when that subcontractor sees that he is going to profit by his energies he is going to do a lot of work, and the employees have an advanced rate, and it serves his purpose to give an honest day's work in order to be reemployed by a subcontractor at an increased rate.

Mr. HAYDEN. How do the subcontractors treat their employees, as far as pay is concerned?

Mr. MULL. As I say, they pay them as high as 25 per cent more. Mr. HAYDEN. So that every man participates on a piece of work employed by a subcontractor?

Mr. MULL. Exactly.

Mr. HAYDEN. Mr. Mull, I invite your attention to some testimonials directed to the Cramp Company in 1899 by a number of employees. They appear in the proceedings of the Senate Committee on Education and Labor during the year 1902, pages 371 to 380. Kindly tell us what, if anything, you know of those petitions, how it came that they were made?

Mr. MULL. These were men who voluntarily wished to maintain the same work hours in 1899 that the company still had, namely, ten hours a day with the privilege of working overtime. They presented to the company a petition with those names that you have there produced, of all departments.

Mr. HAYDEN. I ask, Mr. Chairman, that the petitions to which I have referred be incorporated in Mr. Mull's statement. I have given a reference to them as they appear in the reports of the proceedings of the Senate committee.

Mr. TRACY. Is it not a fact that just at the same time a large number of the employees of the Cramp Company were on strike for a reduction in the hours of labor?

Mr. MULL. Not a large quantity; they were limited.

Mr. TRACY. But there was a strike?

Mr. MULL. We never admitted or recognized a strike.

Mr. TRACY. Nevertheless, there were large numbers of the employees who quit, and the company had cordons of police around on the outside to prevent the members of the organizations approaching the yard; is not that true?

Mr. MULL. There was not a large number; no, there was not. There were some few men disgruntled at something; I have never heard what it was, but we carried on our business just the same. Mr. NICHOLLS. How many men had quit work at that time, Mr. Mull?

Mr. MULL. I can not just remember; I have a record that I will be glad to furnish.

Mr. NICHOLLS. Could you give us approximately the number? Mr. MULL. No, that is nine years ago. I do not think there were over 25 per cent altogether. When a man quits in the shipyard, say a riveter, there will be himself and four men go with him." Mr. NICHOLLS. Those are his assistants?

Mr. MULL. Those were boys and passers who can not work unless the riveter is present. But it is perfectly obvious that the men did work, because we had work in hand and the way we delivered it proved that. We had the Army transports there; we turned them out in good time, and the rest of the ships also.

Mr. NICHOLLS. That was the time this petition was presented by those who remained at work?

Mr. MULL. That is the very time, yes.

Mr. HAYDEN. Has there been any change in your hours of labor since these petitions were presented to the company in 1899?

Mr. MULL. None excepting what the men take advantage of themselves in the summer time. They work late in the evening in the summer time, and we do not object to that. No rule has been made by the company to change the hours of work.

Mr. HAYDEN. These subcontractors are permitted to work overtime?

Mr. MULL. From daylight to dark, if they so choose.
Mr. HAYDEN. Why do you give them that privilege?

Mr. MULL. Because it increases the productive output.

Mr. HAYDEN. When men are working under subcontracts, what effect has it upon their compensation, that is, the working of overtime?

Mr. MULL. Well, for instance-in working overtime, you mean? Mr. HAYDEN. Yes.

Mr. MULL. For instance, I will take a point in view now. On the U. S. battle ship Idaho we were delayed in the delivery of armor. That necessarily put back the installation of the turret machinery. When the armor came and was duly installed, and when it was time to install the machinery, it was necessary to work overtime. That was installed by this same subcontract system. In a case of that kind we tell the subcontractor that when he made up his time he did not take into consideration the overtime, and we pay him the overtime. For instance, we give them the half hour for every hour they work.

Mr. HAYDEN. You do not charge the bonus of overtime against his bid?

Mr. MULL. No; and any machinery that is required to work for that purpose we give him that.

Mr. HAYDEN. Have the relations between the Cramp Company and its employees changed in any particular since these petitions were addressed to you?

Mr. MULL. I should say they have; we have got very much closer to our workmen and they closer to us.

Mr. HASKINS. Mr. Mull, when your workmen are voluntarily performing labor overtime, what effect does that have upon their morality and standing as men?

Mr. MULL. I think it has about the same effect that my own experience has led me to believe. I have worked considerable overtime. The longer I could keep working the more mischief I was kept out of. I think, to a certain extent, it has a very marked good effect in the relation to the workmen-such as work in shipyards. Mr. NICHOLLS. You think that the longer day is preferable to the shorter day?

Mr. MULL. I think in some instances; yes.

Mr. NICHOLLS. What limit would you fix on the reasonableness of the length of the day?

Mr. MULL. Are you speaking specifically of shipbuilding?

Mr. NICHOLLS. Yes; inasmuch as that is the subject.

Mr. MULL. I should say that that might go well onto 50 per cent; that many of the men should be better off if they worked fifteen hours, both morally, physically, mentally, and financially.

Mr. NICHOLLS. You say physically also?

Mr. MULL. I do.

Mr. NICHOLLS. I understand the subcontractor is the one to determine when they will work overtime. You allow them to work

overtime as much as they want to; is that right?

Mr. MULL. When he determines that, he works overtime, but he takes care of it. His job is good enough to get through in a limited length of time, so that he is enabled, probably, to bid on a fresh job. We do not restrict him; he may work as long as he wants, but there are occasions in which we require them to work overtime, but in those cases we pay them.,

Mr. HAYDEN. But when they voluntarily work over he pays them? Mr. MULL. That is a matter of his own account.

Mr. NICHOLLS. But he can, if he wishes, work as much overtime as he desires?

Mr. MULL. That is true, within certain limits. We do not permit him to work after night, because then we are liable for accident, because our work at best is hazardous to take.

Mr. NICHOLLS. Then he has absolute control of the men under him; he is responsible for all his men, is he not?

Mr. MULL. He is, but we still do not lose control. They must conform to the rules of the company by reporting at the gate, checking in, checking out, and conforming to all the rules of the yard.

Mr. NICHOLLS. Suppose that any day the subcontractor says to his men they have to work overtime. Does it lie entirely with him, or have they any right of choice whether they work overtime or not? Mr. MULL. When he wants a man to work overtime he generally offers him an inducement, and the man is very willing to do it. I have seen instances where men thought that they were not getting a fair chance because they did not get the opportunity to work as much time as another, and they appealed to me to make a decision in the matter. I have never seen an instance where a man did not want to work overtime in a contract system.

Mr. DREW. A man could refuse to work overtime and still remain in your employment?

Mr. MULL. Absolutely.

Mr. HAYDEN. It is purely a question between him and the subcontractor?

Mr. MULL. Yes; absolutely.

Mr. NICHOLLS. Would the subcontractor be allowed to dismiss him from that particular contract?

Mr. MULL. Not for that purpose; no.

Mr. NICHOLLS. Not for that?

Mr. MULL. No; and we never have a man to work overtime who refuses. That is, if a man did not care to work we would not press him; that we never do.

Mr. HAYDEN. You have always found enough who were willing to do it?

Mr. MULL. Always.

Mr. HAYDEN. Mr. Mull, how long have you been in the employ of the Cramp company?

Mr. MULL. I went there first in 1879.

Mr. HAYDEN. What positions have you occupied? Just recount your experience.

Mr. MULL. Well, I went there as a machinist-that is, I finished serving my apprenticeship with the Cramp company--and I have been permanently connected there excepting for five years.

Mr. HAYDEN. Since 1879?

Mr. MULL. From 1879 up to date. I have occupied all the positions there, I should say, from mechanic, assistant manager, general superintendent, and so forth.

Mr. HAYDEN. Your work has always related to the employment and management of the working forces?

Mr. MULL. Of the workingmen; yes.

Mr. HAYDEN. You know the conditions existing among them?"
Mr. MULL. I think I do.

Mr. HAYDEN. Mr. Mull, what in your opinion would be their view of a regulation which limited the hours of work done by them to exactly eight hours per day, without an opportunity to work overtime for overtime pay?

Mr. MULL. That is impossible for me to answer intelligently.
Mr. HAYDEN. How would that appeal to the men?

Mr. MULL. I do not think it would appeal in the least. I do not think you can take any self-respecting man and make any law or legislate anything that will make him work a definite number of hours. That man, then, the minute he accepts that condition simply is branding himself to work as a mechanic forever; he has no alternative after that; he becomes a machine.

Mr. DREW. Are you enough in sympathy with your men to be enabled to give us an idea how they would feel, and whether they would desire this overtime work, or resent its being cut off?

Mr. MULL. They would resent its being cut off, and I could guarantee the name of every man in our employ on a petition to back that up.

Mr. DREW. Are there any shipbuilding yards working on an eighthour basis?

Mr. MULL. Not to my knowledge.

Mr. DREW. You would know of them if there were?

Mr. MULL. I think I would; there may be in some departments of the vards.

Mr. DREW. What percentage of Government work do you do? Mr. MULL. That will vary from 50 to 70 per cent. We We very seldom have a condition where we do less than 50 per cent of Government work.

Mr. DREW. You said, I believe, at the start that it would be impossible for you to carry on Government work and private work in the yard working different sets of hours?

Mr. MULL. I should think it would be absolutely impossible to do so.

Mr. DREW. You would have to give up one or the other?
Mr. MULL. We would have to give up one or the other.

Mr. HAYDEN. Give your reasons for that and illustrate what the effect would be.

Mr. MULL. My reasons are these: For instance, we have two ships on the stocks alongside of each other-one ship a Government ship, the other a merchant ship. It goes without saying that the requirements on a Government ship are far more difficult to meet than those on a merchant ship. Our men, at best, would rather work on mer

chant work, because they can accomplish more. The minute we put a man on Government work and subject him to eight hours, and eight hours only, under the system that we do our ship construction that man could never make a living; he could not do it, because you are taking off that man 20 per cent of his income. We can not raise his pay. There is nothing we can do to make up that two hours, and the result is it would take us 20 per cent longer to build a ship. In other words, if it took forty months to build a ship under the present conditions, it would take forty-eight with the eight-hour`limitation.

Mr. HAYDEN. To what extent would it increase the cost of work done in your yard?

Mr. MULL. I should say in the same proportion.

Mr. HAYDEN. Twenty per cent?

Mr. MULL. No; I think it would increase the work more.

Mr. HAYDEN. Increase the cost more?

Mr. MULL. I think it would.

Mr. HAYDEN. How?

Mr. MULL. Because necessarily we could never get a man to work on a merchant ship alongside of a man working on a Government ship, one ten and the other eight.

Mr. HAYDEN. You mean the man working on the merchant ship ten hours would be dissatisfied working alongside of a man on a Government job employed eight hours?

Mr. MULL. You do not understand it. If we were to work on the eight-hour basis, we would have to raise the pay of the men on Government work; I do not see any way out of it.

Mr. HAYDEN. Could you afford to do that?

Mr. MULL. No; we can not afford to do it now. It is about all we can do to keep our head above the water on the present basis. Mr. DREW. You mean raise the wage cost? Mr. MULL. Yes; raise his wages.

Mr. HAYDEN. Mr. Mull, I want you now to consider what would be the practical effect of this bill upon the operation of your yard; that is, whether your work for the Government could be executed successfully with an arbitrary and rigid restriction of eight hours as the length of time that any laborer or mechanic could work in the course of one day.

Mr. MULL. Decidedly not; because aside from the fact that if it was possible for every man to work for eight hours every day, we have weather conditions in the winter and stormy weather in the summer when our mechanics can not make over two days a week. What are we going to do to make that up? When we take a contract to build a ship in forty months, I think I am safe in saying that we lose from weather conditions alone 15 per cent of that time; we have to make that up, and if we are restricted to eight hours for a day's work, it would be impossible to make that loss good. The Government holds for nondelivery. Aside from that we have other operations of construction on ships, launching and trial trips, installing of certain machinery, that would make it impossible for us to have the day cut to an eight-hour day; it would be impractical.

Mr. HAYDEN. Take one feature.

Mr. MULL. Take the feature of launching.