The CHAIRMAN. I can see that it would make a difference in administration perhaps, but I doubt whether it has any legal effect.

Mr. PAYSON. That goes to show how gentlemen will differ. I have no more doubt than that I am sitting here that if those words should be stricken out I could prepare a plan for the workmen so that every man could work as long as he pleased, and there could not be a dollar of penalty collected. That is simply a difference of opinion.

The CHAIRMAN. In saying that, do you mean to say any more than that you could devise a technical evasion?

Mr. PAYSON. I would not call it a substantial compliance with the law itself. Without going into details and speaking just on the threshold, on the impulse of the moment, we make a contract with the men requiring them to work eight hours a day; that would be the limit of their day's labor so far as the requirement was concerned, but we would offer them the option of overtime just as every union permits, except one. I do not mean to say that in our plan we would give ten hours' pay for eight hours' work, but a reduction in the price of labor corresponding to the reduction in the time, and then an agreement to work overtime for a nominal amount, a time and a half or double time.

The CHAIRMAN. I should think that the evasion would be rather a delicate experiment.

Mr. PAYSON. I do not think so.

The CHAIRMAN. You would have to consider the kind of thing touched, to wit, a man's labor, his job; as to whether the thing was not devised in a way that it would practically amount to a requirement; would be so delicate that I should hesitate a very long time before I would have anything to do with it.

Mr. DAVENPORT. Suppose the men petitioned that they would like to make overtime on this job and the boss said, "All right; go ahead." Would not that be a violation of the law?

The CHAIRMAN. I will answer yes, with the remark that if it should be shown by a trial that that petition was brought about by influences which we could readily imagine we would still be up against the question whether that was tantamount to a requirment. Mr. DAVENPORT. Would it not be voluntary?

The CHAIRMAN. In the way you stated; yes, sir.

Mr. DAVENPORT. It would be a violation of the law?

The CHAIRMAN. No; it would not be.

It was

Mr. DAVENPORT. Exactly the reverse was held in Kansas. shown that the men asked for the work, and the court said that that was a violation of the law, and the Supreme Court of the United States held that.

The CHAIRMAN. That would all turn on how that statute reads. Mr. DAVENPORT. That had these very words "or permitted." The CHAIRMAN. Yes; but we are discussing what would be the effect of the bill with the words stricken out.

(Thereupon, at 3.45 o'clock p. m., the committee adjourned until tomorrow. Thursday, March 5, 1908, at 2 o'clock p. m.)

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

STATEMENT OF MR. ROBERT J. DAVIS, OPERATING MANAGER OF THE AMERICAN BRIDGE COMPANY.

Mr. EMERY. Mr. Davis, will you state your connection with the American Bridge Company?

Mr. DAVIS. Õperating manager of the eastern division, which includes all plants east of Pittsburg.

Mr. EMERY. About how many plants are operated by the American Bridge Company?

Mr. DAVIS. About 16 active plants.

Mr. EMERY. Can you give the committee an idea of their extent by stating the location?

Mr. DAVIS. From the New England States to the Central West. Mr. EMERY. In what cities are they?

Mr. DAVIS. They are located in Chicago, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, St. Louis, Toledo, Canton, Detroit, Pittsburg; Ambridge, Pa.; Buffalo, Albany; Portland, Conn.; Brooklyn, N. Y.; Trenton, N. J.; Philadelphia, Pa., and Wilmington, Del.

Mr. EMERY. What, approximately, is the amount of labor employed by the American Bridge Company?

Mr. DAVIS. From 15,000 to 20,000 men.

Mr. EMERY. And they are especially engaged in what?

Mr. DAVIS. In the fabrication of structural steel.

Mr. EMERY. Are you probably the largest producers of structural steel in the United States?

Mr. DAVIS. Yes; by a good percentage.

Mr. EMERY. It is probably true that you supply, both in public and private construction, most of the structural steel, or the greater part of the structural steel, in use?

Mr. DAVIS. In use, yes; a greater percentage of the structural steel.

Mr. EMERY. You also conduct an erecting department, do you not? Mr. DAVIS. Yes; for the erection of such structures as we have contracts for.

Mr. EMERY. Would you supply structural steel in Government buildings?

Mr. DAVIS. Yes; your Office Building for the House of Representatives and various other structures in times gone by; also for the Philippines, for that matter; your coaling stations in the Philippines at the present time; both export and domestic work.

Mr. EMERY. What was that about the Philippines?

Mr. DAVIS. We are now constructing, through J. D. White & Co., of New York, the structural steel for the Philippine coaling stations. Mr. EMERY. How many stations?

Mr. DAVIS. I can not say that; but one I am sure of-one large

one.

Mr. EMERY. You have read and examined the proposed House 15651 from the standpoint of a practical business man en your line of industry, have you not?

32796-08-18

Mr. DAVIS. Yes.

Mr. EMERY. Will you kindly state to the committee your views of that bill?

Mr. DAVIS. From the standpoint of the fabrication of structural steel the bill is absolutely impossible to be complied with, and it is unnecessary for me to say, in connection with that, that it comes principally as a protest. If such articles could be bought in the open market, if we considered that our product could be purchased in the open market, we would not make any objection to the bill, but our product can not be purchased in the open market.

It might be well for me to explain why I say it is impossible to fabricate structural material under the provisions of this bill. In the first place, structural material has many preliminary processes before it is finished. For instance, leaving out the drafting of it after the plans have been completed, we have to make templets, or what would usually be called "patterns," the same as you would make a pattern for a dress, although this is a pattern for the design of the structure you desire.

Mr. PAYSON. Before you leave that, this templet is complete as to the shape that the metal is to be, and also as to the necessary borings for fastening to its corresponding fixture?

Mr. DAVIS. Absolutely every connection and detail which later may enter into its fabrication, so far as the location of the hole is concerned, to absolute perfection, not a sixty-fourth of an inch variation; we do not allow any variation. From there it goes to the laying-out department. This templet is placed on whatever piece of material it may be, from 6 inches to 60 or 80 or 90 feet in length-that is, with a center prick upon it, you take the templet and mark distinctly on this iron where it is to be later drilled or punched. After that operation it goes to the punchers, and it is there punched wherever it is indicated, or sheared, scarfed, or whatever may be necessary is done. From there it goes to our assembling or fitting-up departments; there it is assembled. These various shapes and sizes of structural steel are made on one principle; they may be a truss or column or girder or shoe or any one of the numerous structural productions. After that it goes to the riveting department, and there it is riveted up. Then it goes out into the yard for finishing, painting, and loading.

To show how preposterous it would be to consider a provision of this kind in a plant of this kind, or in a shop where fabrication is carried on, I will go into it a little more particularly. For instance, if we were to run a structure like the office building of the House of Representatives, which makes it necessary for our field force to be kept in operation, as to the building and laying operations, to do that right we must run it through constantly. We take one story at a time and run the columns and girders and all constructions through. You can see that if we were to run eight hours and do that and from fifteen up to forty jobs in the shop at the same time, it could not be accomplished for this reason; we would be following along with a girder for the Government suspended on a riveter; the whistle blows, the crane boy leaves his crane; here is a valuable piece of mechanism, but he leaves this girder suspended. We do not have double turns, therefore you can see how preposterous it would be. He can not lower it; he leaves, with the possible expense of having the thing drop

and destroyed, or even killing some one. Suppose we had one of those girders on a planer and it came to 4 o'clock in the afternoon; he would have to stop that right where it was; he could not take that piece off the machine and go on an additional hour, because he had taken eight hours. By the time he would have taken that off the machine and placed another on, the hour would be up. It is from an economical standpoint; it means the stoppage of everything that comes behind it. We must run a thing in 'sequence right through the shop.

To show you another thing, supposing we were painting in the yard and it came along to the time that he should stop on this Government work; we were using a certain kind of specified paint on that work. This paint is, perhaps, of a different pigment, a different mixture, a different color, than on any other work in the yard. Does he stop with this half painted, walk back to the oil house, and fill his cans with something else? We can not allow him to do that; we can not lose that time. Go from there into the loading. We are loading a car with material. We have limited yards; our yards being limited, we have two cars, or three, and we are loading this material. The time comes when we have to stop. Do we pull these cars out of the yard, perhaps wait on the railroad company, or will we let them lie in our yard at a great cost to us? No, we will not take Government work; it is utterly impossible; if we let the cars lie, there is the demurrage which accrues.

I think that will cover our operations, so far as the shop is concerned, and show you really how impossible it is to work under such a restriction. I might show further, while we keep an accurate time from the standpoint of piece work as to what a man does in his nine or ten hours' work-he may punch 5,000 holes on Government workhow would we determine whether he punched that in seven hours or in nine hours, depending on the classification of the work? Further, we base this time keeping on a day's work. Supposing we base it on 3,000 holes. Supposing that man is able to do 5,000; would you say he worked overtime because he did more than that? It comes to a personal equation, and the man who has any strength of character, or what you call a "good laborer," would give us no trouble. As an illustration, before I came to this company they had passed an order by which the men were to receive the same compensation for nine hours that they did for ten. I had not been with the company six months before I had petitions from many of the shops through the managers requesting me to let them work ten hours.

The CHAIRMAN. On the basis of the nine-hour unit?

Mr. DAVIS. Naturally. That is a simple proposition, because reducing it to nine gave them approximately a 10 per cent increase on that basis; working ten hours, you can appreciate the increase in the wages. I said, "No." The instructions had come from above, but I compromised by letting them work ten hours a day and working half a day on Saturday.

Mr. EMERY. Do we understand that those petitions originated spontaneously with the workmen?

Mr. DAVIS. Absolutely so. My idea was to continue six days in the week at so many hours. We leave it to the men now whether they will work nine hours a day for six days, or work ten hours and to noon on Saturday, and we have not a plant in the eastern division,

which I represent, which does not work, just I told you, ten hours per day.

Mr. EMERY. Just there, may I ask what are the general relations between your employees and the company, pleasant or otherwise?

Mr. DAVIS. The general relations are pleasant. I will give you an illustration. About two years ago, when the employees in all the structural shops in New York and Brooklyn struck for more wages and different hours, the Brooklyn plant was the only plant that not a rivet boy left. They called it a scab shop, and there was not any pressure put on them. One riveter said, "Hell, we know when we are used right. I am making $4 a day for piecework, and I never made that before. We are not going to strike; we know when we are satisfied." It is as plain as the nose on your face that if we use a man that way the great employers in this particular line of work in the United States know they must use their men the same or they will get the scum of the trade and we will get the best, and what is the consequence? They can not produce the goods and will not be in competition. It is easy to see that, because it means that one person must follow the other.

Further on in the bill it says, "For such materials or articles as may usually be bought in the open market." I maintain that you can not purchase fabricated structural steel in the open market, as I interpret this. I understand what you can buy in the open market. You could buy a 37 coat or a 7 shoe, a commodity that is in the market for sale, but we are not clairvoyants enough to locate what particular composition appears in a rivet or the Government requirements of a chattel or anything of that kind; neither are we clairvoyants enough to have a twelve-story building ready to build on a lot about 100 by 200 by 15 feet, like the Flatiron Building, approximately. If it were a commodity, if it were a thing you could usually buy in the market, you could do that. You can not to-day go to any place in the United States and buy a beam that will fit across that space [indicating], with its connections. You can buy the beam, because it is in the open market, and cut it the length, but when you come to figure the strength necessary to carry that weight, to know what sized beam and the proper connections to go with it, you can not do it. It is not in the market, gentlemen.

The CHAIRMAN. Let us see what your idea is. You used the illustration of the coat?

Mr. DAVIS. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. You would hold, then, under your construction of the bill, that if you were measured for the coat

Mr. DAVIS. No; I would not. I would hold a commodity in the open market that usually can be bought or purchased by going to the store and purchasing it. I do not hold that when you find that you can not get a pattern to suit you and you go and buy a piece of cloth to your liking and the trimmings and the buttons, you can buy the materials in the open market, but you can not buy the coat. have to have it made to your specifications.

You

The CHAIRMAN. It seems to me you have said what I was coming to, that if you have to get measured for your coat and it is made according to your measurement, that it ceases to be an article which you could buy in the open market.

Mr. DAVIS. That is my construction