Mr. DETERICK. There are makes of it.

Mr. NICHOLLS. And then the Western Rosendale?

Mr. DETERICK. Yes, sir.

Mr. NICHOLLS. And the Eastern Rosendale?

It ap

Mr. DETERICK. Yes, sir. Those are not Portland cements. plies just the same to them as to any other. There are specific grades of cements that architects require in their specifications must be used, and you have to buy that in order to carry out that specification. Mr. NICHOLLS. Did you say there is a different composition in Western Rosendale?

Mr. DETERICK. I am not a cement expert, but there are different compositions of it, because it is made from a different stone-different conditions.

Mr. NICHOLLS. True; but suppose you wanted Western Rosendale; if you would order it by that name, you would get the same cement, would you not, from any quarry?

Mr. DETERICK. No, sir. Western Rosendale possibly might mean several grades made out West; defining it from the name alone, as I understand it, it would not be specified as Western Rosendale, but as to who makes that Rosendale; some particular manufacturer; that is the rule.

Mr. NICHOLLS. In your opinion, does the furnishing of that material come under the limitation of this proposed act?

Mr. DETERICK. I would judge that it does.

Mr. NICHOLLS. And that is why you object?

Mr. DETERICK. To that feature of it; that it affects every line of building construction and thereby is a restraint upon the freedom of the employer in executing his contract.

Mr. DREW. Do you know of any quarries on an eight-hour basis? Mr. DETERICK. I am not conversant enough with the subject to answer that question, except from hearsay; I do not know directly. Mr. DREW. Do you know of any tile factories on an eight-hour basis?

Mr. DETERICK. Most of them are.

Mr. DAVENPORT. You do not mean a rigid eight-hour day; you mean an eight-hour day with the privilege of working overtime? Mr. DETERICK. That is the way I understand it.

Mr. DAVENPORT. You understand that this bill is to cut off absolutely all overtime, the possibility of overtime?

Mr. DETERICK. That is the way I understood it.

Then again, another feature of it that comes to my mind is the question of the possibility of damage accruing from the inability of a contractor who takes a contract for Government work, or any other kind of work, executing his contract within the time required. It is a wellknown fact among employers of the building trades that organized labor does not do a full day's work based upon what record has been established by workmen who are not organized. So that we do not get eight hours' work a day as far as the men can perform it; and it has been the policy, in my experience, in a number of cases, where it has been necessary to carry out our contracts and get them through in the specified time, to work nights; otherwise to lay ourselves liable to a loss of liquidated damages. If we cut that off, we practically make ourselves so that we can not execute our contract according to the way it has worked. We can not get it done in the time required.

We would be interfered with very seriously in executing a Government contract which, as a general rule, specifies a certain time to be completed, and we are restrained to that extent.

Again, I think it is a hardship upon the workingman. I do not mean organized any more than I do any other kind of labor, from preventing any man from working as many hours as he wants to. I think it is an injustice upon the freedom of the individual as granted by the Constitution of this Government to say to any man that "you shall not work any more than eight hours a day."

STATEMENT OF MR. M. C. OSBORNE.

Mr. OSBORNE. I am a builder, and I represent the Association of Texas State Builders' Exchanges.

Mr. DREW. Does your association want this eight-hour law or not? Mr. OSBORNE. They passed a resolution at their last annual meeting of the State association protesting against this eight-hour law.

Mr. DREW. Do you think of any actual facts in connection with certain work that would be of interest to the committee in relation to this? While you have been listening here, has anything occurred to you?

Mr. OSBORNE. Not except in regard to planing-mill work; I am interested in a planing mill, and we have made a proposition to furnish some millwork.

Mr. DREW. For the Government?

Mr. OSBORNE. For the Government; and we work nine hours in our mill; that constitutes a day's work.

Mr. DREW. Let me ask you right there, does the proposition contemplate the furnishing of material that could be purchased in the open market, or would it have to be made specially?

Mr. OSBORNE. No; it would all have to be made specially, and if this bill should be passed and a law go into effect we would either have to withdraw our proposition or we would have to work eight hours, because we could not work eight hours on one kind of work and work part of the men more than eight hours on another part of the work. And then again we find, when we are crowded with work, we have to work overtime in order to get the material out on time.

Mr. DREW. Could you compete with mills working nine hours and having an overtime custom on private work, if you put your mill on a strict eight-hour basis?

Mr. OSBORNE. Oh, no; certainly not.

Mr. DREW. Then it would involve your giving up private work if you took Government work?

Mr. OSBORNE. Yes, sir.

STATEMENT OF MR. ALEX E. PEARSON, SECRETARY OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BUILDERS' EXCHANGES, OF WEST ORANGE, N. J.

Mr. PEARSON. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen: On the question of wages, for example, in the building trades, statistics compiled show that the builders of the United States have a weekly pay roll of some $20,000,000, amounting to the stupendous sum of $1,000,000,000 per year. A 10 per cent increase, even, of such figures, amounts to a great deal, as you can easily figure, that being only the laborer. The laborer's wages in the building trades are greater than any other two industries, that of iron and steel and textiles combined, and as a

purely money proposition of increasing hours and consequently decreasing output.

Mr. DREW. There is an eight-hour day generally now in the building industry, is there not?

Mr. PEARSON. In many branches.

Mr. DREW. We hope the men are earning what they are getting; the building industry is the largest, so that the pay roll ought to be the largest.

Mr. PEARSON. Yes.

Mr. EMERY. He understands that the eight hours in the building trades that is in general practice to-day is the standard work day; it is not the time to which men are limited.

Mr. PEARSON. It is the standard work day.

Mr. DREW. Do you know whether overtime is common in the building trades?

Mr. PEARSON. It is common in the building trade. In my position as boss carpenter in West Orange, my men are more than glad at all times to work overtime at, as has been said, pay and a half.

Mr. DREW. They seek those jobs where they can get overtime work? Mr. PEARSON. They do; most assuredly.

Mr. EMERY. Mr. Pearson, may I ask, in the State of New Jersey are you generally familiar with the prevailing system of working overtime there?

Mr. PEARSON. I have the honor to be the secretary of the State association, comprising some 3,000 members?

Mr. EMERY. That is, 3,000 employing members?

Mr. PEARSON. Employing builders.

Mr. EMERY. Have you any idea how many men they approximately employ?

Mr. PEARSON. The approximate employment is ten and one-half, we might say, to the man.

Mr. EMERY. It would be about 30,000 men?

Mr. PEARSON. Yes; in the building trades.

Mr. EMERY. Are you able to say from your knowledge and contact with the men in general employment whether they seek or avoid overtime?

Mr. PEARSON. I would emphatically say that they do seek to make, as has been said, a little extra money. A man worked for me several Last fall he was offered more money, because he could get work Sundays and nights, and he came home with big pay in his envelope; he left me at $4 a day to get the higher pay, because he could work more hours.

(Thereupon, at 4.05 o'clock p. m., the committee adjourned until to-morrow, Wednesday, March 4, 1906, at 8 o'clock p. m.)

Delegates to annual convention, and present at the hearing before Committee on Labor, Tuesday, March 3, 1908.

Delaware.-J. M. Phillips, O. W. Speer, James S. Hamilton.

Florida.-David Warrington, Jacksonville.

Maryland.—I. H. Scates, John Trainor, Baltimore.

Massachusetts.-Herder C. Wood.

New Jersey. Andrew Dickinson, Joseph F. Eilbacher, Alex E. Pearson.
New York.-B. D. Traitell, Lewis Harding, Ross F. Tucker, James M. Carter.
Pennsylvania.-E. J. Detrick, C. E. Woodnut, E. S. Williams, B. Griffen.
Tennessee.-I. N. Chambers.

Teras.-M. S. Osborne.

WEDNESDAY, March 4, 1908. The committee met at 2 o'clock p. m., Hon. John J. Gardner (chairman) in the chair.

STATEMENT OF MR. I. WALTER JENKS, GENERAL MANAGER OF THE BAR AND HOOP DEPARTMENT OF THE CARNEGIE STEEL COMPANY.

Mr. HAYDEN. Mr. Jenks, will you please state your name and occupation?

Mr. JENKS. I. Walter Jenks. I am general manager of the bar and hoop department of the Carnegie Steel Company.

Mr. HAYDEN. How long have you been connected with that company?

Mr. JENKS. Since 1901.

Mr. HAYDEN. What had been your experience in that line prior to that time?

Mr. JENKS. Since I came to America in 1880-I spent ten years previous to that in the mills in England. I filled almost every position from a boy, sweeping the floor, up to superintendent and general manager; roller, heater, and all the positions.

Mr. HAYDEN. You will continue, Mr. Jenks, and state your attitude toward this bill in your own way.

Mr. JENKS. All I want to say, gentlemen, is as to the inadvisability of passing this bill, and I might almost say the impossibility to us, as manufacturers of steel, of manufacturing steel for the Government under its conditions. I had the honor of appearing before a similar committee in 1903 and 1904 on the same subject. Since then I have talked probably with 50 of our men in all lines-mechanics, subforemen, superintendents, and on up to the president-inquiring how, if a bill of this nature were to be passed, it would be possible for us to operate, and in every case we came to the conclusion that we could not possibly do so. It would either mean a universal eight-hour day, or we should have to, sorry as we might be, decline to bid on Government work. As you take the process of steel at our works, it is simply impossible to work a part of our product on an eight-hour basis and part on a ten or twelve hour basis. Judge Payson spoke here just a moment ago about the impossibility of separating the work of a man working two machines, working on a piece of steel or iron for, say, an ordinary marine engine, and on one for a battle-ship engine. If you take the manufacture of steel (it does not matter where you start), you go down to the man who makes the steel, and you can not subdivide that.

It is the same in regard to running your engine. We have cases where one engineer looks after two engines. One of those engines. may be working on Government work for two or three hours, the other not working on Government work at all; so that if you follow it from the most simple positions all the way through to your subforeman, and even admitting that your administration force and your clerical force is exempt, say, if you cut it off there, just yoursubforeman and all the men all down the line, it is just simply impossible to divide it. I made the statement in 1904 that probably it could be done at an additional cost, but the cost would be prohibitive; it would be out of all reason to attempt to do it, and when you take 32796-08- -17

into consideration the amount of steel consumed by the Government in comparison with what is used by private interests it would amount to but 3 or 4 per cent.

Then, another thing that has worried us a very great deal is as to where the responsibility would commence and where it would cease. With a great deal of this steel which we sell to the Government under my jurisdiction we take the place of subcontractors. Suppose the inspector reports from a mill in any department of the Carnegie Steel Company that on that product a man worked over eight hours, and a fine of $5 was imposed; that fine would be charged against the contractor. Then he in turn would have to try to collect from the subcontractor, and it complicates everything. I do not see how it could be done at all.

Mr. PAYSON. Before you leave that point, may I ask you a question? Mr. JENKS. Yes, sir; go ahead. I wish you would.

Mr. PAYSON. Is it not a fact that in competition among the ironworkers and manufacturers to-day that competition is so close that the margin of profit in the manufacture of what will go into Government work from you as a subcontratcor would be so small that it would be no inducement whatever for you to take any contract and assume all these embarrassing positions for the little profit you would make out of it, if there is nothing else in it?

Mr. JENKS. Of course I am not the executive of the company, but personally, no; I would never touch it; could not possibly afford to touch it; it would not only be dollars and cents, it would be the disorganization of the whole system. It is not the case of a few dollars; probably we could afford to present the Government with a few dollars.

Mr. PAYSON. You are not asked to do that, or ought not to be. Mr. JENKS. But do you not see that it would disorganize the thing from beginning to end? And then another thing: I have a son just come out of college last fall; he is in the engineering department, a boy trying to get along, and he was given a piece of work, to see how he would get it out. The boy took his work home, he got so interested. I do not want you to put a limit on what that boy shall do; I do not want to take the energy out of him, the pride in his work. I have never seen anybody hurt working twelve hours yet; I work a great many more very often, and I started when I was 13 years old at that. Of course it kind of dwarfed my size a little bit, but I got through all right. [Laughter.]

There is one other point I would like to speak of, and that is in both the times I have appeared here I went away with this impression, that the gentlemen around this board felt that a man working in a steel works had to work so hard that he could hardly walk home. We have not got any of those positions left. Years and years ago we did have a few positions that were very hard. To-day that is all done by machinery; it is just a matter of pushing a button for an electric crane, or a lever, or something of that sort, and I guarantee you can not take any line of business-you take a girl standing in a department store, and she is more tired than our men when they go home at night. We may have one or two positions a little harder than others, but the man sleeps well at night, and I do not see that it hurts him; it did not hurt me.