Mr. MCCAMMON. Of course your knowledge is ten years old; but I will state it as a fact that one man is in charge. And if you prove that one man in an operation, to produce the best product, has to work more than eight hours, then this bill is faulty in that respect. That is our position. So that if you can bring yourself to discuss the question as to whether it is not possible, in your judgment, from what knowledge you have, and your experience, that one man should under such circumstances control and supervise an operation for more than eight hours, would not that prove our position?

Mr. RALPH. I will state that if I was the manager of a mill or an employee of a mill who had made statements that I believed I could improve the conditions of the steel if I were permitted to supervise, and if I were experimenting with a desire to accomplish a certain thing in the improvement of the steel. I would insist on myself supervising that if it took eight or twelve or sixteen hours, till we accomplished that fact. Mr. MCCAMMON. Now, Mr. Ralph, are you not aware of the fact that there was no armor plate made in this country prior to the year 1892, or in 1892?

Mr. RALPH. In 1892?

Mr. McCAMMON. Yes.

Mr. RALPH. I know that the product of Homestead was known on the market and recognized as armor plate.

Mr. MCCAMMON. Yes; imported armor plate, but Homestead made no armor plate. Mr. RALPH. 1892? Oh, yes; I beg your pardon; they did.

Mr. McCAMMON. Are you not aware of the fact that no armor plate was made either at Homestead or at Bethlehem prior to July, 1892?

Mr. RALPH. No, sir; I am not aware of that fact. I have testified that I visited the Homestead works and witnessed the manufacture of the product called armor plate and sold to the Navy as armor plate prior to that, and furnished to foreign countries as that; whether you call that part of the hull or the vessel receiving plate below the water armor plate or not makes no difference, because it was known as armor plate, and I so state it to be, and can prove it to be such.

Mr. McCAMMON. I would like to give you this example and ask your view of it. In hoisting an armor-plate ingot from the pit almost one hour's time is consumed. If the end of the shift comes in the middle of the operation, while the crane is away from the ladder upon which men gain access to the cage of the crane, how would it be possible for the new crane man to relieve his mate promptly at the end of the shift? (The witness says he understands that question.)

Mr. RALPH. I do, sir. I have seen the operation applied many times. This is an electric crane. They attach chains and other devices and dogs usually in that business to raise that ingot, but I dispute the statement that it takes an hour, unless it takes an hour to strip that ingot, or the ingot must remain an hour to solidify. But as to the operation of getting a man up on that crane, it seems to me if the Carnegie or Bethlehem works had intelligent foremen they would get them up there if they had to put them through the roof. I do not consider that question pertinent. But as to taking an hour, I believe the same thing would apply to the twelve hour day shift that would apply to the eight hour day shift. It is customary in the manufacture of steel where they are operating twelve hours now. Take the case at Homestead; ten minutes before the closing time they blow a whistle, and when the whistle blows if they are engaged on a heat they will finish it. It does not necessarily mean the same men would finish it. If another man came to relieve them, for instance, if a man was manipulating a lever at the rolls, or he was heating a furnace, the other heater would go on, say "Hello!" "Goodbye!" "You're off!" He finishes that heat.

Mr. McCAMMON. Does he not find out the physical and chemical composition of the metal?

Mr. RALPH. He has nothing to do with that.

Mr. McCAMMON. The man who goes on?

Mr. RALPH. The man who goes on. At times there might be a boy whose duty is at the beginning of the cast, and that boy might come in and take a sample from that heat in a mold, and later on another one, and that sample is allowed to solidify, rushed in under a steam hammer, and it is drawn out and it is drilled. The particles of steel in drillings are rushed to the chemist, and he says whether there is the right amount of phosphorus, carbon, and so on, and whether the requirements are right, and perhaps there may be a question about that.

Mr. MCCAMMON. Certainly when a change is made the man who comes on must be told about the physical and chemical condition of the heat; that information is communicated from one man to the other at the change of shifts?

Mr. RALPH. Well, usually to a few interested parties, who would be the manager of the mill or his representatives, to see that everything is right, but not to the heaters.

Mr. MCCAMMON. Within your own knowledge does any firm who have adopted the eight-hour day carry it out to the letter, and not permit men to work overtime? Mr. RALPH. No, sir; I have worked thirty-six hours in the rolling mills.

Mr. MCCLEARY. In succession?

Mr. RALPH. Yes, sir.

Mr. MCCAMMON. And you were paid well for doing it?

Mr. RALPH. Yes; fairly well.

Mr. MCCAMMON. At that time would you have liked to have been told that you could not work but eight hours?

Mr. RALPH. I will answer that question, and state that at that time I was anxious to work twelve hours a day. I will say that I worked forty-four hours, and have been paid for forty-four consecutive hours' labor in the rolling mills. When I speak about handling this machinery and the dexterity of it, there were only three men of us who were competent to manipulate that work, and in the absence of one it necessitated one of the others working in his place, and we were so vain about the expertness with which we did that work and so proud of our reputations, and there was so much rivalry about doing that work and accomplishing good results, that we guarded our reputations very jealously, and if I wanted to get off, if I had to attend a funeral or something else that compelled me to get off, I would call upon the man who worked at night to relieve me at 12 o'clock, which he did; he would do that for me, and I would return it some other time.

And so, if through illness or some other reason he had to be away, it devolved upon me to work extra. In addition to that, I had charge of the machinery and making repairs. I learned the trade of machinist in connection with the steel business, and when I speak of this machinery-I used to supervise the operations of this machinery for repairs, etc.-and we found that with a change of friction, or with a change of gearing, etc., that there was an imperfection or misfit, necessitating the return of machinery to shop for alterations. We wanted to commence operations Monday morning, and we did everything possible so that the operations might commence promptly Monday morning at regular hour, and I remained from Saturday morning until Monday night several times supervising such a job.

Mr. McCAMMON. Of course you admit that the manufacture of armor has been very much improved in late years?

Mr. RALPH. Yes, sir.

Mr. McCAMMON. And it is possible that the company has found that it can not allow changes now that did exist?

Mr. RALPH. I don't think so.

Mr. McCAMMGN. Is not that possible?

Mr. RALPH. No, sir; I do not believe it. In my knowledge of the operations I do not believe it is possible.

Mr. McCAMMON. Although you have a knowledge of conditions in 1892, you have not a knowledge of the conditions there at the present time?

Mr. RALPH. Well, I will state for the benefit of the judge that I have, whenever necessity offered itself, kept up with the progress of the work.

Mr. GOMPERS. Just a word. You say. Mr. Ralph, that you are not familiar with the provisions of the bill?

Mr. RALPH. No, sir; I have never read the bill.

Mr. GOMPERS. Let me say that the bill, as its title implies, is to limit the hours of labor, of the daily services of laborers and mechanics employed upon work done for the United States or any territory or the District of Columbia, and so forth. It proposes to limit the hours of laborers and mechanics. If any man in one of the plants to which you have referred has the superintendency of a great heat for an immense ingot, you understand that he occupies a position in that plant other than a laborer or mechanic?

Mr. RALPH. Yes, sir; he is the company.

Mr. GOMPERS. And therefore this bill does not apply to him.

Mr. RALPH. With my interpretation of the bill, I would say not, any more than it would apply to the clerk who kept books for that company.

Mr. GOMPERS. You have been questioned relative to the improved methods and the improved machinery that has been employed in the iron and steel mills? Mr. RALPH. Wonderful improvements.

Mr. GOMPERS. Has the tendency, so far as you know, of the improved methods of machinery been to simplify the production of steel?

Mr. RALPH. To simplify and increase the product, that has been the aim the chief aim, but I will say for the benefit of the committee now that that rivalry does not exist in the manufacture of steel that I spoke of. I can not speak for our friend Johnston's plant, because I do not believe I am competent to do that, but I am speaking of steel

works generally; that that rivalry does not exist in competition as it did formerly, where it depended on the lowest bidder to get the contract. Take steel rails, for instance. One man by an improved process of machinery was able to make a ton of steel rails cheaper than another man, and therefore he secured the contract. That rivalry brought about the improvement in machinery and labor-saving devices, until I say, in 1898, I believe they came to that acme in perfection where they ceased to further attempt the improvement; they have gone as far as they can in that direction. Of course. I recognize this, that perhaps there is no class of men in the world who occupy a more responsible or difficult position than men like Mr. Johnston, who are subordinate to the owners of a big plant. A man like that is responsible to them and he is expected to get the best results. If somebody else somewhere can produce a thing for 5 cents a ton less than it is being produced for at these works, then the company want to know why that is so.

Mr. McCAMMON. Does not the time of delivery form a very important element in modern contracts? Is not that one reason that we have been able of late years to obtain contracts abroad over foreign producers of steel-is not that one reason?

Mr. RALPH. No, sir. I will say the reason why we can take the contracts of steel from Europe is the superior intelligence of the workingmen in our steel mills.

Mr. MCCAMMON. I admit that, but I am only asking you whether this question of time is not one reason.

Mr. RALPH. And the increased facilities for doing it that have been brought about by rivalry of the different firms to accomplish that end.

Mr. MCCAMMON. But can you say that the fact that American manufacturers can deliver in less time has nothing to do with securing those contracts?

Mr. RALPH. Time has everything to do with the contract. But speaking as a whole, I would say it is not a consideration, because if you enter into a contract now they will say, "We will not specify the delivery." It is subject to strikes and so on, so you haven't any certainty that you can hold the company for the time. The CHAIRMAN. Government work is taken under time penalty.

Mr. RALPH. Yes; they build Government buildings under time penalty; but there are always things in the specifications that give the contractor a chance to evade the enforcement of the law.

Mr. GOMPERS. There is Mr. Gwynn, whom I desire to testify, and there are five or six others, and if Mr. Gwynn testifies I think it will be sufficient without the necessity of calling the others, simply because perhaps they would testify along the same line.

Mr. GRAHAM. How long do you think it would take?

Mr. GOMPERS. I should say the direct testimony ought not to take more than fifteen or twenty minutes.

It is

Mr. MCCAMMON. As a matter of fact, we agreed to divide the day. I would like that contract to be observed. I have three witnesses who are laboring men. understood by those who have attended these meetings-the question has forced itself upon the committee-how do the laboring men stand in reference to this bill, other than those represented by Mr. Gompers and his friends? The latter, of course, represent but a fraction of the laboring men of the country. We would like to give them an opportunity to be heard by the committee.

Mr. GOMPERS. I do not think it would take more than fifteen or twenty minutes for this witness I have spoken of.

Thereupon, at 1 o'clock, the committee took a recess until 2 o'clock p. m.

STATEMENT OF MR. CHARLES L. GWYNN.

Mr. GWYNN. I reside in Washington. I am a machinist. I have had about twenty-six years of practical experience as a machinist, and I might say that that experience has been quite varied. I have had the honor of being superintendent of construction of one company that I worked for. I was general superintendent of construction for that company for three years. I resigned my position with them and started a machine works of my own, which I conducted for several years, and, owing to circumstances over which I had no control, I am now working as a journeyman machinist in the Washington Navy-Yard.

Mr. GOMPERS. Mr. Gwynn, are you familiar with the operations in the turning of guns?

Mr. GWYNN. I am; yes, sir.

Mr. GOMPERS. Also with the boring of a gun?

Mr. GWYNN. Yes, sir.

Mr. GOMPERS. Is it absolutely essential that a man who is turning a finishing surface for assemblage of a gun, boring a hole, or turning off the outside of the tube

on which a hoop or jacket is to be shrunk, should complete the work on which he starts?

Mr. GWYNN. No, sir; it is not done in practice. It is simply a matter of impossibility to do it.

Mr. GOMPERS. Mr. Johnston, the superintendent of the Bethlehem Steel Works, had testified that it is absolutely essential.

Mr. GWYNN. Well, I can only say as to that, I do not know what it is absolutely essential or necessary to do in Mr. Johnston's works, or the works that Mr. Johnston is connected with, but I do know that it is not absulutely necessary to do it in the Washington Navy-Yard or any other place that I have ever been connected with. Mr. GOMPERS. In the event of your being engaged on a cut, can you at any given point turn it over to another man equally skilled as yourself to complete it? Mr. GWYNN. Certainly.

Mr. GOMPERS. And if he is equally as skillful as you he can turn out the result just as well as if you had continued it yourself.

Mr. GWYNN. Yes, sir. I will just relate a little incident which will probably answer that question to your satisfaction. I am at present engaged in boring 8-inch guns-8-inch 50-caliber guns. Last Saturday morning at 10 o'clock I started a finishing bit in an 8-inch gun from the muzzle end. I ran that machine up until half past 3, and the man who relieves me came in at half past 3, took the machine from me, and ran it until half past 11 Saturday night. Then the entire navy-yard was shut down. The machinery was shut down until Monday morning at 7 o'clock, when I took charge of the job again myself. I ran it until half past 3 Monday afternoon, and my relief came at half past 3 and relieved me, and at half past 9-about half past 9-Saturday night the bit was through the gun, and the job was completed. Mr. GOMPERS. Saturday night or Monday night?

Mr. GWYNN. I am mistaken; I mean Tuesday night. The point that I am anxious to make is this, that that finishing cut was stopped from half past 11 on Saturday night, and the gun lay dead, as it were, until 7 o'clock on Monday morning, and then I started the machine up and ran it until half past 3 o'clock Monday afternoon, and then the other man took charge of it at half past 3 and ran it until half past 11 that night, and then the machine was stopped again for the balance of the night, until 7 o'clock in the morning.

Mr. GOMPERS. Do you ever take the finishing bit out of the gun tube after the finishing cut is started?

Mr. GWYNN. Well, that depends on circumstances. In this case we did not. The bit was started and went right through the gun. But there is a rule in the navyyard, in regard to 12-inch work, where we are not allowed to run the finishing cut, or, in fact, any of the other cuts, over 5 feet. Then in that case the machine is not only stopped, but the bit-that is probably a term that is used in machine shops practice that you do not all understand. The bit is the tool that does the cutting. The bit is taken out of the gun, and not only taken out of the gun, but it is removed probably a thousand feet, I should say, put on a truck and hauled a thousand feet over a stone pavement to the tool rooms and sent back and put back in the gun, and trued up and put back in the gun, and then continued for another 5 feet, when the same operation is repeated; and that operation is repeated over and over until the gun is finished.

Mr. GOMPERS. And the net result is of the same grade of excellence as if it were continued through?

Mr. GWYNN. It certainly is. Our work is, so far as my experience goes, subjected to the closest inspection I have ever had to contend with. We are allowed probably three one-thousandths of an inch. If we get away from that, over or below the size, the result is that our pay is cut down or we are reduced in some way.

Mr. MCCLEARY. That is about the thickness of a piece of paper?

Mr. GWYNN. One one-thousandth of an inch is the thickness of a cigarette paper. They will measure one one-thousandth of an inch in thickness with a pair of micrometer calipers.

Mr. GOMPERS. In what condition do you receive the castings?

Mr. GWYNN. When we get the rough castings or forgings, as we call them, they are in about the same condition that the castings would be that we get out of an iron foundry-they are machined to a certain extent; I do not know why, I do not profess to know why, but I should suppose that the Government places some restrictions on Washington, and so forth; and then, on the other hand, by taking a cut off the casting it allows the inspector to see what the metal is. There is a rough cut taken off the casting, or probably a half dozen of them. We do not know--I do not know anything about that, but it is in a very crude state. They are not round- straightthe gun tubes when we get them. They are sprung as much as-I know in my experience I have had them sprung as much as three-quarters of an inch.

Possibly a tube for a 12-inch gun is about 41 feet long, and possibly 18 feet of it would be perfectly straight-that is. practically straight, not perfectly-and maybe in the next 10 feet of length you will find a kink in it that will throw it out of true, possibly a quarter of an inch. In that case we have to throw the gun so that the tube will bore out inside and at the same time leave metal enough on the outside to true off.

Mr. GOMPERS. How much do you take out of these gun tubes?

Mr. GWYNN. Well, the 12-inch work-the 12-inch tubes-when we get them measure 11 inches. Of course they have to be bored out about 12 inches in diameter. That amounts to 1 inch to take out of it.

Mr. MCCLEARY. That amounts to a one-half inch cut?
Mr. GWYNN. To a half-inch cut on the side; yes, sir.

Mr. GOMPERS. Mr. Johnston testified that all the forgings that the Government received are rough turned-are finished within one-eighth of an inch. What is your experience in regard to that?

Mr. GWYNN. One-eighth of an inch of what?

Mr. McCAMMON. One-eighth of an inch of the finished size.

Mr. GWYNN. Well, we can take one-eighth of an inch; in fact, we can take onequarter of an inch in diameter-that is, one-eighth of an inch on the side-and not take the black out of it, on any casting that comes in there.

Mr. MCCLEARY. What do you mean by "the black?"

Mr. GWYNN. It has a black surface. It may take it off in spots, but there will be places that we will not touch it at all.

Mr. MCCLEARY. The depressions of the surface

Mr. GWYNN. The unevenness of the surface.

Mr. MCCLEARY. Then you say that you have to throw it out sometimes?

Mr. GWYNN. Yes, sir; as much as three-eighths of an inch. I have seen that done, and have done it myself.

Mr. MCCLEARY. In rifling the guns, are the machines stopped at any time?

Mr. GWYNN. They certainly are. The machine is stopped at each end. When the rifling tool goes through the gun, it comes to a stop. It does not make much difference how long you keep it stopped when it stops. It must stop to reverse.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Gardner). I would like to see that inconsistency in the record. Mr. Johnston testified that their work had to be accurate within one-eighth of an inch, and then when later questioned said within an eighth of an inch of the specifications.

ARGUMENT OF MR. SAMUEL GOMPERS.

Mr. GOMPERS. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, this is the third time that this bill has had the attention of the honorable members of the Committee on Labor of the House of Representatives. I shall not attempt to go into a very lengthy history of this bill, but it does seem to me that a statement as to its origin should be made for the benefit of all who may not know.

Since 1892 we have endeavored to secure some amendment to the existing law that would fully enforce not only the law but the spirit of the law, and this particularly, too, by reason of court decisions and opinions rendered by the Attorneys-General.

It was proposed as an amendment to the law of 1892, which was under consideration by the Committee on Labor of the House of Representatives in the Fifty-fourth Congress, and it dragged along until the closing days of that Congress, when that committee agreed to report the bill favorably; but during the course of an argument and hearing the Hon. John J. Gardner, now chairman of your committee, expressed an opinion that a bill providing for an eight-hour day upon Government work and work done for the Government by contract or subcontract could be framed upon different lines, which would be more effective, absolutely constitutional, and entirely practical. We have no desire-we, the representatives of organized labor, have no desire to take to ourselves a credit and an honor which is not due to us. The honor of framing the bill, and the thought underlying it, is that of the honorable chairman of the committee, Mr. Gardner.

The reasons Mr. Gardner gave appealed to our judgment, and our amendment to the eight-hour bill having died with the Fifty-fourth Congress, we were often after in consultation with Mr. Gardner, the result of which consultation was the draft of the bill introduced in the early days of the Fifty-fifth Congress, and upon which hearings were had before the Committee on Labor, when the opponents of the bill appeared there with their arguments, but failed to convince the members of the Committee on Labor that their contention was right.

The committee reported the bill favorably. It passed the House of Representatives by a practically unanimous vote. It was then taken over to the Senate and introduced