keep on hearing evidence until it is too late to do anything with it, and I think that the latter alternative ought never to be resorted to, because this committee is being criticized from sea to sea on account of that very thing. . The argument is being advanced that witnesses are being produced here simply for the purpose of delaying this hearing until everybody can escape responsibility-members of the committee and everybody else, by simply saying: "We had to hear everybody, and they consumed so much time that we could not get it on the floor so that Congress could consider it." That is the reason why I have suggested that these gentlemen should all get a hearing, if anyone has anything new, that is not merely cumulative. I am in favor of hearing them. But a court of justice would not sit and hear witness after witness if the testimony added nothing and was simply cumulative. There is a way of limiting it there, in all the States and in all the courts, and we ought to limit it here in some way. Mr. NICHOLLS. I would like to say a word on this point. I want to say that I am opposed to continuing the hearings any further than we have arranged to continue them. The working people of the country know that legislation of this kind is killed in committee; they know that the members of the committee hide behind the fact that they have been importuned for hearings. I have had some experience in getting legislation before committees, and that is the way to kill it when no other way will avail, and as one of the committee I want to go on record as in favor of standing by the decision the committee has already made. This bill has been heard before this committee for several years, I am informed, and the same evidence has been given over and over and over again, interspersed with a lot of stuff that is not relevant at all to the question. So far, all I have heard here has been repeated almost by each witness the same as the one preceding, bearing upon the fact that they do not understand the interpretation of the bill, and yet they believe that it will prevent them from making contracts, and they fear that the eighthour day adopted in the Government work will affect their industry and compel them to also give an eight-hour day to their employees, whether they are doing work for the Government or not.

As one of the committee I have heard sufficient on that point, I think, to judge from, and the other members of the committee have been on it, most of them, for several years, and I think they have also heard enough, and we ought to take some responsibility upon ourselves as a committee. I think that the members of this committee also have some judgment; they are given the responsibility, at least, to decide, and I think that they are eminently able, after what they have heard, to decide as to the merits of this question, and I think we ought to do that. For one I am willing to take the responsibility of deciding, but I feel that the rest of the committee ought to also. If we report the bill to the House, there will still be an opportunity for either House to present the case through the representatives who may vouch for the bill or who stand in opposition to it. I favor reporting the bill, so that the Members of Congress will have a chance to vote for the bill. That is my attitude from what I have heard. I believe we have heard about all that can be said, and I am against having this hearing continued so that the bill may be held so long that it will not be reported. At another session I think the bill was reported to the House, but on the last day

of Congress, and of course could not be considered by the Senate, and the workingmen say that that is the tactics of the employers in such matters. I am unqualifiedly opposed to continuing the hearings any longer.

The CHAIRMAN. It still remains true that in the condition of the calendar nothing can be lost by devoting next Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday to the hearings if the committee so desire. We know the condition of the calendar and we know, whatever may be the talk by suspicious people, from sea to sea or elsewhere, that no delay can result by the adding of the three days that have been specifically applied for next week.

Mr. EMERY. I feel, in view of the interests which I represent before the committee, that there is one word due in justice to them, and I want to say that, on the part of one who has produced the largest number of witnesses here, that the committee will observe from the record that no witness who has ever appeared before this committee before has appeared here at this time; that the interests which have appeared here have been, in a nature, quite different from those that have been present at any other session, and instead of trying to take the time of the committee, it has been the effort of the attorneys representing the protestants on this bill, to save the time of the committee. We have been overwhelmed with requests from all parts of the United States, to secure an opportunity to make a protest to this committee, from gentlemen who are very deeply concerned because they are the employers of thousands of men and represent the investments of millions of dollars, and I do not hesitate to say that when the term "workingmen" is used, that of course it is meant the organized working men. The organized working men have declared that they want a bill of this kind passed, and by their actions have declared that they want overtime. Consequently we have presented to you, through the representative employers, thousands upon thousands of workingmen in opposition to this bill, who are not represented by any gentleman who appears here as a proponent of the bill; but when it is said that the workingmen of this country favor this kind of legislation and this bill, we desire to say in protest to it, that we have offered the testimony of thousands of men who are not represented by any organization that has appeared here as a proponent of this bill, who do not favor it by their practice, and this is a time, gentlemen, when action speaks louder than words.

The CHAIRMAN. I think it is fair to say that the evidence so far produced before this committee has been more to the specific point, more directed at something, than any line of hearings that has ever been before it on this subject.

Mr. PAYSON. I desire to indorse this, having been with this movement in opposition to this legislation for many years. I indorse earnestly and cordially the observation of the chairman in that regard.

STATEMENT OF MR. HERBERT J. WEST, OF BALTIMORE, MD.

Mr. SCATES. Mr. Chairman, I beg to introduce to this committee one of our prominent members, a large contractor on Government. work, Mr. Herbert J. West, who represents the Baltimore Ferro Concrete Company, who built a great many of the public buildings at Annapolis.

Mr. WEST. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, as a member of the Builders' Exchange, and president of the Baltimore Ferro Concrete Company, a large corporation making a specialty of reinforced concrete construction and having built five or six structures for the Government at Annapolis of that construction, we want to enter our protest against the enactment of this bill on the same grounds, practically, that the gentlemen before me have enumerated. I further want to say that by the very reason of this eight-hour law, there is now ten or twelve thousand dollars retained by the Government there on account of delays, which have practically been caused by this eight-hour law. We have recently finished a contract there with the Government, on which contract there were only two competitors by reason of this same eight-hour law, and if this thing goes on, we shall certainly be obliged to withdraw from any competition on this character of work, as every particle of material that enters into that construction comes from large mills, and is largely special work gotten out by special specifications, and that would prohibit our entering into such contract.

The CHAIRMAN. Just indicate how you have been delayed in the past contracts by the eight-hour law.

Mr. WEST. By its being impossible to get a suitable number of workmen at this point, so that we could carry on this work.

The CHAIRMAN. To do the work in eight hours a day; that is the point?

Mr. WEST. Yes, sir. If this clause in there applying to mechanics is construed as we think it is to be construed, that would reach every officer of our organization, as each and everyone of them is considered a mechanic; we are obliged to go over the work at all times, day and night, and we could not confine ourselves to an eight-hour proposition. Mr. Haskins. Do you have any difficulty about securing men to work eight hours; at least such men as you want?

Mr. WEST. No; except in small places such as this town in which this work has been done-Annapolis. We have had no difficulty in securing any number of men who wanted to work nine or ten hours. Most of our men are men of that character; they are concreters who have to be trained in this character of work. It is a growing industry, and there have been millions and millions of dollars expended in the last ten years. It is almost entirely superseding other characters of construction. It requires a certain amount of training in the laboring classes, and these men invariably want to work nine or ten hours.

Mr. HASKINS. That is what I wanted to know, whether the men wanted to confine themselves to the eight-hour work, or wanted to work longer, and for that reason you could not get as many men as you wanted, because they wanted to go to other jobs.

Mr. WEST. Exactly; the eight-hour day is a day the men we employ do not want. We work them overtime and they want to work overtime. We have other difficulties in working for the Government, but inasmuch as we are obliged to work these men only eight hours, it is almost impossible for us to keep the same character of men in other sections of the adjacent country to do the work. When they find this condition they want to be put on the eight-hour day, although they desire to work nine hours.

Mr. NICHOLLS. Tell us what causes them to desire to work an eight-hour day when they want to work a nine?

Mr. WEST. It is simply a matter of habit with them, I suppose. The CHAIRMAN. You mean they prefer to work the longer day for greater pay?

Mr. WEST. The longer day for greater pay; it is a very short work for them. Oftentimes these works are in remote sections, which takes a long time for them to reach their work, and the eighthour day is a very short day.

Mr. HASKINS. You can not work beyond eight hours in your contracts with the Government?

Mr. WEST. No.

Mr. HASKINS. So if the men want to work longer, they can not? Mr. WEST. No; and for that very reason we can not get a full quota of men on this work, especially in a small place. That is about all I wish to say.

The CHAIRMAN. Let us get that clear. You do not get the full quota of men to work eight hours; that is because you can not pay as much for the eight hours as for the longer day; that is the reason of it, is it not?

Mr. WEST. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. You do not pay as much?

Mr. WEST. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. What is the difference?

Mr. WEST. We usually pay as much, the laborers usually demand the same for an eight-hour day as for a nine-hour day in another

section.

STATEMENT OF MR. F. S. CHAVAUNES, OF THE CHESAPEAKE IRON WORKS, OF BALTIMORE, MD.

Mr. SCATES. Mr. Chairman, with the disposition to bring before you, as I said before, the various lines that are represented, I desire now to present one of our members who is the president of a large corporation in the iron business in Baltimore, and in order that he may show the troubles that this particular bill would work in the organization of his factory, Mr. Chavaunes, of the Chesapeake Iron Works.

Mr. CHAVAUNES. Mr. Chairman, as an officer and member of the Builders' Exchange of Baltimore, and president of the Chesapeake Iron Works, I simply want to add my protest to the enactment of a bill of this character, which will make it obligatory, on a concern conducting a manufacturing business, to operate under the eighthour basis. The special reason why we object to it as manufacturers is from the very fact that it is impracticable to segregate the work.

I want to be more specific, for fear that the gentlemen of the committee are not familiar with the manufacturing processes. We will start from the very initial point, when we unload a car of material. The carload of material comes in from the mill; it is ordered from time to time, and in making up the shipment they will combine the Government material with the private material. When the material comes in on the track there is a question involved-the unloading of that car. We employ men who do nothing but go through the unloading process, who of necessity have to unload both lots of material. There, at the very initial point, we are confronted

with the proposition. Then as we go through the fabricating of that material, we start off with the laying off of that material-I am eliminating the designing of it and all that we start off with the laying off of the material--that is, we have templets and drawings that we draw from, and we indicate the sizes and the location of the holes; we have men skilled in that particular branch of the business. You see how impracticable it would be where this man is employed to take the work as it comes through from the unloading of the car and goes through the shops. It would be impracticable to designate him for one piece of work and then another man for another piece of work-Government work. He would simply have to work on the Government work alone, or else, if we did not have enough Government work, he would be idle for several hours during the day, because he could not do anything else.

When we get to the machinery, we have a man at the machines; that man operates the machines, and he does the work as the work comes through. It has to come very promiscuously in an establishment of that kind; and, as a consequence, the Government work comes along, and it will be impossible for that man to work, for the minute he touches that work he could only work eight hours in that establishment. The whole establishment would simply be disorganized from that standpoint. It seems impracticable from my point of view to segregate the work and work a certain number of hours on the Government and a certain number of hours on the private work.

In the next place, it would have a tendency to cause dissatisfaction among the employees. One man working eight hours and another nine, there would be jealousies, and it stands to reason it would simply upset an establishment. What would that imply? It would simply mean this, that a concern that was doing practically nothing but Government business would step out of the Government business altogether. We would simply have to deny ourselves the privilege, as citizens of this country, of partaking in the opportunity of supplying the Government a part of their requirements, for the simple reason is that it would be impossible, if we undertook the work, to arrange it without being subjected to these fines; it would be impossible. It strikes me that from that point alone it would seem that that was sufficient reason for this committee not to report this bill.

There is another feature about that matter, and that is the fact that to-day, together with all other manufacturers, we are shut down. Why? For the reason that we have had such an amount of legislation, such an amount of agitation, that it has disorganized and disrupted everything, and we are out of business, we are suffering. The laborers and the mechanics, unfortunately, are suffering with us; the only difference is that as a rule the manufacturer is a little more foresighted and has provided himself for these contingencies, while the average mechanic spends as he goes, and as a consequence he is suffering, and this agitation, in the way of trying to force on us a limited number of hours, is only reacting on them all the time; this starting of an agitation is causing capital to be withheld and is causing suffering. It does appear to me that from the very fact that while we were prosperous it was almost impossible to employ enough good mechanics to conduct your business, working on a nine-hour basis as we are working, it does seem to me as if when this