Resolved, That we fully understand the eight-hour bill which is now being discussed before the Labor Committee at Washington and heartily and unanimously indorse it. [SEAL.] JOHN A. WORTHEY, President. ROBERT K. MARSHALL, Vice-President. W. L'HOMMEDIEU, Financial Secretary. WOOD, WIRE, AND METAL LATHERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION, To whom it may concern: Whereas Mr. Davenport, of Bridgeport, Conn., has appeared before the Committee on Labor and stated that the labor men of this city of Bridgeport were pleased with his opposition to the eight-hour law; be it Resolved, That we, the members of the Wood, Wire, and Metal Lathers' Union, Local No. 23, of Bridgeport, Conn., emphatically deny this statement; and be it further Resolved, That our organization is in favor of the eight-hour law as presented. INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, Mr. JAMES O'CONNELL. Bridgeport, March 11, 1904. DEAR SIR: At a special meeting called March 9 for the purpose to deny the statement made by Mr. Davenport before the committee in Washington, D. C., that union men did not want eight hours to constitute a day's work, or words to that effect, is false. It was also voted that all work done by the Government shall be on eighthour basis. We hold a man that handles the pick is as good as the man that carries the mail, so long as he is truthful, honest, and a good loyal citizen, true to his country and his God. That is the foundation of unionism. Mr. JAMES O'CONNELL, J. T. ROONEY, President. INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, President International Association of Machinists. DEAR SIR AND BROTHER: The following preamble and resolution was unanimously adopted by Bridgeport Lodge 30, to wit: Whereas it has come to our notice, through newspaper reports of Mr. Davenport's speech, that the said gentleman has made statements before the Committee on Labor regarding the eight-hour bill now pending before Congress to the effect that the workingmen of Bridgeport were not in favor of said bill and that trades unionists of Bridgeport met him on his return from Washington and shook him by the hand and congratulated him on his efforts to defeat said bill, both of which statements we denounce as untrue; And whereas he, the said Mr. Davenport, pretends that he is the friend of labor, and at the same time he is the attorney of the Anti-Boycott League who is prosecuting the working classes of sister towns, is, in our opinion, sufficient to condemn him in the eyes of all workingmen. Therefore, in view of these facts and in view of the further fact that, as an organization representing 500 skilled machinists, we are in favor of the eight-hour bill as it now stands, knowing full well that it provides that overtime can not be worked except in cases of extreme emergency. J. H. SMITH, Recording Secretary. Mr. J. O'CONNELL: BRIDGEPORT, CONN., March 11, 1904. At a regular meeting of the Journeymen Barbers' Union, Local 288, the following resolution was adopted: Whereas Mr. D. Davenport, counsel for the Anti-Boycott Association, has appeared before the Committee on Labor, at Washington, and made a statement that the labor men were opposed to the eight-hour bill before said committee; therefore be it resolved that we, the Journeymen Barbers' Union, hereby indorse the said bill now before the said committee, and we further agree with the statments now at Washington. Respectfully, yours, [SEAL.] DANIEL J. O'CONNOR, J. J. MEYER, Finance Secretary. INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, Ice Wagon Drivers and Helpers' Union of Bridgeport: Whereas it has come to our notice that Mr. Daniel Davenport, of Bridgeport, in his speech before the legislative committee on the eight-hour bill has stated that the union men of this section do not want the eight-hour bill passed; At our meeting of March 9, Therefore, be it resolved, that we denounce it as a falsehood, as the fundamental principle of unionism is for a short workday, and that we as a body of union men want it to come to pass as soon as possible, as it will be the emancipation of workingmen. [SEAL.] MICHAEL DWYER, President. MICHAEL HUSSEY, Financial Secretary. BROTHERHOOD OF PAINTERS, DECORATORS, AND PAPERHANGERS OF AMERICA, Mr. JAMES O'CONNELL. Resolved, That we, the Painters, Decorators, and Paperhangers of America, do brand the statements of Mr. Davenport as false in every particular and unanimously adopt the following resolution: That we, the Journeymen Painters and Decorators' Union, favor the eight-hour day bill as presented before the Labor Committee at Washington, D. C. Be it further resolved, That our organization always has favored an eighthour day, as we know it is beneficial to the best interest of the wageworkers in general. We trust you will succeed in having the eight-hour-day bill carried through without any more opposition on the part of Mr. D. There are about 40 local unions in the city of Bridgeport, representing about 12,000 union men and women, and if Mr. D. can give you the name of any union man or woman who met him at the depot and shook hands we would like to know him or her. You may read this letter before the Labor Committee if you wish. Wishing you all success in your undertaking, I remain, yours, fraternally, [SEAL.] JOHN O'DONNELL, President. Recording Secretary, Local Union No. 190, Brotherhood of Painters and Decorators and Paperhangers of America. Residence: No. 1301 Central avenue, Bridgeport, Conn. CENTRAL LABOR UNION, Bridgeport, Conn., March 12, 1904. Mr. JAMES O'CONNELL: Following is the action of the Bridgeport Central Labor Union at their special meeting held March 9, 1904. The following resolutions were adopted: Whereas Mr. Davenport, a lawyer of this city, representing the Antiboycott League, has been appearing before the Committee on Labor in the House of Representatives in opposition to our eight-hour bill; and Whereas he has made the statement before the committee that he was a good friend of organized labor, and that since he made his speech against the eighthour bill hundreds of union men have shook his hand and told him he had expressed their opinion on the question, And whereas he made the statement that the eight-hour bill was not wanted by the union men of this city, and that the leaders of organized labor who are now appearing before the same committee are not representing the wants of the union men in this section, it is hereby Resolved, That we, the officers and delegates of the Bridgeport Central Labor Union hereby denounce the statements of Mr. Davenport as unqualifiedly false in every particular, and challenge Mr. Davenport to name one union man who told him that he was opposed to the eight-hour bill, for one of the fundamental principles of organized labor is the eight-hour day; and be it further Resolved, That we indorse the stand taken by our leaders in Washington in their efforts to secure the passage of this bill now pending before your committee. J. J. O'NEIL, President. N. P. BISSONNETTE, J. H. SMITH, J. M. DONNELLY, Committee on Resolutions.. BRIDGEPORT THEATRICAL STAGE EMPLOYEES, I. A. T. S. E., To whom it may concern: In reading the newspapers we find that Daniel Davenport, the attorney of the Antiboycott Association, has made statements detrimental to organized labor. Be it therefore Resolved, That we, the members of the International Alliance Theatrical Stage Employees, Local 109, of Bridgeport, Conn., do hereby deny his statements; and be it further Resolved, That we are in favor of the eight-hour bill as presented before the Labor Committee at Washington. [SEAL.] GEORGE F. BELDON, WM. H. LYONS, Recording Secretary, Local 109. Mr. JAMES O'CONNELL, Washington, D. C. BRIDGEPORT TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION 252, DEAR SIR: We understand that Attorney Daniel Davenport, of this city, made the remark that the workingman of Bridgeport did not desire shorter work hours. We are emphatically in favor of the passage of the "eight-hour bill' now pending before Congress. We understand the bill now being considered, and we are in favor of an eight-hour day and in favor of any bill that will prohibit the working of more than eight hours in any one calendar day. Fraternally, yours, [SEAL.] ROBT. T. CHERRY, President. PETER W. PULVER, Secretary. 275 Black Rock Avenue. Mr. O'CONNELL. Mr. Chairman, I think it comes with bad grace for any gentleman to question the integrity of another gentleman appearing before this committee, who states that he represents absolutely the opinions of 75,000 skilled machinists of this country, the opinions of 300,000 metal-working tradesmen, of whose organization he is president, and the opinions represented by him as an officer of the American Federation of Labor, when that gentleman makes the statement before this committee, which is in print, that he believes" he represents, that he "thinks" he represents certain people. Mr. Davenport, in his testimony, at page 16 of the printed hearings, states that he "believes" he represents So-and-so, and "I think I represent So-and-so." He leaves it with the committee to decide whether he does or not. I say absolutely I am here representing the men I have mentioned, and not from a technical and theoretical standpoint, but from a practical standpoint; that these men are absolutely in favor of the bill before the committee; that it is their wish that this bill be passed; that they are in favor of the bill because it absolutely prohibits the working of overtime except in cases of emergency. Mr. Davenport, in his statement, ridiculed and belittled the meaning of emergencies. They brought gentlemen here, practical men, from the United States Steel Company, from electrical works throughout the country, and from other industries, to state to the committee that it was absolutely impossible to stop the work of a plant on the minute, at 4 o'clock or 5 o'clock, as the case might be; that it was a physical impossibility to do it, and that it was ridiculous on the part of the committee to consider such a proposition; and while he admitted there was probably some wisdom on the part of the men who were representing this bill, he said that they represented it in total ignorance and in total darkness as to what it meant. Now, I speak as a practical mechanic, having spent over twenty years in the various machine shops of this country. You have been told during this hearing that certain jobs were done in machine shops that it was impossible to stop, but they did not say to you that it was impossible to change the men on a job. One gentleman, who was a practical man, said that in the boring of a cylinder, which several gentlemen made mention of, when the cut is a finishing cut, it could not be stopped without doing the cylinder injury. I admitted that was correct; but there is no injury incurred in the changing of the men upon that job. I have changed with men upon jobs of a similar character probably a hundred times in my lifetime. I have changed with the man who went home and I took his job, or I went home and he took my job. In the Washington Navy-Yard they run three turns, eight hours to each. You can go over there every day and see one man taking a machine that another man is operating and going right along with it. They do not work a man over eight hours in that yard. The men change three times in the twenty-four hours on every job. Some of it is the finest class of work that is built in America. The closest work that is done by any mechanic in the world is done in the Washington Navy-Yard to-day. It is not done by the inch or the hundredth part of the inch, but the work is done under the micrometer caliper down to a fraction of an inch which is far beyond the conception of the eye, and every day, three times a day, men are changed upon this work without any injury to the work whatever. Practical men come here representing the molding industry and tell you that conditions exist in the foundry that make it absolutely impossible to work an eight-hour day; that it would be ruinous to their business; that it would cause great loss of material; that sometimes this thing.and that thing occurs in a cupola which would make it impossible for the men to change. Mr. Jenks, the representative of the United States Steel Company who was here, said that the industry was such that they had to occupy the men in the work by allowing them 15 minutes here and 15 minutes there, and that the work would go on, and in other instances he told you that it required absolutely no skill to operate this thing; that it simply required a man to move the levers and handles and so on, and that was all. I want to give you the evidence of some practical men. Here is the report of the work of the Naval Gun Factory at Washington, a statement by Capt. Edwin C. Pendleton, superintendent of the yard, before the Appropriations Committee, in which Mr. Pendleton asks for an appropriation to enlarge the foundry at the Washington Navy-Yard so that they can make castings at the yard, which they are now buying from private contractors. Mr. Pendleton makes this proposition to the committee, knowing full well that he can operate that vard only eight hours, to the minute, every day, that is, for one turn to a man. He submits to the committee statements showing the cost under which the yard is run on the eight-hour basis, in addition to which the men receive a fifteen days' leave of absence each year with pay. They also receive all holidays with pay, and notwithstanding this lower number of hours' work and the addition of the fifteen days' leave of absence and the addition of the holidays granted to the men, he shows in his statement here it is a long document; you can' all get it The ACTING CHAIRMAN. Give the number of it, Mr. O'Connell. Mr. O'CONNELL. It is House Document No. 10. He states in the document that he has produced work-under these working conditions, remember, the hours and the holidays and the leave of absence-at a greatly reduced cost from the cost which the Government is paying to private contractors. The other side may say to you that this is done because they do not charge a percentage for fixed costs, etc., because it is a Government property. Such is not the case. They add, so he states here, 40 per cent for maintenance of the yard and so on, for fixed expenses and all that, when they make out their statement as to the cost of work in the yard. Here is the last report of the Chief of the Bureau of Ordnance to the Secretary of the Navy, in which you will find exactly the same statements, and in addition to which you will find a statement showing one contract for guns in which the Government was engaged itself, and at a greatly reduced cost produced these guns; not only that, but they produced the finest guns made in the world. No equal to them in any part of the civilized globe had then been produced, and they have been produced under the reduction of the hours, and under the holidays, and under the leave of absence, and yet cheaper by a very great percentage than has been done by the Government in its contracting or subcontracting. Mr. FOSTER. Let me ask you in that connection, does the Government take into consideration the plant itself; that is, the money invested in the plant? Mr. O'CONNELL. They do not consider the money invested; no; 40 per cent is added. Mr. FOSTER. What is that? Mr. O'CONNELL. The 40 per cent is added. It states particularly here why it is added. It is added for the maintenance of supplies, the fuel, the operation of the plant, and the depreciation of tools, etc., and of the plant itself, but the first cost of the plant is not figured in. Mr. HUGHES. The depreciation of the plant amounts to first cost? Mr. O'CONNELL. The depreciation of the plant is added, of course, but the first cost of the plant is not added. It is stated here that the reason that is not figured in is because, out of the contracts let to certain institutions in this country-I will not make an accurate statement in regard to it; the firm is named, but I will not state it-I think probably the Bethlehem Steel Company or the concern in Philadelphia, the Midvale Steel Company, in five years the amounts received for contracts had paid for their plant absolutely out of the profits. Now, Mr. Chairman, the statement is made by a gentleman representing a so-called antiboycott organization, who says, for reasons obvious to the members themselves, he refused to give to the committee or anyone else the name of the person he represents, and he stated later the reason, upon a question asked by himself, that he refused to give these names was because of the fear they would be put out of business by the American Federation of Labor, by the damnable methods of the Federation of Labor, the unlawful methods of the American Federation of Labor, to so state it; and this gentleman, knowing nothing about the practical operation of a plant, through all his statement tried to convey to the committee that the gentlemen who were on the opposite side or who were advocating the passage of this bill were misrepresenting; that they did not represent anybody, and that Mr. Gompers was Mr. Gompers and Mr. O'Connell was Mr. O'Connell, Mr. Davenport, in his own statement, in the beginning of it, begins by saying, "I think I represent" and "I believe I represent." We want to start off in the very beginning by saying we represent. We defy Mr. Davenport or anyone else to substantially contradict that statement, to bring to this committee one witness who will say we do not represent the wants of labor. I defy Mr. Davenport to bring one machinist out of the 75,000 I have the honor to be the executive head of who will say that I do not represent exactly his views before this committee, and these 75,000 men are the highest-skilled artisans the world has produced. |