Mr. GOMPERS. And whether that be the fellow who loafs because he has too much money, or who loafs because he has not any money at all or any opportunity to get work. I mean men who work, who work six days in the week; men who are willing to work. The working people do not want to shirk their duty-their work. They want to work. Yes, and there are a lot of them who want work now and can not get it; and due to no fault of their own, either. And the thought that I have tried to express does not only apply as between different countries, it applies to the workmen of different parts in one country. You will find that the men who work the least number of hours and when I say the least number of hours I refer to eight hours as a normal day's work, as compared to men who work nine and ten and eleven and twelve and more hours a day-the eight-hour workmen, are the highest paid workmen in the industry, if there be a difference. You will find, if there is a difference in the hours of labor in the industry, that the eight-hour workmen are those who receive the highest wages in that industry; and you will find that it is equally true as to a whole trade or industry as compared to the workmen of any other trade or industry where the hours of labor are longer. It is an economic truth which is not only self-evident, but anyone who may doubt it may ascertain easily for himself.

If I believed for one moment, if there was a shadow of suspicion in my mind that the introduction of an eight-hour working day in the United States for the working people of our country would act detrimentally to them, to the people generally of our nation, to our nation as compared to any other nation on earth, I would that I might rather be struck dumb than to say one word in advocacy either of legislation of the character now under consideration or in advocacy of the establishment of the eight-hour workday by private agreement with employers. But the history of all industry has demonstrated that with the reduction in the hours of labor the productivity of the people has become greater and better, and the means of distribution have improved vastly, as well as the means of the transmission of intelligence and information. It has given an impetus to industry and commerce which it could receive in no other way. There is a philosophy upon which this movement for the reduction of the hours of labor is based which it would be well for those who are interested to endeavor to understand. It is not only the question of greater productivity, it is not the diminution of production, it is not lessening the wealth produced by the people of a country; it is based, in brief, on the thought which I have already partly endeavored to outline in so far as the productivity of the people is concerned, and, on the other hand, on this fact, that a people, a working people, whose hours of labor are reasonably short-that is, where the eight-hour day prevails become better men, better citizens, more intelligent men, and you make of them greater consumers of the products of labor. You give them time and opportunity for the cultivation of better tastes, of better desires, of higher ambitions; you make of them a people who make sovereign citizens, with the ability to think, the ability to act, and the independence and character to think and act in behalf of themselves and the Republic of which they are citizens.

There is not a thing that you can do that will have so potent an influence to build up the manhood and the character of the working people and their wives and their children as helping to establish the

eight-hour work day and give the worker the time, the opportunity, and the leisure so that he can read for himself and consult with his family and participate in some of the pleasure and leisure of life. The long-houred workman has the least necessities or needs for his life. It is the man who works a reasonable number of hours a day-the eight-hour daywho has time to cultivate the good and the best that is in him and in his. If you give the workmen the opportunity for a normal workday and they have leisure beyond the eight-hour workday, you have set in motion a power to use and consume the things produced by brain and muscle and machine and the earth that you can not find in any other way. It may be said, "Well, why do you not secure these things by agreement with the employers?" Let me say, gentlemen, that we have endeavored, and are endeavoring, to do so. But it is equally true with regard to the efforts that we are making, and have made for the past ten years, to have legislation securing the eight-hour workday on Government work and work for the Government, that the very same gentlemen who opposed this legislation before your committee are endeavoring to make the men of labor outlaws in their effort to reach private agreements.

Mr. VREELAND. What do you mean by that, Mr. Gompers?

Mr. GOMPERS. I mean to say, Mr. Vreeland, that the suits that have been brought against the organizations of labor and which have reached a final decision by the Supreme Court of the United States have outlawed the ordinary actions of the labor organizations that have been regarded as lawful until that decision was rendered; and the very fact, sir, that a union of workmen has come to an agreement with a large number of employers to maintain industrial peace between them is cited and held to be proof of the success of a conspiracy in constraint of trade, rendering not only the organizations and the officers, but the men of labor, the men in the organizations, liable to be sued in the courts for threefold damages which a dissatisfied employer may claim, an employer with whom they could not come to an agreement and with whom they have been in contest; and not only that, but under the law and under the decision these men can be proceeded against in the Federal courts, and if found guilty of the same charge to which I have referred, they may be imprisoned for one year or fined in the sum of $5,000, or both, at the discretion of the court. That proceeding was brought and that judicial determination was reached, at the instance of an employer, and one of the gentlemen who in a legal way represents a general interest of some sort, which I do not know, but which is in opposition to this bill before this committee, and who appears before all those committees of Congress who have any bills under consideration that might in any way relieve the situation or to accord to labor the rights which we believe we are entitled to. Have I answered your question?

Mr. VREELAND. Yes, sir.

Mr. DAVENPORT. Do you refer to me?

Mr. GOMPERS. "Out, damned spot! thou canst not". [laughter]. I think it was Macbeth who said, "Avaunt! Begone, thou canst not".

Mr. DAVENPORT. "Say I did it."

Mr. GOMPERS. Yes, say I did it." 'say I did it." "Avaunt! quit my sight; thou can'st not say I did it." I thought my Shakespeare would come back to me some time.

Mr. EMERY. I suppose you remember, Mr. Gompers, that the fear expressed in your quotation arose from the guilt of the chief of a criminal conspiracy?

Mr. GOMPERS. Yes, sir; and so did that of Mr. Davenport, who asked me the question.

Mr. VREELAND. I merely asked the question as between the employers and the men. It did not occur to me for a moment that it was a legal proposition.

Mr. GOMPERS. Yes, sir; it is in the case of Dietrich Loewe et al. v. Martin Lawler et al., so that it does not make any difference upon which ground, upon which field, we seek the relief or redress, legislatively or by private agreement with employers, we are opposed by the same men. There is not a thing that we can do except to dissolve our organizations. That will please these gentlemen. But we are not going to dissolve them, and they are not going to dissolve them, either.

Mr. VREELAND. I want to ask you a question, if it does not interrupt the line of your thought.

Mr. GOMPERS. Very well.

Mr. VREELAND. The laboring people through their organizations have been very successful, have they not-would you not regard it so-in reducing the hours of labor during the last twenty-five years?

Mr. GOMPERS. Oh, I would not consider they have been very successful. They have made some progress; they have made decided progress. But I doubt that that progress has been commensurate with the needs.

Mr. VREELAND. Greater progress than in the previous two hundred years?

I am not
But

Mr. GOMPERS. Yes; we are increasing our progress in production at a greater ratio than in the previous five hundred years. at all down in the mouth. I have no misgivings for the future. I do know that if the working people of this country are going to either prevent deterioration in their condition, or if they are to maintain what they now have, or if they are to make any progress or share in the greater productivity of their labor, they will have to contend for it, contend every inch. There are a large number of employers who are fair-minded and want to deal fairly with their employees, and it is for the protection of those that an eight-hour day is necessary. It is for their protection that the organizations of labor shall be maintained and succeed, in order that they shall not suffer the cutthroat, Gradgrind policy of cutting wages at every opportunity which presents itself.

Mr. VREELAND. Mr. Gompers, do you think the production in all classes in the United States, the production of wealth in all its various forms of manufacture, would be equal under a universal eight-hour day to what it is, or would be, under a ten-hour day?

Mr. GOMPERS. I not only believe, sir, but it is a conviction borne out by every stage of industrial progress, that the production of wealth in all forms would continue to grow and extend.

Mr. VREELAND. Then let me ask you this. It is stated, I do not know with what truth, that the production to which I refer, produced by power-that is, by machinery-in the United States is equal to the labor of five hundred millions of men working by hand. If that be true, would it be possible to cut down the time of working to eight

hours, assuming that it cut down the time of working of the machines to a considerable extent; would you say it was then still true to keep up the amount of production and keep the cost of production where it

is now?

Mr. GOMPERS. If both machinery and power were to remain in a condition of status, then, in all likelihood, every other thing being equal, there would be a reduction in the wealth production; but that is an unthinkable situation in the first place. Even now there are men who are burning the midnight oil and giving new machines and new tools to the world, and with a reduction in the hours of labor to eight a day, the millions of hours of labor which would be taken off the shoulders of the workmen would be millions of golden opportunities for the production of newer and better machinery and power. In truth, every successive stage in industry demonstrates that beyond a question, and, as I said a moment ago, there was not in any stage of the industrial history of the world where we, as well as others, did not meet the very same species of argument and opposition to a reduction in the hours of labor that we meet to-day. And yet the hours of labor have been reduced.

Mr. VREELAND. Not by law, have they, Mr. Gompers?

Mr. GOMPERS. Yes, sir; in many instances by law.

Mr. VREELAND. Except where the employee is the direct employee of the law-making power?

Mr. GOMPERS. Not only that, sir; for, as a matter of fact, the hours of labor of the people employed in the textile industry were long, very long, and there were men and women and children employed in the mills. By legislation we have secured a reduction in the hours of labor of women and children, and by reason of that legislation the mills closed for the men, as well as for the women and children, when the limit was reached. So that by legislation the direct limitation of the hours of labor was secured to the women and children, and by indirection it was secured for the men.

Mr. VREELAND. For instance, in the building trades, where the eight-hour rule quite generally prevails now, none of that is by legislation, I suppose, is it?

Mr. GOMPERS. None of it, except for governmental work-national, State, and municipal. That is true.

Mr. DAVENPORT. Would it interrupt your line of thought if I asked you this question. You are a member of the cigar-makers' union, I believe?

Mr. GOMPERS. Yes, sir.

Mr. DAVENPORT. Do they permit their men to work on laborsaving machinery in the manufacture of cigars?

Mr. GOMPERS. Yes, sir. If I understand the purpose of your question, let me say that your misinterpretation is this; that we do not permit the use of the union label upon the machine-made cigars, and that is for several reasons; one, that we could not recommend them; secondly, it is an entirely inferior quality and make and class of goods, as well as the fact that the men who undertake to manufacture a decent class of goods could not compete with the machine-made article. The union label does not go on machine-made goods.

Mr. DAVENPORT. Is it true that the members of the union are permitted to work on machines manufacturing cigars?

Mr. GOMPERS. I so understand; yes, sir. I want to say a word in connection with the bill. I have been quoted, and certain interpretations have been placed upon what I have said. I just want, if I can, to repeat or restate my views upon that subject, and when I say my views, I hope I will be understood as representing the views which labor entertains regarding this bill and this legislation. We aim to secure the eight-hour workday for all the working people of the country. We believe that industry demands it; we believe that the health and the life and the intelligence of the people demand it. I do not expect that this bill will secure eight hours for all the working people of the country, but I do believe that it will have a helpful influence in securing the eight-hour day. We contend that the Govment of the United States should be, if not a generous, at least a fair employer, as fair, at least, as the fairest general employers of the country who accord the eight-hour day, and when the Government of the United States undertakes to have its work done by contract, and the contractors by subcontract, then the rule laid down by the Government of the United States in its own work should obtain and prevail and extend to the contractor and the subcontractor. We believe that the influence of the govermental action will extend so that workmen and people generally will point to the good, to the best, as an example for others to follow; it will be an asset in the movement to establish the eight-hour day. Of course, there may be some who will say, "They favor a shorter workday; they favor an eight-hour day, but"-usually a "but" as a qualifying word comes in, and we find that the qualification means the mere use of words to cover the real purpose of the opposition.

I am handed a paper by Mr. Holder, a friend of mine, a representative of labor, who has written this down, and I shall read it. It says the productivity per capita of the wage-earners in the United States in 1850 was $1,065, and in 1900 it was $2,451, in round figures, or an increase of over 120 per cent in fifty years.

Before I go further, I want to say that there is a question which Judge Payson asked one of the workmen this morning. The question in itself was not harmful, but he used a word which seemed rather peculiar. In asking the question he said, "What is the purpose of this exorbitant demand for overtime?" I merely refer to the word "exorbitant," and my first impulse was to ask Judge Payson whether he would not withdraw the word and substitute another which would not be so leading or convey the impression that the demand was exorbitant.

Mr. PAYSON. Would it interfere with your argument any to say that I never asked any such question, never had any such idea, and never said such a word. Would it make any difference with your argument? I appeal to the record.

Mr. GOMPERS. It would not make any difference, but it would not be in conformity with the record. Judge Payson did use the word "exorbitant."

Mr. PAYSON. To whom?

Mr. GOMPERS. To one of the gentlemen who appeared here this morning.

Mr. PAYSON. Tell which one; one was Mr. Rabbit and the other Mr. Nothnagel.

32796-08- -29