a problem. It is simply its application which is the problem now. We are confronted with the problem of distribution, and the people await upon the men of affairs, and the men who think, and the men who act for the solution of this problem of distribution. There are some who want to tax all property out of private ownership; there are some who say, "Abolish all patent rights, abolish all land tenure and title to property unless by occupation and use:" there are others who advocate anarchy in its philosophic acceptance; there are others, again, who advocate common ownership by the people of all the means of production and distribution; there are others who advocate confiscation.

These are various schools of thought, some apparently sound and some absolutely unsound, and upon the face of them unsound. But whether the propositions of either or all are unsound, I think that we all agree that the matter of distribution is still a problem. As trades unionists, as organized workingmen, having a common feeling with all our fellows, we neither advocate nor deny any of these propositions. We simply say that they are not ours. We say that there is no method by which this problem of distribution can be more effectually and more rationally and more justly met than by a reduction in the hours of labor of those who work, for a reduction of the hours of labor means opening up a vista to the mind and to the physical and moral and social advancement undreamed of to-day.

A lessening of the hours of labor gives man larger opportunities to cultivate his better nature. You can not cultivate a man's better nature without at the same time improving him in every way-as a worker, as a thinker, as a man, as a citizen, as a husband, as a father. Reducing the hours of labor makes man's interests greater. I had occasion, in explaining a matter which seemed upon the surface to be a contradiction of my position, that a reduction in the hours of labor means larger opportunities for mental and physical culture; it means taking the burden of physical labor from the shoulders of the workers and giving them these hours of golden opportunity for mental cultivation; and these opportunities would give to the world better ideas, better thoughts, better machinery, newer inventions by which the production of wealth could go on with such intensity and with such magnitude as is not conceived by any of us to-day. Reducing the hours of labor will increase men's necessities. It will, for the day, appear to him as a luxury, but the luxury of yesterday becomes the necessity of life of to-day and to-morrow, and the necessities of life must always be granted to the workers if you expect them to continue to work.

Gentlemen of the committee, so far as my colleagues and myself are concerned we desire to attest to you our appreciation of your courtesy. I know that I have spoken at very great length, much longer than I anticipated it would take me to present this matter to you as I have tried to. I realize perhaps more than any other man can. my own shortcomings; but in the way that we have tried to present this matter to you we feel that this bill, if enacted into law, is in line with the material progress of our country, tending to good; not one tendency can be construed to evil; maintaining the rights of all, giving larger liberty, giving larger opportunities, making our people the most energetic, the most advanced people of any nation of the world; and we would say that we wish to stand preeminently before the world as the conquerors of the markets of the world; to produce those things which the people in other countries of the world can not produce as well and as cheaply and as swiftly as we can. I am confident together with all our other prestige will come the prestige of the great producers of the wealth of the world the prestige of men intelligent, independent, aggressive, and yet having a full consideration for the rights of every other in view. I trust that this bill will be reported with a favorable recommendation of this committee and that its passage may be assured. I thank you for your courtesy.

Mr. Micou. Mr. Gompers, if you will pardon me just a moment, I wish to say, speaking for Mr. Herbert, as his partner, that there was not, in anything he would say, any intention to cast any slur upon anybody, and there is a question which, with the permission of the committee, I would like to add; that is, in reference to this information about the projectiles, whether you have any information as to the number of these 12-inch projectiles which are ordered each year or as to the cost of the machinery for manufacturing those larger projectiles?

Mr. GOMPERS. No, sir; I have not that at hand.

Mr. Micou. If the chairman would permit, I would like to state to him and the committee, I do not know the reason for it, but there are only two concerns that can make these larger projecties. From the 8-inch projectile down there are a number of competitors; but I know in the instance of the United States Projectile Company that they have considered very thoroughly the matter of manufacturing the larger projectiles, and have found they could not enter that field successfully. I do not know what the obstacle is, but the Steel Works and the Midvale are the only

two works that make these projectiles, and they order very few of them as yet.

Mr. GOMPERS. I am not drawing on my imagination, and I have not anything further than the statements made by Mr. Harrah and Mr. Booth.

Mr. Micou. This statement as to the number of hours' work on the projectiles does not appear in the letter of Admiral O'Neil.

Mr. GOMPERS. No, sir.

Mr. Micou. It is a matter that could be ascertained officially from the Department without any trouble, because they inspect every bit of that work, and they can tell the number of hours from the moment they commence to manufacture to the completion of it.

Mr. GOMPERS. The number of hours I have stated is the number of hours which the workmen testified to as having put on these particular shells in the various branches. Mr. Micou. On that particular shell?

Mr. GOMPERS. Yes, sir.

(Upon motion of Mr. Emerson, the committee voted that the hearings had upon this bill should be printed.)

Thereupon (at 5.15 o'clock p. m.) the committee adjourned.

STATEMENT OF MR. M. M. GARLAND, OF PITTSBURG.

Mr. GOMPERS. Mr. Garland, will you please state to the committee your name, residence, and what connection you have had with manual labor, and your experience in iron and steel mills?

Mr. GARLAND. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, my name is M. M. Garland; my residence is Pittsburg, Pa. I followed the rolling-mill business as a boy and man for twenty years, worked at the boiling trade and the heating trade, and in several other branches, in the different rolling mills throughout the country, and was elected to the position of assistant president of the Amalgamated Association of Iron and Steel Workers, whose organization governs the rolling mills-the union mills-throughout the country; that is, who treat with the manufacturers, in other words; and I then served afterwards for six years as its president. My experience began when I was very young, as I said, in the mills, and boiling, the trade of boiling iron, was what I first started at. It is now a trade that has been largely superseded by soft steel; still, it is very active throughout the country. The open-hearth way of making steel is the nearest approach to boiling iron of any of the different kinds of steels that are made in the different processes. I followed the trade of heating steel and preparing it for the rolls for a period of about twelve years.

Mr. GOMPERS. It is contended that it is impossible to successfully carry on the manufacture of steel of a fine quality within the period of eight hours, and that when, in the making of steel, from its inception to its completion it requires more than eight hours, the steel in its process can not be transferred from one workman or set of workmen to another workman or set of workmen, the contention being that from the inception to the completion the entire piece of steel must be under the supervision and direction of one set of men, and the work must be completed by one set of men, and that its transfer from one set of men to another set of men will deteriorate the quality to a very great degree. Will you please state to the committee what is the fact in regard to that?

Mr. GARLAND. If that were the case we would not be making any fine steel to-day. The practice in all the mills is to transfer the steel at any stage, no matter when it may be, in accordance with the system. For instance, under the eight-hour system a new shift of men comes on and takes it up where the other left off. If it is the twelvehour system, they change at the twelve-hour point, and take the steel at any stage of its existence.

In open hearth mills and in crucibles, of course, the larger or smaller melts, or the kind of point carbon that you desire, makes some change in the length of time that the heat may be in the furnace. Consequently you start out in the beginning of the week with an open furnace and you make a heat that takes eight hours, one that takes ten hours, and you make one cast that possibly runs into fifteen hours, and you go on in that way on those lines during the week, and the one workman comes on, if it is a ten-hour turn, when the other quits, and continues that heat until it is done; another is put in there and continues it until it is done, or until the other shift comes out and relieves him. That is the custom now in all mills.

Mr. MCCLEARY. And there is no bad effect from that or they would not keep it up. Mr. GARLAND. It is the custom everywhere, and there is no bad effect, because we make the best steel in the world now, and make more of it.

Mr. WARNOCK. I do not quite understand what you mean. You say a twelve-hour shift and then another comes on. Do you mean one set takes it for twelve consecutive hours?

Mr. GARLAND. Yes, sir; they take the furnace for that time.

32986-08- -31

Mr. WARNOCK. Then they finish what they have in it for the twelve hours?
Mr. GARLAND. No.

Mr. WARNOCK. Then it runs beyond the twelve hours?

. Mr. GARLAND. Yes, sir; and it depends on when that heat is ready to pour. There is no clock time. The furnace may be running-in other words, fast or slow, as we call it-and the heat may not be ready to take out when the turn is ended, and the other men come on and work it until it is.

Mr. WARNOCK. You mean to be understood as saying that before it is ready to turn out another set of men can come and take it and continue it and produce just as good results as if the first had completed it?

Mr. GARLAND. Yes, sir.

Mr. MCCLEARY. Does the directing head-the one without the clock, but by his own skill, determines the time of finishing-have to continue?

Mr. GARLAND. No, sir; he does not continue.

Mr. MCCLEARY. Then the moment for the pouring can be determined without continuous watching?

Mr. GARLAND. Yes, sir. The melter or heater looks in the furnace and knows the condition of that heat just as thoroughly as the carpenter who is working on his bench does the condition of his business. He gets to understand the looks of the heat and the flame and the boiling and the color of the flame, and he reads it. It is like an open book to him. For instance, to use a homely expression, the cook would put something in the baker to bake, and another cook can open the oven and see what condition it is in.

Mr. RHEA. You are skilled in your business, are you-ordinarily so?

Mr. GARLAND. I am considered so-was considered so.

Mr. RHEA. I will ask you if, in your judgment as a skilled operator, better results might or might not be obtained if the manufacture of the steel was not completed in twelve hours by bringing on a fresh set of equally skilled men, but the process was continued to completion by those fagged and wearied in body and mind?

Mr. GARLAND. Without question better results obtain by changing. I will give you an instance of what has been accomplished in the way of greater work by the shorter hour system in the rolling mills. Now, if there is any line or part of the business that the short hours, by the limiting of hours, can apply to in the manufacture of steel it is the rolling mill, for the reason that it is a continuous performance. They start at the beginning of the week and run to the end of the week, and sometimes on Sunday. The one turn follows the other. There is no cessation in the work. Hence, the man who works eight hours would have only eight hours to stand that heat and stress on his constitution. Now, in 1884 the rolling mills in this country, those which were organized as well as others, were working on the two-turn system.

Mr. MCCLEARY. Turns of twelve hours each?

Mr. GARLAND. The sheet mills worked ten hours, and there was a couple of hours between the time that the one shift stopped and the next shift came on, which the watchman used to occupy in cleaning the grate and the furnace and perhaps fix up the bottom, and so forth-little detail matters that of course you gentlemen would not fully understand in connection with it.

Mr. MCCLEARY. I do not understand. That is exactly what is the matter with me. Then there was no iron or steel in the furnace at this time being prepared?

Mr. GARLAND. No; that was in the early days that I speak of, up to 1884; up to that time in the trade.

I would like to say first in regard to this that we were making eight heats of 15 pairs in ten hours. Some manufacturers desired to use up this time between the turns and asked that we try a three-turn system. It was taken up in our convention and thoroughly argued by our men and then with the manufacturers, and finally a three-turn system was agreed upon as an experiment in the sheet-mill trade. In five years' time thereafter every sheet mill in the country was on a three-turn system, working eight hours, or, in fact, finishing their turns in less than eight hours; instead of making eight heats, as was formerly the case, in ten hours of 15 pairs, they were making nine heats of 15 pairs in less than eight hours. Now, that has been the experience in that trade, and the same in every part where it is tried. It has increased the output and not deteriorated the work, but if anything bettered it, in every place where it has been tried. It is past human endurance to give your best efforts during twelve hours.

Mr. RHEA. Do you mean to say that theretofore the actual processes of manufacture only went on for ten hours, and then there was a cessation for two hours, and that was when you had the two-turn system?

Mr. GARLAND. Yes, sir.

Mr. RHEA. And now, under the three-turn system, it is continuous?

Mr. GARLAND. Practically, yes, sir; except, as I say, that they finish their turns in about seven hours or a little less, and they still have that difference between the turns to do this necessary work of cleaning, etc.

Mr. RHEA. That is done by a shift of hands?

Mr. GARLAND. Yes, sir; a shift of men or a crew, as we call them.

Mr. GOMPERS. You have been at repeated conferences with employers and representatives of employers in the steel trade?

Mr. GARLAND. Yes, sir.

Mr. GOMPERS. As a member of the Amalgamated Association?

Mr. GARLAND. Yes, sir.

Mr. GOMPERS. As its assistant president?

Mr. GARLAND. Yes, sir.

Mr. GOMPERS. As president?

Mr. GARLAND. Yes, sir.

Mr. GOMPERS. As a member of the wage committee?

Mr. GARLAND. Yes, sir.

Mr. GOMPERS. In the conferences which you have had with these steel workers, has it ever been urged that a crew could not take a heat or melt from another at any stage? Mr. GARLAND. Never. I have never heard that argument made. I think it could find no place in a conference room between practical manufacturers when talking to their employees in those departments; I think it would be laughed out of the room, Mr. GOMPERS. Do any of the workers in steel mills now, when making heats requir ing as much as eighteen hours, remain with the heat until it is finished?

Mr. GARLAND. I do not know of any instance of that kind, unless it would be in a case of sickness, or a case of accident, or something that I have never yet known of. I do not see how that would be possible.

Mr. GOMPERS. In the event of a man having charge of a set of men or gang of men in the making of heats or a piece of steel, does he ever leave the plant for any other reason before the twelve-hour day has expired; such as, for instance, pleasure, recreation, illness in his family, suddenly or otherwise, or death?

Mr. GARLAND. It is quite customary for one workman or one crew of workmen to come out and relieve another. That is what we call "trade reliefs." It is simply they come out and let the others off for an hour or two hours ahead of time for some business they want to attend to and can not attend to when they are off turn. That is very customary.

Mr. GOMPERS. And does it interfere with the results of the product?

Mr. GARLAND. It certainly does not, or the manager would not stand it; he would call a halt pretty quickly.

Mr. GOMPERS. Have you any general acquaintance among the heaters and melters? Mr. GARLAND. I think I know most of the heaters and melters around Pittsburg and Youngstown, and through the Western States; that is, I mean those who have been in the business any length of time.

Mr. GOMPERS. Have you had any opportunity of discussing with them the question of the hours of labor, or do you know in any way their opinion upon the subject of the limitation of the hours of labor?

Mr. GARLAND. They all favor it that I have talked to. Now, since you have had these hearings going on here I have met a number of them on the street in Pittsburg, met them at one place and another throughout Pittsburg, I suppose a dozen of them, and naturally we would get to talking about our trade and about these hearings that were going on here, and all of them expressed a very strong desire that the hours should be shortened. They ridicule the idea that men could not take over the heats from others at any stage.

Mr. GOMPERS. Have I not written and telegraphed to you on several occasions within these last two weeks, asking you to see some heaters and melters and ask them to come here and testify before this committee?

Mr. GARLAND. Yes, sir; you have.

Mr. GOMPERS. Will you please state why you were unable to bring any of the heaters and melters?

Mr. GARLAND. They stated that they feared to lose their positions.

Mr. MCCLEARY. What is the meaning of that?

Mr. GARLAND. If they would come here and give testimony they would lose their positions.

Mr. MCCLEARY. That is, testimony adverse to eight hours?

Mr. GARLAND. In favor of this bill.

Mr. CALDWELL. How many different ones expressed themselves in that way?

Mr. GARLAND. I think nearly all that I talked to; nearly a dozen, I think.

Mr. CALDWELL. Expressed themselves as fearful that they would lose their positions

if they came here to a hearing before this committee on this bill and testified? Mr. GARLAND. Yes, sir.

Mr. CALDWELL. I want to get that clear.

Mr. GARLAND. Yes, sir.

Mr. GOMPERS. You were the assistant president of the Amalgamated Association at the time of the strike and immediately prior to the strike at Homestead in 1892, were you not?

Mr. GARLAND. Yes, sir.

Mr. GOMPERS. Will you please state whether the question upon which the strike occurred was the question of wages or the question of the recognition of the Almagamated Association?

Mr. GARLAND. It was the question of wages.

Mr. GOMPERS. The question of the recognition of the union was not at all a point in controversy?

Mr. GARLAND. No, sir; the firm met the committee and discussed the scale as usual until they came to the point where they could not agree. At that time the wages were based on the selling price of steel rails, with a minimum below which the wage would not be reduced in case the price of rails went lower, at $25. The firm desired this minimum to be placed at $22, and the reduction that would have occurred under the old scale to be taken to the point of $22, which really amounted to about 18 per cent. The men refused. A conference was held, and finally the company, through Mr. Frick, offered a minimum of $23. The men came to $24, but there was still $1 between them.

And then the other point of difference was the termination of the scale. The men desired it to terminate on the 1st of July and the firm desired that it should terminate on the 1st of January.

Mr. GOMPERS. While you are on that point, will you please state why the men preferred that the yearly agreement should terminate in July rather than in January?

Mr. GARLAND. Yes, sir; it is a great deal more advantageous from the fact that it is harder to get men to come in to take the positions of other men in the summer time in the rolling mills. It is a very hard matter to do that. In the winter it is easier to get men from other places and outside to come and take the places of men who refuse to work when their wages are reduced. That is all the difference there is.

Mr. GOMPERS. In other words, it was that the men might be in a better position to negotiate the joint bargain with their employers in regard to the wages, and the hours and conditions of labor under which they should be employed.

Mr. RHEA. Just one question. Do you mean the committee to understand by your answer a while ago that you had talked to perhaps a dozen of those engaged in the steel industry and endeavored to get them to come before this committee and testify, and that they refused to do so because, as they expressed themselves, they feared that their employers would discharge them if them came before a committee of the American Congress to testify to facts within their knowledge?

Mr. GARLAND. That was their position.

Mr. RHEA. And those facts were favorable to this legislation?

Mr. GARLAND. Yes, sir.

Mr. MCCLEARY. Do you believe that that fear was well founded?

Mr. GARLAND. I would be glad if the chairman would not insist that I should give an opinion on that.

The CHAIRMAN. It would be only an opinion, anyway, and of course we are all entitled to our own opinions.

Mr. CALDWELL. How many hours a day were these men working on shifts that you talked to about coming to testify-eight hours or twelve hours?

Mr. GARLAND. Twelve hours.

Mr. MCCLEARY. Were they paid by the hour or by the day?

Mr. GARLAND. Some of them were paid a salary, some by the day. That means an hour-by the day means an hour-because they would be docked any part of a day that they lost.

Mr. MCCLEARY. In your judgment, would it affect a man's opinion in the matter whether he was paid by the hour or the month?

Mr. GARLAND. Would it what?

Mr. MCCLEARY. That is, would a man who is paid by the hour and is earning a living for his family by the hours he works feel differently in this matter from a man who has a certain wage, regardless of hours?

Mr. GARLAND. They all felt the same. It means the matter of shortening the hours of them all. They all feel that this is to their best interests, whether they were on salary or on day work.

Mr. MCCLEARY. The judgment is, then, in either case that it would be better for them to have the shorter hours?

Mr. GARLAND. It would be better; yes, sir.

Mr. MCCLEARY. Is that based on the statement made a short time ago that in the shorter hours they could earn more?