and within twenty-four hours a settlement was achieved with one of the firms in this city by which an additional hour has been thrown off the work of the clerks.

The coopers, the electrical workers, the engineers, the glass blowers, have all reduced the hours of their labor, and perhaps the glass industry is as good an illustration as any, in which the melting of the material that goes to make up the glass is just as delicate 'and essential as any process in any industry in the country, and yet the hours of labor have been reduced with successful and effective results.

The machinists, as you know, have reduced the hours of labor until they are usually nine, and as you further know, within this past two months there have been strikes of machinists in Chicago, in Cleveland, in Columbus, in New York, all for a shorter workday.

Mr. McCAMMON. How has that been resolved, may I ask you, in Chicago?

Mr. GOMPERS. In Chicago, with the machinists, there has been an agreement between the representatives of the International Association of Machinists and the representatives of the employers' association, and the nine-hour workday obtains in Chicago to-day, with the question of a further reduction of hours of labor being submitted to arbitration.

Mr. EMERSON. They conceded one hour.

Mr. GOMPERS. Perhaps it might not be amiss at this point to call attention to the fact that in this morning's Philadelphia paper we see that the carpenters of the city of Philadelphia had a meeting last night, practically to celebrate the compromise effected for 35 cents an hour in pay and the eight-hour day granted, the only question in the dispute being as to the pay for overtime. And, by the way, in speaking of pay for overtime, it may not be amiss to say a word as to the reason of this system of extra pay for overtime. A number of the witnesses who have appeared here would have the committee believe that this extra pay for overtime was granted as a matter of justice conceived on the part of the employers. As a matter of fact, extra pay for overtime, or time and a half, or double time, so called, for overtime, is not the result of any concession voluntarily granted by the employers, but was a demand for which the organized-labor movement had to fight and struggle and contend. It was inaugurated to penalize overtime-not that the men wanted the increased pay, but that it should not be resorted to.

Mr. RIORDAN. Under this bill it does away with overtime?

Mr. GOMPERS. Yes, sir.

Mr. RIORDAN. Even at any increased pay?

Mr. GOMPERS. Yes, sir; but it admits that three shifts of men may be employed for the entire twenty-four hours, and, of course, in an emergency, in case of war or great damages by flood or fire, longer hours than eight may be required or permitted where one or two shifts of men work.

Mr. RIORDAN. A man could not be employed on one eight-hour shift and on any part of any other eight-hour shift under this bill?

Mr. GOMPERS. No, sir; except under the emergencies I have referred to. But the idea of this extra pay for overtime has been contended for and penalized in order to avoid overtime, because it seems that when what is known technically as straight time is paid for overtime, the overtime has become the general rule by lengthening the daily hours of labor.

Mr. RIORDAN. Isn't it a fact that in all discussions for eight hours in the past the workmen always had an agreement for extra compensation for overtime?

Mr. GOMPERS. For that reason, that I have tried to mention, in order to absolutely avoid it. To take a particular trade, my own, the cigarmaking trade: A member of the Cigar Makers' International Union is not permitted to work overtime, and that is the best penalty we could employ.

Mr. RIORDAN. No matter what compensation?

Mr. GOMPERS. That's it. It is not even attempted, except by a few cheap-John employers.

Mr. RIORDAN. In some of them they allow them to work overtime and time and a half and to have double time.

Mr. GOMPERS. As a penalty, and as a rule it is avoided. But you will observe that for the Government we provide in this bill that it shall not have overtime, except in cases of emergency, of war, fire, flood, and so forth; while with the employer we can make no such provisions, because the employer has no war. But if there be an emergency, then the workmen may work; but it is penalized in order that long hours of labor shall not become the rule.

It is not necessary that I should further refer to the railway employees. That has been covered already. I would say that in the textile industries the hours of labor have been reduced, and generally by legislation, for in those industries there is such a large employment of women and children that upon the ground of the protection and

32796-08- -30

safety of the women and children in these industries State legislation has been invoked.

Mr. HENRY. I think there are some exceptions to that. I think there are some exceptions. I think I know of some instances where the hours have been reduced by the employers because they thought they could obtain better and more satisfactory results.

Mr. GOMPERS. I believe that is true, by consent, with some employers.

Mr. HENRY. In the town I live in the hours have been reduced.

Mr. GOMPERS. That was subsequent to the obtaining of the reduction of the hours of labor by the legislatures of Massachusetts and Connecticut and Rhode Island. Mr. HENRY. But it was prior to the passage of our present eight-hour law. The CHAIRMAN. Did it come after the actual reduction or before?

Mr. GOMPERS. It came after. They have been brought to the courts in this manner, that the management of the companies who or which have violated the law have been brought to the courts and punished-fined.

The CHAIRMAN. As to women and children, or children only?

Mr. GOMPERS. More to children. But as one of the attorneys for the Arkwright Club -that is the association of textile manufacturers of New England-as their attorney said before the committee on labor of the Massachusetts legislature some three or four years ago, when we advocated a bill for the still further reduction of the hours of labor to fifty-five per week, if you take the women and children out of the mills you strike at the heart of the industry.

Mr. HENRY. Out of the textile industries?

Mr. GOMPERS. Yes, sir.

Mr. HENRY. That is true.

Mr. GOMPERS. In other words, when the women and children are not permitted to work more than a certain number of hours the men can not work these hours. But I want to say that that was one of our premises.

The CHAIRMAN. The case cited in Illinois this morning, I think, was that of a

woman.

Mr. HENRY. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Under most of the State constitutions the courts hold that the legislature can not deprive persons competent to contract of the right to contract, and I think the Illinois case cited this morning was the case of a woman, carried out as most favorable to the law.

Mr. CHANCE. Beatty Brothers were taken into court for employing a woman more than sixty hours a week.

Mr. EMERSON. Isn't it a fact that the Southern cotton mills have great deal longer hours than the Eastern cotton mills?

Mr. GOMPERS. Yes; and several years ago, when I was in Alabama, I accidentally came on the statement that the legislature of Alabama the day previous to my reading this paper had repealed the law that was upon the statute books prohibiting the children from working more than sixty hours a week, and the plea upon which it was passed was that it would invite Eastern capital to come into the State.

Now, that brings me back for a moment to the duck industry. That is part of itthe manufacture of duck. We heard the witnesses who appeared here, I believe, at the last session of the committee, states that 90 per cent of the duck manufacturers for the Government of the United States is manufactured by Eastern and Northern duck manufacturers, in spite of the fact that the South has longer hours of labor in the duck industry.

Mr. HENRY. Referring to conditions in New England, we have had for quite a number of years a law upon the statute books prohibiting the employment of children under 16 more than a certain number of hours. Or, in other words, they are required to exhibit a certificate that they have been at school for a certain number of days in the year, and we have a State agent to see that that is enforced. It has been very beneficial, and the manufacturers themselves would not care to have it repealed. They were very much opposed to it in the beginning.

Mr. GOMPERS. And I want to add this to the statement of Mr. Henry: I have the honor of the acquaintance, and I hope the friendship, of Mr. Elbridge T. Gerry, for many years president of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, and he assured me that it was due to the labor organizations of New York not only that these laws were passed, but also that they were enforced. And there is scarcely a session of the Federation of Labor of the State of New York at which either Mr. Gerry, the president of the society, or some representative of that society is not present. Mr. FURUSETH. The passage of that law by the legislature was opposed?

Mr. GOMPERS. That, I suppose, is a friendly question, but it is nevertheless true. he passage of these laws that would "take the heart out of the industry" by comelling children to attend school was opposed.

Hurrying along, because I do not want to take too much time, I want to refer to the statement made by Mr. Cramp. I stated that he has indulged more in abuse than argument, and I am sorry for it, for a man of his standing as one of the captains of industry and powers of finance ought to have been content to submit this question upon fair evidence and fair argument without aspersing the methods of its promoters; for, while you have a right to doubt our motives and our sincerity, we submit that that same right is reserved to us, and it is the most difficult thing to determine what a man's motives may be. Simply that we have been consistent in our efforts to reduce the hours of labor of the working people, and the results have demonstrated it to be economically, socially and politically, and nationally to our advantage, ought to stand something for our purposes and our motives. He says:

"This bill is urged by a class of men who do not work."

Men who do not work! Who are they that urge this legislation? I hold in my hand a list of organizations affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, the last one; that is, the last issued, of February 14, 1900. There are 77 national and international unions, brotherhoods, with 1,230 local unions in the United States. There are nearly 950 local unions of different trades which have no national or international union, with an aggregate membership of nearly 1,000,000 men. And I challenge any man here or elsewhere to show that any local organization, city central body, State convention, or the national convention of either of these nationals or internationals, or any convention of the American Federation of Labor, did not as zealously, earnestly, and emphatically as possible place themselves upon record as demanding a reduction in the hours of labor. "These men who do not work!" says Mr. Cramp. Are any of the men who appeared before this committee during your hearings, or during the hearings of your predecessors in previous Congresses, men "who do not work?" Shall I refer to Mr. George Chance, who has been a journeyman printer for more than forty years, and who, simply because of his ability as an earnest advocate of the rights of the poor, has been selected to come here and urge upon you gentlemen the necessity for this legislation? Can a man who has given forty years of his life to day work, to wage labor, be considered a man who does not work? Can it be Mr. Andrew Furuseth, who has been a seaman and fisherman for

Mr. FURUSETH. About twenty-five years.

Mr. GOMPERS. For more than twenty-five years. Can it be Mr. Thomas F. Tracey, who has been a cigar maker and wageworker for more than twenty years; can it be Mr. Gabriel Edmonston, who has been a carpenter for forty years; can it be Mr. Henry Szegedy, who has been a plate printer and working in the Bureau of Engraving and Printing in this city since he was a mere boy, until he was ruthlessly discharged because he dared appear before Congress two years ago in advocacy of the bill for the relief of the plate printers? Or, perhaps, your humble servant, who, out of a life of fifty years, has worked twenty-six years at his trade, may be the man they mean., Can these men, exclusive of myself can these men be regarded as men who do not work? Just as well might we say that Mr. Cramp does not work.

Mr. MCCAMMON. Twelve hours a day?

Mr. GOMPERS. Yes; twelve hours a day.

Mr. MCCAMMON. That is what he does, though?

Mr. GOMPERS. He says our sole occupation is agitation. Well, I do not know whether we could say that we are guilty or assert that we are innocent. I, for myself, should say that in the vulgar acceptance of that term we are not guilty, but in the general and true sense of that term that appellation is right. We agitate. We believe that agitation on high, intellectual lines is productive of good for the entire people. Agitation while not desiring to discuss that at length at all—it seems to me agitation is the very antithesis of stagnation, and I do not know that even Mr. Cramp would want to be placed in the latter category.

not

Speaking of this, it has been said this morning by one of the attorneys that you should pass this bill for the reason that there is an Industrial Commission now investigating all these questions, and in order to obtain all the light you possibly can you should defer the consideration or the passage of the bill until the commission has reported. Now, we are deeply grateful for the suggestion, but I doubt if the committee will take that seriously. Always postpone for another term. Postpone it; defer it until you have more light-on what? Is not the entire industrial history of the country and of the entire world replete with the evidence that the reduction in the hours of labor has always been safe, has always been followed by the best results to all concerned?

It may be news to you, gentlemen, but I say it not in any desire to impose my personality on the consideration of this committee, but the President of the United States did me the signal honor to request me to accept an appointment as a member of the Industrial Commission, and I want to state to you that this very thing that Attorney Hayden this morning suggested was one of the reasons that I declined the distinguished

honor. I am sure I am not violating the confidence of the President when I say that that offer was made to me, and that it was one of the reasons that I declined; not the most potent reason, but it was one of the reasons, for I felt certain, as I had expressed it with my friend, that the existence of this Industrial Commission would be used as a lever to defer all reformatory legislation before the people on the very ground that was urged this morning. Mr. Cramp says that if one thing is gained we will not be satisfied; we will want another. Certainly; we want more of the things that we produce in this world. We want more of the wealth we produce; we want a larger share of the wealth that is being produced, and we do not want to have to indulge in the oldtime warfares and the old-time struggles. We believe that in our own age we should resort to the means that commends itself to the minds of intelligent beings; that is, agitation, education, organization, and to seek legislation. I am sure that his attacks that he makes are so outrageous that they must be repellant to the committee itself. Neither is it true, as stated by Mr. Cramp, that the efforts of the organization are intended to bring men down to one level bed rock. It is not true. What we insist upon is that if a man is employed he is entitled to a wage that will permit him to live in some degree of comfort. We insist that a man shall receive a minimum wage if he is employed, and that minimum wage shall enable him to live as I have tried to state, We have never stated that there shall be a uniform rate or that there shall be no maximum or that the minimum shall be the maximum. We have never had any objec tion to the employer paying as much higher than the scale of wages as he might deem necessary or advisable. You know, I presume, that in Great Britain in the ship industry nine hours is the prevailing rule-nine hours' work a day. Mr. FURUSETH. With Saturday half holiday.

Mr. GOMPERS. Saturday half holiday. You know, too, that two years ago there was a general strike for the eight-hour day in the shipbuilding industry of Great Britain.

Mr. MCCLEARY. Are we to understand that the day is five times nine and a half of nine?

Mr. GOMPERS. No: not the half of nine; they work there

Mr. FURUSETH. From seven to twelve on Saturday; that is five hours; five times nine and five.

Mr. GOMPERS. Fifty hours; that is right. In Cramp's shipyard the hours are ten a day.

Mr. MCCAMMON. Mr. Cramp denied that; that in the winter and summer time— he said nine hours, an average of nine hours, was the prevailing time.

Mr. GOMPERS. How can there be an average of nine hours when men work ten hours the longest part of the year and then nine the remainder?

Mr. McCAMMON. During six months of the year, from October to May, is it not?
Mr. CUMMINGS. Nine and one-half hours, isn't it?

Mr. GOMPERS. That would make it nine and a half hours.

Mr. McCAMMON. I did not say a yearly average.

Mr. GOMPERS. It is from half an hour to an hour a day longer than obtains in the shipbuilding industry of Great Britain. Will anyone, except a prejudiced witness, contend that the American workman can not do as much work as his British brother? Will any man say, except an interested, biased witness, that American brain and brawn is not as good and great as that of their British fellow-workmen? Surely every evidence bears out that the American workmen are swifter in motion and quicker in thought than the workmen of any country on the face of the globe. Mr. Cramp made a very unfortunate comparison when he said that "the workman has a relation to the appliances he works with similar to that of the man at the wheel on a steamship. The man at the wheel steers the ship, but by his steering he can not drive a ship faster or slower." It is, indeed, an unfortunate simile, because the man at the wheel, if he should steer zigzag, or, as the seamen have it, make S's, makes quite a contrast to the fact if he should steer the ship to a definite point; but this is very different from the effect produced by the perfect relation of the workman to his working appliances, and the zeal that comes from additional rest and recuperation and the opportunities for it, which will go far to make appliances go faster and better and truer.

He says, "Of course, these mediators pretend to represent those who work. They may in a certain sense represent the subagitators who control the unions, but I deny that they represent the mass of those who do honest work for honest pay.' Just think of it; when, without entering into the merits of the controversy, we know that quite recently there has been a most general strike in the Cramp's works for a reduction in the hours of labor, and that the men who struck for that reduction of the hours of labor are still out and unsupplanted.

Mr. MCCAMMON. I think you are mistaken.

Mr. GOMPERS. I want to say this, that the good natured interruptions and suggestions made by the counsel on the other side are highly appreciated; but during the

argument it was the purpose of my colleagues and myself to studiously avoid any interruption whatever, and, while I appreciate the interruptions and suggestions, I should prefer to be permitted to go on as best I can.

Mr. MCCAMMON. Oh, very well.

Mr. GOMPERS. Mr. Cramp says that "if any public man dares to expose such fallacy or condemn such outrage, the agitators threaten him with political destruction through the voting power of the unions."

Now, that is intended to show you, gentlemen, that we are trying to hold you in a sort of duress; that unless you do as we bid you we will consign you to political oblivion. That is putting it in a little more bald form than Mr. Cramp does; but let us try to put this in a fair, straightforward manner. I do not think that any member of this committee has been approached, either personally, or that he has been communicated with by wire or letter that could contain any such intimation. What I presume you have been asked, yes, urged, is that you favor this legislation; that we represent large numbers of workmen; that these workmen want it, and that the only reason they have not struck for it is that they hope you may grant it to them without the necessity of that, and they say, as you will say, as every man, as every American citizen will say, "We want this legislation; we are intensely interested in this legislation; we ask you to enact it.” Right on the floor of Congress bills are passed, legislation enacted.

If you found that there was a general public indignation against a certain proposition, it seems to me that our legislators that you, gentlemen-would hesitate to rush into that legislation. And what is it prompted by? Simply because you want to gratify the will of the people. Because you realize that unless the will of the people is gratified the chances are that the people will try to get other legislators. We simply say, "Gentlemen, we represent these great bodies of workingmen, who are organized and ask for this. And who, pray, can speak for the men who labor but the men who are organized to protect the interests of labor? I know that the employers who have appeared here before this committee have said that they came here to represent their employees and protest against the passage of this bill in their name; but, as I said before, they did not consult their employees, and the community of interest between these men and their employees is like that between the spider and the fly.

We do not want to stop machinery, nor do we want to limit production. We want the best, the highest, and the largest amount that can be produced. We want a larger share in the production of the wealth. Perhaps it might not be amiss to ask this committee to do what the Senate Committee on Education and Labor did last year, to incorporate as part of the hearing a list of the organizations of labor in this country.

Mr. CUMMINGS. I think that ought to go in.

Mr. GOMPERS. I submit it. It was submitted last year, but this is a later edition. (The list of organizations affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, referred to by Mr. Gompers, will be found at the conclusion of his argument.)

The introduction of machinery, its improvements, and its adaptation have been of steady growth, keeping pace with the necessities of the hour.

On that we entirely agree, and say that contemporaneously with it must come a reduction in the hours of labor, affording the laborers increased opportunity, and that they should be larger sharers in the production of the wealth and sharers in the evidences of these wonderful improvements. There are some things in which Mr. Cramp and I agree; and we agree, for instance, in this additional statement:

"The cheapening of any article increases the demand for it, and such increased demand opens a new field for development, creates new necessities, and gives new employments."

That is part of our contention, and this is one of the reasons why we urge a reduction in the hours of labor. We urge the passage of this bill in order that the workers may have the increased opportunity. Wherever new desires, new tastes, and new demands shall arise, there shall be an increased demand opening up new fields for development, creating new industries and giving new employments.

The statement of Mr. Booth and the Midvale Steel Company is the very opposite of the statement made by Mr. Harrah, the president of the Midvale Steel Company. Mr. FURUSETH. The general manager, I think.

Mr. GOMPERS. President and general manager.

Mr. Booth says that his company tried the eight-hour system and the men wanted to return to the old long-hour system; and we have heard from the lips of Mr. Harrah how fair a test he gave of the eight-hour system. He said that the men were not desirous of working so hard as they were required to work under the ten-hour system; they wanted a reduction in the hours of labor, and he introduced the eight-hour system; and how did he do it? Mark you, the men did not want to work so hard. He introduced it by the men being put on the eight-hour system to work from the