it was intended to apply to Government buildings, in the shops, and everything which they then thought was included in the terms "public works" of the United States; but this narrow construction of the term "public works" has practically nullified the bill.

Mr. O'CONNELL. We maintain that the large contractors, as, for instance, the Cramp Shipyard and the Newport News Shipbuilding Company, are enjoying special privileges because of being in a position to operate their plants any number of hours they may see fit. While other shipbuilding institutions have, since May, 1901, reduced the hours of labor somewhat, as, for instance, the Union Iron Works at San Francisco, now a part of the American Shipbuilding Company, reduced the hours of labor to nine during the past year; and the ship company at Elizabethport, N. J., and the shipbuilding company at Wilmington, Del., reduced the hours of labor during 1901 to nine hours, or 54 hours per week; these concerns are not by any means as large contractors or subcontractors from the Government as are the concerns that have been working the longest number of hours per day and per week, namely, the Cramp Shipyard, the Newport News Shipyard, the Bethlehem Steel Company, and the other steel concerns the United States Steel Company's mills.

These concerns, which are the largest contractors, have been working the longest number of hours per day and per week.

The gentlemen who have appeared against this bill during the hearings that have been held, some of them practical men, some of them technical men and theorists, have offered, in the main, the argument that their opposition to the bill was, first, because it prohibited absolutely the working of overtime, and, second, because it prohibited absolutely the contracting or free contracting between the employer and the employee as to the number of hours that they might desire to run their plants or the number of hours the workmen might desire to work.

Some of the gentlemen who have appeared here have gone so far as to say, in their opposition to the bill, that, when it became public in the localities from which they came, the argument in opposition presented by them was so cheerfully accepted by the constituency in the locality where they came from that they were overwhelmingly besieged by flattery and compliments in every direc tion because they had made it so plain what the real injury was contained in this bill, which the employee or the workmen had misunderstood; that they had misconceived the idea of the bill, had never for a moment believed that the bill meant that they were not going to be permitted to work more than eight hours per day if they wanted to, and that so pleased were the workmen in the districts where some of these gentlemen came from that they demonstrated the fact by approaching the gentlemen who had appeared here, and shook their hands and with a smile thanked them for having brought out the defects in the bill and for having shown to the workingmen the sting that was really hidden in this bill; for having, in other words, tried to convey to this committee the idea that those who had the bill introduced and those who were advocating the passage of the bill were misrepresenting to Congress and had misrepresented to past Congresses the real purpose of the bill and the real purpose of those they were supposed to represent.

I took advantage of the time elapsing between the hearings to make some investigation into the statements being made before this commitee, and I have accumulated a few documents from men direct to present to the committee. Mr. Davenport, the attorney of the Anti-Boycott League, an organization unknown so far as its membership is concerned, made a number of statements before the committee as to the purpose of the bill and its effect upon the workingmen and his knowledge as to what the workingmen of this country wanted; that the men who were fathering the bill believed they were representing the men of their organization and the wageworkers of this country, but that the wageworkers did not understand what the bill meant; and that by a personal investigation and visiting the manufacturing plants of this country he had discovered, upon close observation, that the wageworkers of the country were not in favor of eight hours, and they were absolutely opposed to any bill that would prohibit them from working overtime.

As a direct evidence of his position, he stated at the last hearing at which I heard him that the testimony given in a previous hearing was published in all the papers of Bridgeport, Conn., and that the statement made by him before the committee had opened up so wide the defects in this bill, and made it so clear to the employees of the section of the country from which he came that they came to him with open hands and congratulated him upon the evidence

put before the committee and the light that he has thrown upon it, with a view to leading the committee to believe that the representatives of organized labor were misrepresenting the wants of the wageworkers of his district.

I have here fourteen letters from reputable men of Bridgeport, representing thousands of workingmen of that city, with the signatures of the presidents and officers under the seal of each local union, in contradiction of the statement made by Mr. Davenport as to the relations of organized labor and unorganized labor at Bridgeport in regard to the position they occupy against this bill. Mr. DAVENPORT. Have you the dates?

Mr. O'CONNELL. These are all dated, every one of them.

Mr. DAVENPORT. May I look at them?

Mr. O'CONNELL. Certainly; there is nothing secret about them.

Mr. DAVENPORT. May I inquire of the gentleman whether he claims that those documents were adopted by any unions of Bridgeport in their meetings?

Mr. O'CONNELL. A special meeting was called for each one of them; yes, sir. Mr. DAVENPORT. For each one of them?

Mr. O'CONNELL. Oh, yes, sir.

Mr. DAVENPORT. That is the statement you make?

Mr. O'CONNELL. Yes, sir; they come to me as adopted by their meetings. Mr. DAVENPORT. I have information furnished to me by a union man of Bridgeport bearing upon that subject. I wish the gentleman would state which, if any, of those documents purport to have been adopted by the unions of Bridgeport.

Mr. O'CONNELL. I have made the statement, Mr. Chairman, that these documents have all been adopted by the unions of Bridgeport. They are signed and sealed by their officers.

Mr. DAVENPORT. They have the names of the officers and the seal; that I know. But I ask him whether he wishes to state to your committee that those matters

Mr. O'CONNELL. I have made the statement, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DAVENPORT. May I look at them?

Mr. O'CONNELL. Certainly.

The ACTING CHAIRMAN. Does each one represent a local?

Mr. O'CONNELL. Each one represents a different division of the trades of Bridgeport and there is one from the central body of Bridgeport, representing all the organizations.

Mr. GOMPERS. Mr. Chairman, may I ask, before Mr. O'Connell proceeds further, that after the scrutiny that Mr. Davenport desires to give those documents, inasmuch as he has stated that he has, upon the authority of some union man of Bridgeport, the denial that these resolutions or statements were authorized by a meeting of the union, he may give to the committee the name of his informant?

I say this because there has been so much of this claiming to represent so and so, and that such and such a statement has been made by some party, and without some understanding as to whether it be so or not I think it would not be unfair to us to know as to the accuracy of his statement; and we ought either to stand here convicted of misrepresentation or we ought to stand here vindicated of the truthfulness of our position.

The ACTING CHAIRMAN. There seems to be no objection on the part of the committee to having the names given and filed.

Mr. HUGHES. I think, inasmuch as the gentleman has attempted to impeach this testimony, he ought to give his reason. I say that, speaking as a member of the committee.

Mr. DAVENPORT. So far as I am concerned I am willing to convey to the gentlemen and to the committee the information that I have and also make a statement in regard. to what I understand to be the facts. So far as giving the name of the informant who conveyed to me this information, that I shall not do; but I challenge the gentleman to dispute the accuracy of my statement, and if the committee considers it of sufficient importance in connection with this matter to investigate the accuracy of that statement by instituting an investigation, I am satisfied the committee can ascertain the fact to be so. The ACTING CHAIRMAN. Let me see if we understand what your statement is. You concede the fact that they are regularly signed by the officers of the union?

Mr. DAVENPORT. This is the information I have, Mr. Chairman

The ACTING CHAIRMAN. Let me ask you some questions, to get it down to a specific point. Is it claimed that these documents are forgeries, or is it admitted that they are signed by the officers?

Mr. DAVENPORT. They are signed by the officers.

The ACTING CHAIRMAN. Is it claimed that no notice was sent to the representatives of the local union in each case to attend the meeting?

Mr. DAVENPORT. I understand that with the exception of three or four that is true.

The ACTING CHAIRMAN. That notices were sent out, you mean?

Mr. DAVENPORT. I understand in three or four instances they held meetings. I understand the Machinists' Union, the Carpenters' Union, the Retail Clerks' Union, and the Electrical Workers' Union held meetings. On the night of the 9th of March I observed in the paper a notice that there would be a meeting of the Central Labor Union of Bridgeport and important business would come up. That I took to be the notice that was given. At that meeting there were, as I am informed, 33 men present. There were 19 unions of the 32 unions in Bridgeport represented by those 33 men.

At that meeting a letter from Mr. O'Connell was presented, which I presume. he has, setting forth what he claimed I stated here, and requesting that he be informed of the facts and that they communicate with him, and asking for resolutions signed in this way from the different unions. I presume Mr. O'Connell supposed that such a course as that would be taken of ascertaining from the unions their views.

At this meeting at which 19 unions were represented, and at which 33 men were present of the Central Labor Union, after paying their respects to me, they voted to adopt the resolution which has come here purporting to be from the Central Labor Union. There were only 19 of the unions represented and the proposition was made as to how they would get the other resolutions of this character from the other unions. The gentleman representing the Carpenters' Union was authorized to go about, if possible, and secure the signatures of the officers of those unions, and those signatures, as I was informed, were obtained by going to the officers of these unions.

The committee will bear in mind, or if not the record will show exactly, what I stated as to the attitude occupied by me. It is stated, as I understand it, in the resolutions of the Central Labor Union that they represent 12,000 · union men of Bridgeport. I was informed that there were 3,000 members at present in those unions. That is the information that I had in regard to those resolutions.

Now, I ask the gentleman again, does he understand and does he wish the committee to understand that all those resolutions were adopted by the members of the union represented by those at meetings held by those unions, at which notice was given them to be present, and where the subject was put before them in a true light? Is that his understanding of it?

Mr. O'CONNELL. What does the gentleman mean by the subject being put before them in a true light?

Mr. DAVENPORT. In the light of what I stated here.

Mr. O'CONNELL. I will state to the chairman that I submit these resolutions signed and sealed by the officers of the local labor organizations of Bridgeport. They come to me through the officers of each of these organizations, under their seal, and they are presented here and stand for just exactly what they say, representing the union of each of these organizations individually and the central body of Bridgeport.

Mr. GOMPERS. Mr. Chairman, before Mr. O'Connell proceeds any further, you have observed that Mr. Davenport, having been asked a question, makes a long statement and then propounds a question; but he has not answered as to the source of his information. As a matter of fact, there is a system of espionage going on in the labor organizations of the country by the hired detective agencies of the Manufacturers' Association, two of them in Cleveland, another one in Chicago, and one of them now, as I am advised-I am not sure of it-by this so-called Anti-Boycott Association. These spies or detectives are sent into the organizations of labor for the purpose of reporting to employers what is supposed to be the procedure and actions of organized labor, and, as a matter of fact, these people want to accomplish something to earn the money they are paid, and they report any old thing. It does not make any difference.

I appreciate, I think, the unexpressed opinion that Mr. Davenport holds, that perhaps, following his train of thought that he has expressed here and elsewhere, if he would give the name of his informant, the man might suffer some persecution. First, I want to say that such a suspicion I believe to be unwarranted, but I suggest that Mr. Davenport might give this committee the information, as he suggests, and then

Mr. O'CONNELL. If Mr. Gompers will permit me, while I do not want to interrupt his thought, I have the matter pretty well in hand by documents.

Mr. GOMPERS. Let me finish the sentence then. I suggest that some representative of labor be selected, anyone in whom the committee have confidence, whom Mr. Davenport would believe, if he pledged his word of honor that he would not violate the proprieties or violate his pledge by using the name in any way except in an effort to ascertain the accuracy of it and give it to the committee. Let us fathom that, not to hold up this bill, but simply for the committee's information, if not upon this hearing, at some future time for the information of the committee.

Mr. DAVENPORT. The statement that I make

The ACTING CHAIRMAN. Is this interruption with your consent, Mr. O'Connell? Mr. O'CONNELL. I have no objection to answering questions, Mr. Chairman, or entering into the argument, but I do not want the thing to drift too far away from what I am trying to present to the committee.

The ACTING CHAIRMAN. You are entitled to your time unless you wish to be interrupted.

Mr. HUGHES. Permit me a moment, Mr. O'Connell. I suggest to the chairman and the other members of the committee that there does not seem to have been anything advanced so far that would impeach the value of these communications in the statement made, which is a purely hearsay statement, as I understand it.

Mr. FOSTER. Then what are we interrupting for?

Mr. HUGHES. I suggest that we stop discussing the letter episode.
The papers referred to by Mr. O'Connell are as follows:

BRIDGEPORT, March 6, 1904.

At the regular meeting of the Railroad Freight Handlers' Union, No. 426, the following resolution was unanimously adopted:

Whereas Daniel Davenport, in his opposition to the eight-hour bill before the labor committee at Washington, said that hundreds of union men shook hands with him for the stand he had taken against the said bill;

And whereas said Davenport stated that the union men were not in favor of the eight-hour bill, etc.,

Be it resolved, That we, the Freight Handlers' Union, deny his statements in every particular, and hereby announce that our organization is in favor of the eight-hour bill as presented, as we believe it will be a great benefit to the wageearners generally.

[SEAL.]

PATRICK J. DOLAN, President.
JOHN DAWSON, Secretary.

UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA,
BRIDGEPORT, CONN., UNION No. 115,
March 8, 1904.

Whereas Mr. D. Davenport, a lawyer of this city, now employed by the manufactures and trusts of the country to fight the advancement of the labor movement; and whereas he is now in Washington appearing before the Committee on Labor in opposition to the eight-hour bill, and in his lengthy argument he said that the union men of Bridgeport were not in favor of the eight-hour bill, that they wanted the privilege to work as long as they felt like it; and whereas since he made his speech he has said that a great many union men shook his hand and thanked him for his speech, telling him he had expressed their opinion of the bill;

And whereas he, also the labor leaders, now appearing before the committee in favor of the bill, were not representing the desires and wishes of the union men of Bridgeport: Therefore, be it

Resolved, That we, the carpenters and joiners hereby assembled, numbering about 550 men of all political affiliations, do hereby qualify Mr. Davenport's statement as false and misleading in every sense, and we are surprised that a man of common intelligence could make such a broad and false statement, and ask him, if he has any respect for the union men "of whom he claims to be the friend," to name his authority for making such broad statements; and be it further

Resolved, That we are in favor of the eight-hour bill now before the committee. We are in full accord with the labor leaders and hope they will be successful in proving to the labor committee that labor should get more of the great

amount of prosperity now sweeping over the country. We hope Congress will make the bill a law. We believe that Mr. Davenport has made the mistake of other enemies of organized labor. He believes that labor should not think or ask for anything, but allow such good friends of labor as Mr. Davenport and other trust and corporation lawyers are to do our thinking and tell us what we want and ought to get. Unanimously adopted. [SEAL.]

R. MARTIN, President.

J. LEONARD HELD, Vice-President.
E. O. HOUGHTON, Secretary.
WM. RUSSELL, Treasurer.
M. L. KANE, Business Agent.

IRON MOLDERS' UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, NO. 110,

Bridgeport, Conn.

At a meeting of Iron Molders' Union, No. 110, held on March 10, 1904, the following preamble and resolutions were unanimously passed:

Whereas it has come to our knowledge that Daniel Davenport, in his evidence against the eight-hour bill before a committee of the House, said that there was no desire among the union men for the passage of the bill. Therefore be it— Resolved, By the Iron Molders' Union of this city, that they unhesitatingly indorse the bill and desire to go on record as being in entire accord and sympathy with the measure, and that Davenport's statement in reference to the union men of this city is without foundation; be it further

Resolved, That the molders are not only in favor of eight hours for Government work, but for all work, and are against overtime under any condition. M. FORBES, President. CHARLES H. O'BRIEN,

Corresponding Representative.

BRIDGEPORT, CONN., March 10, 1904.

The HONORABLE COMMITTEE ON THE EIGHT-HOUR-LAW BILL.

GENTLEMEN: In reply to the statement made before your honorable committee by a Mr. Davenport, that the union men of the city of Bridgeport, Conn., were opposed to the eight-hour law and did not want it, we, the undersigned officers of the Allied Metal Mechanics, Local No. 7, of this city, desire to state in behalf of the members of the local that we are very much in favor of the eight-hour law, and feel that the members of every other local in the city are of the same opinion.

Respectfully, yours,

[SEAL.]

HUGH J. HANNON, President.

GEORGE MOORE, Treasurer.

JOSEPH BYRNES, Financial Secretary.

JOSEPH P. MCCANN, Recording Secretary.

RETAIL CLERKS' ASSOCIATION,

Bridgeport, Conn., March 10, 1904.

Whereas statments have been made by Daniel Davenport and appeared in the press to the effect that labor-union men were not in favor of the eight-hour bill which is now before the Labor Committee of the House of Congress, and

Whereas Daniel Davenport has stated that numbers of union men of Bridgeport had commended him and shook hands with him for the stand he had taken against the eight-hour bill; be it

Resolved, That we, the Retail Clerks' Union, Local No. 451, do hereby unanimously deny those statements and state that this local union has always favored all legislation giving shorter day's work to the wage-earners of this country; and be it further