Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

the cost of articles to the Government; how is it going to affect the business done by the Government; what is to be the effect upon the manufacturer; what is to be the effect upon any particular line of industry? Those questions were all propounded by this committee to the Department of Commerce and Labor when Mr. Metcalf was the Secretary of that Department, and his answers to them are all embodied in a letter addressed to this committee, and in this connection and as a part of my remarks I would ask to have inserted the answers to those questions, being pages 1 to 6 of the "Report by the Hon. Victor H. Metcalf, Secretary, Department Commerce and Labor, on H. R. 4064 (eight-hour bill), submitted by resolution by the Committee on Labor of the House of Representatives, April 13, 1904." You will see that in every instance the answer is that it is impossible to tell what the effect of the bill will be. This committee will therefore, if it reports this bill, report it in the face of the fact that the appointed officer of the Government to investigate these matters has reported that its injurious effects are not to be ascertained; and I submit to this committee as business men, as sensible legislators, having in charge the interests of the people of this country, that such legislation as that ought not to be attempted for that reason. It is not because people ask for the enactment of a law that it should be enacted. It is not because some scheme is proposed that it should be at once adopted. No such action should be taken until it can be known what the probable result will be. To make definite the point on that subject I will call your attention to these questions, which are vital. The first question that was propounded to the Secretary of Commerce and Labor was this:

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?

To that he answered as follows:

It is clearly impossible to give a definite answer to this question. Manufacturers having contracts with the Government have, in answering this question, 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 daily 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 quantity of product per man in establishments engaged in part on Government contracts under an eight-hour day and in part under a longer day upon commercial 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.

A natural question is what effect it is going to have upon the manufacturing interests affected by the provisions of the bill. The following question was asked:

2. What damage, if any, would be done to the manufacturing interests affected by the provisions of the bill, if enacted?

To that he answered as follows:

This inquiry can not be answered definitely, for the same reasons as are stated in connection with the first inquiry. Although several manufacturers who would not be affected by the bill, should it be enacted, have given testimony that there has been no decrease in product resulting from a decrease in hours of labor, the majority giving testimony upon this point state the reverse.

Here is another very important question for you to consider:

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 the said bill.

His answer was:

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 therefrom. The majority of those who have expressed opinions, which are tabulated in the report, are confident that they could not continue to contract with the Government if such contracts were within the peremptory eight-hour limitation provided by the bill.

Then there is a question relating to the shipbuilding industry, which interest, as I understand, is specially represented here before the committee.

The extract from the report referred to by Mr. Davenport is here inserted in the record in full, as follows:

LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL.

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND LABOR,
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY,
Washington, January 27, 1905.

SIR: In compliance with the request contained in your letter of April 13, 1904, transmitting 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 Columbia, and for other purposes," and also a resolution of your Committee on Labor passed April 7, 1904, requesting the Secretary of Commerce and Labor to investigate and report upon the bill, and to state his conclusions with regard to the questions embodied in the resolution, I beg to submit herewith the results of the investigation which has been conducted under the direct supervision of the Commissioner of Labor.

The report consists of seven chapters, as follows:

I. Introduction.

II. Replies of Government contractors to questions of the resolution.

III. Results under eight-hour work day at Brooklyn Navy-Yard compared with results under ten-hour day at Newport News, Va., in battle-ship construction. IV. Actual results of production under reduced hours of work in various manufacturing establishments.

V. Attitude of labor organizations.

VI. Laws relating to hours of labor in the United States.

VII. Changes in hours of labor in the United States.

In pursuing this investigation the Department has been guided by the advice of its Solicitor as to the scope of the bill, a copy of whose opinion is incorporated in the report. From this it will be seen that there were very few industries embraced within the limitations of the bill to which inquiries could be directed.

The resolution requests me to state my conclusions in regard to the questions therein presented. The difficulty of securing specific data for full and satisfactory answers to the questions is clearly shown in the report. Most of the inquiries are in their very nature practically unanswerable in the manner called for by the resolution. Many of the responses which have been made are in the form of personal opinions from parties interested, and the facts which have been secured are not sufficiently conclusive to warrant definite expression on my part. I believe, however, your committee will obtain from the report valuable information, which will be of material assistance in determining the probable effect of the proposed bill upon the industries referred to and upon industries not comprehended in the resolution.

A brief reference is here made to each question.

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?" It is clearly impossible to give a definite answer to this question. Manufacturers having contracts with the Government have, in answering this question, 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 daily 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 quantity of product per man in establishments engaged in part on Government contracts under an eight-hour day and in part under a longer day upon commercial 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.

2. "What damage, if any, would be done to the manufacturing interests affected by the provisions of the bill, if enacted?" This inquiry can not be answered definitely for the same reasons as are stated in connection with the first inquiry. Although several manufacturers who would not be affected by the bill, should it be enacted, have given testimony that there has been no decrease in product resulting from a decrease in hours of labor, the majority giving testimony upon this point state the reverse. 3. "Whether manufactures 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 the said bill?" 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 therefrom. The majority of those who have expressed opinions, which are tabulated in the report, are confident that they could not continue to contract with the Government if such contracts were within the peremptory eight-hour limitation provided by the bill.

4. "What would be the effect of the enactment of said bill upon the shipbuilding industry?" 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 enactment upon such establishment in this industry as are under contract with the United States Government or upon those establishments which are not under contract.

5. "What would be the effect of the enactment of said bill, if any, upon the export trade of the country?" This inquiry is likewise not susceptible of definite reply. The influences which affect the export trade are so far-reaching and so numerous that it would be impossible even after the most extended investigation to determine the weight which could be assigned to any one of these influences. The condition of foreign markets, as well as variations in cost of production, affects the export trade to a greater or less extent from time to time, and there are very many other influences which could be cited to show how the export trade is affected without reference to the hours of labor in this country. All of these things are too problematical to admit of any definite data applicable to an answer.

46

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?" 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 could be more definitely informed as to the respects in which they would be affected by the proposed legislation. Attempts were made to secure definite information as to the attitude of working people on the sixth question of your resolution. The results are contained in Chapter V.

7. "What effect will the proposed legislation have, if any, upon the agricultural interests of the country?" The same difficulties are met within 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. The agricultural interests of the country depend upon so many conditions foreign markets, short crops in foreign countries, famine, weather, etc., etc., that the peculiarities involved preclude answering this question.

I assure you that every effort has been made to secure definite and conclusive data, but the very nature of the questions has prevented such results.

Respectfully,

Hon. J. J. GARDNER,

V. H. METCALF, Secretary.

Chairman Committee on Labor, House of Representatives.

Now, I want to submit to the committee another suggestion, and that is that it is utterly impossible for any person to tell, be he Government officer, be he contractor, be he legislator or not, what things are covered by this bill. Of course some of the members of this committee have been familiar for years with the discussions that have taken place upon the provisions of the Gardner bill, and the attempt of this bill is to except all but a few industries from its operation, it being overwhelmingly established that all those other interests would be disastrously affected, and that the Government of the United States would practically come to a standstill if they were included in this bill, because the whole business of this country would have to be readjusted upon an eight-hour basis before the Government could go into the market and buy the things necessary for the use of its innumerable departments. But in the very attempt to except those particular industries, confusion worse confounded is introduced into this bill. I remember very well-and it is interesting to recur to the record on these things-the colloquy that occurred here between Mr. Gardner and others upon this, and in those days Mr. Gardner was not in favor of inserting in the bill what he has now inserted in it; and he sought light, and strange to say he sought light upon it not from the advocates of the bill but from the opponents of it. I am not able at this moment to turn to the question which he propounded, and I will proceed with the bill. What is covered by this exception in the bill? That nothing in this act shall apply to contracts * for such materials or articles as may usually be bought in open market, whether made to conform to particular specifications or not.

*

*

What is "open market?" What is intended to be covered by that class of articles? Materials such as can be bought in open market, and articles which may be bought in the open market "whether made to conform to particular specifications or not."

Mr. VREELAND. Are you reading from the present bill?

Mr. DAVENPORT. The present bill; yes, sir. This was inserted in the bill, this proposed legislation, by the action of the Senate committee. The present bill is the bill recommended to be passed by the Committee on Education and Labor in the Senate. It was the bill that was before this committee in 1904. In 1906 the old Gardner bill was before this committee, in view of the difficulties that had been injected into the matter, in view of the changes that had been introduced in the bill in the Senate. But I ask any man of business sense and judgment what is covered here. Remember, now, you are laying down a rule for the Executive Departments of this Government and the officers of this Government to follow. How can they keep house under such a bill as this, with this vague language, "or for the purchase of supplies by the Government, whether manufactured to conform to particular specifications or not?" What are supplies? The ordinary definition of "supplies" is anything that fills a want-a habitual want, perhaps, of the Government; the necessities of the Government. And there is no limitation possible under the language of this bill or from anything in the context of the bill. It would apparently be broad enough to nullify the first provisions of the act. Of course the courts would not so construe it if they could help it. They would say, of course, that if possible the first and second sections must be construed so as to stand together. But what should it cover? Now the obliga

32796-08-2

tion is, in the first place, upon the officer of the Government to determine that matter, whether the contract he is about to make is within the purview of this act. The next thing is for the contractor to determine whether or not he can afford to take the risk which is involved in the mistaken interpretation of this act by the officer of the Government. So it would appear to a man of common sense, however much he might desire to promote the objects sought to be obtained by the passage of this bill, that it is unwise to enact such a law; and I take my stand here and I appeal to the members of this committee in determining this question to act upon it as business men and as officers of the Government responsible to the people for the proper exercise of their governmental duties, in directing a matter of so great importance as this. And what is meant by this clause in section 2, line 15:

No penalties shall be imposed for any violation of such provision in such contract due to any emergency caused by fire, famine, or flood, by danger to life or to property, or by other extraordinary event or condition.

What meaning can the committee give to such language? What meaning can the officer of the Government give to it?

Mr. VREELAND. Such an extraordinary event would be a war or earthquake.

Mr. DAVENPORT. That would certainly be an extraordinary event, but there is a provision as to war, a special provision. It says:

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.

The proper officer officer may waive it in that case. But here is an absolute provision. It says:

No penalties shall be imposed for any violation of such provision in such contract due to any emergency caused by fire, famine, or flood, by danger to life or to property, or by other extraordinary event or condition.

My own interpretation of that is that anything unusual, anything out of the ordinary, would be a cause for the exemption of the party from any penalty. But what may they do? How is anybody ever going to tell anything about it? You must remember you are laying down a chart for the officers of this Government to act upon, to be their guide. They are your servants, and to impose upon them the difficulties and obscurities that are involved in this act is something that ought not to be done.

Gentlemen, I want to talk a little now about the principle involved in this bill. What is the object of it? The object of it is hardly disguised. It is to take away from the people of this country, both the working people and the employers, the liberty of contract which they have always enjoyed. It is a direct blow at that liberty, or, as the Supreme Court says, at their right of property.

The workingman has got his labor to sell. The Supreme Court says it is his stock in trade; it is his capital. He ought to be free to work more than eight hours a day if he sees fit. This bill applies to all kinds of work, whether it is deleterious or not. Why, I say, and I say it deliberately, that if the working people of this country understood what is involved in this bill, that it strikes down their right to work more than eight hours a day for overtime pay if they see fit, they would rise up against it. If you ever have, or ever have had,

« AnteriorContinuar »