in legislation on 
 the labor question. 
 
 Havihg been in the manufacturing business over thirty years, and the writer 
 prior to th^t having been a laboring man, appreciate both the situation of the 
 employer and the employed. Our experience teaches us that under the present 
 conditions what has existed with labor unions for the last twenty years has 
 been very detrimental both to the laboring class and to the manufacturers. 
 
 We urgently request that your committee will not permit to be reported any 
 eight-hour bill whatever. In our vicinity the manufacturers and all the em- 
 
EIGHT HOURS FOB LABOKEES ON GOVERNMENT WORK. 171 
 
 ployers of labor are working ten hours, and were we compelled to adopt an 
 eight-hour day it would be suicidal. 
 
 Again we urgently request that you consider these matters fairly and protect, 
 as far as possible, the best interests of our country. 
 Yours, very truly, 
 
 A. L. SwETT Ikon Works, 
 A. L. SwETT, President. 
 
 Niagara Falls, N. Y., May 11, 1906. 
 Hon. John J. Gardner, M. C, 
 
 Washington, D. G. 
 Dear Sib : We wish to protest against the attempt of the labor people to have 
 laws passed which would be most injurious to the manufacturing interests of 
 the country. We refer especially to what is known as the " McComas eight- 
 hour bill." We trust that the same may not become a law. We could give a 
 thousand good reasons why this bill should not be passed. 
 Yours, truly, 
 
 Francis Hook and Eye and Fastener Co. 
 H. A. Francis, President. 
 
 Riegelsville, N. J., May 11, 1906. 
 Hon. John J. Gardner, 
 
 Meniier of House Labor Committee, Washington, D. C. 
 Dear Sir : As New Jersey manufacturers we appeal to you to stand by our 
 interests as well as that of every man in our employ, and do all you can to 
 prevent any favorable report by your committee on the McComas (or any other) 
 eight-hour bill. 
 
 We shall look upon the passage of a national eight-hour labor bill as nothing 
 Short Of a calamity to the country. 
 
 We are satisfied 80 per cent at least of all intelligent workingmen in this 
 country feel exactly as we do in this. 
 
 Thanking you for the efforts we feel sure you will make in the real interest 
 of the manufacturers and Workmen of the State of New Jersey to prevent any 
 favorable report of the bill referred to, we remain. 
 
 Yours, very truly, Taylor, Stiles & Co., 
 
 Per C. W. Griffin. 
 
 Rochester, N. Y., May 11, 1906. 
 Hon. John J. Gardner, 
 
 . New Jersey. 
 Dear Sir : As a member of the House Labor Committee, we earnestly re- 
 quest in the interest of the manufacturing industry and the camera-manu- 
 facturing industry in particular to report without your approval the McComas 
 eight-hour bill. It would be a great wrong, especially in the present condition 
 of public unrest, to force such a thing upon the nation. This bill would be 
 revolutionary and dangerous not only to the manufacturers, but to the financial 
 interests as well. 
 
 Trusting that we may hear that you have signified your disapproval upon 
 this measure, we remain. 
 
 Very sincerely, yours, Senaca Camera Mfg. Co., 
 
 Per F. K. Townsend. 
 
 Chicago, May 11, 1906. 
 Hon. John J. Gardner, 
 
 Washington, D. 0. 
 Dear Sir : We request you to use every influence in your power to prevent any 
 consideration of either the McComas eight-hour bill or any other eight-hour 
 bill that may come up for consideration before your committee at the present 
 session. 
 
 Labor unions are trying their best to run the manufacturing interests of 
 this country, and any concessions that are made in the laws of the country to 
 
172 EIGHT HOURS FOB LABOEEES ON GOVERNMENT WORK. 
 
 lower the number of hours for a day's work from what they are at the present 
 time are very dangerous. 
 
 Our object in writing you this letter is simply to impress upon you our feeling 
 as to the Importance that it is to the best interests of the people of this country 
 that your committee gives absolutely no favorable consideration to this or any 
 other eight-hour bills. We don't want them. 
 With kind regards, we are, 
 
 Yours, very truly, Stephens-Adamson Mfg. Co. 
 
 W. W. Stephens, President. 
 
 The Natubal Food Company, 
 
 Niagara Falls, N. Y., May 11, 1906. 
 Hon. John J. Gardner, 
 
 Mernber of Congress, Washington, D. G. 
 Deah Sir : We hereby desire to enter our protest against the McComas eight- 
 hour bill, which is now before the House Labor Committee, of which we under- 
 stand you are a member. 
 
 In our opinion this bill is an entering wedge for a universal eight-hour day 
 and should be opposed. 
 
 Trusting that you may view the matter in the same light. 
 Yours, very respectfully, 
 
 A. J. Porter, Second Vice-President. 
 
 Swindell Brothers, 
 
 Baltimore, May 11, 1906. 
 Hon; John J. Gardner, 
 
 D. G. 
 
 Dear Sie : As a member of the House Labor Committee, we write urging you 
 in regard to the McComas eight-hour bill not to vote for a favorable report or 
 to permit to be reported any eight-hour bill whatever. As manufacturers, we 
 consider such legislation would be discriminatory In time upon all manufac- 
 turers not Government contractors. We understand that It is a part of the 
 plan of coercive unionism to force the eight-hour day into all the factories 
 in the country. This, we consider, would be a great wrong, especially in the 
 present condition of public unrest, to force such a thing upon the national 
 community, and we believe that the people are sick and tired of the restric- 
 tions and coercions of unionism, as illustrated in their strikes, lawlessness, 
 intimidations, and boycotts, and that manufacturers' patience has been taxed 
 to the utmost, and we can not stand for any further coercion or attempted 
 coercion by legislative means. 
 
 We believe that any eight-hour bill is revolutionary and dangerous, and we 
 trust you will use your influence against any favorable report on this bill, and 
 with kind regards, we are, 
 
 Yours, very truly, Swindell Bros. 
 
 Athol, Mass., May 11, 1906. 
 Hon. John J. Gardner, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 
 
 Dear Sir : As progressive manufacturers and large employers of labor and 
 having the best good of the laboring class at heart, we, some four or five years 
 ago, voluntarily gave our employees the benefit of a nine-hour day in place of 
 ten, without reduction of pay, and have since kept it up without any com- 
 pulsory law. We believed we could stand this and yet meet competition and 
 hold our export trade, but we find it close work to do it. Now, we learn with 
 dismay that the anarchistic element of the laboring class is trying to make our 
 legislators think that a compulsory eight-hour day would be in the Interest of 
 the laboring men and for the good of our country. 
 
 We are writing to assure you that we believe such compulsory law would 
 be the most damaging one that ever cursed our country and our country's 
 people. The better class of laboring men don't want it; no manufacturer 
 wants it. In the interest of our country we protest against it. Every patriot 
 
EIGHT HOURS FOB LABOEEBS OK GOVEENMENT WOBK. 173 
 
 Should and would be ashamed to live in our supposed free country hampered 
 by laws which would abridge his freedom from engaging in any useful employ- 
 ment as many hours a day as he might wish. Think of it! Hotel and saloon 
 men licensed to sell rum until 12 o'clock at night, while the honest and patriotic 
 manufacturers and laboring classes are prohibited from working in their own 
 interest and the interest of our country more than eight hours a day. The 
 idea should be too ridiculous and absurd to entertain for a moment, and those 
 seeking such legislation should be severely snubbed and taught that this is a 
 free American country. 
 
 Trusting your good sense will prompt you to refuse to report such a mis- 
 chievous bill, we are. 
 
 Very truly, yours, The L. S. Stabbett Co., 
 
 By L. S. Stabbett, President and Treasurer. 
 
 Baltimoee, May 11, 1906. 
 Hon. John J. Gabdnee, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washiniiton, D. C. 
 
 Deae Sib : We have on several previous occasions taken the liberty of writing 
 you in reference to the MeComas eight-hour bill. Our attention has again been 
 called to the fact that there is some activity now going on as to the pushing of 
 this bill. 
 
 We can not present to you too strongly the injustice the passage of such a 
 bill would work toward all concerned. We are employers of quite a large 
 number of men ourselves, and are glad to say that amongst those we have mor6 
 than the avernge degree of intelligence is evident. 
 
 We have found that there are only a few who desire the passage of such a 
 bill and that the great majority of the better class of labor are not in favor of it. 
 
 We had a striking proof of this in the fact that several years ago when we 
 voluntarily reduced our time from ten to nine hours, and when we proposed to 
 the men and put it to vote how this time should be proportioned per day, it was 
 practically unanimously voted to work nine and one-half hours a day for five 
 days and take half a day holiday on the sixth. This seems sufficient evidence 
 that the one great plea advanced that eight hours is as long a time as a man 
 physically can or should apply to manual labor is not a fact. 
 
 From an economic standpoint of view, the passage of such a bill would be 
 dangerous, as the whole scheme seems to have evolved from a revolutionary 
 spirit amongst, fortunately, a small number of leaders of labor. 
 
 We are quite sure, knowing the efficient work you have done in representing 
 your constituents, that you will act on this bill in an absolutely unbiased 
 manner, and as it is undoubtedly a fact that the greatest benefit to the greater 
 community would be effected by the shelving of any such bill, we trust therefore 
 you will recommend such action. 
 
 Yours, very truly, Wm. Knabe & Co. 
 
 Newark Bmbeoidering Woeks, 
 
 Newark, N. J., May 11, 1906. 
 Hon. .ToHN J. Gabdnee, 
 
 Bouse of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 
 
 Deab Sib : As I note that the McComas eight-hour bill is to be pressed again 
 for a favorable report by your honorable committee, would kindly ask your con- 
 sideration of my views upon this question and hope thereby to convince you that 
 it is impolitic to favor such a law. 
 
 First of all, I consider it an inherent right of every free-born individual to 
 work for his own benefit, pleasure, or gain as many hours in a day as he may 
 please, and any restriction in this regard would be in contravention to natural 
 and constitutional law. 
 
 This matter of time — of work and labor — properly belongs to the party who 
 buys and the party who sells his labor. In my business I have seasons in the 
 year where all the work offered may be done in eight hours per day, or even in 
 less time. But, on the other hand, I have seasons where ten or more hours 
 would not suffice to turn out the work offered. 
 
 Myself and multitudes of other manufacturers, under similar circumstances, 
 would be badly handicapped by a compulsory eight-hour law. I would lose 
 much business, my employees would lose extra earnings, and my customers 
 
174 EIGHT HOURS FOK LABOEERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. 
 
 would suffer through expected profit from sales, and the consumers disappointed 
 in not being able to satisfy their needs or wants. 
 
 If all required work can be performed in eight hours, let eight hours be the 
 time, but if more time is needed to do the work offered or needed, why restrict? 
 
 You may claim this eight-hour law is intended for Government work only. 
 I fail to see any good reason why the Government should restrict itself. The 
 whole object is a plan of coercive unionism to place the Government, the em- 
 ploying manufacturers, and the general public at a disadvantage. 
 
 We and many other manufacturers find our hands willing to work several hours 
 over ten hours per day, when necessary, and are glad to have the extra earnings. 
 
 Hoping to have succeeded in convincing you that this eight-hour measure is 
 not needed, and that you may see your way clear not to favor a favorable report 
 thereon. 
 
 Very truly, yours, H. Boenemann. 
 
 Philadelphia, May 11, 1906. 
 Hon. John J. Gardner, 
 
 House Labor Committee, WasMngton, D. C. 
 Dear Snt: Did you ever stop to consider the effect on the industries of this 
 Gountry, and, indeed, on the workers themselves, that a compulsory eight-hour 
 law might produce? The cost of almost everything manufactured is increasing 
 at a ratio that should well call a halt, and the bill now before your committee 
 may be the last straw. 
 
 The subject should receive your most earnest thought before having your 
 approval, and we have confidence to believe that it will receive the considera- 
 tion it deserves. 
 
 Trusting that no hasty action will be taken by your committee, we remain, 
 Very truly, yours, 
 
 A. M. Collins Mef. Co., 
 Henry H. Collins, President. 
 
 Philadelphia, May 11, 1906. 
 Hon. John J. Gardner, 
 
 House of Representatives Labor Committee, 
 
 WasMngton, D. 0. 
 
 Dear Sir : It is our understanding that the McComas eight-hour bill will go 
 forward at an early date for Consideration, and we desire to place ourselves 
 on record to the effect that this bill is undesirable and is a menace to almost 
 every manufacturer of this country. 
 
 At the present time there is a feeling of unrest throughout the country, due 
 to the restriction and coercion of unions, and no manufacturer with whom we 
 have talked on the subject is in favor of an eight-hour bill. 
 
 We employ union labor without recognizing the labor union, and their wages, 
 considering the class of work which they are called upon to execute, are con- 
 siderably in excess of the wages received by a great majority of men to-day 
 that have spent their time and money in acquiring a college education, and 
 who are experts in the se^^eral lines in which they are engaged. If the oflices 
 and clerical departments of this business can work for years for ten and twelve 
 hours a day on work that requires thought, consideration, and brain, we are un- 
 able to determine why a man handling a pick, shovel, or chain tongs, for in- 
 stance, finds it impossible to work longer than eight hours. 
 
 The labor unions of this country to-day, run on the same basis as they have 
 been running for several years, represent the most disturbing element in com- 
 mercial life, and we sincerely trust that you will not lend your aid to the 
 passage of a bill that does not appeal, but rather is objectionable, to the strong, 
 solid men of the United States. 
 
 Very truly, International Sprinkler Co., 
 
 A. M. Lewis, General Manager. 
 
 Rochester, N. T., May 11, 1906. 
 Hon. John J. Gardner, 
 
 House of Representatives, WasMngton, D. G. 
 Sir: Our attention has been called to the fact that the McComas eight-hour 
 bill is again being brought up for consideration before the House Labor Com- 
 mittee, and we beg to enter our emphatic protest against any consideration of 
 
EIGHT HOURS FOE LABORERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. 175 
 
 legislation which will, in effect, create a favored class of employees, to the 
 detriment and hindrance of all established relations between employing classes 
 on the one band and the laboring classes on the other hand. 
 
 It is eminently to be desired that these relations, which are none too- satis- 
 factory at the best under present conditions, should not be menaced by the 
 prospect of pending legislation which will still further confuse and mislead 
 these two large and representative classes of American industry. 
 
 We therefore urgently request that, so far as lies in your power, you will 
 oppose any effort to further such legislation, and that you will use your influ- 
 ence in your committee against any report of this bill to the House of Repre- 
 sentatives. 
 
 Very respectfully, Sixr. Stove Works. 
 
 Baltimobe, Md., May 11, 1906. 
 Hon. .ToHN .1. Gardner, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 
 Dear Sir : We understand that the labor lobbyists are working hard for an 
 eight-hour law and various anti-injunction laws, and trust you will use all of 
 your influence to prevent even a favorable report on any such legislation, for 
 only harm can result. It will do the laboring man no good, because of the in- 
 creased cost of living ; it will cost the Government, and hence the whole people, 
 more in the cost of supplies, and lastly, will hamper the development of the 
 manufacturing industry i\nd largely militate against competing for the mar- 
 kets of the world. Union labor, we undei-stand, comprises less than 15 per cent 
 of the laboring community and are in a constant turmoil,; the country is get- 
 ting heartily sicli of them, and you can feel sure of having nine-tenths of the 
 population of the country behind you in turning down such class legislation 
 hard and leaving the manufacturers to deal with their help as best suited to 
 their and our needs. In ninety-nine cases out of a hundred they will get all 
 that is coming to them and will be lots better off. 
 Yours, very truly, 
 
 TowNSEKD Grace Company, 
 T. S. Wagner, Secretary. 
 
 Commercial Envelope and Box Company, 
 
 Blnghamton. N. Y., May 12, 1906. 
 Hon. John J. Gardner, 
 
 House Labor Coiiiniittee. Washington, D. C. 
 
 Dear Sir : The eight-hour labor law has always been an interesting one to me. 
 I have been in the unions myself. I, as a union mechanic, know how they 
 operate and work. I have also been in business long enough to know what the 
 eight-hour labor law will mean on State work or ordinary work. It is the first 
 step toward universal eight hours throughout the United States, which I am 
 unalterably opposed to. 
 
 My mind has not been poisoned; it has simply been educated in a business 
 way. The most worthless lot of help we get to do business with are the people 
 who have worked for the Army, for the Navy, and in State work. They are 
 not educated to produce; they are simply whistle men, and their main object 
 is to put in time; I never saw one that was overworked. I never saw any- 
 body that was hurt from overwork, but worry and study sometimes breaks us 
 down. The only reason we have not more large industries is because we 
 haven't got more men, both at the head of the concern and in the ranks, who 
 are willing to endure the hardships necessary to make them. No man would 
 be quite so miserable as one who was compelled to work eight hours, sleep 
 eight hours, and play eight hours and have an inspector over him to see that he 
 done it and punish him if he did not. It would be unconstitutional; it would 
 not be free, industrial America. 
 
 Whether it is law or not, that man is not living who can grind a paper machine 
 in the United States eight hours and earn an existence. Machinery is calcu- 
 lated to work ten hours, and it is not practical to operate the machine any 
 faster than the speed it was built to run at, so you will cut the earning capacity 
 right off the plants and you will depreciate the property by doing so. 
 
 I know what the business interests say about it, because I was at the con- 
 vention of the National Association of Manufacturers in Pittsburg, in New Or- 
 
176 EIGHT HOUES FOE LABOEERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. 
 
 leans six years ago, and in Atlanta a year ago. Copies of their resolutions are 
 on my desk. I have studied this thing from start to finish ; I have been through 
 three strikes. You will find the manufaoturers to a man opposed to any sort 
 of a movement in this direction, either by our assembly or by the President of 
 the United States ; you will find the other business interests back of us. I 
 know what I am talking about, because I have sized it up. With not to exceed 
 12J per cent of the laboring population in the unions hoping for this eight-hour 
 law, I can't see what our President is thinking of. 
 
 I will say to you emphatically that no man under the sun is under as little 
 obligation to labor unions as is the President and the Republican party through- 
 out the United States. At the last election there were circulars stuck into this 
 factory that I took personally out of the hands of the man distributing them and 
 kicked him out. These circulars were imploring every man who had a vote to 
 vote against the Republican ticket from the President down to the assembly- 
 men. ' I turned a lot of this stufC over to our chairman. I don't know what dis- 
 position he made of them, but I know that these circulars vi'ere put in every 
 plant in the United States that labor union could stick them into. 
 
 Our President under obligations to the unions for eight hours? If this is so, 
 I should say it would be better if he done three times the thinking he does and 
 half the talking. Certainly our taxes in the State are high enough as they are. 
 When you shorten the hours you increase the salaries for, of course, the fellow 
 has to live ; you make his work less and more bills for us to settle, with the poor 
 fellow overworked. If you had watched these State employees hustle as hard as 
 I have, and as long as I have, you would certainly see the ridiculous part of the 
 eight-hour proposition. 
 
 I have talked with a good many of our manufacturers. A sort of social 
 democracy seems to be what we are drifting to, and the manufacturers have 
 been handling the eight-hour proposition about six years, and we are not going 
 to stand idly by and see it go on if we can help it. How long do you suppose 
 it would be if the State was to adopt this eight-hour system before they would 
 request me to make the goods I supply the State with with eight-hour labor 
 employees — one set of hands to come on an hour later than the other and go 
 home an hour sooner? I would have a nice lot of dissatisfied people left 
 behind the eight-hour people. I might write about this for a week but I 
 could not say any more than I have said to start with — that I am unalterably 
 opposed to any eight-hour law in this State or any other, and I hope you will 
 see your way to put this bill under the table in place of having it reported. 
 
 With best wishes, I am 
 
 Yours, very truly, Benj. B. McFadden. 
 
 Laporte, Ind., May 12, 1906. 
 Hon. John J. Gaedneb, 
 
 Mem'ber of Congress, Washington, D. C. 
 Dear Sib: Understanding that the McComas eight-hour bill is now being 
 pressed for consideration, we write this letter. 
 
 It is not our purpose to undertake a discussion of the subject in this com- 
 munication. We know that arguments pro and con have been laid before you 
 and that the subject is one which is receiving your careful consideration, just 
 as it has received the consideration of every manufacturer, doubtless, in this 
 country. 
 
 We, therefore, simply wish to urge upon you the advisability of not per- 
 mitting any eight-hour bill whatever to be reported. We can not help but 
 think that legislation of this character would in time be discriminatory upon 
 all manufacturers, even though they were not' Government contractors. 
 
 Manufacturers to-day have many, many things to contend with ; " labor " is 
 certainly being handsomely paid ; in many, many lines profits are small, and it 
 is most desirable that conditions do not become more burdensome. 
 Submitting the above for your consideration, we are 
 Respectfully, yours, 
 
 La Pobte Caebiagb Co., 
 By K. M. Andrew, 
 
 Secretary and Treasurer. 
 
EIGHT HOURS FOB LABORERS 0:M GOVERNMENT WORK. 177 
 
 PiTTSBUBG, Pa., May 12. 1906. 
 Hon. John J. Gabdnee, Washington, D. C. 
 
 Dear Sib: We understand that the ilcComas eight-hour bill is now being 
 pressed for favorable consideration before the House Committee on Labor, and 
 we wish to protest against this bill, or any other of the same {lature. 
 
 As we understand the bill in question, it is intended to apply only to those 
 employers of labor who are engaged In Government work, and while we 
 believe that if this law is passed it will be bad enough if It is only for those 
 engaged in Government work, on Government contracts, it would not stop 
 there, but would be the wedge for the compulsory eight-hour law in all cases of 
 employment. 
 
 We regard any such laws as revolutionary and dangerous, and as tending to 
 take away from an American citizen his free right of contract. If we believed 
 such a law would tend to the welfare of what we call the l.iboring classes we 
 would not have anything to say against its passage, but we consider that such 
 legislation is not only against the best interests of the business community, 
 but will work even greater harm to the laborer. 
 Tours, respectfully, 
 
 monongaheia tube company. 
 Hugh H. Davis, 
 
 Treasurer and General Manager. 
 
 South Bexd, Ind., May 12, 1906. 
 Hon. A. L. Bbick, M. C. 
 
 Washington, D. C. 
 
 Deab Sib : Once more we must bother you with a matter which we hope will 
 not be considered an Imposition. We do not like to interfere in Congressional 
 legislation, but consider it our duty to protest against the passage of the eight- 
 hour bill, which is now before the House Labor Committee. In our opinion the 
 passage of such a bill would be disastrous to manufacturers, and we do not 
 believe it would be good policy to force such a law upon the country in the 
 present condition of public imrest. In our opinion any eight-hour bill is danger- 
 ous, and it would be a very grave mistake to allow it to become a law. 
 
 We have no personal acquaintance with any of the members of the House 
 Labor Committee, hence will ask your good offices in placing this communication 
 with the proper party. 
 
 Yours, truly, Oliveb Chilted Plow Woeks. 
 
 Spenceb, Mass., May 12, 1906. 
 Hon. John J. Gabdnee. 
 
 Washington, D. C. 
 Mt Deab Sib: I have watched carefully the legislation of Congress, having 
 the Congressional Record, and find it quite interesting to follow the working 
 of Congress on the various subjects. 
 
 We are large manufacturers of boots and shoes, and we have been very 
 hopeful that no action would be taken favorable to the eight-hour bill, for it 
 would be a great detriment in the general workings and influence with manu- 
 facturing industries. We have the hours shortened In Massachusetts so that 
 hours of labor are certainly very reasonable, I think, and I hope Congress will 
 take no action that will embarrass the Industries of our State and nation. 
 Very respectfully, yours, 
 
 Isaac Pboiitt& Co. (Inc.). 
 By Chart.es N. Proutt. 
 
 Dayton, Ohio, May 12, 1906. 
 Hon. John J. Gabdnee, 
 
 Washington, D. G. 
 Honoeable Sib: We understand that the McComas eight-hour bill is being 
 pressed somewhat 
 
 We wrote you some time ago, a couple of years ago, probably, in relation to 
 what was called the Gompers national eight-hour bill. We beg to say, in con- 
 nection with any bill, regardless of its author, in reference to the eight-hour 
 
178 EIGHT HOUBS FOB LABOEEES ON GOVEEKMENT WOBK. 
 
 proposition, tliat from our point of view bills of this nature should not even be 
 considered. 
 
 ■ Ten hours a day is not oppressive to any person able to work, and if you will 
 show us a man who wants to work but eight hours a day we will show you a 
 curiosity. There is no business man w'ho could possibly confine himself to eight 
 or even ten hours a day. 
 
 The plea that a man Can do as much work in eight hours as in ten is known 
 by all employers of labor to be false in every respect, and it would seem to us 
 that it is also known to be false by those who assert it. 
 
 We have been handling men for many years, and our experience has shown 
 us conclusively that only four-fifths as much work, generally speaking, can be 
 done in eight hours as in ten hours, and it would seem that ev«ry man who 
 labors understands this thoroughly. 
 
 It is well known by employers and employees that the principle of the labor 
 unions is not to work harder that they may produce ten hours' output in eight 
 hours, but, on the contrary, to limit the output per hour, thus making the em- 
 ployer not only lose 20 per cent labor per day, but also to do less work during 
 the other 80 per cent. This is done, from our point of view, undgr the noble 
 principle of charity. Thereby many idle men would get work, but please note 
 the nobleness, the generosity — the employer foots the bill, the employees lose 
 nothing. This is truly noble and unselfish. 
 
 The facts in the case are, there are many lines of business which pay less 
 than 20 per cent profits. If the output Is to be reduced 20 per cent this must 
 necessarily mean larger equipment — more investment proportionately. 
 
 In our opinion the Whole thing is an unblushing fraud, calculated to work 
 disaster and destruction to both capital and labor. It is dangerous in the 
 extreme. 
 
 It is therefore our desire that vicious measures of this nature be defeated. 
 The adoption of an eight-hour law would cause inextricable confusion to thou- 
 sands of manufacturers. 
 
 We therefore beg of you to prevent any favorable report from the House 
 committee upon this legislation. 
 Very truly, yours, 
 
 The Ckawfobd, McGregob & Canbt Co. 
 W. J. Blakeney, Secretwry-Treaaurer. 
 
 H. H. Fbanklin Manufaotubing Co., 
 
 Syracuse, N. Y., May 12, 1906. 
 Hon. John J. Gardnee, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 
 Dear Sib : We desire to protest against the favorable consideration by your 
 committee of the McComas eight-hour bill. We look upon it as an entering 
 -wedge by the labor unions to force all manufacturers to the eight-hour day, 
 a matter with which, we believe, the Government should not interfere. If 
 the Government can properly regulate the hours a man shall work it can also 
 properly regulate the food he shall eat, where he shall purchase it, what 
 price he shall pay for it, etc. 
 Yours, truly, 
 
 liEGAl DePABTMENT. 
 
 Giles H. Stilweu,. 
 
 Boston, Mass., May 12, 1906. 
 Hon. John J. Gaednee, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 
 Deab Sib : We wish to enter our protest against favorable action upon any 
 measure providing for an eight-hour work day for Government contractors. 
 The employing and manufacturing interests of this country are already se- 
 verely hampered by legislation along similar lines, and we do not believe that 
 any eight-hour measure as proposed meets the favor or approval of a majority 
 of the people. The passage of an eight-hour day bill applying to parties 
 doing business with the Government would lead to confusion and difiiculties 
 almost too numerous to mention. A manufacturing establishment working 
 
EIGHT HOUKS FOB LABOEBES ON GOVEENMENT WOEK. 179 
 
 ordinarily ten hours per day and selling goods to the Government would find 
 It a difficult proposition to regulate its affairs so as to comply with the law 
 and at the same time successfully compete with commercial conditions. 
 
 The eight-hour measure seems to be favored, so far as we are aware, only 
 by the labor leaders and their followers, who compose but a very small part 
 of the population of the United States. 
 
 Trusting that you will do what you can to defeat the passage of any legis- 
 lation of this sort, we are. 
 Yours, respectfully, 
 
 Boston Belting Company, 
 By James Bennett Fokstth, 
 
 General Manager. 
 
 New Tokk, May 12, 1906. 
 Hon. John J; Gakdner, 
 
 Bouse Lator Committee, Washington D. C. 
 Deak Sir: We take the liberty of writing you to make our strong protest 
 against the passage of any eight-hour bill through Congress. We think that 
 Congress should not interfere with what appears to us to be the inalienable 
 rights of both capital and labor in the matter of contracts for service. The 
 writer would have been glad all through his business life to have been able 
 to limit his hours of labor to eight per day, and if the laboring man nowadays 
 is justified in demanding such a restriction individual employers, professional 
 men, and, indeed, all who work for a living should be entitled to the same 
 relief. Such a condition, however, is absolutely impossible of accomplishment, 
 and if it were to be brought about the whole fabric of business would be 
 honeycombed with trouble. 
 
 To be sure, labor unions try to make it appear not only that there is justice 
 in their demand for an eight-hour law, but that the great majority of working- 
 men demand it, but -we think the last claim could not be sustained, and that if 
 the nonunion element was allowed to vote on the question, even omitting the 
 professional class, it would carry the day against the proposition. We in New 
 York City particularly have suffered greatly from labor strikes, with their 
 accompanying boycotts and criminal violations of the law, with resultant 
 Immense damage to property, injury to innocent worlcmen, and many deaths, 
 and we beg of you, our representatives in Congress, not to yield to the clamor 
 of labor unions for an eight-hour law. The public is coming to a better under- 
 standing of these great questions, and there is known to be an awakening and 
 revulsion of feeling on the part of intelligent people, who are weary of yellow 
 journalism and muck-rake blatherings. 
 Yours, very truly, 
 
 WiLLCox & GiBBs Sewing Machine Co. 
 
 D. H. Bates. 
 
 P. S. — To-day's New York Times has an account of serious trouble at a large 
 number of funerals yesterday, caused by union men, who will not even let the 
 dead rest in peace. The item is headed thus : " Union drivers stop and stone 
 funerals — Strike prevents 80 out of 100 set for yesterday." 
 
 [R. C. Jenklnson & Co., manufacturers of metal goods.] 
 
 Newark, N. J., May 12, 1906. 
 Hon. John J. Gardner, 
 
 Bouse of Representatives. Washington, D. C. 
 Dear Sir : I appeal to you in behalf of the New Jersey manufacturers, mem- 
 bers of the National Association of Manufacturers, and including some .3,000 
 firms, to use your influence in defeating the " eight-hour bill " now before your 
 committee. It is revolutionary and dangerous and will hurt us in the North 
 particularly, as in the South they have now a great advantage over us in that 
 the longer days and milder climate permits them to work longer, and their 
 State laws do not prohibit it. We are burdened with high material and high 
 wages and all the other blessings that come with prosperous times and a flfty- 
 nine-hour-per-week law. 
 
 B H — 06 13 
 
180 EIGHT HOURS FOR LABORERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. 
 
 ■ A forty-eight-hour-per-week law on Government work would kill that branch 
 of our business. We personally are now bidding on work for the Government, 
 and we can not compete with the German and French imported goods under 
 an eight-hour law, as even with the duty and freight over the Atlantic the 
 cheaper German and French labor and material prevent our getting our share 
 of the trade of the manufacturers who are our customers here. 
 I hope you .will not report this bill favorably. 
 
 Tours, truly, Richaed C. Jbnkinson. 
 
 Providence, R. I., May 12, 1906. 
 Hon. John J. Gabdneb, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 
 Dbae Sib': We wish to call your attention to the proposed eight-hour bill, 
 which we understand is before the House Labor Committee, of which you have 
 the honor to be a member. 
 
 As far as our business is concerned, this would be a most dangerous law to 
 pass. We have a busy and a dull season in each year, both of which periods 
 are about equally divided, and to be compelled to have an eight-hour day would 
 be great hardship to us and to our employees as well. 
 
 Our help are all well satisfied, and there is no call for legislation of this char- 
 acter except from leaders of the labor union, and it would be a serious blow to 
 the business interests of this country, and to our branch of business especially, 
 to pass such an act. 
 
 Trusting that you will find it to be your duty to conserve the business inter- 
 ests of the people as a whole rather than to legislate at the dictation of a class, 
 said class being a very small majority of the people as a whole, we remin, 
 Very respectfully, yours, 
 
 Waite-Theesher Compaht. 
 Henry G. Theeshee, 
 
 Treasurer. 
 
 Milwaukee, Wis., May 12, 1908. 
 Hon. John J. Gardner, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. 0. 
 Deab Sib : Please defeat that or any eight-hour bill. It is uncalled for by 
 any existing condition, is dangerous, destructive, and revolutionary,- and domi- 
 neering, and unworthy of any true American spirit. 
 Yours, very truly. 
 
 Chain Belt Company, 
 
 C. W. Levalley, President. 
 
 Kalamazoo, Mich., May 12, 1906. 
 Hon. John J. Gabdner, 
 
 Washington, D. C. 
 
 Dear Sie : Our attention is again called to the dangerous McComas eight- 
 hour bill, which is now being pressed by various committees to the honorable 
 House Labor Committee, and while the writer is very much in favor of con- 
 servative unionism, and our plant is almost entirely operated by union men,, 
 still there are a great many reasons from a manufacturer's standpoint why 
 such a bill as the McComas eight-hour bill should not be passed. 
 
 Manufacturers have experiences with labor men that other men not manufac- 
 turers do not have, and I am sure that manufacturers do not want to Impose 
 upon any labor union or any other body any undue or unfair conditions or re- 
 quirements, and it does seem if these matters were left alone to the various 
 State courts to care for and take charge of it would be very much better. 
 
 The prosperous condition of this country is to-day threatened by the unrea- 
 sonable and unjust demands of labor unions, not because they are unions, but 
 because of the unreasonableness of those who are at the head of them. There 
 are various unions connected with our own business that are the very best 
 anyone could wish for, and there are others so unreasonable as to make it almost 
 
BIGHT HOUES FOB LABORERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. 181 
 
 impossible to get along with them, and manufacturers as a rule do not under 
 any circumstances wish to -antagonize unionism, but the methods they employ, 
 and any advantage that you give them, such as these eight-hour bills or the 
 anti-injunction bills imperils the backbone of this country and the very things 
 that these men depend upon for their existence, and without wishing to criti- 
 cise any member of this committee in any way, we earnestly trust that each 
 and everj' one of that committee will give this matter the best attention that 
 the occasion demands. 
 
 Thanking you in advance for anything you desire to do for the best interests 
 of the manufacturers of this country, we beg to remain, 
 Yours, very truly, 
 
 Kaiamazoo Stove Company, 
 Wm. Thompson, 
 Vice-Presklent and General Manager. 
 
 Newark, N. J., May 12, 1906. 
 Hon. John J. Gardner, 
 
 New Jersey. 
 
 Dear Sir : I have come to our notice that the old McComas eight-hour bill 
 has recently been brought before your honorable body, known as the House 
 committee. 
 
 We again take the liberty of addressing you, and wish to state that the 
 passing of a favorable report or permitting any eight-hour bill to be reported, 
 especially under the present conditions of public interest, would be a great 
 wrong to the national community. 
 
 Trusting you will coincide with us in that the legislation of any such bill 
 would be detrimental to our manufacturing industries, and that the said bill 
 or any other of like character will be set aside by your honorable body, as 
 heretofore, we are. 
 
 Yours, truly, P. Rielly & Son. 
 
 Wilkesbarre, Pa., May 12, 1906. 
 Hon. John J. Gardner, Washington, D. C. 
 
 Dear Sir : I wish to urge your committee to report unfavorably any and all 
 eight-hour bills that may come before you, for the reason that such a law would 
 be very Injurious to the best interest of our country and the welfare of the 
 working people. 
 
 Yours, truly, B. Frank Myers. 
 
 Buffalo, N. Y., May 12, 1906. 
 Hon. John J. Gardner, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. 0. 
 Dear Sir : I am very much interested in the McComas eight-hour bill. From 
 my point of view this bill assails American liberty, to say nothing at American 
 prosperity. 
 
 This bill would prevent competition from many of the best manufacturers 
 for Government work. Ultimately, if the entire country were compelled to 
 work eight hours whether they chose or not, and continued to be hampered by 
 all the petty exactions that are a part of union domination, the United States 
 could not expect to compete with the nations of the world in export business, 
 which is so necessary to our ultimate prosperity. 
 
 You are no doubt well aware of conditions in Australia, where influences such 
 as are pressing this bill are now dominant. It seems to me independence of 
 thought and courage are as necessary to the welfare of the United States in 
 this matter as they were in handling the problems of 1861. 
 
 I sincerely hope you will oppose this measure in every possible way. 
 Yours, truly, 
 
 BtrFFALO Scale Company, 
 F. A. Aveey, Secretary. 
 
182 EIGHT HOXJKS FOR LABOEERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. 
 
 PoL'GHKEEPSiE, N. Y., May 13, 1906. 
 Hon. J. G. Gaedneb, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 
 Deae Sir : Will you permit us a line in regard to the eight-hour bill, which is 
 now being pressed in Congress? 
 
 We object most emphatically to this bill for many reasons — it is class legis- 
 lation ; it interferes with individual freedom, and is not only a menace to 
 business, but, if enacted, would seriously disturb manufacturing industries in 
 all sections of the country. 
 
 Coercive unionism is decidedly un-American and aims to be tyrannical to the 
 full limit. 
 
 We therefore trust you will not permit an eight-hour bill to be reported out 
 of your committee. 
 
 Yours, truly, Adeiance, Platt & Co., 
 
 W. D. Casbbouck, 
 
 Milwaukee, Wis., May 12, 1906. 
 Hon. John J. Gaedneb, Washington, D. C. 
 
 Deab Sir : During the present session of Congress there will undoubtedly be 
 considerable agitation on the part of supporters of the various eight-hour bills 
 which have been introduced in the House. ' 
 
 In our opinion, it will be very unfortunate if the Labor Committee of the 
 House reports favorably on any of these bills, and we take this occasion to 
 place ourselves on record as strongly opposed to any legislation which will tend 
 to force an eight-hour day into the factories of the country. 
 
 We think it unnecessary to call your attention to the many strong arguments 
 which can be made against the so-called " eight-hour bills," for it is certain 
 that any such legislation is extremely dangerous and can have only bad results. 
 Very truly, yours, 
 
 Pfisteb & VoGEL Leather Co. 
 
 A. H. VoGEL, Second. Vice-Presidetit. 
 
 PiTTSBUEG, Pa., May 12, 1906. 
 Hon. John J. Gaedneb, Washington, D. G. 
 
 Honoeable Sns : -We beg to call your attention to the McComas eight-hour 
 bill, you being a member of the House Labor Committee, and ask you to oppose 
 the passage of same. We, the manufacturers in this line in and about Pitts- 
 burg, Pa., are working nine hours per day in our plants, paying the rate per day 
 established by the trades union here. In former years we did considerable ex- 
 port business, wliich has almost entirely been absorbed by other markets, owing 
 to the cost of producing with us, and should the McComas bill be passed it 
 would simply mean a further increase in the cost of producing, and would cer- 
 tainly be followed by a further increased rate per day, which occurred when 
 the hours were changed from ten to nine per day. The customary working 
 hours are from 7.30 a. m. to 5 p. m., quitting 3 to 4 p. m. Saturdays, which cer- 
 tainly is not a long or burdensome day. We and others find it very difficult to 
 run our plant with the nine-hour day during ordinary business demands, when 
 it becomes necessary to draw from larger field for trade. 
 
 Hoping we will have your assistance, and thanking you in advance for same, 
 we are. 
 
 Yours, respectfully. The James Lappan Mfg. Co. 
 
 Saml. F. McGaey, Secretary. 
 
 MuNCiB, Ind., May 12. 1906. 
 Hon. John J. Gardner, Washington, D. C. 
 
 Dear Sib : I notice that the eight-hour bill has now come up before you, and 
 certain parties are urging the passing of this bill, and we earnestly urge that 
 you do all you can to discourage the passing of this bill. 
 
 As manufacturers using hundreds of both union and nonunion men, we be- 
 lieve that it would be a great detriment to our country and would take away the 
 rights of manufacturers that have made the country what it is to-day. 
 
EIGHT HOUES FOB LABOEERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. 183 
 
 We are aware that you are well posted on this subject, but personally ask 
 that you use all the influence you can in killing this McComas eight-hour bill. 
 Yours, truly, 
 
 Bail Bbos. Glass Mfg. Co. 
 E. B. Ball, Vice-President. 
 
 Geeenfield, Ohio, May 12, 1908. 
 Hou. John J. Gabdneb, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington. D. C. 
 
 Deak Sib : As a member of the House Labor Committee, we desire to write 
 you just briefly concerning a proposed eight-hour bill which, we understund, 
 certain interests are urging your committee to favorably report. We believe 
 upon careful investigation it will become apparent at once that the time is not 
 ripe for an eight-hour working day. In our judgment the passage of such a 
 law and its enforcement at this time would prove ruinous to the manufacturing 
 industries of this country. Indeed, we believe it would be little short of a 
 crime to enforce an eight-hour working day now, and we wish to place ourselves 
 on record as being unalterably opposed to such legislation. 
 
 We believe in progress and in laws which will guarantee full protection to 
 the interests of all. Again, we are favorable always to legislation tending 
 to better general conditions. However, this seems to be largely an effort on 
 the part of trade unions to force an eight-hour day on the manufacturers with- 
 out regard to either conditions or consequences. Such a thing at this time 
 would prove ruinous, both to the manufacturer and working man. In pre- 
 suming to express ourselves thus freely, it is not with any thought of dictating 
 or even suggesting the course any member of your committee should pursue. 
 Our only thought is to just place ourselves on record, and it quite naturally 
 follows we feel . such a bill should not receive favorable consideration. We 
 therefore hope It may be consistent to oppose a favorable report of any meas- 
 ure now providing for an eight-hour day. The time may come when this will 
 be all right, but it is not now opportune. 
 
 Thanking you for the full consideration we feel sure this will receive at 
 your hands, and placing ourselves subject to your commands, we are, 
 Yours, truly, 
 
 The Amebican Pad and Textile Company. 
 Per Chas. Mains, Secretary. 
 
 New Haven, Conn., May 12, 1906. 
 Hon. John J. Gaednee, M. C, Washington, D. 0. 
 
 Deae Sie : We wish to enter our protest very strongly against what is known 
 as the " McComas eight-hour bill." We are putting in some estimates for 
 Government work, and should withdraw all our prices and give up any idea of 
 doing work for the Government if a bill anything like the McComas bill should 
 pass Congress. We are running our shop ten hours a day, and our men are 
 very willing to work that time, and we should not care to do any work for the 
 Government under any conditions if such a bill was passed. The eight-hour 
 bill we consider revolutionary, and we think we have a right to work our shop 
 on such hours and under such conditions as may be thought best for us and 
 for the men who work for us. We are sick and tired of restrictions and 
 coercions of unionisms and will not stand for any further coercion by legis- 
 lative means. 
 
 Yours, truly, The National Pipe Bending Company.' 
 
 Simeon J. Fox, President. 
 
 New Yoek, May IS, 1906. 
 Hon. John J. Gvbdnee, 
 
 Memher House Labor Committee, Washington, D. C. 
 
 Deae Sie : We desire, as employers of shop labor at our Syracuse factory 
 department and road labor throughout the United States, to voice our objection 
 to the McComas eight-hour bill, which we understand wiU soon be brought to 
 the attention of your honorable committee. 
 
184 EIGHT HOURS FOE LABOEEKS ON GOVEENMBNT WOEK. 
 
 We urge that you use your efforts against the favorable report, or against 
 any permit to be reported, of any eight-hour labor bill. At this particular 
 time unjust union demands, and particularly in view of the present condition 
 of public unrest and manifest difference between labor and capital, we believe 
 such a report to be against the best interests of all concerned. Particularly 
 at the present time do we believe any eight-hour bill to be especially dangerous. 
 Thanking you in advance for due consideration to our lines, we are, 
 Yours, very truly, 
 
 Manufactueees' Automatic Speinki.ee Company. 
 Per A. J. RicHAEDS. 
 
 Mansfield, Ohio, May 12, 1906. 
 Hon. John J. Gabdneb, M. C, 
 
 Washington, D. C. 
 Dear Sib : We wish to record our most emphatic protest against a favorable 
 report by your committee on the McComas eight-hour bill. The rank and file 
 of the people are against coercive unionism, and any eight-hour bill can not be 
 otherwise than dangerous as well as vicious. These radical labor agitators 
 now in the saddle represent but a small percentage of the laboring people's 
 wants. Public sentiment and the best interests of the people at large are 
 against bills of this class. 
 
 We hope that you will not vote to make a favorable report on this bill or 
 any other eight-hour bill. 
 
 Tours, truly, The Ohio Suspendeb Co., 
 
 Per D. li. Zahmies, Secretary. 
 
 Hoffmann & Billings Mfg. Co., 
 
 MilwauJceS, Wis., May IS, 1906. 
 Hon. John J. Gaednee, 
 
 Washington, D. G. 
 Deab Sie: Referring to the McComas eight-hour bill, which is now in con- 
 sideration at Washington, if consistent with your views, we should very much 
 like to see this bill voted down. It is something that is antagonistic to every 
 manufacturer in the country and would mean a great deal of hardship to all 
 manufacturers if it was passed. 
 
 Commending our request to your attention, I am, 
 Tours, very truly, 
 
 J. B. Kalvelaqe, Secretary. 
 
 Rochestee, N. T., May 12. 1906. 
 Hon. John J. Gaednee, M. C, 
 
 Washington, D. G. 
 
 Deae Sir : As there is now before the Congress, and we believe in the hands 
 of the House Labor Committee, the so-called " McComas eight-hour bill," it 
 being pressed by labor agitators and politicians, which is one of the most 
 revolutionary documents that has ever been brought before the National 
 Legislature, we sincerely hope that the same will be unfavorably reported, as we 
 are positive the passing of such a bill will of necessity retard capital from 
 being invested in manufacturing industries, as it will be impossible to compete 
 with foreign production. The price of manufactured articles would have to be 
 advanced so materially that the houses, especially those who buy printing — in 
 which we are particularly interested — would curtail the quantity to such an 
 extent as to cripple and materially reduce the output of our industry and work 
 a double harm to labor by producing a scarcity of work. 
 
 It seems to us the manufacturers should be protected against the infamous 
 boycott, picketing, and labor-union practices, which destroy the trade of the 
 manufacturer of the country, instead of being continually harassed by such 
 cheap legislation as the above-mentioned bill. We feel morally certain that if 
 such things continue this country will experience greater panics than it ever 
 has in the past. We sincerely hope and pray that you will use your Influence 
 
EIGHT HOUES FOB LABORERS OK GOVERNMENT WORK. 185 
 
 and best judgment, and that no such calamity will be brought about by what 
 we call infamous legislation. 
 
 Thanking you in advance, and again praying you to use your best influence 
 to kill this bill, we remain. 
 
 Yours, respectfully, John P. Smith Ptg. Co., 
 
 John P. Smith, President. 
 
 Chicago, Iix., May 12, 1906. 
 Hon. John J. Gabdnek, 
 
 Washington, D. C. 
 De'ab Sib : We notice that the McComas eight-hour bill is again being pressed 
 forward, and we want to urge on you the necessity of doing everything possible 
 to prevent a favorable report or prevent any report on it whatever. 
 
 There is nothing before Congress that, in our opinion, is more dangerous to 
 the continued prosperity of this country than this measure. It is socialistic 
 and revolutionary in its tendency. It will prevent freedom of contract, and 
 will kill all incentive toward promotion and advancement of the individual, 
 and, we think, would do more eventually to injure the prosperity and enter- 
 prise in our country than any one measure that has come before your assembly. 
 We do not believe that there is a single one of our employees who would 
 favor such a measure. 
 
 Yours, truly. Cole Manufactubing Co., 
 
 E. C. Cole, President. 
 
 Atchison, Kans., May H, 1906. 
 Hon. John J. Gaednee, 
 
 Member of Congress, Washington, D. C. 
 
 Deab Sib: We trust you will excuse the liberty we take in addressing you, 
 but wish to enter our protest against the favorable report of the House Labor 
 Committee on any of the so-called eight-hour bills which we understand are 
 being presented to your committee for consideration. We feel that legislation 
 along these lines would prove very disastrous to the manufacturing interests 
 of the United States, as it would handicap the operation of our manufacturing 
 plants to such an extent as to materially interfere with the initial or first cost 
 of expense items, such as the operation of machinery and other items that can 
 not be governed by the matter of the number of hours of operation. 
 
 It would curtail the product of the different plants and interfere materially 
 with the prosperity of our country by cutting down the volume of business, as 
 well as to cut out to a great extent probably all our export business, to say 
 nothing about its being, as it appears to us, un-American. 
 
 We believe that the number of hours of labor, generally speaking, should be 
 left entirely to be determined by and between the employer and the employee, 
 as they might agree upon. While it is possible that there are industries that 
 labor should not be employed in for longer than eight hours at a time, or even 
 shorter shifts might be required, yet those things regulate themselves. It does 
 not seem to us that it would require an act of legislation to govern cases of 
 this kind. We, of course, are speaking from the standpoint of our business. 
 
 There isn't anything in our line that is especially hazardous or unhealthful, 
 and it is not a hardship for them to work ten hours per day. We find consider- 
 able trouble to get sufficient mechanics to meet our requirements as it is. If 
 our workday should be cut down to eight hours, it would mean that we would 
 require 20 per cent more men to do the same amount of work that we are now 
 doing, and we are employing all of 'the men that we can get at the present time 
 and believe that throughout the saddlery industry the conditions are about the 
 same in all parts of our country. 
 
 Trusting you will excuse us for taking up your time and asking that you 
 kindly consider legislation along the lines mentioned herein from a business, 
 economical, and patriotic standpoint, and hoping that you will consider it your 
 duty to oppose legislation of this kind, we remain. 
 Very truly, yours, 
 
 The Atchison Saddleby Co., 
 By Henbt Diegbl, 
 
 Secretary and Treasurer. 
 
186 EIGHT HOURS FOR LABORERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. 
 
 Iowa State Manufactttrees' Association, 
 
 Des Moines, May 14, 1906. 
 Hon. J. J. Gardnek, 
 
 Chairman Committee on Laior, Washington, D. C. 
 
 Dbae Sie : Referring to the eight-hour labor bill now pending before your com- 
 mittee, permit me to say that every manufacturer in the State of Iowa will be 
 interested in the result of your findings and the manner in which your com- 
 mittee disposes of this measure. It is needless to say that we are opposed to a 
 statute that will impose a condition such as is asked for in this bill. The em- 
 barrassments to manufacturers in this State will be numerous and of a most 
 aggravating character if this measure becomes a law. It appears to our legisla- 
 tive committee that matters of this character should be settled and definite 
 arrangements be made between and among employers and employees rather 
 than to have the matter settled by any enactment of law. As a class our man- 
 ufacturers are in perfect accord with the laboring man, slvilled or unskilled, 
 and as a rule our people are paying good wages to our employees, and we see 
 no first-class reason why any capable, honest laboring man should demand that 
 the opinions of men at the head of dominating labor organizations should be 
 crystalized into laws to the apparent injury of the laboring man himself. 
 
 This association represents something like sixty millions of dollars in manu- 
 facturing capital, and their protest against the passage of this measure is uni- 
 versal. We trust that your committee will kindly consider the same during 
 your hearing on the measure. 
 
 Very truly, yours, R. O. Green, President. 
 
 A. C. HuTOHiNS, Secretary. 
 
 MoLiNE, III., May H, 1906. 
 Hon. John J. Gardner, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 
 
 Dear Sir : I am informed that the old eight-hour bill is coming up again, and 
 as manufacturers we are keenly interested in the matter. 
 
 /There is no doubt, of course, that in some occupations eight hours is all that 
 a man ought to worlc, but to force a cast-iron rule by law on all trades is 
 unwise and absolutely ruinous, in our opinion. The question of hours can be 
 safely left to natural evolution. It is far wiser to leave such matters to 
 gradual adjustment. The influence of the public press and of labor unions and 
 public sentiment generally is fully powerful enough in this country to obtain 
 all that the workmen are reasonably entitled to in the way of shorter hours 
 without legal enactments. 
 
 This world is not a kindergarten. If so, why work eight hours, or even six or 
 seven hours? There are many lines of business where a limitation to eight 
 hours would be extremely unwise ; for instance, our own. There is no inherent 
 diflSculty of an exhausting nature in a machinist's occupation which prevents 
 him from working ten hours, and when business is excellent and rushing we 
 must take advantage of it and worli at least ten hours, especially in view of 
 the expensive nature of the equipment in our shops. When times are duller 
 and business less rushing, we work nine hours, sometimes eight, or even seven 
 hours. 
 
 During the year 1904 we worked nine hours. There have been some years 
 where we have worked eight hours because business was dull, but when there 
 is plenty of business going it would be foolish not to «-ork ten hours, and our 
 men say the same thing. In fact our men are glad to work overtime and get 
 extra pay. 
 
 We also find this condition happens frequently — that is, the factory gets out 
 of balance — one department or one set of machines gets behind. Now, we can 
 not stop the whole factory in order to let those machines catch up. In other 
 words, we must run one department or machine overtime in order to catch up 
 with the rest of the factory. 
 
 I am well aware that you say this bill is intended to apply only to Govern- 
 ment works, but it is actually the opening wedge, and what is applicable to 
 other factories should be applicable to the Government factories also. The 
 Government has no right to impose unfair 'conditions on others. 
 
 I am sure that the above reasons will appeal to you, and that you will agree 
 with me that this country can be depended upon, by force of public opinion, the 
 press, and the efforts of workmen themselves, to obtain fair and reasonable 
 hours of labor, and that the manufacturers also have their rights to be con- 
 
EIGHT HOURS FOR LABORERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. 187 
 
 sidered where a large amount of capital is Invested. Labor should not neces- 
 sarily be limited to eight hours when plenty of worli is offered. 
 
 I have aimed to put this matter in a fair and reasonable way, and would be 
 glad to hear from you and, if possible, know what view you talie of the matter. 
 Yours, very truly, 
 
 Williams, White & Co. 
 Harry Ainsworth, 
 
 Vice-President. 
 
 Minneapolis, May H, 1906. 
 Hon. John J. Gardner, 
 
 Chairman House Labor Committee, Washington, D. C. 
 
 Dear Sir: We would earnestly urge upon you and your committee to defeat 
 the recommendation of and the passage of the McComas eight-hour bill, or any 
 other eight-hour bill, as being inimical to the manufacturing Interests of the 
 country. 
 
 The printers of Minneapolis and St. Paul, representing over' 90 per cent of 
 the production of booli and job printing in the Twin Cities, have been subjected 
 to a strilie for an eight-hour daj^by the Typographical Union for the past seven 
 months ; and while our offices aire, and have been for some time, fully manned 
 with independent workmen, we are subjected to all kinds of annoyances by the 
 pickets of the said union, together with boycott, until our business is seriously 
 interrupted and our cost of production materially increased. We did not refuse 
 the demands of organized labor until after we had carefully considered every 
 phase of the resulting situation, and when we found that the reduction of hours 
 would mean an increase of 22 per cent in cost of production we were sure we 
 could not stand the loss, and we were equally sure that we could not induce 
 our customers to stand for an increase In prices. 
 
 Our country to-day is the greatest Industrial nation of the earth, but if the 
 manufacturing and business interests are compelled to stand many more re- 
 strictions by and through organized labor industrial America will sink to the 
 level of industrial Great Britain. So-called organized labor, by the formation 
 of unions and through the pernicious activity of its walking delegates, has 
 assumed to determine not only how private business shall be conducted, but 
 also who shall hold public office and how many shall be permitted to engage 
 in any given occupation, and what compensation they shall receive, together 
 with how much they shall produce, without regard to the value or quality of 
 their services. 
 
 The United States census of 1900 shows that organized labor In "the printing 
 interests of the country represents but 37.7 per cent of all the wage-earners of 
 16 years and over engaged therein. The 62 per cent represented by unorganized 
 labor have no mouthpiece to go before Congress. They are willing to work, 
 and are satisfied with present conditions, as is evidenced by the vast number 
 of men now working in the open shops throughout the country. And we think 
 it reasonable to suppose that this same percentage will prevail In other indus- 
 tries. If such be the case, then all eight-hour legislation is in favor of the 
 classes and not the masses. 
 
 The founders of our country feared a coalition of church and state. Indus- 
 trial America to-day fears a coalition and domination of state by organized 
 labor. 
 
 Trusting that the prayer of our petition will receive your careful consider- 
 ation and that our appeal be granted, we are. 
 
 Very respectfully, Mubpht-Travis Co., 
 
 H. C. Travis. 
 
 New York, May H, 1906. 
 Hon. John X. Gardner, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. G. 
 Dbab Sir : We have been informed that the McComas eight-hour bill is now 
 being pressed by the labor lobbyists. 
 
 We conceded a nine-hour working day to our men, but think that is where 
 it should stand, and earnestly protest against a favorable report being made 
 of this or any other eight-hour bill. 
 
 We write you hoping you will use your valuable influence in this direction. 
 Yours, very truly, 
 
 Sloan & Co., 
 F. T. Sloan, 
 
 Treasurer. 
 
188 EIGHT HOURS FOR LABORERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. 
 
 PlTTSBTJBGH PRINTING COMPANY, 
 
 PittsWrg, Pa., May IJf, 1906. 
 Hon. John J. Gabdneb, 
 
 House Committee on Labor, Washington, D. C. 
 
 Deae Sib : We understand that organized labor, through its lobbyists, is press- 
 ing once more the McComas eight-hour bill. Permit us to pray the members of 
 the Committee on Labor to take a decided stand against any favorable report 
 whatsoever in this matter. 
 
 The eight-hour movement has been the cherished pet of unionism for some 
 time, and with it has come the demand for a closed shop. Either- demand, 
 whether in the form of a law or not, is revolutionary and dangerous. 
 
 In our own line of business the eight-hour question has just been fought out. 
 While the members of the International Typographical Union had the moral 
 and financial support of all organized labor, they were utterly routed in their 
 vicious onslaught. Now that they have lost the opening- skirmish (as such the 
 fight of the typographical union was recognized by practically all labor leaders) 
 and the prospects for the success of the eight-hour movement in other lines of 
 trade are indeed very slim, official recognition of their demands on the part of 
 Congress is demanded. The enactment of a law of the McComas type would 
 mean the establishment of the eight-hour working day by force. 
 
 We are by no means enemies of unionism whose right of existence we would 
 deny. But the time in its history has come when abuses through the high- 
 handed methods which now prevail have aroused the employers to take a deter- 
 mined stand against the union. When any set of men insist on an eight-hour day 
 against the nine hours of an " open shop," and threaten the latter with a gen- 
 eral boycott, the most un-American proceeding possible, and this in spite of 
 the declaration of employers that they can not possibly make their business 
 pay with shorter hours, the policy has a suspicious likeness to the cutting off 
 one's nose to spite one's face. 
 
 Why should the manufacturer and business man who has everything at stake 
 be dictated to by his employees as to how many hours should constitute a work- 
 ing day? And why should such dictation come in a more or less hostile man- 
 ner? It is lack of intelligence and understanding of business and the prin- 
 ciples underlying business that are at the bottom of such hostility. 
 
 Sooner or later intelligence and comprehension will increase among the 
 laborers, skilled and unskilled, and as this intelligence grows the antagonism 
 will decline. The principle that is fixed in the very constitution of things and 
 which rewards enterprise and intelligence can not be overcome by any sort of 
 trade unionism. The attitude of the employers in the eight-hour movement is 
 not based upon their selfishness or greed for the greatest possible returns, but 
 upon fundamental principles. 
 
 And for this reason we once more petition your committee not to report favor- 
 ably the McComas bill. 
 
 Very respectfully, yours, W. J. Goldbb. 
 
 PiTTSBUBG, Pa., May I4, 1906. 
 Hon. John J. Gaednek, M. C, 
 
 Chairman House Labor Committee, Washington, D. C. 
 
 Deab Sib : We understand that the old labor measure known as the " Mc- 
 Comas eight-hour bill " is again before the present session of Congress, and is 
 now in the hands of your committee for consideration. 
 
 We write to enter our most vigorous protest against any legislation by the 
 National Government on the line contemplated by this bill, believing it to be a 
 trespass both on the individual rights of the workingmen and on the rights of 
 the manufacturers, and contrary to the spirit and intention of the Constitution. 
 We fail to see how it can work beneficial results in the direction desired, and, 
 in our opinion, as manufacturers of many years' experience, we believe it 
 would only serve to hamper ourselves and other manufacturers in the trans- 
 action of business. We believe that every manufacturer should be free to 
 conduct his own business and arrange such hours as the conditions thereof 
 require and as may be agreed upon between him and his employees. 
 
 With the unconscionable demands that are being made by the labor unions, 
 followed by strikes resulting in lawlessness, intimidation, and boycotts, the 
 manufacturers are having about all the burdens they can well take care of 
 in the adjustment of the details of their operations. That the representatives 
 
EIGHT HOURS FOE LABOEERS ON GOVEENMBNT WOEK. 189 
 
 of the labor unions, representing less than 10 per cent of the laboring men of 
 this country, should act as self-arrogated sponsors for the other 90 per cent 
 and demand that the details of labor for all shall be adjusted according to their 
 arbitrary and impracticable ideas seems an incredible and preposterous propo- 
 sition. 
 
 The manufacturers of the country and the general community as well are 
 beconimg very weary of these constant strifes and bickerings, which are not 
 only detrimental to the peace and good order of the community, but a menace 
 to business organization and transaction. We feel that is would be most unwise 
 to aggravate and complicate the present conditions by enacting legislation in 
 line with the provisions of the bill in question, and we most respectfully and 
 earnestly request your cooperation in preventing a favorable report of the 
 measure from your committee. 
 
 Yours, truly, The McConway & Tobley Co. 
 
 Stephen C. Mason, Secretary. 
 
 Chicago, May U, 1906. 
 Hon. John J. Gabdneb, Washington, D. C. 
 
 Deae Sib: We learn with regret that renewed efforts are being made to put 
 forward that revolutionary and un-American eight-hour bill, the bill which we 
 believe to be sure if it passes to stunt American commerce and industry at 
 home and abroad ; to stunt American manhood by interfering with the right of 
 free contract ; to be a backward step in every respect. 
 
 We hope that you have the same view of it, and will with all your ability 
 oppose even a report on the bUl. It should be buried for all time, and, in our 
 opinion, he who votes to bury it votes for American honor, manhood, liberty, 
 and good citizenship. 
 
 Yours, truly, Babnhabt Bbos. & Spindleb. 
 
 International Association op Masteb House Painters 
 
 AND DeCOEATOBS OF THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA, 
 
 Somerville, Mass, May H, 1906. 
 Hon. John J. Gabdnee, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. 0. 
 Dear Sib : On behalf of the above association I desire to enter its protest 
 against a favorable report by your committee on the McComas or any other 
 so-called " eight-hour bill." 
 
 Our country is too large and conditions too diverse to make in AA'ashington 
 a law for the government of the laboring classes as a whole without seriously 
 handicapping both the workmen and the employer. 
 
 Hoping you will give this matter your serious attention, I remain, 
 Yours, respectfully, 
 
 William E. Wall, Secretary-Treasurer. 
 
 Syracuse, N. Y., May IJ,, 1906. 
 Hon. John J. Gabdneb, 
 
 House Labor Committee, Washington, D. G. 
 
 Dear Sir : My attention has been called to the McComas eight-hour bill that 
 is before your committee. Allow me to protest against its being favorably 
 reported. My request is prompted by thirty-five years' experience in the 
 malleable iron foundry industry, and I offer the following arguments against 
 this or any eight-hour-day bill : 
 
 First. Our industry can not be run on an eight-hour day owing to insuffi- 
 cient time to prepare the molds, melt the iron, and pour ofiC same. 
 
 Second. The fixed expenses would be the same for eight hours as for a ten- 
 hour day. This would add 20 per cent to the cost of our product for such 
 expenses. 
 
 Third. The present very close competition is such that the enhanced cost, 
 resulting from this shortening of a workday, would close many malleable-iron 
 foundries. 
 
 Fourth. The moral effect on the molders would be very disastrous to a 
 majority of the men, for the reason that as a class they are very intemperate 
 in their habits. An enforced idleness means to them more dissipation. 
 
190 EIGHT HOURS FOE LABOHEKS ON GOVERNMENT WOEK. 
 
 Fifth. It would encourage the already revolutionary exactions of unionism, 
 which is fast tending to anarchism and destroying individual freedom of action 
 under law, which is the foundation of our Republic. 
 
 Hoping I have not trespassed too much on your valuable time, I am, 
 Very respectfully, yours, 
 
 Sybacuse Malleable Iron Woeks, 
 W. B. Burns, President. 
 
 Philadelphia, May IJf, 1906. 
 Hon. John J. Gardner, 
 
 House Labor CommUtee,. Washington, D. G. 
 Dear Sir : We beg to address you in opposition to bill 11651, commonly 
 known as the " eight-hour bill." 
 
 This measure we feel would be most unjust to the industrial life of the 
 
 country and would eventually work a hardship against labor and capital alike. 
 
 The provisions of this measure we take to be dangerous and revolutionary, 
 
 and we urge you by all means at your command to prevent its favorable 
 
 consideration. 
 
 Very truly, yours, Wm. H. Grundy & Co. 
 
 BvANSViLLB, Ind., May 14, 1906. 
 Hon. John J. Gardner, 
 
 Washington, D. G. 
 
 Dear Sir : We respectfully call your attention to the McComas eight-hour 
 bill, which is now being pressed, and respectfully ask you to use your efforts 
 to defeat this measure, as we consider such legislation would be discriminatory 
 in time upon all manufacturers not Government contr^tors ; that same is a 
 part of the plan of coercive unionism to force the eight-hour day into all the 
 factories of the country ; that it would be a great wrong, especially in the pres- 
 ent condition of public unrest, to force such a thing upon the national com- 
 munity, and that the people, sick and tired of restrictions and unionism, as 
 illustrated in their strikes, intimidations, and boycotts, will not stand for any 
 further coercion or attempted coercion by legislative means. 
 
 We believe that any eight-hour bill is revolutionary and dangerous, and would 
 ask you to vote against this measure. 
 
 Respectfully, Evansvillb Furniture Co. 
 
 St. Joseph, Mich., May H, 1906. 
 Hon. John J. Gardner, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. G. 
 
 Dear Sir : We understand that the House Labor Committee are now con- 
 sidering one of the old-time eight-hour bills. 
 
 As a manufacturer, employing in the neighborhood of 400 people, we feel 
 that in fairness to us you will give this letter some consideration, and we hope 
 that you will do what you can to effectively check any eight-hour movement. 
 
 Our country as a whole is in the most healthy condition it has ever been in, 
 which is largely due to no other one thing than the manufacturers are all pros- 
 pering, therefore being able to give steady employment to all laboring men, and 
 the steady growth of the export trade. 
 
 Shortening the hours of the laboring men would restrict the output of these 
 factories to a point where they would no longer be able to compete for this 
 foreign trade. The manufacturer's profit is gained entirely through the vol- 
 ume of business that his factory is able to do. If the output of his factory is 
 reduced, it is only a question of time when he would be compelled to make 
 more than a corresponding reduction in the wages that he would be able to pay. 
 
 Furthermore, it is very doubtful if there would be any real benefit to the 
 laboring class if the working hours were shortened, as what they would gain in 
 one way they would lose in others, as it is certainly possible for but few of the 
 manufacturers to pay for eight hours of labor what they are able to pay for 
 ten hours of work. If there were an overproduction in any particular number 
 of lines, there, of course, would be an excuse for reducing the hours, if the 
 
EIGHT HOURS FOE LABORERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. 191 
 
 workingmen themselves really wanted such, which is most doubtful in our 
 minds, if they understood that the wages would be cut correspondingly. 
 
 We would be most pleased to have you give this matter careful consideration 
 before deciding which way you will vote. 
 Respectfully, 
 
 Tbuscott Boat Manufactukixg Company. 
 
 New York, May U, 1906. 
 Hon. Mr. Gardneb. 
 
 Dear Sir : The jewelry trade are as one man against the passage of the 
 McComas eight-hour bill. 
 
 We think the fact, ^^■ithout any argument, should have weight with you, that 
 so large and intelligent a body of men have arrived at the conclusion that it 
 will work evil. 
 
 We hope you will see it as we do, and vote against it. 
 
 Yours, Day, Clark & Co. 
 
 York, Pa., May H, 1906. 
 Hon. John J. Gardner, JL C, Wasliinr/ton. D. C. 
 
 Dear Sir : We understand that there is again an effort being made to report 
 an eight-hour bill to Congress for consideration. We are sure if the members of 
 your committee fully appreciated the detriment that such a law would be to 
 the manufacturing interests of the country you would not report any such bill 
 favorably. 
 
 We are not narrow, and do not ask for class legislation in favor of manufac- 
 turers, but we have already enough annoyances to keep us busy, and certainly 
 hope that this additional burden will not be forced upon the manufacturing 
 interests of the country. W« fully realize that the interest of the manufacurer 
 and of the laborer are largely mutual. Neither one can prosper without the 
 other, and if you realize how much the present prosperity has Increased the 
 demand for labor- and has raised the price of labor on account of the demand 
 exceeding the supply, you would fully understand that no legislation is required 
 for this purpose. 
 
 We believe in well-paid labor. It helps our business. What we need is more 
 efficiency in the ranks of labor, more responsibility on the part of the individual 
 laborer, more faithfulness to duty, so that the laborer's results will be increased 
 and will thus make it possible for the manufacturer to pay the increased wages 
 so that the laborer can meet the increased demands in the advanced cost of liv- 
 ing. 
 
 We find in our experience that the more idle hours, the more holidays there 
 are, the more difficult it becomes to handle the average working people. Tlie 
 more responsible of them do not appreciate the efforts of the agitator to reduce 
 their hours and to reduce their chances for individual advancement, and we 
 trust, therefore, that you will not allow the agitators who are ever present with 
 you to have too much influence upon your decision. There is more lawlessness, 
 intimidation, and boycotting than the country should have, and until the agi- 
 tators encourage their men to be law-abiding and to have proper respect for 
 other people's rights as well as their own, we do not see that they are entitled 
 to much consideration. 
 
 We hope we have not tired you, but earnestly pray that there may be no 
 eight-hour bill reported to the House for consideration. 
 Yours, very respectfully, 
 
 Weaver Organ and Piano Co. 
 
 Grand Crossing, III., May IJf, 1906. 
 Hon. John J. Gardner, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. G. 
 Dear Sir: We understand that certain parties are pressing the McComas 
 eight-hour bill, or a bill of like nature, for consideration and a favorable report 
 from your committee. 
 
 When so many manufacturers are more or less interested in Government 
 work, and as the adoption of such a bill would practically mean the putting of 
 
192 EIGHT HOTJES FOE LABOEEES ON GOVEBNMENT WOEK. 
 
 the entire manufacturing interest in this country upon the eight-hour day, be- 
 cause no manufacturer could segregate his Government worli from the work 
 that is not Government work, we sincerely request and urge upon you the im- 
 portance of defeating any such so-called " eight-hour legislation." 
 
 The manufacturing interests of this country do not want an eight-hour day of 
 any kind forced upon them by law, so please defeat all such measures, and 
 oblige. * 
 
 Yours, very truly, Grand Cbossing Tack Company, 
 
 O. N. Hutchinson, 
 
 Manager and Treasurer, 
 
 Cincinnati, Ohio, May IJf, 1906. 
 Hon. John J. Gabdnbb, Washington, D. C. 
 
 Deae Sir : We understand that you are a member of the House Labor Com- 
 mittee who have charge of the McComas eight-hour bill, and we wish to call 
 your attention to the fact that this bill would be a great injustice to all the 
 manufacturers of this country, as it would show that your Government is in 
 favor of and is dictated to by the trade unions. 
 
 This is simply u wedge of the labor unions to force the eight-hour day on all 
 the country. It would mean that those manufacturers who work their shops 
 nine hours a day would not be permitted to bid on Government work, and con- 
 sequently the few factories who secure most of the business from the Govern- 
 ment and who would install the eight-hour dajr would have little or no com- 
 petition and the Government would be compelled to pay about 50 per cent more 
 for their purchases than it is compelled to pay to-day, as it would mean that 
 such manufacturers as ours would rather pass up the Government work than 
 to install the eight-hour day in their shops. 
 
 We do not think it is fair to legislate in favor of the laboring classes against 
 the manufacturers, and the United States Government would be setting a prece- 
 dent by showing a favoritism for the demands of the labor unions which would 
 be a great hardship to manufacturers all over the country. 
 
 It is because the manufacturers of this country have been able to compete 
 with the lower prices of foreign labor that the United States has forged to the 
 front as one of the greatest world powers. If the manufacturers of this country 
 are to be legislated against in favor of an element such as was shown in the last 
 Chicago strike it will not be very long until this country will have the hundreds 
 of thousands of idle labor walking the streets as they are to-day in London. 
 
 If the foreign trade is taken away from us by legislating against us it will 
 throw hundreds of thousands of men out of employment in this country, as 33J 
 per cent of our product and the product of other machinery manufacturers of 
 this country is sold to foreign countries, and if the price of labor is forced up 
 by the lawmakers of the United States it will prevent us from competing with 
 foreign countries and will throw thousands of men out of work. 
 
 We can not believe that the lawmakers of the United States will permit them- 
 selves to be dictated to by labor lobbyists. The manufacurers have no time to 
 organize and to send lobbyists to Washington, and we depend upon our represent- 
 atives to protect us, and we hope that you will use your influence to defeat this 
 bill, which is indeed an injustice to the manufactTirers of the United States. 
 
 With kind regards, we beg to remain. 
 
 Yours, very truly. The John Steptoe Shapeb Co. 
 
 O. H. Boxteeman, Secretary. 
 
 Detroit, Mich., May H, 1906. 
 Hon. John J. Gardner, Washington, D. G. 
 
 Dear Sir: We desire to enlist your help in preventing any favorable report 
 by your committee on the McComas eight-hour bill. It is a shrewd move by 
 the labor unions to establish the hour for the whole country, not for Government 
 contractors alone. We do not see how many manufacturers with diversified 
 interests could undertake to supply Government work should the law be passed. 
 
 We do not think it is in the province of the Government to say how long a 
 man shall work, and it would be a grave menace to the business supremacy of 
 
EIGHT HOURS FOE LABOEEKS ON GOVEENMENT WOEK. 193 
 
 this country. Shorter hours means increased cost, Increased cost means busi- 
 ness lost, and that would mean even shorter hours and still less pay to the work- 
 ingman, and they would find that they had been monkeying with the buzz saw. 
 Tours, very truly, 
 
 Michigan Bolt and Nut Works. 
 
 E. T. GiLBEBT, Treasvrer. 
 
 Chicago, May l-i, J906. 
 Hon. John J. Gaedkee, 
 
 House Labor Committee, Washington, D. C. 
 Deae Siu : As a manufacturing concern we are opposed to the McComas eight- 
 liour bill before your committee, or any other bill of this nature. We believe 
 that such a coercive act would be a great wrong, not only to the manufacturing 
 interests of the nation, but to the working classes as well. We consider such 
 a bill revolutionary and dangerous, and we believe that the labor leaders are 
 making a great mistake in urging it. 
 
 Yours, very truly, Marshall-Jackson Company. 
 
 Geo. B. Marshall, President. 
 
 Hamilton, Ohio, May H, 1906. 
 Hon. John J. Gardner, M. C, Washington, D. C. 
 
 Dear Sir : We understand that the McComas eight-hour bill is going to come 
 up for disposition this week. We sincerely hope that this bill will not become 
 a law ; if it did, and was enforced, it would put our industry in very bad shape 
 indeed. 
 
 Seasons in the vehicle business are very short, running practically only about 
 seven months of the year, the remainder of the time we have to make stock 
 and other preparations for the busy season, but during the time the season is 
 on we have to strain every nerve and make every effort in order to work our 
 factory to its utmost capacity, which could not be done in an eight-hour work- 
 ing day. 
 
 We are not opposed to any law that will better the condition of the laboring 
 classes, and are pleased to say that if a vote was taken on this bill in our 
 factory to-day we are satisfied that very few, if any, of our employees would 
 cast a vote in favor of the eight-hour law. 
 
 We hope, therefore, that your honor will do his best to prevent the passage 
 of this mischievous bill. 
 
 Very, truly yours, The Columbia Carriage Company. 
 
 Per J. E. Wright. 
 
 Peabody, Mass., May 15, 1906. 
 Hon. John J. Gardner, 
 
 House Labor Committee, Washington, D. C. 
 Deae Sir : As one of the manufacturing concerns of this country, we desire 
 to go on record against favorable action by your committee on any eight-hour 
 bill. 
 
 You can not help but be fully advised on all sides of the subject, and we 
 trust you fully realize that the proposed bill is only the opening wedge to force 
 all the manufacturers of the country to adopt an eight-hour day. We know 
 that the majority of manufacturers can not exist at present on an eight-hour 
 working-day basis, and we believe that the majority of the American public is 
 not in sympathy with the movement. We aslt you, therefore, in the interests 
 of public welfare, to oppose favorable report on any eight-hour bill whatever. 
 Yours, very truly, 
 
 CoRwiN Manufacturing Co., 
 H. S. CoRwiN, President. 
 
 Toledo, Ohio, May 15, 1906. 
 Hon. John J. Gardner, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 
 Dear Sir : We have been watching with great interest the efforts of the labor 
 leaders to compel Congress to pass a national eight-hour bill. I presume it is 
 the old McComas eight-hour bill', practically, which is now before the House 
 
194 BIGHT HOXJES FOR LABOEEES ON GOVERNMENT WOEK. 
 
 Committee on Labor. They have already succeeded in having Congress pass a 
 law compelling the Government to adopt an eight-hour law applicable to all 
 employees of the Government who work by the day, and, not satisfied with 
 this, they now seek to compel every contractor or subcontractor, or every manu- 
 facturer who offers to make anything for the Government, to adopt an eight- 
 hour law, or to pay for labor and work their labor only eight hours a day. 
 This bill is demanded by labor leaders, not by the public, and is opposed by 
 all manufacturers, practically, in the United States, and is not favored by 
 anything like a majority of the employees of manufacturing establishments. 
 
 Its passage will mean that any manufacturer who offers to do anything, direct 
 or indirect, for the United States Government shall run their factory only eight 
 hours every day. A very small part of our business has been to furnish the 
 Government vehicles and repairs for vehicles, but we would be unable, as 
 would also a great many other manufacturers, to bid on any Government work 
 in case this bill passed, for we can not successfully run our factory eight hours 
 a day, nor could we work men on Government work eight hours while the 
 majority of the men were working ten. 
 
 I think the passage of such a bill would be revolutionary and an outrage on 
 a large part of the community engaged in manufacturing. I trust, therefore, 
 that you will not, without first thoroughly investigating the matter, lend your 
 vote toward the passage of such a law, and I believe that if you thoroughly 
 investigate it in all of its effects you will agree with me that it is not wise 
 to pass such a law. 
 
 Yours, truly. The Milbuen Wagon Company, 
 
 F. D. SuYDAM, President. 
 
 RooHESTEE, N. Y., May 15, 1906. 
 Hon. John J. Gaednee, Washington, D. C. 
 
 Deae Sib: Our attention has been drawn to the agitation of the McComas 
 eight-hour bill, and we respectfully beg to request you to give the few ideas 
 outlined in this letter your consideration and indorsement. 
 
 It is not always essential for the consummation of the work in hand that a 
 long day's labor be exacted from our employees, but they prefer it; first, be- 
 cause this method enables them to finish up " lots " of work in hand ; second, 
 because the payment being equally divided between weekly paid employees and 
 piecework paid ones, the desirability of working as much time as they con- 
 sistently can results in greater remuneration to them. They are kept employed 
 very often when the volume of business does not warrant such action ; this 
 offsets any extra time. On Saturdays, during the entire year, we work but five 
 hours, thus enabling them to have the benefit of the half holiday. 
 
 Our relations with trades unions and labor union organizations have always 
 been congenial, but we think that an act of Congress, passed along the lines of 
 the present labor agi,tation, would result in throttling many of the industries 
 which at present enjoy success, and we believe ttiat such legislation will be per- 
 nicious and iniquitous in its effect on manufacturers as well as to the laborers. 
 Such action would be inimical to the best interests of our business, and it would 
 Tae utterly impossible for us, and we believe for the majority of the manufac- 
 turers in general, to continue the present scale of wages under compulsory 
 adoption of such a measure. 
 
 The interests and welfare of the manufacturers throughout the United States 
 should command an equal amount of consideration to that of the laboring class, 
 and we trust that you may be able to consistently prevent such a coercive 
 measure from being forced by national legislation into the operation of the 
 factories. 
 
 We are, respectfully, yours, M. B. Shantz Company. 
 
 Per H. K. Elston, 
 Treasurer and General Manager. 
 
 Camden. N. J., May 15, 1906. 
 Hon. John J. Gahdneb, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 
 Deae Sie : In the matter of the JXcComas eight-hour bill, which we under- 
 stand is now being pressed, will you please accept our expressions of opinion, 
 and desire that you will not for anything press a favorable report, or to permit 
 
EIGHT HOURS FOE LABORERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. 195 
 
 to be reported, as for sis you can, any eight-hour bill whatever. If our freedom 
 is to be anything more than a myth, any eight-hour bill is revolutionary and 
 dangerous. It is a part of a plan of coercive unionism to force the eight-hour 
 day in all the factories of the country, and the manufacturers are sick and 
 tired of the restrictions and coercions of unionism as illustrated by their strikes, 
 lavvrlessness, intimidations, and boycotts. In the present condition of public 
 unrest it can not be other than a great wrong to enforce an issue of this 
 nature, and you will kindly permit us to hope that these few words in the mat- 
 ter will find an appreciation of their importance in your mind and efforts with 
 respect to doing what you may. 
 
 Very truly, yours, Wabeen, Webstee & Co., 
 
 Theo. L. Webstee, Secretary. 
 
 Jones & Woodland Company, 
 
 Xcmirk, X. J. May 15, 1906. 
 Hon. John J. Gakdnee, 
 
 House of Jiepreseiitatires, WashingUm, D. C. 
 Dear Sir : Referring to the JlcComas eight-hour bill, which is now being dis- 
 cussed with your committee, would say that it is impossible for us to find words 
 strong enough to express our disapproval of this bill. 
 
 We hope that in giving this bill your consideration you will consider the 
 manufacturing interests of this country and do all in your power to prevent a 
 favorable report on this bill or any eight-hour bill, as we consider it dangerous 
 legislation. 
 
 Yours, very truly, Wm. H. Jones, President. 
 
 Newark, N. J., May 15, 1906. 
 Hon. John J. Gaedneb, Washington. 
 
 Dear Sir : We understand that the McComas eight-hour bill is now being 
 pressed at Washington by the labor lobbyists, and we write to urge you not 
 for anything to press a favorable report or permit to be reported any eight- 
 hour bill whatever. 
 
 By so doing you will oblige. 
 
 Yours, truly. Shafer & Douglas. 
 
 Mount Veenon, N. Y., May 15, 1906. 
 Hon. John J. Gaedner, Washington, D. C. 
 
 Deae Sir : We are opposed to the passage of the McComas eight-hour bill, 
 which is now before your committee. We hope you will do all in your power 
 to oppose the passage of this bill, as it is revolutionary and dangerous, and it 
 would be a great wrong to force the eight-hour day into all the factories of 
 this country. It would cut off nearly all, if not all, our export trade, as it 
 would increase the price and put out of reach of the foreign consumer the 
 goods that are manufactured in this country. 
 
 We hope you will do your uttermost to prevent this bill from being passed. 
 Yours, very truly, 
 
 Haetmann Beos. Mfg. Co., 
 PerC. M. H. 
 
 Chicopbe Falls, Mass., May 15, 1906. 
 Hon. John J. Gaedneb, Washington, D. C. 
 
 My Deae Sie : As the eight-hour bill now before your committee is, we be- 
 lieve, a menace to the best interests both' of employer and employee, we beg 
 of you to use your influence to have the same not reported therefrom. 
 
 If it reaches the House it will mean a long bitter fight, and some of the 
 Members, fearing the labor vote, will either " dodge " or vote for the measure, 
 when they know if the bill becomes a law it will work untold injury to the 
 continued prosperity of this country. 
 
 E H— 06 14 
 
196 EIGHT HOUES FOE LABOEEES ON GOVEENMENT WORK. 
 
 The labor leaders, like the walking delegates, often advocate measures that 
 they know will please their followers in order to popularize themselves, realiz- 
 ing full well that this will be a boomerang which they themselves will evade. 
 
 We have given this subject much thought and study, and can see but one 
 outcome should the eight-hour bill become a law, and that is eventually great 
 injury to the welfare of the working classes. If they prosper we all share 
 therein, and what is bad for them is bad for the business interests of the nation. 
 Believing that you will give this your serious consideration, and for the good 
 of the laborer, as well as the good of the nation, you will use your influence 
 to have the bill not reported from your committee. 
 Very truly, yours, 
 
 J. Stevens Abms & Tool Co., 
 F. E. Muzzy, 
 
 Second Vice-President. 
 
 New Milfoed, Conn., May 15, 1906. 
 Hon. John J. Gardner, M. C, 
 
 Chairman, Washington, D. C. 
 
 Dear Sib : We notice that another eight-hour bill is before you, and while we 
 have every confidence that ultimately no such bill, or anything like it, will be 
 allowed to pass both House and Senate, we hope that the committee will not 
 allow it to be even favorably reported, because by permitting anything of the 
 kind it simply gives encouragement so that these bills are from time to time 
 brought forward and the interests of manufacturers interfered with. 
 
 The hours of labor, where it is at all practical, are regulated to the entire 
 satisfaction of the men, and to force certain hours of labor per day is not 
 practical in various kinds of business. 
 
 Take it for example in our own business : It is necessary, in order to com- 
 plete our products, that a twenty-four hour run be made, and it is very satis- 
 factory to our men to divide it into two shifts. 
 
 It would be utterly Impossible to divide it into three shifts and continue 
 business with any profit. 
 
 In reducing our ores, which form the foundation for our business, there has 
 to be a continuous run from Monday morning until Sunday morning, and there 
 are other manufacturers in various lines situated in the same way. 
 
 Hoping that you will give this request of ours, in common with numerous 
 other requests which you must be receiving along this line, your careful atten- 
 tion, and check it on the start, we are. 
 Tours, very truly. 
 
 The Bbidgepobt Wood Finishing Co., 
 By G. M. Bebinig, President. 
 
 Osgood Scale Company, 
 BiNGHAMTON, N. Y., May 15, 1906. 
 Hon. John J. Gardner, Washington, D. C. 
 
 Dear Sir: We desire to address you as one of the members of the House 
 Labor Committee in regard to the eight-hour bill which is now being pressed 
 forward, and we desire to enter our emphatic protest as one of thousands and 
 thousands of manufacturers in this country. 
 
 The reasons why this bill should not be passed or even reported favorably 
 are so many that it is simply impossible for us to give you the entire list 
 as we look at it. 
 
 Every manufacturer in this country who has to compete not only with the 
 manufacturers in the home market, but also manufacturers in the foreign 
 markets, should not be placed in a position where they are held up by an eight- 
 hour bill. This means' a 20 per cent additional expense on every dollar's worth 
 of goods which has to come in competition with foreign manufacturers. The 
 manufacturers in this country ar^ beginning to feel very keenly the foreign 
 manufacturers in many lines, especially when they are running up against the 
 German, French, and the English manufacturers in the colonies. We do not 
 feel it to-day as we are going to in five years from now, and if the American 
 manufacturer is to hold his supremacy in the foreign field he has got to have 
 every advantage possible. The labor-saving machinery in this country is not 
 going to do it all. 
 
EIGHT HOURS FOB LABORERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. 197 
 
 We are living to-day on the high tide of prosperity on the local markets, 
 but the time will be shortly when we will be looking anxiously toward the 
 foreign trade, and we do not consider that the committee, legal or otherwise, 
 has a right to fasten a law on the manufacturers in this country or any 
 single individual as to how long he should work or whom he should work 
 for. We consider that this is a free country and every man can run his shop 
 Just as long as he pleases with men who want to work just as long as they 
 please. If we can find men who can work fifteen hours a day that is our 
 privilege, and if they want to work only six hours a day that is still our 
 privilege, but it is for no body of legislators in this country to make a law as 
 to how long people should work. 
 
 There are hundreds of other reasons which we could give, but these are two 
 out of many, and we desire that you use every effort possible to kill this law 
 from its inception. 
 
 Yours, sincerely, Osgood Scale Company, 
 
 O. J. FowLEB, Secretary. 
 
 The United States Buxg Mandtacturing Co., 
 
 Cincinnati, Ohio, Hay 15, 1906. 
 Hon. John J. Gabdneb, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 
 Deab Sik : I notice that the McComas eight-hour bill is again before your 
 committee, and I take the liberty of asking you to please do your very utmost 
 to defeat that bill in the committee, if possible, nor have it favorably reported. 
 My reasons for this are that in a free country like ours, where every man has 
 the right to work as many hours as he pleases and for whom he pleases, no 
 man should be coerced by a small minority of people who have banded to- 
 gether for such purpose to do their bidding. I am positive that if your hon- 
 orable body will pass such a law that it will lead to lawlessness, boycotts, 
 intimidations, coercion, and that such a bill would be revolutionary and a 
 dangerous precedent. I am sure your patriotism will not allow you to stoop 
 so low as to vote for class legislation and for the abridgment of the present 
 right of contract, which the Supreme Court has decided such a law would be. 
 Yours, very respectfully, 
 
 Feed. Pentlabge, President. 
 
 Paterson. X. J., May 15, 1906. 
 Hon. John J. Gardner, 
 
 House Committee on Labor, Washington, D. C. 
 
 Dear Sir : We note, with extreme apprehension that there is now pending 
 before the House, and at present in the hands of the House Labor Committee, 
 of which you are a member, an eight-hour bill. 
 
 It would be superfluous for us to cite the provisions of this iniquitous bill, 
 with which you are unquestionably fully acquainted, but we can not refrain from 
 expressing to you our unalterable conviction that the passage of this measure 
 by Congress could not fail to have the most deplorable results. 
 
 It is not our purpose to enter into any lengthy discussion of the reasons for 
 and against such a measure. It is sufllcient to point out that an act which 
 limits the usefulness and activities of considerable bodies of men is simply 
 class legislation of the most pernicious description, and as such should have no 
 place on our statute books. Besides, however speciously worded and however 
 limited may seem to be the application of the bill, no sane man can doubt that 
 were such a measure once embodied in our laws an instant effort would be 
 made to extend its operations in all directions, and the first result would be a 
 series of acrimonious disputes which could not fall to have the most unfortunate 
 effects upon American commerce and manufactures. 
 
 We are thoroughly familiar with the specious sophisms with which the advo- 
 cates (if the bill seek to disguise its probable ultimate effects, but, in spite of 
 these, we regard it as folly to suppose that such a law as that proposed could 
 fail in time to become practically universal in its application. 
 
 The whole thing in a nutshell is this : For the past hundred years — our own 
 experience covers nearly half this period — hours of labor have been steadily 
 decreasing and will, we think — and hope — continue to decrease in response to 
 
198 EIGHT HOURS FOE LABOREES ON GOVEENMENT WOEK. 
 
 purely natural laws. Now, the labor trust, representing a small fraction of the 
 employed labor of the United States, dissatisfied with this normal and healthy 
 progress, has long sought to accelerate it by artificial and dangerous means. 
 Opposed in this by the ablest and broadest-minded manufacturers in the coun- 
 try, they now turn to Washington, and, having at heart the true interests of 
 neither employer nor employed, seek to introduce into the body of our laws, 
 under the mask of benevolence, an absurd and uneconomic piece of legislation. 
 
 Under the circumstances, we feel that there is no impropriety in laying before 
 you, as that member of the committee specially charged with the interests of 
 the State of New Jersey, our views of the matter, and to urge you, if you can 
 consistently do so, to oppose the passage of a measure so objectionable. 
 
 Permit us to add a word defining our position more clearly, as we do not 
 wish you to misunderstand our attitude or class us with those who, from narrow 
 and interested motives, thoughtlessly oppose all measures of amelioration and 
 wish the world to stand still. We are quite prepared to welcome orderly evolu- 
 tion, but history and reason teach us that the application of revolutionary 
 doctrines and measures to everyday problems seldom has any hut the most 
 disastrous issue — and the eight-hour bill we can only regard as revolutionary. 
 
 One word more, and we have done. For nearly fifty years we have been em- 
 ployers of labor, and during that period we have never had a strike or a threat 
 of one. We are satisfied with our men, and have no reason to suppose that our 
 men are anything but satisfied with us. If, however, the Government and the 
 labor trust can find no better occupation than disturbing men's minds and 
 fomenting unrest we can hardly anticipate a continuance of these fortunate con- 
 ditions. 
 
 Very respectfully, John Royle & Sons. 
 
 Minneapolis, Minn., May 16, 1906. 
 Hon. John J. Gardner, 
 
 Washington, D. C. 
 
 Deak Sir : We write to urge upon you to use all your influence to defeat 
 any and all anti-injunction bills that may be under consideration at present 'or 
 that may in the future be advocated by organized labor. All attempts to change 
 the present injunction law are pernicious, un-American, and unfair to the 
 manufacturing and business interests of this the greatest industrial country of 
 the world. 
 
 The printing interests of Minneapolis and St. Paul have sustained a strike 
 for the past seven and one-half months, and have been subjected to considerable 
 annoyance and interference in the conduct of their business by the constant 
 picketing of their establishments and employees by the members of the Typo- 
 graphical Union. The pickets have, by promises, threats, and the payment of 
 money, deduced and driven away hundreds of nonunion men who were willing 
 to work and whose services were, satisfactory to their employers. Many of 
 these men have quit through fear of bodily violence, some because they could 
 not withstand the constant solicitation and insidious argument of the pickets ; 
 said pickets have hounded them at their homes and places of employment, and, 
 through pressure brought to bear upon their wives by the wives of strikers and 
 small shopkeepers, have been deprived of domestic comforts. We have tried to 
 procure a restraining order through the courts without effect, because the 
 judge before whom the case was tried was on the eve of election and feared the 
 labor vote. While we have not had the restraining influence the present in- 
 junction law would afford us, we feel that it is a*good law, and that it has had 
 a restraining effect on the picketing, for without such a law we feel sure that 
 resort would have been had to bodily violence by the pickets. 
 
 Thirty-five printing offices in Minneapolis and twenty-two in St. Paul, repre- 
 senting 90 per cent of the total producing capacity of the two cities, are operat- 
 ing open shops, and our position is concisely as follows : , 
 
 Prior to October 1, 1905, the Typographical Union demanded an eight-hour 
 day at the same wages then paid for nine, and, in addition thereto, demanded 
 the signing of a contract containing many clauses that meant the absolute sur- 
 render of our rights to conduct our business as we saw fit — at least as far as 
 the composing room was concerned. These demands we determined to resist 
 and notified the unions that we would operate our shops on the open-shop basis 
 beginniiig October 2, 1905. On the morning of that day many of our offices 
 were without men, the union having declared a strike, 261 quitting in St. Paul 
 
EIGHT HOURS FOB LABORERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. 199 
 
 and 140 in Minneapolis. Since that time we have filled the places of these 
 striking woi-kmen with nonunion and a few ex-uuion men, and there has been no 
 time sinoe the beginning of the strike that we were unable to fulfill our obliga- 
 tions to our customers, and had we been relieved of the picketing our quota 
 of men would have been filled in both cities during the first six weeks. That 
 we should be subjected to the constant annoyance of pickets after all this time 
 is all wrong, and if persisted in will lead to the ultimate degradation of the 
 manufacturing interests of this country to the plane now held by Great Britain. 
 
 According to the United States Census of 1900, 162,180 persons of 16 years 
 and over were receiving wages in 122.173 book and job and newspaper and 
 publishing establishments in the United States and Territories. The Typo- 
 graphical Union, as per their report of June, 1905, have a total membership 
 of 45,868, and the Pressmen and Feeders' Union have 16,904, a total of 62,772, 
 or 38.7 per cent of the whole number employed. This small percentage are 
 pushing forward and lobbying for the anti-injunction bills now before the 
 House Judiciary Committee. 
 
 Is it class legislation? And isn't it a case of the tail wagging the dog? 
 
 Thanking you for the time you have taken to read this letter, we are. 
 Respectfully, yours, 
 
 Kimball & Stobee Co. 
 
 Johnstown, N. Y., 3[ay 16, 1906. 
 Hon. John J. Gardner, Washington, D. C. 
 
 Dear Sir: We desire to go on record in your committee as being strongly 
 opposed to any eight-hour legislation, on the ground that it interferes with the 
 . rights of the workingman to make his own contract. It makes it impossible for 
 him to succeed beyond his less industrious brother, it reduces all men to the 
 same level, and takes away all incentive for individual effort. A man should 
 be absolutely free to sell his labor as he sees fit and to deliver it in quantity 
 according to his own energy, ability, and inclination, and to receive pay accord- 
 ing to the quantity and quality of the work delivered. Any legislation inter- 
 fering in any way with this right is vicious, harmful, revolutionary, and dan- 
 gerous. 
 
 Yours, very truly,' ' Hutchens & Potter. 
 
 Troy, N. Y., May 16, 1906. 
 Hon. John J. Gardner, 
 
 Chairman House Committee on Labor, Washington. D. C. 
 Dear Sir: We wish to express our disapproval of House bill llfl.^l. While 
 its provisions apply to Government worii only, the enactment of the measure 
 would be detrimental to the interests of many of the industries of the United 
 States. 
 
 The proposition is extreme, and should the bill become a law it would not be 
 advantageous to the Government nor to manufacturers or those employed by 
 them. 
 
 We sincerely hope the bill will not receive favorable consideration by the 
 committee of which you have the honor to be chairman. 
 Very respectfully, yours, 
 
 Cluett, Peabody & Co. 
 
 Philadelphia, Pa., May 16, 1906. 
 Hon. John J. Gardner, Washington, D. G. 
 
 Dear Sir : We trust you will bear with us in writing you about the JleComas 
 eight-hour bill, which is now before you. We know by costly experience 
 whereof we speak when we say that it is a menace to the industries of our 
 country and, therefore, to the welfare of the working people. We might write 
 volumes on the subject, as we have had much to do with it, but apjireeiate the 
 fact that you are a busy man. 
 
 Yours, truly. David Lupton's Sons Company. 
 
200 EIGHT HOURS FOR LABORERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. 
 
 Pebth Ambot, N. J., May 16, 1906. 
 
 Hon. John J. Gakdneb, M. C, 
 
 Souse of Representatives, Washington^ D. G. 
 
 Dear Sir : Our attention has been called to the fact that serious consideration 
 is being given by the House Labor Committee to the McComas eight-hour bill, 
 and as we are manufacturers, located in the State of New Jersey, we take the 
 liberty of stating to you the reasons why we think that bill should not become 
 a law. 
 
 We believe that such a law would work a serious injury to all classes of 
 labor. 
 
 We believe that seven-tenths of all classes of labor are opposed to having 
 their working hours cut to eight hours per day, unless the purchasing power 
 of wages received be the same for eight hours' work as for nine hours. 
 
 There is not enough skilled labor in the country at present to meet the demand 
 with a nine-hour working-day. 
 
 Nine hours' work per day is not detrimental to health in the ordinary trades. 
 Exceptional cases are already provided for by shorter hours. 
 
 An eight-hour day would make necessary a great deal more night turn work, 
 which is bad both for the health of employees and quality of material turned out. 
 Tours, respectfully. 
 
 Standard Underground Cable Co., 
 W. A. Conner, Manufacturer. 
 
 Zanesvillb, Ohio, May 17, 1906. 
 Hon. John J. Gardner, • 
 
 Washington, D. C. , 
 
 Dear Sib: Our attention has recently been called to efforts being made by 
 the " labor " element to force upon American manufacturers further restric- 
 tions in reducing by legislation the hours of labor. 
 
 We look upon the proposed McComas bill as " class legislation," and should 
 it ever- become a law it would be a blow to manufacturing interests of this 
 country that would be far-reaching in its effects. 
 
 Labor as a whole, throughout the country, is satisfied and contented, and 
 why should it be disturbed? The leaders in this movement do not realize that 
 it will be necessary to readjust prices on products, as well as labor. They 
 (the workingmen) will have to pay the advance in cost of finished products or 
 suffer by a small income. 
 
 There are many arguments that can be presented why this bill should not be 
 reported favorably by your committee. We will submit but one. , 
 
 Ask yourself and associates this duestion: If an eight-hour day is a good 
 thing, why not do better and make it six or even four — the same argument to 
 hold good? 
 
 Trusting you will use your influence for the best interest of the masses and 
 not be led by the firm of Debs, Gompers & Mitchell, we are. 
 Yours, truly, 
 
 The Mosaic Tile Co., 
 Per Loo mis. 
 
 Cincinnati, Ohio, May 11, 1906. 
 Hon. John J. Gardner. 
 
 Bouse Labor Committee, Washington, D. C. 
 
 Dear Sir: We desire to enter a most vigorous protest against H. R. 11651, 
 generally known as the " eight-hour bill." 
 
 This bill would have a most disastrous effect upon our business. We have 
 just made a contract to supply the Government with 1:3,000 mattresses. Our 
 mattress department is about one-fourth of our mill. If we had to comply 
 with such a bill, our entire mill would have to shut down two hours every day, 
 aud it would increase the cost of our manufacture fully 25 per cent. The 
 result of this would be that we would no longer bid on Government contracts. 
 This would not only be a hardship to us, but a hardship on our employees, 
 who would miss that much opportunity for work. 
 
EIGHT HOURS FOE LABOBERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. 201 
 
 We believe that such a bill as this would be strongly resented by every em- 
 ployee in our mill. We know their opinions in this matter, and we find them 
 always willing to run full time and anxious on occasions to get a little over- 
 time. 
 
 We think that any such interference with the right of our men and ourselves 
 to agree on hours of work is a very unwauranted one and a measure that 
 should not be resorted to unless in case of great necessity. No such necessity 
 exists now, and we trust you will do your best to prevent such pernicious legis- 
 lation. . 
 
 Tours, truly. The Stearns & Poster Co., 
 
 E. R. Stearns, Treasurer. 
 
 Phhjidelphia, Pa., il/oj/ IT. 1906. 
 Hon. John J. Gardner. 
 
 House Labor Committee, Washington, D. G. 
 Dear Sir : During the past few days there have been brought to our atten- 
 tion circumstances indicating a strong effort about to be made by the labor 
 lobbyists to have the McComas eight-hour bill favorably reported by the com- 
 mittee of which you are a member. 
 
 We would hereby most earnestly protest against such action upon this or 
 any other eight-hour bill, urging that no attention be accorded these men who 
 stand for an organlzatioii which would have enacted a law detrimental to the 
 interests of the public as well as unjust to every manufacturer in the country. 
 Such a law could not, at a time when every community is harassed by the over- 
 bearing attitude and actions of many unions, be aught but a great wrong. 
 
 So much has been said of the wroijgs of the workingman that the tendency 
 is now to swing unreasoningly to that extreme and join the general denuncia- 
 tion of the employer. Who is the beneficiary of the strikes, boycotts, and other 
 devices of coercive unionism to gain its points? Certainly not the public, which 
 should be the first consideration in a matter of this character. Who but a class 
 of men paid far above the rate of wages of workmen of any other country, 
 living under conditions better in every respect than the laboring class of other 
 nationalities enjoys, and who recognized these facts until the spirit of obtaining 
 an undeserved advantage at another's expense, through their unquestionable 
 allied strength, was stirred into life by demagogues, each seeking not the good 
 of his fellows, but his own particular end? 
 
 In each case Vhere the method of strike has been resorted to the people have 
 suffered. The example of the agitation by the organized coal miners may be 
 aptly cited. The figure at which coal is sold to the average consumer has never 
 returned to the position it occupied before the strikes. For how long would 
 the public remain quiet did these conditions obtain in every line of manufac- 
 turing Interests? We think not for many months. 
 
 Observe the following: A manufacturer employs a large body of men work- 
 ing, let us say, ten hours a day, always busy ; Indeed, pressed to the utmost to 
 satisfy the demands of his customers. A law is passed limiting the working 
 time In any factory to eight hours a day. Instantly there Is confusion in the 
 establishment, the time reduction of two hours necessitating the engaging of 
 many extra men, the installing of whom and the familiarizing with the suround- 
 ings occupying' a cohsiderable space of time, injuring the manufacturer seriously 
 with his inconvenienced customers, who are themselves troubled by their Incon- 
 venienced patrons. 
 
 To meet the additional expense entailed by reason of the increased pay roll 
 the manufacturer is obliged to raise the prices on his products, and his con- 
 sumers, unable to stand such an advance, must also add to their retailing figures, 
 thus bringing it around to the old point of the public bearing the expense of 
 unionism's disturbances. 
 
 Again, the method of taking on an Increased force to offset the loss of time 
 might not, in many cases would not, be practicable, as, let us assume, the men 
 employed at present are able to get their work out only by virtue of the length 
 of time they work — that is, ten hours — and the available room would probably 
 not be sufflclent to admit more workmen, hence the manufacturer must be 
 permanently hampered and Injured unless he can afford to expand. 
 
 We would beg you to look at the matter judiciously from both view points, 
 giving no ear to the lobbyists who appear to become more and more active In 
 fighting for favorable legislation upon this their pet bill, embodying as it does 
 
202 EIGHT HOURS FOE LABOEERS ON GOVERNMENT WOEK. 
 
 all the most arrogant and presumptuous ideas of the unions. Not so many- 
 years ago such a demand would not have been given even consideration, but as 
 the organizations seem to meet with some successes they advance from each one 
 with greater confidence upon the stronghold of another man's rights. The labor 
 lobbyists are looking out for their personal interests, as undoubtedly we all are, 
 but we state the facts of the case and make no misleading assertions with 
 regard thereto. 
 
 Trusting you will give this matter the most careful attention, and again re- 
 questing that under no consideration you report favorably upon the bill, we beg 
 to remain. 
 
 Yours, sincerely, Bernstein Manufactuetng Co., 
 
 Henby L. Woods. 
 
 Boston, Mass., May 17, 1906. 
 Hon. John J. Gabdneb, 
 
 House of Representatwes, Washington, D. C. 
 Deab Sir : We would urge you as manufacturers to oppose any compulsory 
 eight-hour bill. Manufacturers in this country can not afford in all lines to be 
 forced to work on an eight-hour basis, particularly where their manufactures 
 come in competition with those abroad. We would suggest that you use your 
 influepce to defeat any such legislation. 
 
 Yours, sincerely, , Hutchings-Votey Organ Co., 
 
 John H. Wateehouse. 
 
 Union Deawn Steel Company, 
 Beaver Falls, Pa., May 17, 1906. 
 Hon. John J. Gabdneb, 
 
 Bouse of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 
 Deab Sib : We notice the question of the eight-hour bill is being agitated, and 
 noting you are one of the House Labor Committee, "we beg to urge you not for 
 anything to press such a bill to a favorable report, or permit it to be reported, 
 as it would surely be a detriment to this country if the eight-hour bill is passed. 
 We sincerely hope it will be agreeable to you to lend your assistance in this 
 matter, as the business affairs of the country were never in better shape than 
 they are to-day, and labor organization has already been a very disturbing 
 factor. 
 
 Yours, truly, 
 
 F. N. Beegle. 
 
 Bloomfield, N. J., May 17, 1906. 
 Hon. John J. Gabdneb, 
 
 Chairman of the House Laior Committee, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 
 
 Deab Sib: We tal;e the liberty of registering our protest against the eight- 
 hour bill now before the House Labor Committee, of which you are chairman. 
 
 We will not waste your time or ours by going into the arguments against 
 this measure. Your icommittee is again hearing both sides of the controversy, 
 and you must be familiar, even to weariness, with the whole subject. The most 
 we care to do is simply to let you Imow our View of the matter, our view being 
 important to you as a part of that " public opinion " to which the wisest states- 
 men always give heed. 
 
 An eight-hour law applicable to industry in general would be foolish as well 
 as unjust. It would be an attempt to coerce by legislation business arrange- 
 ments which must, by the very nature of things, be self-regulatory, if business 
 is to have the liberty necessary to self-preservation. 
 
 The source from which these attempts spring can not be a guaranty of their 
 safety and sanity. We have no quarrel with organized labor when the ends 
 sought are just to all and the means used are fair to all, but we believe that the 
 present leaders of the labor interests have demonstrated that they are neither 
 just nor wise. We concede probable conscientiousness, but a conscientiousness 
 ill informed and warped by the prejudices of a one-sided view. 
 
EIGHT HOURS FOR LABORERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. 203 
 
 We believe that those who are dependent on the arm of labor for carrying 
 out the aims of industry are willing to do what is right by the laboring man. 
 He would be foolish indeed who would paralyze the arm on which he depends. 
 
 Our country is now prosperous. Both labor and capital are profitably em- 
 ployed. Should the National Legislature be led to pass measures of this kind, 
 It would discover that what seemed to be in the Interest of labor was really an 
 injury to both labor and capital. Before the growing menace of socialism 
 capital will become timid, investments will shrink. 
 
 " And enterprises of great pith and moment. 
 With this respect their currents turn awry. 
 And lose the name of action." 
 
 Both labor and capital will suffer. But we will not trespass further on your 
 patience. 
 
 Yours, respectfully, H. B. Wiggin's Sons Co., 
 
 J. N. WiGGiN, President. 
 
 The Master Buildees' Association, 
 
 Boston, May 11, 1906. 
 Hon. John J. Gardner, Member House Labor Committee. 
 
 Dear Sir : I beg the privilege of addressing you in regard to the eight-hour 
 bills being sought by certain people calling themselves representatives of labor. 
 
 Builders throughout the United States who labor quite as constantly and 
 persistently as anyone are unalterably opposed to mandatory legislation of 
 this character, believing it not only to be contrary to the Constitution and public 
 policy, but also a menace to the rights and best interest of individuals of all 
 classes and relations in the industrial world. 
 
 In any industry where a lessened number of hours labor may be sufficient to 
 support the persons dependent upon that industry they will undoubtedly pre- 
 vail so long as conditions permit, but any attempt to legislate — force a limit 
 upon either public or private enterprise — will react disastrously upon the 
 enterprises themselves, and, more than that, will create a distinct disability 
 in every individual, bringing him eventually to that low level which the 
 processes of trade unionism constantly develop. 
 
 Builders ask that legrslators keep bands off! 
 Respectfully, 
 
 Wm. H. Sayward, Secretary. 
 
 Haverhill, Mass., May 18, 1906. 
 Hon. John J. Gardner, M. C, Washington, D. 0. 
 
 My Dear Sir : I trust the House Committee on Labor will not pass to a 
 favorable report the McComas eight-hour bill. It is indeed unfortunate that 
 the labor leaders will not let the country rest in peace even for one moment 
 from agitation of these extreme measures. It seems to be'a period of coercion 
 by all methods and more especially by legislation. I know that you have been 
 filled with argument on this matter, and will only take this opportunity to 
 protest against it in common with the great mass of fair-minded business 
 people of the country, on the ground that it is carried to a point which is both 
 dangerous and hurtful. 
 
 I remain, dear sir. 
 
 Very respectfully, yours, Chas. K. Fox. 
 
 Newark, N. J., May 18, 1906. 
 Hon. John J. Gardner, Washington. D. C. 
 
 Dear Sir : Allow me to write a few words in regard to the McComas eight- 
 hour bill. I run a small factory, employing about twenty-five people. We may 
 run along on short time during four summer months, our business being a " one- 
 season " business, and our people don't feel like working so hard anyway in 
 hot weather, especially when they can make it up by working longer hours 
 during cold weather ; besides, like a number- of other lines of business, our 
 business is not a great tax on the physical energies, it being more one of prac- 
 tice and skill. Where a man can work ten hours in one business with comfort 
 and ease he may not be able to worlt more than eight in another. 
 
204 EIGHT HOUES JOB LABORERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. 
 
 It seems to me that one great leveling law limiting the production of the 
 ambitious, healthy, and energetic citizen to that of the lazy or sickly citizen must 
 In the long run be hurtful to the community. 
 
 If you will look over the " field " I think you will find that the men who are 
 in the front rank and on the upper steps of the ladder to-day are the men who 
 worked overtime. 
 
 With excuses for trespassing on your time, I am, 
 
 Very respectfully, John D. Daizell. 
 
 Gband Rapids, Mich., May IS, 1906. 
 Hon. John J. Gaednee, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 
 Dear Sie : We notice that the labor unions are trying to revive that old eight- 
 hour bill for all articles sold to the Government. Does this mean that we 
 could not sell any of our refrigerators to the Government if our factory runs 
 more than eight hours per day? If it does, we wish to say that you will be 
 doing the manufacturers of this country a great injustice if you recommend 
 any such bill. 
 
 You have as much right to tell us when to go to bed as to say how long we 
 shall work. At some seasons we can not work at all, there being no demand for 
 our goods. At others, we have to work overtime to supply the demand. 
 
 We think that upon due reflection it must be evident to you that Government 
 can not regulate a matter of this kind. We therefore most earnestly pray 
 that you will kill this bill in the committee. 
 
 Hoping to hear from you on the subject, we remain, most respectfully. 
 Very truly, yours. 
 
 The Grand Rapids Refeigeratoe Co. 
 By C. H. Leonard, President. 
 
 Detroit, Mich., May 18, 1906. 
 Hon. John J. Gardner, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 
 Deae Sie : Noting that you are a member of the House Labor Committee, we 
 desire to enter our protest against the passage of an eight-hour law, as we feel 
 that under the present conditions of radical agitation and unrest it would work 
 serious loss and inconvenience to the large and small manufacturers of the 
 country and would soon place the manufacturers of this glorious country on 
 the same plane of servitude as are the manufacturers of the Australasian 
 States, whose parliaifients are controlled by the labor element. 
 
 We are in no way antagonized to labor, organized or unorganized, but the 
 strikes, lawlessness, intimidations, and boycotts indulged in by labor unions 
 as such lead us to fear for the future of the business and manufacturing 
 interests of the country should this pernicious eight-hour law be even favorably 
 reported. 
 
 We feel that the honorable gentlemen having this bill in hand are working 
 not only for the best interests of their immediate constituents, but for the peo- 
 ple of the country at large, and that they fully appreciate the magnitude of the 
 manufactui'ing interests of our beloved land and have no intention to pass 
 any such legislation. 
 
 We also believe that these same honorable gentlemen are at all times pleased 
 to hear from the interests to be affected, and on this supposition we have taken 
 the liberty to address you on the subject. 
 
 Trusting and believing that the large interests involved will be fully pro- 
 tected in so far as in your power lies, we remain. 
 Tours, respectfully, ' 
 
 The McRae & Roberts Co., 
 W. D. McRae, 
 President and General Manager. 
 
EIGHT HOUBS FOB LABOEEES ON GOVEENMENT WOEK. 205 
 
 Atlanta, Ga., May 19, 1906. 
 Hon. John J. Gardner, Washington, D. C. 
 
 Dear Sir: \Ye hope we are not too late to add a word against the eight-hour 
 bill before Congress and to emphasize the statement that, in our opinion, any 
 such legislation would prove a serious mistake for all classes. 
 Yours, truly, 
 
 DeLoach JIill M'f'g Co., 
 Per A. A. DeLoach, President. 
 
 Saginaw, Mich., May 19, 1906. 
 Hon. John J. Gardner, Washington, D. G. 
 
 Dear Sir : It has been brought to the writer's attention, through the National 
 Association of Manufacturers, of which association this company is a member, 
 that there is an eight-hour bill being urged for passage at the present time, and 
 we understand that such a bill as this would be referred to your committee. 
 
 It hardly seems necessary for the writer to say anything as to the nature of 
 legislation of this kind. Tha continued increase in the cost of living is largely 
 brought about by the spirit abroad iu the land to work as little as possible, and 
 to actually look to the Government or to the community at large for supper. 
 
 In the case of our own manufacturing plant, at the present time it is almost 
 impossible to get young men from the age of 15 to 21 to work at all. They 
 prefer to hang around water tanks and crossings of the railroads, stealing rides 
 from place to place and following the attractive vocation of tramping. 
 
 Then there is a tendency to flock to cities where the same class frequent pool 
 rooms, cheap amusement places, and acquire expensive habits and ultimately 
 degenerate into embezzlers, robbers, etc. Witness the car barn robbery in 
 Chicago. So at the present time there is certainly no demand for an eight-hour 
 day which, of course, applying still more to the city than to the country, would 
 tend to bring in a still greater influx from the country, and tend to make con- 
 ditions even worse than at present. And, moreover, the expense of all of this 
 kind of legislation is borne by the small taxpayer, and the industrious citizen 
 of small means who, at the present, has all he can do to make both ends meet. 
 
 In place of limiting a man's opportunities for labor, he should be encouraged 
 to labor and of course enjoy the fruits of his labor. At the present time, in 
 place of enacting socialistic laws, enact laws to secure to the public the natural 
 resources of the country ; discontinue granting special privileges to any class ; 
 study means of preserving the forests and mineral lands, imd not let them come 
 into the hands of a few who will hold possession of them, the same as so many 
 dogs in the manger, to the expense Qf coming generations. 
 
 Apologizing for this long letter, which is written from a sense of dut,y as an 
 American citizen, and calling upon you to use your efforts to enact statesman- 
 like laws, broad and just in their nature, I remain. 
 Very truly, yours, 
 
 Wm. B. Mershon & Co. 
 Per Ed. C. Mershon, President. 
 
 Elmira, N. Y., Map 21, 1906. 
 Hon. John J. Gardner, Washington, D. C. 
 
 Dear Sir: Auy eight-hour bill would prove disastrous to all manufacturing 
 interests and labor also, if they could but see it. 
 
 We urge you to use your strongest influence against it, and oblige, 
 Yours, very truly, 
 
 Elmira Knitting iliLLS and 
 Conewawah Spinning Co., 
 Casper G. Decker, President. 
 
 Buffalo, N. Y., Maij 21, 1906. 
 Hon. John J. Gardner, 
 
 House Labor Coiinnittee, Washington, D. C. 
 Dear Sib : T understand that the McComas eight-hour bill is now before the 
 House Labor Couiniittee. Jly own convictions are so strong that I can not help 
 thinking that everyone, both employer and employee, should be opposed to this 
 bill. It seems to me that this movement is a positive injury to all. 
 
206 EIGHT HOUES FOE LABOEEES ON GOVERNMENT WORK. 
 
 First. It is revolutionary ; if enforced it will disrupt present business methods. 
 
 Second. It is made in the supposed interest of Government employees, and 
 is therefore special class legislation. 
 
 Third. If the bill is passed making an eight-hour day it will be compulsory 
 upon Government work and not compulsory on other work, and it will make it 
 Impossible for any manufacturer who runs his plant more than eight hours per 
 day to bid upon Government work, as he could not run part of his plant eight 
 hours aud the balance longer. 
 
 There are many other reasons which might be mentioned, but the above will 
 be ample to show you that the passing of an eight-hour law would be ex- 
 tremely embarrassing to employers of labor. The employers of labor now 
 have as heavy a load as they can very well bear in their endeavor to continue 
 to do business and meet the demands that labor is constantly making upon 
 them. It would be unwise and unjust for our legislators to do anything at 
 this time to increase the load they are now carrying. 
 
 I sincerely hope that you and the other members of your committee will vote 
 unanimously against the eight-hour legislation that may be presented to you at 
 this time. 
 
 Sincerely, yours, H. G. Teout. 
 
 New York, May 22, 1906. 
 Hon. John J. Gakdner, Washington, D. G. 
 
 Dear Sir : In reference to the McComas eight-hour bill now before the com- 
 mittee for consideration, I wish to state in behalf of our concern, as well as 
 the trade with which we are connected, that a national law limiting the hours 
 of work is entirely uncalled for. 
 
 We feel sure that the majority of the citizens of the United States do not 
 desire any such a bill to pass, and that it is a pernicious measure, fostered and 
 indorsed solely by labor unions and their agitators. 
 
 Will you, as our New Jersey Representative on this committee, endeavor to 
 bring about an adverse report on the McComas bill ? 
 Yours, very respectfully, 
 
 Alling & Co., 
 
 Matthias Stratton, President. 
 
 The WimtAM Champ & Sons Ship and Engine Building Co., 
 
 Philadelphia, May 22, 1906. 
 Hon. J. J. Gardner, 
 
 Chairman House Cmnmittee on La'bor, TyasJiington, D. 0. 
 
 Dear Sir : My attention has been called to House bill 11651, which has been 
 referred to your committee, the same having reference to certain hours of labor. 
 Similar bills have been before Congress on several occasions, and our company 
 has presented its reasons for opposing the passage of bills of this character. 
 
 I now wish in the most formal manner to renew our objection to the passage 
 of this bill, and sincerely trust that it will not be reported favorably. 
 Very truly, yours, 
 
 Henry S. Grove, President. 
 
 Greenfield, Ohio, May 22, 1906. 
 Hon. John J. Gardner, 
 
 Member House Lahor Committee, Washington, D. C. 
 
 Dear Sir: I am the owner of nearly all of the $1,250,000 capital stock of the 
 American Pad and Textile Company, of this place, manufacturers of all kinds of 
 pads for horses, principally collar pads. Said company produces fully 80 per 
 cent of the kind of pads stated that are used in the United States, Canada, and 
 a few foreign countries — the bulk of the goods, perhaps 70 per cent of said 80 
 per cent, being used right here in the States. 
 
 I am sole owner of American Textile Company, a cotton mill located right 
 close to Cartersville, Ga., said business having an investment of a little over 
 $1,000,000. 
 
 I am the principal owner of Crescent Manufacturing Company, Louisville, 
 Ky., $100,000 invested, a business devoted to the manufacture of lines in woods 
 and metals. 
 
EIGHT HOURS FOR LABORERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. 207 
 
 It would work great hardships on all of said businesses if an eight-hour bill 
 "were passed, therefore I write this as a protest. It seems to me that it would 
 lie a very unwise move on the part of the Congress to pass such a law at this 
 particular time. It would undoubtedly result in largely paralyzing the manu- 
 taeturing industries of the United States, and it would work hardships of a 
 serious nature. lu this day of keen competition between the United States and 
 certain foreign countries it would seem little short of a deliberate play Into the 
 hands of foreign manufacturers if the Congress were to enact said law. It 
 would be revolutionary, dangerous, and disastrous in the extreme, and I don't 
 believe, outside of a comparatively few labor leaders who are unwisely mis- 
 leading their followers, that the workingmen of the United States want any 
 such law enacted, and it is reasonably sure that the business interests are an 
 unalterable unit against it. 
 
 Yours, truly, E. L. JIcClain. 
 
 San Antonio, Tex., May 23. 1906. 
 Hon. John J. Gardner, M. C, WaHliington, D. C. 
 
 Dear Sib : We desire to protest in the strongest manner against the eight- 
 hour bill which is now before your committee. We will not go into any long 
 argument on this matter, but desire simply to say that, in our opinion, no man- 
 ufacturing industry can be successfully operated running only eight hours per 
 day, and no man who works only eight hours per day ever made a success of 
 his work. 
 Trusting that the bill will not be reported, we are. 
 ^'ery truly, yours, 
 
 San Antonio Printing Co. 
 ' By L. JB. Clegg. 
 
 New York, May 2J,, 1906. 
 Hon. John J. Gardner, Washinpton. D. C. 
 
 Dear Sir : We, as manufacturing jewelers of Newark, N. J., will respectfully 
 ask you, as one of the House Labor Committee, to vote against any legislation 
 in regard to the proposed eight-hour bill. Such a law would be a serious 
 matter in our business, and we would urge you to use what influence you can 
 against reporting favorably on such a bill. Kindly give this your careful 
 attention. 
 
 Very respectfully, Kent & Woodland. 
 
 Camden, N. J., Maij 2J,, 1906. 
 Hon. John J. Gardner, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. V. 
 Esteemed Friend : We trespass on your valuable time in reference to the bill 
 introduced by you " limiting the hours of daily service of laborers and me- 
 chanics employed upon work done for the United States or any Territory or 
 District of Columbia, therefore securing better products, and for other pur- 
 poses." 
 
 Without going into detail as to the many objections of this bill, we wish to 
 express our earnest protest against it being reported favorably to the House. 
 We think the whole influence ^^■ould be detrimental to the best interests of the 
 country and would work much hardships to many manufacturers as well as to 
 the laborers themselves. 
 
 iTherefore, without dwelling further upon the matter, we earnestly wish to 
 reiterate our protest against any such bill being enacted into a law. 
 
 We are aware you have given much time to this, but, with due deference to 
 your opinion, we think you are in error in your views upon the subject. 
 A'ery respectfully. 
 
 The Esterbrook Steel Pen SIfq. Co. 
 Alex. C. Wood. Treasurer. 
 
208 BIGHT HOUBS FOE LABORERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK.. 
 
 East Newark, N. J., May 25, 1906. 
 Hon. John J. Gardner, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 
 Dear Sir: It is" the hope and prayer of the writer that no compulsory eight- 
 hour bill will be reported. It would work vast injury to our industries and 
 prove disadvantageous to the workmen. The latter to a large extent are not 
 favorable to the bill. A few leaders are trying to fight the bill through your 
 committee. They write to the subordinate unions to indorse the bill, but it is 
 v/ell known to those posted that only a small proportion of the members attend 
 and generally least capable workmen run the unions. They indorse everything 
 the leaders dictate. Seven-tenths at least of the men belonging to the unions 
 are members under more or less compulsion. Should an un-American law be 
 enacted at the demand of a few agitators, when it is well known that such a 
 law would prove of incalculable injury to the business and labor interests of 
 the country? It is reasonably to be believed that our Representatives, espe- 
 cially those on your honorable committee, will not wish to encumber our statute 
 books with such an unrighteous law. 
 
 Respectfully, yours, Stewart Hartshorn Co., 
 
 E. F. Hartshorn, Vice-President. 
 
 Cartersville, 6a., May 25, 1906. 
 Hon. John J. Gardner, 
 
 Member House Laior Committee, Washimgton, D. 0. 
 
 Dear Sir : We are operating the American Textile Company, a cotton mill 
 located right near Cartersville, Ga., said business having an Investment of a 
 little over $1,000,000. 
 
 It would work great hardships on this business if an eight-hour bill were 
 passed. Therefore we write this as a protest. It seems to us that it would be 
 a very unwise move on the part of the Congress to pass such a law at this 
 particular time. It would undoubtedly result in largely paralyzing the manu- 
 facturing industries of the United States, and it would work serious hardships. 
 In this day of keen competition between the United States and certain foreign 
 countries it would seem little short of a deliberate play into the hands of 
 foreign manufacturers if the Congress were to enact said law. It would be 
 revolutionary, dangerous, and disastrous in the extreme, and we don't believe, 
 outside of a comparatively few labor leaders who are unwisely misleading their 
 followers, that the worklngmen of the United States want any such law enacted, 
 and it is reasonably sure that the business interests are an unalterable unit 
 against it. 
 
 Yours, truly, American Textile Co., 
 
 Per W. M. MoCafferty, Manager. 
 
 Peoria, III., May 25, 1906. 
 Hon. John J. Gardner, 
 
 WasTii/ngton, D. 0. 
 
 Dear Sir: We take this opportunity of expressing ourselves in no uncertain 
 terms against the present eight-hour bill which is pending before your com- 
 mittee. 
 
 We most earnestly request that you do not press to a favorable report or 
 permit to be reported any eight-hour bill whatever. We believe that this is 
 only a wedge used by the union labor leaders to eventually force all employers 
 of labor to work their men only eight hours a day. If the Government estab- 
 lishes that rule by law, they will then use this as an argument to make all 
 other employers to use the same rule. 
 
 Such a law destroys the freedom of a laborer to sell his labor on such terms 
 as he sees fit and prevents the employer from employing to the best advantage — 
 a blow at the freedom of trade. 
 
 It is our desire that you use every reasonable and just means to defeat a 
 favorable report of this eight-hour bill, and we believe that this is the sentiment 
 of all the employers in this city of 80,000. 
 
 Yours, respectfully, Peoria Packing Co., 
 
 R. C. Lowes. 
 
EIGHT HOURS FOE LABOKERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. 209 
 
 ^HiDGETON, N. J., May 25, 1906. 
 Hon. John J. Gabdner, Washington, D. G. 
 
 Dear Sib: We wish herewith to urge you not for anything to allow any 
 eight-hour bill in its present form or any amended form to be reported favor- 
 ably to the House. 
 
 We believe that you have already received many similar letters'^ from manu- 
 facturers with similar requests. We, however, take the liberty herewith of 
 inclosing a page (No. 8) from American Industries with thirty-three reasons 
 why this should not be favorably reported. 
 
 We believe you can not help but see that many of these reasons are good 
 ones. 
 
 Thanking you In advance for your kind consideration in this matter, we are, 
 Yours, truly, 
 
 Feeeactjte Machine Co., 
 Per B. Pauixin, Secretary. 
 
 Thirty-three reasons irhy the Oompers-McComas-Gardner eight-hour Mil does 
 not deserve to Be reported favoraMy ty the laior committee of the Bouse, 
 tecause: ^ 
 
 1. It is absolutely necessary that every manufacturer be allowed a free hand 
 in the conduct of his business, establishing hours of labor according to his 
 requirements and the general conditions existing in each locality. 
 
 2. The majority, if not all, of the manufacturers who undertake Government 
 contracts also manufacture for the open market and operate their plants more 
 than eight hours per day, and have to do so under the laws of competition. 
 
 3. Contracts on a limited-hour basis could not be handled in conjunction 
 with contracts on an unlimited basis, and consequently Government work 
 would be prohibited in factories where the eight-hour day was made compulsory 
 by act of Congress. 
 
 4. It is quite customary to introduce penalty clauses on Government con- 
 tracts, and if the proposed law were passed it would not permit of a con- 
 tractor working overtime in order to make deliveries within the contract 
 time, a great wrong, as such delays would have arisen from conditions entirely, 
 beyond his control. 
 
 5. The refusal of contractors to undertake Government work on account of 
 the limited-hour basis would result in an increased cost of supplies to the Gov- 
 ernment and in causing serious inconvenience owing to inability to secure 
 articles required for the successful operation of the various Departments. 
 
 6. In the present prosperous and crowded condition of manufacturing estab- 
 lishments it Is extremely diflBcult to secure suflScient competent men to run 
 one shift of ten hours, which condition would make it almost impossible to secure 
 a proper force to run two shifts of eight hours each. " 
 
 7. If possible to obtain a sufficient force to run two shifts of eight hours 
 each, under normal conditions of business, the volume would not be sufficient 
 to require two shifts constantly, therefore the second shift of men would 
 have to be discharged as soon as the Government contract was completed, 
 which would cause great hardship to any men who might have moved their 
 families to a certain vicinity in order to secure positions. 
 
 8. The necessity for dropping the second shift on the completion of a Govern- 
 ment contract would have such an effect upon the men that, had it been pos- 
 sible to secure a sufficient number of men on on» occasion to run two shifts, the 
 probability of securing a sufficient number a second time would be remote. 
 
 9. The expenses of getting two shifts into working order would be such as to 
 . cause a loss of the profit on the contract. 
 
 10. Workmen are quite willing to work overtime occasionally, that they may 
 help their employer build up a business which will insure to them a permanent 
 position, but they would be prevented from so doing by the proposed law. 
 
 11. Under a law as proposed a man who worked only one hour on Govern- 
 ment work would be restricted from working in excess of eight hours for that 
 entire day, even though engaged upon private work. 
 
 12. In most establishments it would be Impossible to divide and separate 
 Government contracts from general work while in process. 
 
 13. In completing a contract it is usually necessary to make purchases of some 
 materials or finished articles (used in filling such Government contract) from 
 other manufacturers, and It would be impossible for the contractor to secure 
 such goods if subcontractors were placed under penalty of producing these 
 
210 EIGHT HOURS FOE LABOEEBS ON GOVERNMENT WOEK. 
 
 goods on an . eight-hour day ; aud such goods might be for one item only and 
 of trifling value. 
 
 14. It would restrict the worliing hours of an individual to eight per day, 
 whether that work should be for one or more contractors or for the workman 
 himself, and any contractor on Government work employing such a man is liable 
 to a fine for each employee who had worked in excess of eight hours. 
 
 15. The passage of the proposed law would be an unwarranted trespass upon 
 the individual rights of both manufacturer and artisans, and the limiting of 
 hours of service in private establishments is not within the jurisdiction of the 
 Federal Government. 
 
 16. The bill as proposed exempts railroads and transportation companies, and 
 is therefore class legislation. 
 
 17. The law would limit the earning power of the workman. 
 
 18. Such a law as proposed is not constitutional. 
 
 19. It would involve the impossibility of producing all products in a day of 
 eight hours, it now being impossible to produce some products in a day of ten 
 hours. As an illustration, a mold could not be finished in eight hours, and it 
 would not be possible to secure a man to work one or two hours a day only to 
 complete that mold. 
 
 20. A contractor might be compelled to suffer on a complaint which might be 
 unfounded. 
 
 21. The bill would require an executive officer of the Government to exercise 
 judicial functions. 
 
 22. A law such as is proposed would be made use of to blackmail contractors ; 
 and there are several thousand of them, and they have a right to live. 
 
 23. Under the proposed law the contractor would be deprived of property 
 without due process of law in cases where the Government sustains no damages 
 or delay. 
 
 24. If the Government may legislate and enforce the number of hours in the 
 factories of the country, it may also require that workmen of a certain standard 
 shall be employed upon its work, whether directly or under contract. 
 
 25. Ownership of material manufactured by a private corporation for the 
 Government does not pass until completion and acceptance by the Government. 
 
 26. After the contract is awarded for the delivery of goods, the matter of 
 supply, labor, etc., is one in which the Government has no right of control. 
 
 27. The bill would not permit of a forty-eight or fifty-four hour week, but 
 would limit every contractor and, finally, every manufacturer, to an eight-hour 
 day. 
 
 28. It would be impossible for concerns which might elect to operate on an 
 eight-hour day to compete on private work with establishments which were 
 operating on a nine or ten hour day and doing no Government work. 
 
 29. The law is proposed by organized labor, which represents only a small 
 .proportion (about 8 per cent) of the workingmen. 
 
 30. All the arguments of V labor " are directed to reasons why an eight-hour 
 law is best for the workingman. They are silent upon the points of its imprac- 
 ticability of application to the business of private contractors. 
 
 31. The goods contracted for may or may not be made after the contract Is 
 awarded ; hence there could be no certainty as to where it would or would not 
 apply. 
 
 32. Were it possible to keep Government work separate, and so to allow 
 workmen on such contracts to cease work at the end of eight hours, while those 
 engaged upon work for the open market continued for a longer period, a spirit 
 of discontent would at once Jrise, creating a thorough demoralization of the 
 working forces, with disastrous results to all, the men included. 
 
 33. The enormous volume of export trade which has been secured by the 
 absolute freedom of manufacturers as to working hours and systems of manu- 
 facture would be greatly curtailed, if not entirely lost, should an eight-hour 
 day become the regulation working day throughout the country, which the 
 passage, of such a bill would have a tendency to bring about and is intended to 
 bring about. 
 
 Peoria, III., May 26. 1906. 
 Hon. John J. Gardner, 
 
 Representative in Congress. 
 Dear Sib : We must express ourselves very strongly against the eight-hour 
 bill now pending before your committee. 
 
 We earnestly request that you do not press to a favorable report or permit to 
 be reported any eight-hour bill whatever. 
 
EIGHT HOURS FOR LABORERS ON GOVBSNMENT WORK. 211 
 
 The union labor leaders are endeavoring to establish a precedent in this 
 matter, so that in future they may use It as an argument that no one shall 
 work over eight hours in a dav. 
 
 We believe that the people of these United States are still free and should 
 remain so, and if some one desires to labor nine or ten hours, who shall say him 
 nay? Such a law absolutely destroys the freedom of the citizen, and we hardly 
 think it constitutional. 
 
 We i!Kk you to make every effort to defeat a favorable report of this eight- 
 hour bill, and sincerely believe you will be doing justice to all the employers of 
 labor in our city of 80,000 people. 
 
 Respectfully, yours, Planck Beos. 
 
 A. B. Planck. 
 
 Peoria, III., May 28, 1906. 
 Hon. John J. Gabdner, 
 
 RtprcHcnUilirc in CrmgreKS. Wanhinflfoii. D. C. 
 Dear Sir : We take tliis opportunity (jf expressing ourselves in no uncertain 
 terms against the present eight-hour bill which is pending before your com- 
 mittee. 
 
 We most earnestly request that you do not press to a favorable report or 
 permit to be reported any eight-hour bill whatever. We believe that this is 
 only a wedge used by the union labor leaders to eventually force all employers 
 of labor to work their men only eight hours a day. If the Government estab- 
 lishes that rule by law, they will then use this as an argument to make all 
 other employers to use the same rule. 
 
 Such a law destroys the freedom of a laborer to sell his labor on such terms 
 as he sees fit and prevents the employer from employing to the best advantage — 
 a blow at the freedom of trade. 
 
 It is our desire that you use every reasonable and just means to defeat a 
 favorable report of this eight-hour bill, and we believe that this is the senti- 
 ment of all the employers of labor in this city of 80,000. 
 Yours, very respectfully, 
 
 J. W. Franks & Sons. 
 V Per Gerald B. Franks, 
 
 President. 
 
 The JIanufacturing Jewelers' Association, 
 
 Newark, N. J., May 28, 1906. 
 Hon. John J. Gardner, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. 0. 
 Dear Snt : At a meeting of the board of managers of the Manufacturing 
 Jewelers' Association, of Newark, N. J., to consider the proposed eight-hour bill, 
 the inclosed resolutions were unanimously adopted, and, as instructed, I 
 herewith hand them to you. Our association will greatly appreciate your co- 
 operation in saving us from any such unwise legislation. Never in our history 
 has labor been so well paid nor have the conditions of labor been so favorable. 
 The best results will come from allowing these economic questions to work 
 themselves out. Legislation, in our judgment, can only create confusion and 
 work hardship and injustice to many interests. 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 Geo. R. Howe, President. 
 
 The jManufactltring Jewelers' Association, 
 
 NetoarJc, N. J., May 28, 1906. 
 Whereas persistent and renewed effort is being made by the labor unions of 
 the country, through a lobby maintained for years at the national capital, to 
 pass a bill " that no laborers or mechanics " employed on a Government con- 
 tract or on a subcontract " shall be permitted or required to work more than 
 eight hours in any one calendar day," and " each and every such contract shall 
 stipulate a penalty for each violation," etc. ; and 
 
 E H— 06 15 
 
212 EIGHT HOTJES FOB LABORERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. 
 
 Whereas the members of the Manufacturing Jewelers' Association, of New- 
 arls, N. J., are unalterably opposed to such a law or any legislation that inter- 
 feres with the existing prosperity of the country, on which alone they, as 
 manufacturers of luxuries depend : Therefore, be it 
 
 Resolved, First, that we enter our most earnest protest against this eight- 
 hour bill now before the Committee on Labor of the House of Representatives ; 
 second, that we most respectfully petition Hon. John J. Gardner, the Repre- 
 sentative of our State, on said committee, to use his influence and best en- 
 deavors to oppose any such bill ; third, that we desire to go on record as op- 
 posing class legislation of any kind that would give special advantages to a 
 limited class in our country at the expense of and to the detriment of their 
 fellow-citizens, all of whom are guaranteed equal rights and privileges under 
 our form of government ; be it further 
 
 Resolved, That a copy of these resolutions, signed by the president and at- 
 tested by the secretary of this association, be forwarded to Hon. John J. 
 Gardner. 
 
 Geo. R. Howe, President. 
 Hakbt Dueand, Secretary. 
 
 Nbwaek, N. J., May 29, 1906. 
 Hon. John J. Gabdnee, M. C, Washington, D. C. 
 
 Deae Sie : We understand that the McGomas eight-hour bill is to be presented 
 before the House for action at an early date. 
 
 And from our views of the subject, we think any such action will be detri- 
 mental to the interest of the employee as well as the employer, also the general 
 public, as in our class of goods it increases the cost of production to the public 
 and lessens the earning power of the employee, which is largely piecework. 
 
 As any eight-hour bill will be dangerous for either interest, we ask you to use 
 every influence you can against such favorable report or permit any eight-hour 
 bill whatsoever. 
 
 Tours, very truly, Battin & Co., 
 
 V. W. Bbundaqe, Treasurer. 
 
 Pensaoola, Fla., May 16, 1906. 
 
 Whereas, in view of the fact that the National Association of Manufacturers 
 of the United States of America, through its officers, D. M. Parry, president; 
 F. H. Stillman, treasurer, and Marshall Gushing, secretary, are praying through 
 confidential letters to commercial bodies and business men throughout the 
 country to use undue influence against the eight-hour bill now before the 
 House Labor Committee : Be it 
 
 Resolved, By the labor organizations of Pensacola, Fla., and surrounding 
 district, assembled on this date, that our Representative, Hon Frank Clark, 
 be respectfully requested in the interest of good law and order, good patriotism, 
 good public policy, and for the benefit of the laboring class in general, to use 
 his influence and vote in favor of any eight-hour bill that may come up ; also 
 to use every available influence with the House Labor Committee to make a 
 favorable report on the same ; be it further 
 
 Resolved, That a copy of the confidential letters be attached to these resolu- 
 tions for your more explicit information. 
 
 Thos. Johnson, Sam. B. Flynn, 
 
 John O'Bbien, J. B. Wiltebs, 
 
 Dan. Muephy, W. E. Rowland, 
 
 Feank J. RiEN, W. M. Lounsbeeey, 
 
 Jos. M. Johnson, W. A. Watts. 
 
INDEX. 
 
 Page. 
 
 Adriance Piatt & Co ^ 182 
 
 Advance Machine Company, The I'S 
 
 Ailing & Co 206 
 
 American and British Manufacturing Company 159 
 
 American Pad and Textile Company, The 183.206 
 
 American Pilot Association, Pensacola, Fla 135 
 
 American Pulley Company, The 167 
 
 American Textile Company 208 
 
 Ansonia Electrical Company, The 158 
 
 Atchison Saddlery Company, The 185 
 
 Atkin V. Kansas , 88 
 
 Ball Brothers Glass Manufacturing Company 182 
 
 Barnhart Brothers & Spindler 189 
 
 Bartholdt, Hon. Richard 131, 133, 134 
 
 Battin & Co 212 
 
 Bernstein Manufacturing Company 201 
 
 Bill under consideration ' 3,36 
 
 Boston Belting Company 178 
 
 Bowles, Francis T 137 
 
 Bridgeport Wood Finishing Company, The 196 
 
 Brockett, O. M 137 
 
 Buckeye Iron and Brass Works 169 
 
 Buffalo Scale Company 181 
 
 Building Contractors' Exchange, Louisville, Ky 154 
 
 Builders' Exchange League, Pittsburg, Pa 168 
 
 Bushnell Press Company. G. H 157 
 
 Business Men's Association, Des Moines 137 
 
 Carter Howe & Co 163 
 
 Carter Ink Company, The 148 
 
 Chain Belt Company 180 
 
 Chase Rolling Mill Company 160 
 
 Child labor bill 6 
 
 Clarkson v. Stevens 89 
 
 Cluett, Peabody & Co 199' 
 
 Cole Manufacturing Company 185 
 
 Collins Manufacturing Company, A. M 174 
 
 Columbia Carriage Company, The 193 
 
 Commercial Envelope and Box Company 175 
 
 Commerce and Labor, Department of 56 
 
 Comstock, George Carlton 156 
 
 Conewawah Spinning Company 205 
 
 Connor, Hon. James P 47,51,52,64,65,67,68, 
 
 69, 70, 76, 81, 87, 94, 102, 103,110, 115, 117, 135, 137 
 
 Cortelyou, Hon. George B 55 
 
 Corwin Manufacturing Company 193 
 
 Covert Manufacturing Company 168 
 
 Cowles, W. B 116, 129 
 
 Cramp & Sons Ship and Engine Building Company, The William 206 
 
 Crawford, McGregor & Canby Company, The 178 
 
 Crescent Manufacturing Company 206 
 
 Dalzell, Hon. John 23 
 
 Dalzell. John D 203 
 
 Davenport, Daniel, esq 7, 1.3, 14, 15, 28, 80, 46, 91, 97, 101, 104, 116 
 
 Davis. S. T., .ir 156 
 
 E H— 06 16 213 
 
214 INDEX. 
 
 i'age. 
 Day, Clark & Co 191 
 
 De Loach Mill' Manufacturing Company 205 
 
 Doubleday, P. N 168 
 
 Bavenson & Sons., J 153 
 
 Eight-hour bill: 
 
 Fifty-sixth Congress 49 
 
 Fifty-seventh Congress _- 46, 47 
 
 Fifty-eighth Congress 37, 56 
 
 Fifty-ninth Congress 36 
 
 Under consideration 3, 36 
 
 Bight-hour law : 
 
 1868 ^ 103.104 
 
 1888 : 104 
 
 1892 105 
 
 Elmira Knitting Mills 205 
 
 Employers' Association of Boston 161 
 
 Employers' Association, Dayton, Ohio I— 154 
 
 Employers' Association, Louisville, Ky 154 
 
 Engelberg Huller Company, The 165 
 
 Esterbrook Steel Pen Manufacturing Co., The 207 
 
 Evansville Furniture Company 190 
 
 Fellows & Co 165 
 
 Fenacute Machine Company 209 
 
 Fox, Charles K 155,203 
 
 Francis Hook and Eye and Fastener Company 171 
 
 Franklin Manufacturing Company, H. H 178 
 
 Franks & Sons, J. W 211 
 
 Fulton, Wm. B 1-59 
 
 Furuseth, Andrew 140. 141 
 
 Gardner Bills 3, 36, 46, 49 
 
 Gardner, Hon. A. P 5 
 
 Gardner Hon. John J. (chairman) 5,6,7.13,15,19,21.30, 
 
 32, 33, 34, 38, 41, 42, 44, 45, 47, 50, 52, 55, 56, 58, 59, 79, 80, 86, 90, 
 91, 99, 116, 117. 121, 122, 123, 129, 134, 135, 139, 140, 142, 145, 146 
 
 Gilbert Clock Co. Wm. L 164 
 
 Goebel, Hon. Herman P 4, 5, 9, 11, 12, 
 
 13, 14, 15, 18, 27, 102, 105, 106, 108, 109. 113. 
 114, 115, 116, 118, 119, 124, 127, 134, 135, 142 
 
 Gompers, Samuel 4, 22, 25, 26, 28, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 38, 
 
 41, 45, 47, 52, 55, 62, 63, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72. 73. 74, 
 75, 86, 90, 95, 104, 105, 107, 109, 121, 122, 125, 133, 145. 
 
 Gould & Eberhardt 167 
 
 Grand Crossing Tack Company 191 
 
 Grand Rapids Refrigerator Company, The 204 
 
 Grant, U. S., President 103 
 
 Grundy & Co., William H 190 
 
 Hardwicke, A. H. G 161 
 
 Harrington & Richardson Arms Company 157 
 
 Harrison & Gore Silk Company 167 
 
 Hartmann Brothers Manufacturing Company 195 
 
 Hartshorn Company, Stewart 208 
 
 Haskins, Hon. Kittredge 11,32,13,17,18,21,28,31,34,42 
 
 Hayden. James H., esq 66,67,77,114 
 
 Hearst, Hon. William Randolph 142, 146, 147 
 
 Hitt bill 37 
 
 Hoffmann & Billings Manufacturing Company 184 
 
 Howell-Hinchman Company, The 170 
 
 H. R. 3076 46 
 
 H. R. 4064 7,37,55 
 
 H. R. 6882 49 
 
 H. R. 11657 3,36 
 
 Hutchens & Potter 199 
 
 Hutchings-Votey Organ Company 202 
 
 Hunt Hon. John T 8,19,32,49,77,80,81,83,84,86,88.89,90, 
 
 91, 97, 101, 105. 114, 115, 120, 122, 123, 127, 128, 129, 131, 132. 133, 135 
 International Association of Master House Painters, etc 189 
 
INDEX. 
 
 215 
 
 Page. 
 
 International Sprinkler Company 174 
 
 Iowa State Manufacturers' Association 186 
 
 Jenkinson & Co., R. C 179 
 
 John Steptoe Shaper Company, The 192 
 
 Jones & Woodland Company 195 
 
 Kalamazoo Stove Company 180 
 
 Kent & Woodland " 207 
 
 Kimball & Storer Company 198, 199 
 
 Knabe & Co., Wm '_ 173 
 
 Knox Hat Manufacturing Company, The 158 
 
 Lappan Manufacturing Company, The James 182 
 
 La Porte Carriage Company 176 
 
 Lehmaier, Schwartz & CoJ 165 
 
 Link-Belt Engineering Company, The 157 
 
 Long Arm System Company 129 
 
 Lupton's Sons Company, David 199 
 
 McComas bill 47 
 
 McConway & Torley Company, The 189 
 
 McRae & Roberts Company, The 204 
 
 Manufacturers' Automatic Sprinkler Company 183 
 
 Manufacturers Jewelers' As,sociation, The, Newark, N. J 163, 211 
 
 Maryland Steel Company 138 
 
 Mosaic Tile Company, The 200 
 
 Marshall-Jackson' Company 193 
 
 Master Builders' Association of Boston 203 
 
 Mershon & Co., Wm. B 205 
 
 Mershon, Schuette, Parker & Co 155 
 
 Metcalf, Hon. V. H 124,125,126 
 
 Michigan Bolt and Nut Works 193 
 
 Milburn Wagon Company, The 194 
 
 Miller, Attorney-General 106 
 
 Milliken Brothers 148, 149, 150, 151, 152 
 
 Monongahela Tube Company 177 
 
 Murphy-Travis Company 187 
 
 Murray, J. T. W 159 
 
 Myers, B. Frank 181 
 
 Morris Machine Works 170 
 
 Morrison, Frank, esq 11,16,65,121 
 
 National Citizens' Industrial Association 161 
 
 National Pipe Bending Company, The 183 
 
 Natural Pood Company, The 172 
 
 Newark Embroidering Works 173 
 
 Newcomb, H. T., esq 91 
 
 Norris, Hon. George W 31,32,33, 
 
 44. 45, 63, 64, 65, 68, 70, 73, 79, 81, 82, 85, 88, 108, 104, 111, 112, 117, 129 
 
 Norton, I. Cook 95 
 
 Norwich Belt Manufacturing Company, The 160 
 
 Novelty Manufacturing Company, The 153 
 
 O'Brien, J. Ed 135 
 
 Ohio Suspender Company, The 181 
 
 Oliver Chilled Plow Works 177 
 
 Olney, Attorney-General 100 
 
 Osgood Scale Company 196 
 
 Paragon' Plaster Company. The 168 
 
 Patterson, J. E 160 
 
 I'ayson, L. E.. esq.__ 8, 14. 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 34, 42, 44, 89, 90, 97, 98, 99, 100, 121 
 
 Pedrick & Ayer 156 
 
 Pensacola Fla., labor organizations 212 
 
 Peoria Packing Company 208 
 
 Pfister «& Vogel Leather Company 182 
 
 Pioneer Suspender Company 16C 
 
 Pittsburg Printing Company ■- 188 
 
 Planck Brothers ^— * 210 
 
 Proclamation by President Grant 103 
 
 Priiuty & Co.. Isaac (Incorporated) 177 
 
 Quarles, E. A 154 
 
216 INDEX. 
 
 Page. 
 
 Quincv, C. F 156 
 
 Rainey, Hon. Henry T 17,115,130,131,132,133,134 
 
 Ralph, J. E 95 
 
 Rambo & Regar (Incorporated) t— 170 
 
 Reed & Co., E. P 155 
 
 Resolution of committee 7,8 
 
 Resolution to Secretary Department of Commerce and Labor 56 
 
 Rielly & Son, P 181 
 
 Riverside Metal Company, The 161 
 
 Romaine Hardware Company 160 
 
 Rome Brass and Copper Company, Rome, N. Y 155 
 
 Royle & Sons, John 197 
 
 Russell & Erwin Manufacturing Company 163 
 
 Russell Manufacturing Company, S. N. & C 169 
 
 San Antonio Printing Company 207 
 
 Schofleld, Mason & Co 154 
 
 Seneca Camera Manufacturing Company 171 
 
 Sessions, W. E 153 
 
 Shafer & Douglas 195 
 
 Shanty Company, M. B 194 
 
 Sill Stove Works : 175 
 
 Simon & Keane 154 
 
 Sloan & Co 187 
 
 Smith Printing Company, John P 185 
 
 Smith-Worthington Company, The 158 
 
 Spencer Wire Company 167 
 
 Standard Underground Cable Company 200 
 
 Stanley, Hon. A. O 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 23, 
 
 29, 30, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 91, 92, 93, 94, 96, 112, 113, 114, 115 
 
 Starrett Company, The L. S 173 
 
 State Manufacturers' Association, Iowa 187 
 
 Stearns & Foster Company, The 201 
 
 Stengel & Rothschild 166 
 
 Stephens-Adamson Manufacturing Company 172 
 
 Stevens Arms and Tool Company, J 195 
 
 Sweet Iron Works, A. L 170 
 
 Swindell Brothers 172 
 
 Syracuse Malleable Iron Works 190 
 
 Taylor, Stiles & Co ■- 171 
 
 Thirty-three reasons why bill should not be reported 200 
 
 Townsend Grace Company 175 
 
 Trout, H. G 205 
 
 Truscott Boat Manufacturing Company 191 
 
 Union Drawn Steel Company 202 
 
 United States Bung Manufacturing Company, The 197 
 
 Waite Thresher Company 180 
 
 Warren Webster & Co 195 
 
 Weaver Organ and Piano Company 191 
 
 Whiting & Son Company, John L 165 
 
 ■Wiggins' Sons Company, H. B 203 
 
 Willcox, David 156 
 
 Willcox & Glbbs Sewing Machine Company 179 
 
 Williams, White & Co 187 
 
 Wood & Co., R. D 152 
 
 Wood, F. W 138 
 
 O