Mr. HERBERT. So there would be, in the first place, 25 per cent additional that the Midvale company would pay, then they would add 25 per cent additional for their labor, and then you would add 25 per cent additional for your labor?

Mr. HYDE. Yes, sir.

Mr. HERBERT. So this would be very much more than 25 per cent?

Mr. HYDE. Yes, sir: it would in this way: Roughly, as far as the shipbuilder is concerned, the labor and material are about equal.

Mr. HERBERT. I do not mean to say it would run to 75 per cent; but all these things would have to be taken into consideration.

Mr. HYDE. And, on the other hand, the output would be less for the same investment, because no one claims that a machine tool, which is now run to the maximum, could produce as much in eight hours as it can now in ten hours.

Mr. HERBERT. I mean when you take the increased cost of the first material man and then the increased cost of the second material man, and consequently the double increased cost to you of the material, whether the increased cost of your finished product in the ship would not be very much more than 25 per cent?

Mr. HYDE. I should say so: yes, sir. The statement I made was, I think, that the wages would be increased about 25 per cent.

Mr. HERBERT. Is the Bath Iron Works, which is the shipbuilding company, doing any commercial work?

Mr. HYDE. Very little. We are building two large tugboats now; that is all. About 10 per cent of our work at the present time, in value, is merchant work and the balance is for the Government.

Mr. HERBERT. But it would increase the cost of doing that work?

Mr. HYDE. Very much.

Mr. HERBERT. And could you under this law, as this law applied to you and did not apply to other shipbuilders-those who are not doing Government work-compete with them for the building of tugboats?

Mr. HYDE. No, sir.

Mr. HERBERT. You would have to give that up?

Mr. HYDE. Yes, sir; unless this act had the far-reaching effect of raising wages throughout the whole trade, whether they were engaged in Government work or not. Then, of course, we would be on the same basis; but while the transition was going on we would be at a disadvantage.

Mr. HERBERT. As I understand it, you would not be able to compete with shipbuilding companies that are not doing any work for the Government?"

Mr. HYDE. No, sir.

Mr. HERBERT. And consequently you would have to give up all work except Government work. Then as to the Hyde Windlass Company, are you exporting any of the products of that company?

Mr. HYDE. Yes, sir.

Mr. HERBERT. How much; to what extent?

Mr. HYDE. Well, we never have until within a few months. We have taken an order to go abroad within a few months. It is not much. We consider it the entering wedge, so to speak. It is the first order we have ever taken for export, and, as I remember it, it is about 4 or 5 per cent of the total amount of work on hand for that one company.

Mr. HERBERT. Are you hoping for a much larger amount of work of that kind? Mr. HYDE. Yes, sir.

Mr. HERBERT. If this bill should apply to you and apply to that Hyde Windlass Works, would you expect to be able to export in competition with other countries? Mr. HYDE. No, sir.

Mr. HERBERT. Where are windlasses principally built that your windlasses come in competition with abroad?

Mr. HYDE. In England. These are going to England.

Mr. HERBERT. And you would not expect to be able to send any more windlasses to England?

Mr. HYDE. No, sir.

Mr. PAYSON. Before the witness is turned over to the other side I think, perhaps, a fact or two does not sufficiently appear in the record. Are you able to state approximately, Mr. Hyde, about what proportion of windlasses and appliances of that character furnished to the navy-yards now are furnished by you as a subcontractor? First, you do not furnish windlasses direct to the Government, do you?

Mr. HYDE. Once in a great while, for some vessel built in a navy-yard, or in the case a windlass is worn out and bids are asked for.

Mr. PAYSON. But as a rule you deal with the article as a subcontractor?
Mr. HYDE. Yes, sir.

Mr. PAYSON. What proportion? I know you furnish our people and you furnish Cramps.

Mr. HYDE. For those in the Navy we furnish about 80 per cent.

Mr. PAYSON. That is what I thought.

Mr. HYDE. I could not say positively, but I do not think it will vary 5 per cent one way or the other. I do not wish to be understood as saying that 80 per cent of the work we furnish is for the Government. That is, of the work furnished the Government, 80 per cent is from us.

Mr. PAYSON. Yes; that was my question.

That is, what proportion of that new

work of such appliances as you make do you yourself make?

Mr. HYDE. About 80 per cent.

Mr. PAYSON. And that is as subcontractor?

Mr. HYDE. Yes.

Mr. PAYSON. Under the second section of this bill, if you should be brought under its provisions, is it possible for you to carry on that work on a basis of eight hours a day with your commercial work at ten hours a day in the same shop?

Mr. HYDE. I do not see how it is possible. There are a few difficulties that are surmountable in time, but it is difficult now to see how the transition could be made. Mr. GOMPERS. Then, if the work you were doing for the Government would be upon the eight-hour basis and you could not recede from that position, would the tendency be to the general enforcement of the eight-hour workday among the other employees during your work for commercial or private concerns?

Mr. HYDE. I wish you would state that question again.

Mr. GOMPERS. I say, would not the tendency be, inasmuch as you could not work your employees more than eight hours on Government work, to the establishment of an eight-hour rule--the eight-hour workday-to the other employees?

Mr. HYDE. I should say so; yes, sir.

Mr. HERBERT. Do you mean all employees in other windlass companies?

Mr. HYDE. I understood him to mean our other employees.

Mr. HERBERT. The other employees of Mr. Hyde's company?

Mr. GOMPERS. I think I gathered that you stated you would be unable to furnish the vessels for the Government in as short a time as you are now able to do.

Mr. HYDE. Yes, sir.

Mr. GOMPERS. That is, if this bill became a law?

Mr. HYDE. Yes, sir.

Mr. GOMPERS. Were the hours of labor in your plant longer at any time than they are now?

Mr. HYDE. No, sir; never.

Mr. GOMPERS. Shorter?

Mr. HYDE. Shorter by half an hour per week only. We used to work sixty hours per week, and about four years ago we began closing down a half hour earlier on Saturday. Of course it is a small deduction, but it was made voluntarily.

Mr. GOMPERS. Has there been any hindrance in getting out vessels in as short a time by reason of that reduction of half an hour?

Mr. HYDE. It is not noticeable; no, sir.

Mr. GOMPERS. Why not?

Mr. HYDE. For the reason that the plant is being bettered constantly, and it is difficult to pick out any one influence. We are building better buildings. Fire wiped out a portion of our plant and we rebuilt that with better machinery. It is difficult to say, because there are so many other influences entering in.

Mr. GOMPERS. Of course, you understand, Mr. Hyde, that that is the position we take that with a reduction in the hours of labor there would be a constant improvement in the method of producing these things in which you are engaged and other employers are engaged.

Mr. HYDE. You do not say that would be because of the reduction to eight hours. Mr. GOMPERS. Attendant upon it.

Mr. HYDE. I do not quite see the connection, sir.

Mr. GOMPERS. Are you aware that last year Mr. Cramp in his testimony and argument before the Senate Committee on Education and Labor, in page 23 of the report, in answer to a question by Senator Gear, says:

"Mr. CRAMP. Yes, sir; we competed with Germany and France. The minister of finance in Russia desired that France should build those ships that we are going to take. He said France was a great holder of the Russian loan. His argument was an exceedingly good one. The French bankers came there, and the shipbuilders themselves came. They wanted a share of the Russian work, and so the minister of marine of Russia invited the friends of these bankers to send in proposals. The French wanted six months to prepare the drawings, to give the price for the ships

we are going to undertake to deliver in thirty months. We gave the price withou a drawing, simply having a letter covering the general specifications, and we are going on with the work and the drawings at the same time.

"As we have our own way in the work, and no retarding inspection methods, we expect to deliver the ship in the thirty months. The French wanted five years, and the Germans and the Russians wanted more money and longer time. We secured those vessels because we could build them at a little less than they could, and in a shorter time."

What have you to say in regard to that statement of Mr. Cramp?

Mr. HYDE. It is a new question to me, sir. I had never seen that at all. I should say that Mr. Cramp probably knows what he is talking about. I am not prepared to refute it or corroborate it, because I know nothing about it at all.

Mr. GOMPERS. Are you aware about the number of hours the shipbuilders work in France?

Mr. HYDE. I am only familiar with one yard, where I spent two months, and there they work eleven hours.

Mr. GOMPERS. Longer hours than the Cramp shipyards?

Mr. HYDE. Yes.

Mr. GOMPERS. And still, in spite of that fact, the Cramps were able to deliver the ships to the Russian Government in just one-half the time the French shipbuilders did?

Mr. HYDE. I am not prepared to explain that. The ships are not delivered yet. Mr. GOMPERS. It is just the contention which we make. Has there been any inincrease in wages in your plant in the past twenty years?

Mr. HYDE. Yes, sir.

Mr. GOMPERS. A material increase?

Mr. HYDE. Yes: about 10 or 15 per cent, I should, say.

Mr. GOMPERS. If your company were required to build a ship upon the same basis, of the same material, of a similar class as your company did twenty years ago, would you ask the Government a higher price for the finished vessel than you did then? Mr. HYDE. No, sir; a lower price.

Mr. GOMPERS. And still wages have increased?

Mr. HYDE. Yes, sir.

Mr. GOMPERS. I do not think I want to ask any more.

Mr. HERBERT. What is the reason of that?

Mr. HYDE. Better machinery; lower materials.

Mr. GOMPERS. So with better machinery and better materials it resulted in a reduction of the hours of labor and better wages still?

Mr. HYDE. I would like to say just one thing. While it is true, as Mr Gompers says, that the hours of labor over a long term of years have been reduced and the wages increased, and on the other hand machinery has improved, at the same time I think those are going along parallel roads, but are in no way connected with each

other.

Mr. GOMPERS. I commend to your serious consideration a study of this economical question.

LETTER FROM THE HYDE WINDLASS COMPANY.

HYDE WINDLASS COMPANY, BATH, ME.,
New York, January 28, 1902.

Hon. CHAS. E. LITTLEFIELD,

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

DEAR SIR: I have just been advised that the House Committee on Labor are intending to take up the Gardner labor bill on Thursday and a vote is to be taken on closing all arguments sometime between the middle or last of February.

This bill is one of great importance to this company, as well as to all firms in the State who are doing Government work, either as contractors or subcontractors.

Our men, so far as I can find out, are not generally in favor of such a measure, as they are only too glad to work overtime, for which they receive extra remuneration. In this company about 225 men would be affected. Were this bill to become a law it would seriously affect our business, about one-half of which is subcontract work for the Government vessels. We would be obliged to absolutely discontinue all Government work or we could not compete for merchant work, as it would be impossible to run two crews of men, one eight hours and the other ten hours.

If you can consistently do so, it would oblige us very much if you would urge the committee or such members as you can to vote against closing the argument upon the date set, as we should like time to present our case in a proper manner. Trusting you may be able to aid us in this matter, we remain,

Yours, respectfully,

HYDE WINDLASS CO.

J. R. ANDREWS, General Manager.

LETTER FROM THE TREASURER AND GENERAL MANAGER OF THE STERLING BOILER COMPANY.

Your esteemed favor of the 10th has been received, referring to bill 3076, under consideration by the House Committee on Labor. We reply to your questions as follows:

First. Outside of bookkeepers, salesmen, draftsmen, clerks, foremen, and erecting engineers who are employed to install machinery in different portions of the country, we employ in our works about 750 men. During the period that we were most actively engaged in the manufacture of water-tube boilers for the Russian cruiser Variag and Russian battle ship Retvizan, United States battle ship Maine, and United States monitor Nevada, we find that about about 80 to 100 men were engaged in such work. Therefore, 88 to 90 per cent of our employees may be said to be engaged in the manufacture of boilers for other than Government use, while from 10 to 12 per cent are wholly engaged on Government work during the period we have large Government contracts on hand.

Second. There is not now, nor has there ever been, any discontent among our employees as to the hours of labor. In April, 1901, about one-half of our machinists who are members of the International Association of Machinists, attempted to cooperate with the effort that was at that time being directed by the machinists throughout the United States to secure a reduction in the number of working hours per day. The effort that our men made was not because of any feeling of discontent that they had, but was made in obedience to instructions received from their national association, and owing to the spirit of loyalty which governed the members of such associations to a greater or less degree. As a matter of fact, our records show that our machinists have voluntarily worked overtime more than any other class of labor in our employ, and that this has been entirely agreeable to them is proven by the fact that it has never been necessary to do any urging at all to induce them to work overtime. Third. There has never been any strike of our employees on account of the length of working hours, nor has the question of the length of working days been brought up and discussed in any strike that may have been made for some other reason; nor has the question of the length of hours been discussed with our superintendent at any time by any committee representing any of our men, except in the case just cited.

Fourth. Our product consists of water-tube boilers for land and marine use. On land our boilers are used in large power plants, blast furnaces, rolling mills, electriclight plants, electric street railways, waterworks, and manufacturing and industrial plants generally. Our boilers are in use in practically every State of the Union, and are extensively sold in the Hawaiian Islands, Japan, Mexico, Brazil, Argentine Republic, Cuba, Porto Rico, South Africa, and England. Our marine boilers are in use on the Russian battle ship Retvizan, the Russian cruiser Variag, and are now being installed on the United States battle ship Maine and the United States monitor Nevada. We are now about to construct boilers for the United States battle ships Georgia and Virginia, United States cruisers Pennsylvania and Colorado, and for a cruiser of the Turkish navy. The value of a plant of boilers for a battle ship or cruiser is from $225,000 to $300,000, varying on the capacity and number of the boilers.

Fifth. From what has been said with respect to the number of men employed in the manufacture of our boilers for stationary and land use, as compared with the number of men employed in the manufacture of our boilers for marine purposes, it will be seen that our work in the marine department forms but a very small portion of our entire volume. Furthermore, the margin of profit on Government contracts is very small, due, first, to the high grade of material and workmanship required in the execution of all Government work, and, second, to sharp competition. It must be borne in mind that a large number of manufacturers throughout the country. the greater portion of whose product is for the general trade, are not only willing, but eager to take Government contracts at very close prices, with the idea that the pres

tige that they will gain thereby and the advantage that will accrue to them in consequence of their product being recognized by the Government as of a high standard will result in a greater demand, at lucrative prices, for their goods by the general trade, and that consequently they will be compensated for any actual loss or loss of profit that they may sustain in the execution of Government work.

Mani

We have frequently for this reason taken contracts for boilers for the Government at prices that have actually represented no profit whatever, and we have no doubt that we will offer to do work in the future without profit for the same reason. festly, then, if the bill under consideration became a law we would of necessity be compelled to withdraw from Government work, in which there is little profit at best, and which forms but a small proportion of the volume of our business, and confine ourselves to land work, in which the profit is larger, and which represents about ninetenths of our volume.

In the consideration of this matter, we suggest that while under certain conditions and in certain employments, men should not be required to spend more than eight hours per day in hard manual labor, it does not by any means follow that the hours of work should be limited in all cases to eight hours per day, irrespective of the character of the work done, the conditions surrounding the workman, and the time actually spent by him in physical exertion. In machine and boiler shops, foundries and blacksmith and forge shops, the workmen are not by any means constantly exerting physical effort during the entire number of hours of work, whether they be eight or ten hours per day.

In a modern boiler shop high-grade machine tools and labor-saving devices play an important part, and in practically every machine shop the actual physical labor of the men engaged in operating the machine tools is not more than one hour in ten. The greater portion of his time is spent in adjusting his tools and seeing to it that they operate properly. In blacksmith and forge shops, in which it is popular to fancy that the most vigorous physical efforts are constantly directed, the actual time spent by the workingmen in manual labor will not average more than five hours out of ten, for the reason that it will require at least five hours per day to heat the metal which they work, during which time they are idle.

In foundries where gray iron, malleable, and steel castings are made the time consumed in actual labor will not amount to more than seven hours in ten. The molder concludes his day's work, closes his mold ready to receive the molten iron at the time the blast is put into the cupola. The time of putting the blast into the cupola varies in different establishments, but it is usually from two to three hours before the end of the ten-hour day. The last two or three hours, then, of a molder's day are spent in seeing that his molds are filled, that his blasts are removed, and his day's work is then done. Therefore, even although the ten-hour day is in vogue at a large number of industrial establishments, it does not necessarily follow that the workingmen employed in such plants are engaged in hard physical exertion during the entire ten hours of the day. On the other hand, the very nature of the work requires cessation from time to time for one reason or another, so that in consequence of purely natural conditions the endurance of the men is at no time strained.

That the rank and file of the men themselves do not desire any change is evidenced by the fact that during the past two or three years, during which all classes of manufacturing establishments have been so busy, the men have voluntarily been eager o work overtime, and in consequence earn increased wages; indeed, the disposition f our men to do this became so marked a year or two ago that we were compelled to establish a rule that we would not employ men overtime except under extreme conditions. You understand, of course, that when men work overtime they are entitled to a higher rate per hour than is paid them when they work only the usual number of hours per day.

It may be argued that the building trade is an example of the beauty of an eighthour day. It must be borne in mind that men engaged in this class of work are more or less exposed to the elements, and the fewer number of hours' employment per day is more wearing on them than a greater number of hours per day would be on an employee working in a well-protected and well-heated shop. What is applicable to a class of men engaged in one kind of work is not applicable to men engaged in another. There may be merit in the contention that men engaged in hard physical work outdoors where they are exposed to the extremes of heat and cold, rain, snow, etc., should not be required nor permitted to work more than eight hours per day, but in manufacturing establishments, where the men are well housed in buildings that are thoroughly ventilated in the summer and well heated in the winter, and where the men, by the very nature of their employment, can not stand more than from five to seven hours per day in hard manual labor, it would be an infringement of their rights to require that they limit the number of hours during which they could earn their livelihood.