Mr. GOEBEL. I know; but what I am trying to get at is your view or the views of those you represent as to whether the laboring men absolutely want eight hours and no longer.

Mr. O'CONNELL. That is just exactly what we want; yes, sir; we want eight hours.

The ACTING CHAIRMAN. Mr. O'Connell covered that part of it before you came in, and gave it as his opinion that they desired to stop at eight hours, as a rule.

Mr. O'CONNELL. We believe there is no reason for working longer. I am speaking as a practical mechanic. I have spent between twenty and twentyfive years in the machine shop, and, without desiring to appear egotistical at all, I think I was as good a practical mechanic in my day in the machine shop as existed. As we used to say in the trade-we took considerable pride in it-I never took off my hat to anybody in the trade. I always had the best wages and the best hours. I worked the same as anybody else, and my rights were never interfered with, and I always wanted to go higher. No law that would be made here would prevent a man from going higher if his ability and skill warranted it.

Mr. GOEBEL. And the eight-hour system would not interfere with it?

Mr. O'CONNELL. It does not interfere a particle with it. If you can go higher in ten hours, there are more opportunities in the eight hours to go ahead. Mr. GOEBEL. A man's manifest superiority would be as great in eight hours as in nine?

Mr. O'CONNELL. Yes. We do not say to the employers, "You must pay every man $3 a day in our trade." We say, "You must pay him a minimum, and then, if his skill and ability warrant his getting $3.50 or $4, that is between you and him." We have thousands of men who go higher than the minimum. Mr. HUGHES. You think if a man is skillful enough to be employed as a machinist he is entitled to enough money to live on and keep his family? Mr. O'CONNELL. He certainly is.

One of the gentlemen who appeared before this committee a short time ago representing the Crocker Company, just outside of New York, one of the large manufacturing concerns of this country, went on to say that the electrical concerns in the United States were working on the ten-hour basis. I asked him if it was not true that the Westinghouse Electric Company, at East Pittsburg, were not working eight hours. He said he thought they were working ten hours. I thought at the time they were working eight hours, but I said to the committee I would bring the exact result, and I wrote to Pittsburg and got this letter:

Mr. JAMES O'CONNELL,

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS,
Pittsburg, Pa., March 5, 1904.

402-407 McGill Building, Washington, D. C.. DEAR SIR AND BROTHER: Replying to your inquiry of the 4th instant, in reference to the number of hours worked by the employees of the Westinghouse Electric and Manufacturing Company, East Pittsburg, Pa., will say that they work fifty-four hours per week, divided as follows: Nine and three-quarters on the first five days of the week, and five and one-quarter on Saturdays.

The Westinghouse Companies discontinued the ten-hour day in all of their shops in this vicinity over ten years ago.

Trusting that the above information will be of value to you, and with best wishes, I beg to remain,

Yours, fraternally,

STUART SIMPSON,
Business Agent.

Mr. O'CONNELL. The Westinghouse Company is the largest and one of the best dividend-paying concerns in the electrical business.

The ACTING CHAIRMAN. Do you know how this was brought about? Mr. O'CONNELL. It was brought about by the gradual reduction of the hours by the employees, through their organizations, and so on, making requests, and finally by an agreement made by the International Association of Machinists with the manufacturers of Pittsburg in about 1891 or 1892, since which time in the city of Pittsburg contracts have been entered into and made with all the manufacturers of Pittsburg in the Manufacturers' Association making nine hours a day's labor.

All the mechanical trades establishments in the metal trades (outside of the steel mills, which is one of the concerns working ten hours, of course, on Gov

ernment contracts) in Pittsburg and the vicinity around there, machinists, molders, metal polishers, have been working nine hours for a number of years; but the concerns there securing Government work, the large Government contractors in that district, are working ten hours, for which the men get no concessions or no consideration whatever.

The tendency is, gentlemen of the committee, for a reduction of the hours of labor. No man has appeared before this committee who has said he did not believe the eight-hour day was bound to come, but they say it will come this way and that way and it will come ordinarily. For God's sake don't make a law that will hasten the thing, they say; let it come when business will warrant it, when dividends will warrant it. The 16 and the 14 and the 12 hour day did not come when dividends warranted them. They came when men went out and struggled for them and insisted that they should have them-insisted that it was their right, insisted that, with improved tools, with improved machinery, with the improved possibilites of production in our country, with the speediest workmen in the world, with the best mechanics in the world, there was no reason why the American workman should not enjoy as short hours as, if not shorter hours than, the workingman of the continent.

Somebody said the British workman was working longer hours than the American workman. Why, in the machinists' trade nine hours is the day in Great Britain, and has been for many years. It is only a short time ago, and Mr. Davenport knows it well, that the metal trade went on strike for the eighthour day in Great Britain. They had been working nine hours for many a day there. Nine hours is the rule in Great Britain; in America, as many hours as they make you work is the rule, if you do not stand up and say no; and we want to say to the employers whom we can not reach and who are enjoying the benefits of the contributions of every taxpayer of the country, "You must reduce the hours of labor; that you must give the workingmen of this country as good working conditions and as low hours of labor as any other employer in any other country does."

We are not going to China to make comparisons. Somebody said here, "Why not China and why not Japan," and so on. What is the Chinese workman alongside the American workman, or what is the Japanese workman alongside the American workman? Aye, or the British workman? A gentleman who appeared before this committee, a practical man in mechanical lines, who worked and served his time in Great Britain and was a business man in Great Britain and here, stated that the British workman is not to be compared in productive capacity to the American workingman; and with all the protection that we have here, protection in tariff for the manufacturers and open ports to the workingmen coming here by the thousands and tens of thousands-and to this I have no objection so long as they are coming here for the purpose of becoming lawabiding citizens of the country-with all the employers protected and the manufacturers protected, with the highest prices given for contracts and subcontracts of the Government, the workingmen of this country should also receive some protection from the Government, and that protection should be given by the enactment or passage of this bill, making eight hours a day's labor. Mr. DAVENPORT. Would the gentleman allow a question?

Mr. O'CONNELL. Yes, sir.

Mr. DAVENPORT. You speak as representing the International Association of Machinists?

Mr. O'CONNELL. Yes, sir.

Mr. DAVENPORT. And you say that they universally desire the eight-hour day? Mr. O'CONNELL. Yes, sir.

Mr. DAVENPORT. Are you acquainted with James Wilson, of that organization? Mr. O'CONNELL. We have several James Wilsons, I suppose.

Mr. DAVENPORT. Of New York?

Mr. O'CONNELL. Yes.

Mr. DAVENPORT. I read you this statement. Speaking of the demand of the workers for the New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad that the eighthour day should be enlarged to nine, it says:

James Wilson, delegate of the New York local of the International Association of Machinists, said yesterday: Some of the international men are working in the company's car shops. They know that an eight-hour workday means cutting wages. It does not mean eight hours' work for nine hours' wages. In this case they can't get the wages, so they want the nine-hour day back.'" Mr. O'CONNELL. Is that a statement signed by Mr. Wilson?

Mr. DAVENPORT. No; but this is the point: The New York, New Haven and Hartford road gave its employees the option of working eight hours a day. On

account of the condition of business they were going to shut the shops, so they started in on the eight-hour day. The 3,000 car workers made a demand upon the New York, New Haven and Hartford road that they should increase the time from eight hours to nine, and in the New York Sun appears the following clipping:

WHY THEY WANT NINE-HOUR DAY-NEW HAVEN CAR WORKERS KNOW THAT AN EIGHT-HOUR DAY MEANS LOWER WAGES.

According to representatives of the local labor unions, the demand of the 3.000 car workers on the New York and New Haven Railroad that the eighthour workday be changed to nine hours does not mean that the limit of a short day has been reached by the men and that hours are again on the upward turn. James Wilson, delegate of the New York local of the International Association of Machinists, said yesterday:

"Some of the international men are working in the company's car shops. They know that an eight-hour workday means cutting wages. It does not mean eight hours' work for nine hours' wages. In this case they can't get the wages, so they want the nine-hour day back."

Now, I would inquire of the gentleman whether he is aware of the fact that it is now a subject of controversy between that railroad and its employees, which is being deliberated upon by the officials and the representatives of the union, that they shall return to the nine-hour day, upon the information that if they are cut down to only eight hours a day they do not get the same wages that they got when they were working nine hours, and that what they are anxious for is not the eight-hour day, but the pay that came from the ninehour day?

Mr. O'CONNELL, I do not know that the statement is correct. I know of no conference being held with them. No conference, so far as our organization is concerned, has been held. That is a statement without Mr. Wilson's signature, simply a reporter's statement. I would not take it at all.

If the committee desire, I will bring Mr. Wilson here personally from New York to make a statement himself as to whether he is in favor of an eight-hour day or not. We have not a more ardent advocate of the eight-hour day in the country than our representative in New York, Mr. James B. Wilson. As for this statement, I do not know anything about it.

I desire to say, Mr. Chairman, in conclusion

Mr. GILBERT. Before you conclude, suppose all you claim is conceded by the committee and enacted into law by Congress, would that stop the controversy? Would there be any effort on the part of organized labor for seven hours?

Mr. O'CONNELL. We are a progressive people, and a man who has one dollar usually likes to get two, and a man with ten likes to have twenty, and the man with a hundred likes to have a thousand, and so on. The more we get, as enlightened people, of the things in life that make life worth living, the more we want. If we find after getting eight hours that the conditions of our country will afford more leisure time, I do not think we would have any hesitancy in asking for it. We want all the leisure time we can get in order that the wageworkers of this country may have every opportunity to enjoy everything that it is possible for them to enjoy, that they may have more leisure time to educate themselves, not to spend it in saloons or gambling dens or places of that character as has been intimated, but that they may have every opportunity of acquainting themselves with the actual conditions under which they are existing.

Mr. GILBERT. I am very sorry to hear you say that. I thought the eight hours would be satisfactory and that would end the matter.

Mr. O'CONNELL. I think if we get eight hours in this country it will be long after we all pass away before there would be a further reduction; but I do not mean to convey to this committee that if you pass this bill and eight hours becomes a law, there will never be any question of hours between the employers and the employees of this country. I would not want to occupy that position. The ACTING CHAIRMAN. Would you favor making this bill seven hours instead of eight?

Mr. O'CONNELL. No; I believe in the passage of the bill just as it reads. The ACTING CHAIRMAN. Why?

Mr. O'CONNELL. Because I believe eight hours is a natural division of the time. I believe eight hours is a fair number of hours to be employed under the present condition of affairs in this country.

The ACTING CHAIRMAN. It would not be, then, for the reason that you think trade conditions in manufacturing would not be able to stand seven hours? Mr. O'CONNELL. There is a very great misconception and misunderstanding of trade conditions affecting the hours of labor. During 1901 we were living in rather a high period of industrial prosperity in our country. Along at that time we went to the employers in the trades I represent, the metal-working trades, and requested them to reduce the hours of labor in the various metal trades industries from ten to nine hours.

They said, "We can not do it; we are too busy." So we said, "We believe we are entitled to the reduction in the hours of labor and we would like to have them;" and, finally, after compromise and so on, some strikes occurred, and the hours began to go down for thousands of the workers of this country to nine. During the latter part of the past year and the first portion of this year trade has not been so brisk. Industrial conditions have not been so lively. Now, when we go to the employers and ask them to reduce the hours of labor, they do not use the argument, We are too busy," but they say, We have to run the ten hours in order to keep ourselves going; we must run longer hours in order to keep the places going;" and where we succeeded in getting the shorter workday in some places during the busy period, these same firms during a slack period are trying to force the employees back on a ten-hour day again. There is no justice in the position at all that I can see.

The ACTING CHAIRMAN. Must not the employees as well as the employers adapt themselves to the conditions that prevail in the country?

Mr. O'CONNELL. There are no more ardent adherents to the industrial conditions of this country than the wageworkers themselves. They realize quicker, they see quicker, they appreciate more rapidly the condition of affairs as they come along than do the employers themselves.

Mr. SPALDING. You spoke of apprentices here a while ago. Do any of your organizations fix an age above which no one shall commence an apprenticeship? Mr. O'CONNELL. Yes; a great number of the organizations have a minimum and a maximum as to boys starting the trade.

Mr. SPALDING. What is the maximum?

Mr. O'CONNELL. In the machinists' trade it is twenty-one years.

Mr. SPALDING. Are there any of them that are less than that that you know of?

Mr. O'CONNELL. I do not know; they generally run about that. We figure in the machinists' trade that if a young man is not going to start to learn a trade until after he is 21 years old he is starting rather late in life to become practical in the trade, and we believe after that he would be used only as a means of specializing the trade. While that has no effect on this bill, it is a great question that has been discussed for years between us and the employers of the country and which we understand pretty well. Mr. SPALDING. You spoke of it yourself?

Mr. O'CONNELL. Yes; Mr. Jenks, of the United States Steel Company, brought the question in that they could not get boys into the trade any more, and besides they were getting too much schooling.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I want to say in conclusion that in the metal tradesMr. GOEBEL. Before you conclude, Mr. O'Connell, you know much has been said about the exceptions in this bill, and I would like to hear from you on that proposition. Let me read to you what the bill provides:

"SEC. 2. That nothing in this act shall apply to contracts for transportation by land or water, or for the transmission of intelligence, or for such materials or articles as may usually be bought in open market, whether made to conform to particular specifications or not, or for the purchase of supplies by the Government, whether manufactured to conform to particular specifications or not.” Why should there be any exception?

Mr. O'CONNELL. The reason for the exception in water transportation, etc., is that it would be almost a physical impossibility to keep within the law. For instance, take the boat running from Washington to Norfolk, carrying the mail down. There is scarcely a day that that boat could land just on the minute, and there would be exceptions to the bill constantly. Men are not engaged in that industry by the hour or by the minute.

The ACTING CHAIRMAN. Would not the emergency clause, as you construe it, apply to them?

Mr. O'CONNELL. It would apply, yes; but there would be a constant application. It would apply from the beginning to the end. The exception is made be

cause of its general impracticability, because of its being so far remote from the general questions as they come before us in connection with the question of the hours of labor. There are men engaged in the railroad transportation service who will probably appear and talk to you on that question much more intelligently than I could.

Mr. GILBERT. It looks to me like one of the crying evils of the day is the fact that engineers and firemen are forced to remain on their engines sometimes twelve, fourteen, and twenty-four hours. Why not apply it to the engine men? Mr. O'CONNELL. I suppose the law might be made applicable to them.

Mr. GILBERT. The men go to sleep at the valves because they are worked down.

Mr. O'CONNELL. Yes, I understand that. There is a gentleman here, Mr. Fuller, who I suppose will bring those matters up. He is a railroad man and understands them thoroughly. He can discuss the questions you ask relative to exceptions so far as they relate to transportation on railroads; and others will probably refer to transportation on water. I have not given the matter any particular thought. My knowledge of this matter is in so far as it affects particularly the metal trades industries of this country and the trades that are largely affected by contracts let by the Government and subcontractors. We are affected probably the largest of any one trade in the United States, and in that trade we are unanimous.

I can say conscientiously I believe I am voicing the opinions of the men who are outside the trades organizations. I have not yet met one man in all my travels-and I think I have traveled as much as Mr. Davenport; I travel 25,000 or 30,000 miles a year, all over this country, Canada, and Mexico, and abroadin my trade, in the metal industry, who is not in favor of the reduction of the hours of labor and in favor of the eight-hour day, and in favor of the limitation to the extent that overtime shall not be worked. In my trade we assess overtime, as a means of trying to drive it out. We try to make the prices for overtime as high as possible, in order that the employer will not work overtime except when it is absolutely necessary.

The ACTING CHAIRMAN. You would expect, Mr. O'Connell, that the eight-hour day would receive the same pay as the nine or ten hour day?

Mr. O'CONNELL. I think so in time. Our experience has been that where the hours have been reduced from ten the trades in which they have been reduced are receiving larger wages for the shorter hours than for the longer hours. M. GILBERT. And what is the percentage in the reduction of the product? Mr. O'CONNELL. In some cases we have statements that the total output has not been decreased at all.

The ACTING CHAIRMAN. What trades were those?

Mr. O'CONNELL. Mr. Jones, the mayor of Toledo, Ohio, runs a machine plant on the eight-hour basis, and has done so for a number of years. He manufactures oil-well supplies, machinery, etc. I have heard Mr. Jones personally make the statement that his plant was as profitable, as productive, and more satisfactory under the present eight-hour system than it was when he was operating under ten hours.

Mr. SPALDING. May not that be due, to some extent at least, to other conditions, conditions of trade and the degree of prosperity, etc.?

Mr. O'CONNELL. The total product to-day, as compared with ten years ago, in a shop that was formerly working ten hours and is now working nine bours, under improved tools and improved facilities, is not only as great, but is in excess of what it was ten years ago in the same sized plant, with the exception of improved tools and facilities. The matter of the reduction of the hours of labor does not at all mean that the employer is going to allow his product to be reduced. He is going to improve. We are a rapid traveling people. We are up to any conception of an idea that will improve products, that will improve the property, and as a result, the production is constantly on the increase, the workman is constantly on the move.

The product is not being decreased by any means in plants where the hours of labor has been reduced. The individual man in some cases may not be able to produce any more, as was illustrated in one case where it was said that where a man ran a machine which made 1,000 revolutions a minute, that was its capacity. It could not produce any more in an eight-hour day. That is true. That is one case. There are other cases where it is not a matter of a machine turning so many revolutions per minute. It is a man's physical strength, a man's opportunity for cultivating theories, and the advanced mechanical inventions of the day; the improvements which he is capable of putting forth because of the leisure time he has to consult in a mechanical way. There are just