Mr. RHEA. Now, has the quality of the product been equal where the change has been made, the change of heaters and the shift and all, to the quality where it has been a continuous process?

Mr. RALPH. Yes, sir.

Mr. RHEA. Is that your private theory or knowledge?

Mr. RALPH. Yes, sir; my knowledge.

Mr. MCCLEARY. You said a moment ago that Mr. Johnston nowhere said definitely that a continuous service was necessary. How do you explain this statement?

"I have seen heats of crucible steel up to 60 tons poured from hand pots by men into one mould."

That is the preparatory statement. Now, here is the statement:

"A heat of this kind requires the constant supervision of one very able man and numerous assistants, and sometimes in time anywhere from ten to fifteen hours' consecutive work."

What does he mean by that?

Mr. RALPH. As I interpret the statement of Mr. Johnston, it requires the supervision of some man who is versed in the knowledge of what they wish to accomplish with that cast, the conditions of the steel-the analysis of the steel I mean by conditions. It is very rarely that such a large casting of crucible steel is made. I have never seen such a cast. But I will state that it is possible to make such a cast, and even larger, but it would require a very extensive plant and large number of crucibles, in the molten crucible, or in retorts, or in the process they have of preparing crucible steel, to get an ingot of that size; but I have not any idea for what purpose an ingot of such size would be used. But in my judgment it would not mitigate against the success of that cast to have the shifts changed during the cast.

Mr. MCCLEARY. Do you understand that is the meaning of Mr. Johnston? Mr. RALPH. I would understand that he meant the supervision of the superintendent. Mr. RHEA. You interpret that to mean that at all stages there must be an absolutely skillful man at the head of it, but not the same man?

Mr. RALPH. Not necessarily so. I think that is less true in the manufacture of steel than in any other industry; that the cooperation of the men in the manufacture of steel is so perfect as to accomplish anything without the direction of a foreman or superintendent. The heater is anxious and has a great deal of zeal and pride in his efficiency as a heater, and the helpers and men on the rolls likewise have that same pride, and they cooperate, and if one is in difficulty or there is some hitch in the machinery at any point they all rush there to assist and correct the difficulty, That is true everywhere, with the exception of some of the mills I have heard quoted here. Most of the mills pay tonnage on the finished product of the mills, and I would say, to close up very briefly

Mr. MCCLEARY. Pardon me a minute before you close. I want to ask you one or two questions. Mr. Johnston says here, as I have just read:

"A heat of this kind requires the constant supervision of one very able man." Now, do you understand that that is the same man through all the process, or only

some one man?

Mr. RALPH. I understand that that would refer to the superintendent or manager of that particular plant.

Mr. MCCLEARY. To the same one through the whole period?

Mr. RALPH. I understand him to say so; yes, sir.

Mr. MCCLEARY. You understand him to say the same man?

Mr. RALPH. Yes, sir. But I imply that he did not refer to the workmen who operate the furnace, but to the superintendent who assumed the responsibility of bringing out the cast and the various processes of perfecting the same cast. The heater has no knowledge of chemistry and can not influence or alter the chemical condition of the steel.

Mr. MCCLEARY (reading). "The constant supervision of one very able man and numerous assistants."

Does the same interpretation apply to "numerous assistants?"

Mr. RALPH. No, sir; I hold that with a heat of that kind the man who is operating it or who is responsible for producing the required result in that heat so that it is in condition to cast could be relieved at any time by another man who is recognized by the company as competent to fill that position as efficiently as he.

Mr. MCCLEARY. Is that what you interpret Mr. Johnston to have meant?

Mr. RALPH. I interpret him to have meant in that statement a superintendent who, evidently, in the Bethlehem plant, must possess supernatural powers. I do not interpret it as meaning a heater; but if that was what he meant, I would state that in my judgment a heater could be relieved at any time. I at one time filled a very expert position in the mill involving the manipulation of intricate machinery, and there was great rivalry between the operatives on shifts.

You take, for instance, A turn, starting on Monday morning. It is on day turns that week. It is relieved by B turn. The hours are from 6 a. m. to 6 p. m., and for B turn from 6 p. m. to 6 a. m. The man who comes in relieved me at 6 p. m., perhaps half-past five; he would immediately relieve me. But I was paid for the product of that day; and vice versa. If I came in early in the morning I relieved him, or if I was a little late he continued working until relieved. But we were paid on the product of the twelve hours worked by our turn or shift. That has been applied to the making of steel in the various branches in all steel mills. The melters, the steel blowers, and men in various other capacities requiring a high degree of skill relieve each other. They apply it in the operations at Homestead; that I have seen-the same operation applied in the relief of shifts at the Homestead mills. I so witnessed it. Now, to revert to the twelve hours. During my employment it was customary to work twelve hours, and we had two shifts. In 1895 there was a revival of the steel business, and it has grown continually from that time, until now, I believe, it has reached such an extent that the mills have all the orders they can work upon and the capacity of the mills demands.

In 1898 the orders were very great with the iron and steel company, particularly for billets, rods, rails, structural steel for buildings, and steel wire, and the manager of the Illinois Iron and Steel Company said to the employees, "We want you to work until 5 o'clock Sunday morning, and to commence work at 10 o'clock Sunday night.' The men said, "We can not do it. There is a limit to our endurance. We believe we are giving you all that we are capable of now." "Well our contracts are such that we demand an increased output, and we can only get it by working those hours. We are behind in our orders."

The men held a conference and made a suggestion to the employers to go on the eight-hour basis of three shifts, and it was accepted by the company, and in 1898December, 1898 when they were making the contracts for 1899, they entered upon the eight-hour basis, which applied to several of the mills, and the men employed there now, and the management as well, and I have it from the manager of the mills that they consider the eight-hour basis a great blessing; that it has, been a decided success; that during the month of January, 1898, the product of both turns under similar conditions to what they have there now, without any additional improved machinery, and the same number of employees on an average-the product of both turns for the month of January, 1898, was 35,465 tons. That was the gross output of the mill for both shifts, working twelve hours a day and not working later than 6 o'clock Saturday evening.

Mr. MCCLEARY. That was the monthly output?

Mr. RALPH. Yes, sir; the monthly output. The same mill, under the same conditions, but working three shifts of eight hours, instead of two shifts of twelve hours, on January, 1902, last, produced 48,690 tons. That shows a great increase in the capacity of the mills, which I claim is the result of working eight hours.

Now, that increase I argue is brought about by the mental and physical condition of the men, they being able to give all that they are capable of giving in eight hours, and permit of crowding, but being compelled to work twelve hours there was a relaxation in their physical efforts, and they did not accomplish the same results in ratio for twelve hours. So that, in my judgment, from my experience as to steel workers, better results can be obtained, the capacity of the men is greater, and the output is greater by working eight-hour instead of working twelve-hour shifts.

Mr. MCCLEARY. Has there been any change in the quality of the machinery? Mr. RALPH. No, sir; I say none. I will state what would be an incentive further; men who work twelve hours necessarily suffer a reduction of wages of 334 per cent by reducing their wages to the eight hours. In other words, a man who worked twelve hours expected, when he started in, to give up 33 per cent of his wages. But it has been proven that the men on that account felt a necessity and felt a greater zeal in the work in order to increase the ouptut of the eight hours, and they have succeeded in making almost as much money in eight hours, only a small per cent less, as they did in 1898 in twelve hours.

Mr. RHEA. Your statement is that under the eight-hour system the output has been increased. What about the quality?

Mr. RALPH. The quality of the steel has been maintained, because anybody who makes a contract with the steel companies now necessarily implies in that contract that the analysis of the steel shall be maintained to a certain point; and aside from that, that the tensile strength and other conditions that enter into the test of the steel shall be up to the standard, and they maintain inspectors on the premises to see that it is kept up.

Mr. RHEA. That there has been no deterioration of the quality?

Mr. RALPH. No, sir; it has been rather improved, I should say; so that those two points I would touch upon before this committee. In my judgment the changing

from the twelve-hour basis would not retard the progress of the work, would not in any way jeopardize the quality of the steel, but rather, I believe, would increase the output.

Now, it is true we may argue, if I am a manufacturer and go from the twelve-hour basis to the eight-hour basis, possibly the cost of producing a ton of steel will be increased. You take the interest on the investment of the plant, the raw material; take the insurance; take the cost of mechanical wear and repairs; take the wages of mechanics and laborers. But while you say that has nothing to do with the mill, yet it will all be taken into the account of arriving at the cost or profit per ton, and from that we derive our income, and consequently all material or labor consumed enters into the cost, and when you figure that out and figure that it costs a certain sum to produce a given amount, the labor of these men having entered into the product, they will say that it is necessary to make a reduction of so much in their wages. A man as a common laborer in the mills where I worked, 12 cents was the minimum rate per hour. Now, in my judgment, the man who got 114 cents per hour, the amount paid at Bethlehem works, and worked as I have known them to work, would not stand for any 90 cents a day on a basis of eight hours. He would seek employment elsewhere, and that company would have to increase the wages of the laborer sufficiently to induce the man to give up that additional number of hours so as to give him sufficient to sustain himself and family. Consequently that would be a small increase in the cost of producing a ton of steel; but the great increase of the output of the steel by three shifts instead of two would minimize and reimburse the company for all the losses they would suffer through said increase in cost per ton of producing the steel. Now, there is nothing else I can add, but I would be glad to answer any questions the gentlemen would like to ask me.

Mr. MCCLEARY. When you say they make practically as much in eight hours as formerly in twelve hours, your judgment is based on their being paid by the work accomplished and not by hours?

Mr. RALPH. Yes, sir; they pay tonnage.

Mr. MCCAMMON. In that connection does not that increase the product of the twelve-hour mills as well as of the eight-hour mills, and has not their product increased in that same proportion?

Mr. RALPH. Well, I think not, as history proves the contrary. "I could not state intelligently, and I do not believe I am competent to answer that as applied to Bethlehem works.

Mr. MCCAMMON. Do you not know, as a matter of fact, that the shifts at Homestead and Bethlehem do not change on forging and bending plates?

Mr. RALPH. On forging and bending I do not know the fact that they do not change; no, sir.

Mr. MCCLEARY. Do you assert the fact that they do?

Mr. RALPH. I assert that I witnessed the operations of the Homestead plant just prior to the strike, and that the operations of the men as an entirety did change. Now, what were conditions then and facts then are perhaps no longer facts to-day, but it demonstrates the feasibility of having done such a thing; that is all I testify to.

Mr. MCCAMMON. Has the machinery generally used in Bethlehem and Homestead and similar mills improved from 1898 to the present time?

Mr. RALPH. Well, I can not say. I have not visited Homestead during that interval. Mr. MCCAMMON. I said in similar mills.

Mr. RALPH. In similar mills?

Mr. McCAMMON. Is it not a fact that machinery has been greatly improved in the last few years?

Mr. RALPH. I made the statement that I believed the perfection of machinery had been reached in the manufacture of iron and steel in 1898.

Mr. McCAMMON. It had?

Mr. RALPH. Had reached its perfection in 1898.

Mr. McCAMMON. How about methods in connection with the manufacture of the machines of 1896?

Mr. RALPH. You mean the technique of the manufacture of steel?

Mr. McCAMMON. Yes.

Mr. RALPH. Well, perhaps the methods in the manufacture of armor plate have been changed slightly to meet the demands of the Navy Department as to the analysis of it. That is the technical part that I do not believe I am competent to touch upon. But the mechanical processes have not changed in the matter of heating and producing results, rolling and heating; those have not changed. It may be possible that they have introduced an additional cog to speed the machinery up, but it produces the same result, merely with greater capacity.

32796-08-32

Mr. MCCAMMON. What knowledge have you of the art of manufacturing armor plate of large proportions?

Mr. RALPH. A knowledge gained from Homestead. I have a knowledge from having witnessed it numerous times, and having discussed the subject with the men who were themselves engaged in the manufacture of it.

Mr. McCAMMON. At what date?

Mr. RALPH. Just prior to the Homestead strike.
Mr. McCAMMON. 1892?

Mr. RALPH. Yes, sir.

Mr. McCAMMON. The strike was in July, 1892?

Mr. RALPH. I should say in 1890. I would not say later than 1890.

Mr. McCAMMON. You have not any knowledge of the manner of manufacturing armor plate since that?

Mr. RALPH. No, sir. I made repeated efforts, not through any motives that were hostile to the company, but because I have always taken a great interest in the processess, to gain admission to the Homestead mills, but I could not gain admission as a sightseer or otherwise.

Mr. MCCAMMON. Have you any knowledge of when Homestead began the monthly delivery of armor plate to the Government?

Mr. RALPH. I do not profess to be competent to testify to any deliveries or conditions of contract between the Homestead Company

Mr. McCAMMON. What was the character of the armor plate manufactured at the time you visited the mill? What was its commercial name?

Mr. RALPH. Harveyized steel. At the time I was perfectly familiar with the conditions, and there was a great deal of criticism under the administration of the gentleman sitting there, Mr. Herbert, or shortly after that, about the quality of armor produced by Homestead, and I understand charges had peen preferred by employees that there was not a proper zeal, possibly, on the part of the representatives of the Government who were there as inspectors, and that the management of the mills, the Carnegie mills, furnished the Government an inferior quality of steel. I am not familiar with the details of the analysis or the technical terms in the condition of the steel. My memory does not serve me, but at that time I did have all that.

Mr. McCAMMON. You remember that you did see something that you thought was to the discredit of the company; you remember that distinctly?

Mr. RALPH. Yes, sir; I remember that. I do not think it was to the discredit of the company, but through the gross negligence and indifference of the Government representatives who inspected the steel; and I wish to say that I do not wish to cast any reflections upon Mr. Herbert. At that time I was offered a position by Mr. McAdoo, Assistant Secretary, as an inspector of steel, and I refused it. I was called in to take it, but I had a superior position at that time.

Mr. McCAMMON. Then you know nothing at all of the kind of armor that is now manufactured, and you have not any knowledge whatsoever of the kind of armor now manufactured, or how manufactured?

Mr. RALPH. I have not got the knowledge of the technique of the armor used, of the requirements and standards of the company in manufacturing it. I stated positively that I have not that. I have a knowledge of the mechanical processes to gain or accomplish that desired result.

Mr. MCCAMMON. Up to 1892?

Mr. RALPH. Yes, sir.

Mr. McCAMMON. Then you do not know that the armor made at the present day is entirely different, quite distinctive from anything you have any knowledge of? Mr. RALPH. I take it for granted it is a superior armor. We are constantly improving the metal by introducing various composites to make it meet the improved demand. Mr. McCAMMON. Are you aware of the fact that this latter inquiry, so far as the testimony of Mr. Johnston and Mr. Dinkey is concerned, relates to the exceptions and not to the rule that you and Mr. Garland speak of? Mr. Garland discussed it, and you are discussing it in a great measure as to the rule and not as to the exceptions. Our inquiry has been directed for several weeks to the exceptions. Questions have been asked you by members of the committee as to what it is you have in mind and you have said yes, that your remarks referred to the best quality of steel. Now, we are not denying anything at all, except we are asserting that the inquiries that we have put on foot related to the steel that is manufactured by Carnegie and the Bethlehem works for the Government, the highest quality of armor plate and the largest forgings that have ever been made. I think Mr. Johnston says in his testimony that they have manufactured the largest forgings ever made. Mr. RALPH. In this country. I believe.

Mr. MCCAMMON. The largest he knows of.

Now, I wish to call your attention in this connection to an extract on page 9 of Mr. Johnston's testimony, in which he says:

"The 16-inch jacket required by this Government for a 16-inch gun was made from an ingot and weighed 84,532 pounds about 85,000 pounds-254 feet in length, 45 inches outside diameter, with a 20-inch hole, requiring an ingot weighing 250,000 pounds. The heaviest of the other ingots was 150,000 pounds, to produce a forging of about the same weight."

I presume he means the heaviest of the other ingots up to that time.

"This ingot was about 100,000 pounds heavier, due to the fact that Government requirements cut off a larger percentage of scrap, and necessarily so, to procure better material finer material. But a heat of this kind weighing that amount can not be produced in eight hours anywhere in this world, or if it can, I want to find the man that is able to do it. We will pay him anything he wants to do the business. He is just the kind of a man we are looking for."

Have you any knowledge of anybody who can produce such an ingot in a less time than eight hours, or eight hours' continuous work?

Mr. RALPH. I have not any knowledge that such an ingot can be produced in eight hours. The largest ingot that I ever saw cast was 110,000 pounds. It took the capacity of two or more furnaces to cast that ingot, and it took a great deal of time, as Mr. Johnston says, to prepare the ingot and to make it.

Mr. McCAMMON. This took four furnaces?

Mr. RALPH. Yes.

Mr. MCCAMMON. Now, the ingot you spoke of; how long did it take to cast and finish; how long did it take to prepare the heat and make and cast it; just make a guess?

Mr. RALPH. I should say six hours. if my memory serves me right.

Mr. MCCAMMON. Six hours?

Mr. RALPH. Yes, sir.

Mr. McCAMMON. And how long to finish the work?

Mr. RALPH. After they made the cast, of course it took them just sufficient time to run off the metal into that mold-fifteen or twenty minutes, possibly more. I do not question Mr. Johnston's statement in that respect at all; but such a large ingot is an exceptional thing, and very rare.

Mr. McCAMMON. We are talking about exceptional things. It is not rare with them, however.

Mr. WARNOCK. It is not in controversy that it took more than eight hours for a great deal of this work.

Mr. RALPH. But another man is just as competent to finish that heat and complete the casting as the one that first had it.

Mr. McCAMMON. Mr. Warnock, of course it is very difficult to explain without repeating the whole question, but in Mr. Johnston's testimony he said that the best grade of material and the highest grade of work can not be properly finished by two shifts.

Mr. WARNOCK. That is the point.

Mr. MCCAMMON. I am repeating it because this witness says that he has gone over and taken it, and I assume that he understands that to be our position, and that in instances such as this which Mr. Johnston has related of the casting of an ingot weighing 250.000 pounds, that could not be properly done in eight hours, and it has to be done by one gang of men to be done properly.

Mr. GOMPERS. That is what we are disproving.

Mr. MCCAMMON. Trying to.

Mr. RALPH. I believe Mr. Johnston to be a very capable man, from the evidence he has furnished here as a steel worker, but on the other hand, as a witness who takes exceptions. I believe he made the best argument that he could under the circumstances. Now, you say there were four furnaces used in making that ingot, and I take it for granted that there were four heaters on those four furnaces.

Mr. McCAMMON. Yes; of course.

Mr. RALPH. That being the case, those heaters must accomplish the same results, because there must be the same conditions of analysis as to sulphur, phosphorus, and carbon, etc., so that they shall accomplish the same conditions, so that the heats from the different furnaces shall mix and amalgamate and make one uniform cast, and that goes to prove that the men who follow could accomplish the same thing under the same conditions.

Mr. McCAMMON. But it was all under the direction of one man?

Mr. RALPH. I do not say that the superintendent of the mill gives any directions except when called upon in a perfunctory way.

Mr. McCAMMON. Do you mean to say that one man is in charge of the heat?

Mr. RALPH. One man is in charge of the furnace.

Mr. McCAMMON. And there is an additional man in charge of the heat?

Mr. RALPH. I have not found it so in my experience.