The CHAIRMAN. And if they produce as much as men who were working for $3 a day, would not the latter be turned out of employment? Mr. THOMAS. They would be injured in their employment. The CHAIRMAN. Then is it better for the community that prisoners should be set to work? Mr. THOMAS. We hold that it is not fair to keep prisoners at work and to pay them only 50 cents a day. The CHAIRMAN. But suppose a man is willing to work at 50 cents a day, would you prevent him doing so? Mr. THOMAS. No, not if he wanted to; but if I am getting $1.50 a day for my work, it is not fair to bring a man alongside of me who will work at 50 cents a day. The CHAIRMAN. But if a man does go alongside of you and is willing to work at 50 cents a day? Mr. THOMAS. I do not object; but the question is, is it fair? You (to the chairman) are a manufacturer of iron? The CHAIRMAN. Yes, unfortunately. Mr. THOMAS. If you can manufacture iron and sell it at $10 a ton, would it be fair to you for a man working alongside of you to sell it at a loss ? The CHAIRMAN. It is not only fair, but I could not express any grievance about it; because if he sells his iron at a loss, I will very soon get rid of him as a competitor. Mr. THOMAS. But he breaks you first. The CHAIRMAN. Not at all. Good men in the trade do not get broken by any such process. Mr. THOMAS. Three years ago a man was working up here in a steel factory, and was earning $3.50 a day. A man came along and offered to do the same kind of work for $2 a day. They set him to work beside the man who was getting $3.50 a day; and then they told this man that they could not give him work at that rate any longer. The man who received the $2 a day proved to be a bad workman, and he cost them more in the long run than if they had paid a good man $3.50 a day. Now, was it fair to discharge the man who was receiving $3.50 a day? The CHAIRMAN. Suppose I was to come along with machinery that would do the same work at 25 cents? Mr. THOMAS. Would it be fair for you to throw me out of work? The CHAIRMAN. If I am making a given article that costs me three cents a pound, and if a man comes along with machinery that will make the same article at a cost of only one cent a pound, I must either take the machinery or let my neighbor take it and drive me out of the market. Is not that one of the laws of progress? Mr. THOMAS. That brings us down to the eight-hour system. The CHAIRMAN. We have had that subject discussed before the committee until we have had to stop hearing it. Some thought that men ought to be allowed to work only one hour a day, some four hours a day, and some eight hours a day; and when we told them that just now men are not at work on the average four hours a day, they were astonished. Mr. THOMAS. In order to bring the power of consumption up to the power of production, you must reduce the hours of labor of the men. The CHAIRMAN. Then would you not reduce the amount of production? Mr. THOMAS. No, sir. The CHAIRMAN. If you run the machinery less time, and if you work men less hours, will there not be less production? Mr. THOMAS. But if you admit that the natural increase of consumption is 10 per cent. per annum, do you think it fair to use machinery to make the increase of production 50 per cent. per annum? The CHAIRMAN. Then you want to limit the production of machinery by law? The CHAIRMAN. We will not pursue that any further. We have had it over and over again. You say that you think that that is a remedy-to limit by law the time during which machinery shall be kept in operation ? Mr. THOMAS. Yes, sir. Mr. THOMPSON. Do you mean that where an individual has a shop, with which the government has nothing to do, you would limit the hours of labor? Mr. THOMAS. Yes, sir. Mr. THOMPSON. How would you do it? Mr. THOMAS. The legislature can do it or Congress can do it. Mr. THOMPSON. Would you be willing to have a law passed in Pennsylvania that you could only work two hours a day? Mr. THOMAS. Yes; if I could make enough to keep me by two hours' work. Mr. THOMPSON. Would you think it wise in the legislature of Pennsylvania (if it had the power) to pass a law that no man, winter or summer, harvest or spring, should work more than two hours a day? Mг. THOMAS. No; not unless he could support himself by that two hours' work; but if he could support himself by it, and produce sufficient to equal the comsuming power of the people, what is the necessity of his working more than two hours? Mr. THOMPSON. Is not that a matter for the man himself? Mr. THOMAS. I do not think so. The CHAIRMAN. Suppose one man has ten children to support and another man has only one child to support, must not the man with the ten children work more hours than the man with the one child? Mr. THOMAS. He does not nowadays. The CHAIRMAN. In the ordinary course of nature, must not the man with a large family try to earn more wages to feed them? Mr. THOMAS. Yes; it would naturally cost him more to feed them. If a man gets $2 a day for eight hours' work, let him get at the same rate for nine hours' work or ten hours' work. Mr. THOMPSON. Would that benefit anybody? Mr. THOMAS. Certainly; if you limit the production of labor, it would be an advantage to the people. Mr. THOMPSON. Would not the man who wanted to be a little greedy make a special contract to work ten hours a day and thus get more wages than you who would work only eight hours? Mr. THOMAS. That he can do now. Mr. THOMPSON. And you propose to leave the matter there? Mr. THOMAS. No; we propose to make eight hours a legal day's labor. Mr. THOMPSON. And if a man had a wheat field right in harvest and had no hands except his sons, and if it were going to rain to-night, would you make it an offense for him or his hands to work till sundown? Mr. THOMAS. No, sir; what we want is this: If I go into a company's workshop here (eight hours being a day's labor) and say that I will work eight hours a day for a full day's wages, I do not want that company to have the power of discharging me because I will not work ten hours a day. The CHAIRMAN. And do you want the government to punish the company for that? Mr. THOMAS. No, sir; but the government can pass a law that eight hours shall constitute a day's labor. The CHAIRMAN. Yes; just as the legislature can pass a law making 2,240 pounds a ton of iron, but that will not prevent a man selling 2,500 pounds to the ton if he chooses. Mr. THOMAS. No; but after you make a law that eight hours shall be a legal day's labor, I would make it a penal offense to discharge a man for not working ten hours. The CHAIRMAN. Have you ever seen a man compelled to work more hours than he could well do? Mr. THOMAS. Yes, I have; and I was discharged myself because I would not work more than eight hours. The CHAIRMAN. I have never known a time in which men were not anxious to work more hours than I could give them work. If you can give men overtime they all want to make it. Mr. THOMAS. I have been discharged, and I have known other men to be discharged because we refused to work ten hours when eight hours was a legal day's work. The CHAIRMAN. Then you would limit the right of people to hire and discharge workmen ? Mr. THOMAS. No, sir; I would not. If I hire out to a man to work for so much an hour, working eight hours for a day's work, and if he comes to me and says that he will discharge me if I will not work ten hours at the same price, I want that to be a penal offense. The CHAIRMAN. That is a matter personally in the discretion of employer and employé. Mr. THOMAS. Let him make a new contract with me. The CHAIRMAN. That is what he proposes. Mr. THOMAS. Let him give me the same rate of wages per hour. The CHAIRMAN. That is regulating wages by law. Mr. THOMAS. And wages ought to be regulated by law. The CHAIRMAN. Then you believe that the law ought to regulate the rate of wages? Mr. THOMAS. Yes; and no man should receive less than a certain sum per The CHAIRMAN. What minimum would you fix? Mr. THOMAS. Just whatever Congress thinks best. The CHAIRMAN. What do you think ought to be the minimum? Mr. THOMAS. I think that a man ought not to work for less than $2 a day. The CHAIRMAN. If a tramp comes along starving and says that he is willing to work for $1 a day, would you let him work? Mr. THOMAS. No, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Then you would let him starve ? Mr. THOMAS. If you give men good wages there will be plenty of work for all. The CHAIRMAN. Yes, there will be plenty of men to work. If you offer high wages you will find all the men you want at high wages. Mr. THOMAS. From 1868 to 1873 there was work enough for all who wanted to work. The CHAIRMAN. Yes; because there were then thousands of miles of railroad being built. There were built in the course of five years what it ought to have taken ten or fifteen years to build; and the result was a collapse, which left us in our present condition. Mr. THOMPSON. Just as, in this region, you built more coal-breakers than you needed. The increased facilities for production were increased faster than the power of consumption among the people. The CHAIRMAN. And that occurred at a time when wages were very high. Mr. THOMAS. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. That is just what you said could not happen. You said that if we would only pay high wages we would not have any collapse or any distress. Mr. THOMAS. We want something to regulate that matter. The CHAIRMAN. I know we do, and that something is what we are in search of. Mr. THOMAS. You say that a law cannot be passed to regulate it. Now I will ask you a question or two. The laws that were passed 100 years ago were applicable to the people living at that time, and to the surrounding circumstances, were they not? The CHAIRMAN. Probably. Mr. THOMAS. And are the same laws applicable to-day as were applicable 100 years ago? The CHAIRMAN. Probably not. Mr. THOMAS. Those laws have got to be changed. If we find our productive facilities increasing faster than the power of consumption of the people, is it not an act of moral justice on the part of the law-making power to prevent that, and thus to save trouble and misery? The CHAIRMAN. You say that when the productive facilities are increasing faster than the power of consumption, higher wages must be paid. Mr. THOMAS. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. At the time when our productive facilities were increasing faster than the power of consumption, were not wages in this country higher than they had ever been known to be? Mr. THOMAS. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. And you want wages to keep going up. What is your limit? One hundred dollars a day? If we are going up in a balloon, let us put on more gas and go higher and higher. Mr. THOMAS. We will not come to that, because we ought to pass a law to regulate the producing interests of the country. The CHAIRMAN. Suppose I want to open a coal mine in this valley, and suppose I buy a thousand acres of land and come here with a million of dollars in my pocket to work a coal mine, would you not think me a benefactor to the region? Mr. THOMAS. Certainly. The CHAIRMAN. And would I not be adding to the productive facilities of the region so greatly that all the productions of the region could not find a market? Mr. THOMAS. Certainly. The CHAIRMAN. But you say you would limit production. Mr. THOMAS. I would pass a law that the production should not exceed the consuming power. The CHAIRMAN. That is, you would let me invest my money and put down my coal shaft, but you would not let me sell the coal out of it? Mr. THOMAS. If a community is producing all that the market requires, and if the people are happy and contented, is it fair and right that other men should be allowed to come in and increase the product and thus injure the whole region? The CHAIRMAN. Here you are in the valley of Rasselas, the happy valley, with everything you want, with high wages; and there comes along a gentleman with plenty of money and says, "I will buy a piece of property and will sink a coal shaft"; would he be a benefactor to the country or the opposite ? Mr. THOMAS. He would be a benefactor. The CHAIRMAN. But if, by the time he got his coal shaft down it turned out that the other men in the business could not get a market for their coal, what are you going to do with that man? Mr. THOMAS. I would regulate by law the amount of coal to be produced. The CHAIRMAN. Is it not considered a grievance in this valley that the great corporations have got together and attempted to regulate the market by restricting the production of coal? Mr. THOMAS. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. And is that any more objectionable than the law which you would propose to have made? Mr. THOMAS. The great corporations here control the market for the purpose of keeping wages down; and, by keeping wages down, they keep the times hard. The CHAIRMAN. The regulating of the market is the limit of the supply? Mr. THOMAS. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. Do they not supply every ton of coal that the market will take off their hands? Mr. THOMAS. Yes. But suppose that the workingmen in this valley were receiving in wages a million dollars a year more than they are now receiving, would not that help to give employment to others, and would you not have a better price for your iron? When overproduction exists, I would have it restricted. The CHAIRMAN. Is not that the present state of things? Mr. THOMAS. Yes; but you must not attempt to regulate it in that way. The CHAIRMAN. In other words, a man should not put down the wages of his workmen even though he cannot sell his coal for enough to pay the wages? Then he would have to stop work. Mr. THOMAS. Certainly. The CHAIRMAN. If he has to stop work, what happens to the men who would be otherwise employed? Mr. THOMAS. They are idle. The CHAIRMAN. And they starve? Mr. THOMAS. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. Is he a benefactor or not when he employs workmen even at reduced wages? Mr. THOMAS. If a man is receiving reasonable wages, and if the community is consuming just what is being produced, why not strive to manage to keep things so? Mr. THOMPSON. Would not the remedy be more natural and efficient if we could increase the consumption by law? Mr. THOMAS. You cannot increase the consumption by law. Mr. THOMPSON. But you think we can limit the production by law? Mr. THOMAS. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. And limiting the production will throw people out of employment. Mr. THOMAS. Are not people thrown out of employment now? The CHAIRMAN. Yes; that is your trouble here. Mr. THOMAS. Why not let the wages be as they were three years ago? The CHAIRMAN. Because nobody would buy coal at the price that it would then cost. Mr. THOMAS. It would put more money in circulation. The CHAIRMAN. I have to buy coal to make iron. If I have to pay 50 cents a ton more than the present market rate of coal I will have to shut up my works. Mr. THOMAS. But if you can get $3 a ton profit on your iron? The CHAIRMAN. I will be delighted if you will give me a receipt for it. You will be my benefactor. How am I to get it? Mr. THOMAS. If men had more wages they would create greater demand for productions. The CHAIRMAN. But you seem to think that you can create a market by raising the wages first, whereas the ability to pay wages comes from the fact that manufacturers are getting higher prices for their products. I cannot pay wages out of nothing. I must first sell my pig-iron for enough to enable me to pay higher wages, and then I would be delighted to do so. You say, "Pay the higher wages first and you will get more for your pig-iron." I tried it, but found that I had to go with the rest of the maufacturers. Mr. THOMAS. Certainly. Mr. THOMPSON. There would be, under your theory, no limit to the amount of wages which the law should fix. Mr. THOMAS. That matter would control itself. Mr. THOMPSON. But you propose to control it by law. The CHAIRMAN. Whenever there was a slack demand for coal, you say that you would put up wages. Mr. THOMAS. No, sir; I do not. Mr. THOMPSON. If you can fix the rate of wages by law at $2 per day, why not fix it at $20 a day? Mr. THOMAS. Because there is no need of it. If a man can live on $2 a day, what is the need of his having $20 a day? The CHAIRMAN. If $20 and $2 were synonymous terms, there would be no advantage in it. Mr. THOMPSON. If the State of Pennsylvania has the power to say that a day's labor shall be worth $2 a day, why has it not the power to say that it shall be worth $20? Mr. THOMAS. If it has the power to say one, it has the power to say the other. Mr. THOMPSON. I think so, and why not do it? Suppose we do make wages $20 a day, what would coal cost then in the market? Mr. THOMAS. There is no need of making wages $20 a day. Mr. THOMPSON. Then what need is there in saying that wages shall be $2 a day? Mr. THOMAS. That is a reasonable rate. Mr. THOMPSON. Would you have wages limited to $2 a day? Mr. THOMAS. I would have wages limited to $1.50 or $2 a day. We know by experience that we have lived on such wages before and have been comfortable. The CHAIRMAN. The only reason why wages are reduced is that manufacturers cannot afford to pay higher wages. Whenever a man comes to the point that he cannot get his money back he turns around to his work-people and says, "I must reduce my expenses." Now you propose to pass a law making it a penal offense for a man to pay less than a certain rate of wages. In that case he would say, "Then I will shut up shop." Mr. THOMAS. I think that a better plan. The CHAIRMAN. I have never found my people come to me and ask me to stop work. They have always said, "Go ahead; we have got our families to feed." Mr. THOMAS. That is very true. I do not contend that this thing can be brought about at the present time, but it can be brought about in the course of time. There was no power in the Constitution for President Lincoln to free slaves until there was a necessity for it on account of the rebellion; and then a provision was put in the Constitution that there should be no more slavery. The Constitution had to be changed to apply to the new order of things. Now there is a change of circumstances, and it is wrong to make people suffer on the ground that the law cannot be changed. The CHAIRMAN. Then you would have this legislation which you propose on the basis of a war measure or a measure of necessity higher than the Constitution? Mr. THOMAS. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Has the time come when it is a necessity? Mr. THOMAS. I think it has, or very nearly. People are suffering immensely. Mr. THOMAS. I think they are. The CHAIRMAN. I remember very well that in 1857 the wages of labor were down to 50 cents a day and the prices of commodities were as high then as they are to-day. Mr. THOMAS. I remember that I was then a boy working in a brick-yard and getting 50 cents a day. My father was working in the same yard and he got 75 cents a day. But everything was cheaper then than it is now. The CHAIRMAN. You are mistaken in that as a matter of fact. I have tabulated the prices of commodities then and now. Flour, pork, and the staples of life are as cheap to-day as they ever have been at any time in the history of this country. Mr. THOMAS. I know that we used to get only 8 cents a dozen for eggs at that time, and 12 cents a pound for butter. Mr. THOMPSON. A client came into my office the other day and said that he had just bought half a dozen kegs of nails for $2.25 a keg, and that he used to pay $9 a keg for them, and then he had to haul them out from Pittsburgh, 40 miles. Mr. RICE. I suppose that eggs and butter may have been cheaper at that time, how ever, than they are now, but all the staples of life were not. The CHAIRMAN. There were no facilities of communication then with the cities, and things which could not be transported were sold cheap where they were produced. For instance, you can buy eggs now in Saint Louis at from 6 cents to 7 cents a dozen, but their transportation to New York would cost so much (taking into account the chances of breakage), that the price of eggs in New York is high. But in regard to pork and other staple articles of consumption, I have never known them to be cheaper than now. Mr. THOMAS. A man working in these shops ten years ago, and getting $3.25 a day, did less work, by half, than be does to-day, when he is getting only $1.60. The engines that are used now for hauling the coal are of the same size, but they load the cars heavier. The CHAIRMAN. On your theory, would you prevent the companies increasing the power of their engines? Mr. THOMAS. No, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Or would you prevent them reducing the number of cars? Mr. THOMAS. No, sir. The CHAIRMAN. If the engines were smaller, and if there were fewer cars used, would there not be more men employed? Mr. THOMAS. I admit that that would give more employment to men, but we do not object to the companies having powerful engines and heavily loaded cars. What we ask is, that the hours of labor be reduced. That is all. The CHAIRMAN. Suppose we were to reduce the number of working hours one-half! Mr. THOMAS. I Would have no objection if the workingmen could get as much wages for five hours' work as they can for ten. The CHAIRMAN. But, if everybody only worked half-time, would there be enough of food produced? There would be only half as many acres cultivated as there are now. Mr. THOMAS. The farmers could not come under this rule. The men who would be working for eight hours a day, and getting good wages, could afford to pay the farmer |