been destroyed or vitiated-not destroyed, but vitiated to a considerable extent-by the action of Congress.

Mr. GOEBEL. It was suspended.

Mr. GOMPERS. Yes; suspended. That will do just as well as any of them. Mr. HASKINS. You understand, do you not, that Congress can not enact any law but what it is subject to interpretation and construction by the courts hereafter?

Mr. GOMPERS. I understand that very well, and it has seemed to me that inasmuch as Congress does not mind to take a chance as to the constitutionality of a measure when it affects other interests, I do not see why this continuous harping upon judicial interpretation and constitutionality as to measures that have for their purpose the benefiting of so large a mass of the people as the wage-earners are.

Mr. STANLEY. As I understand it, Mr. Gardner, you prepared this bill with great care. I do not think there is any question but what this bill is clearly within the right of Congress. There is no serious question but what you have a constitutional right to circumscribe the hours of labor on Government work, or to define what Government work is, as has been done in this bill.

The CHAIRMAN. I do not know whether that is seriously disputed by anybody, now. I think very generally the position has been abandoned.

Mr. STANLEY. Of course, what you want to do is to get a bill through, and then what the courts will do with it is another thing.

Mr. GOMPERS. Yes; we will take our chances with the courts. There is considerable discussion and rumor as to when Congress will adjourn. Of course we understand that Congress may adjourn, and any bill that is unadopted or which is not passed in this first session may be adepted or passed in the next session. I do not think that Congress ought to adjourn this first session without passing that bill and having it become a law. I urge it, and I trust that the

members of the committee may see the wisdom of so doing.

I said that the report of the arguments in extenso, with testimony to a very great length which was submitted, are all in print. In those committee hearings the last Congress was urged to pass this legislation, and we said that we were perfectly satisfied that the committee might take a vote upon the bill without a word from us on the subject and submit our case upon the record, upon the arguments and facts submitted in former Congresses. We do not want to add anything more. I am sure there is not a new thought, there is not a new fact, that can be submitted by the opposition.

Mr. STANLEY. Are there any new conditions –I mean interests that you would like to present to the committee?

Mr. GOMPERS. I have not really any desire to do that now. Of course if the committee should so decide to undertake hearings or arguments, I presume that we should be compelled to submit. But we shall do so then very reluctantly. We do not want to take up the time of the committee, and we do not want to burden your record. The facts, the theory, and the arguments are all in print.

Mr. HASKINS. There is nothing additional?

Mr. GOMPERS. There is not anything in addition that we care to present other than what is already in print. We might present facts anew, but they would simply support the first contentions. We might make another argument or arguments and clothe them in different language, but in their essence they would be the same. I trust that the committee may report the bill.

Mr. DAVENPORT. In the original Gardner bill which has been introduced at this session, and which you ask the enactment of now, in lines 12 and 13 on page 1, it is provided that no person "shall be required or permitted to work more than eight hours in any one calendar day." In the bill that was before this committee at the last session, the bill as it is in the report made by Secretary Metcalf, are these words, the language used is: "Shall be required or permitted to work more than eight hours in any one calendar day upon such work." Now, we are not novices in this discussion. The insertion of the words "upon such work was made, of course, after a great deal of discussion before this committee and before the Senate committee. Do you object to the insertion of those words in the Gardner bill?

Mr. GOMPERS. I think that the Gardner bill with those words omitted should be enacted. I think that to make it an effective bill, to make it an effective law, those words should not be retained.

Mr. DAVENPORT. That is, that the words " upon such work" should not be inserted?

Mr. GOMPERS. Be not inserted.

Mr. DAVENPORT. Then, it is your desire to have a bill enacted which will require the contractor to stipulate that no workman working upon any part of the work contemplated shall be required or permitted to work more than eight hours at all in any one calendar day?

Mr. GOMPERS. In his employ.

Mr. DAVENPORT. In his employ.

Mr. GOEBEL. Does not that refer to the contract?

Mr. DAVENPORT. It does not; that is the precise point.

Mr. GOEBEL. Can it mean anything else but the contract?

Mr. DAVENPORT. It is in the contract, but the question is whether the man stipulates that no employee of his shall work in any one calendar day more than eight hours.

Mr. GOEBEL. On that contract.

Mr. STANLEY. That is, four hours might be upon the Government work and six hours upon some other work.

Mr. GOEBEL. Under the contract.

Mr. STANLEY. The only way it could affect it would be that they would work him eight hours on that contract and two hours on something else.

Mr. GOEBEL. It would not apply.

The CHAIRMAN. That language is lifted bodily from the act of 1892, which had been in effect for a number of years, but we propose to pass this, under which no difficulty of the kind suggested has arisen. We have got this law today on the statute books, with this exception. The present law limits its operation by its own terms to the public works of the United States. Mr. GOEBEL. Undertaken by the Government?

The CHAIRMAN. No; to the public works of the United States, and it applies there. So that the whole difference between this bill and the existing law hinges upon the construction of “public works," which, in its turn, hinges upon the ownership of the land on which the work is being done. That, I think, has been held. But this is the act under which our post-offices and custom-houses and every public work of the United States is being built:

"The service and employment of all laborers and mechanics who are now or may hereafter be in the employment of the Government of the United States or the District of Columbia by any contractor or subcontractor upon any of the public works of the United States, or said District, is hereby limited and restricted to eight hours in any one calendar day, and it shall be unlawful for any officer of the United States Government or of the District of Columbia or any contractor of such laborers and mechanics to require or permit any such laborer or mechanic to work more than eight hours in any one calendar day." I simply cite it to show that when that bill was formulated here we were not adopting anything new, that we were lifting bodily the law under which every public building in the United States was being erected.

Mr. GOMPERS. I would say that I would like, in turn, to ask Mr. Davenport a question: Whether the adoption of the words "upon such work" in this bill would make any difference in his attitude to the bill?

Mr. DAVENPORT. Well, I do not think it would.

Mr. GOMPERS. I do not think it is necessary, then, that I should go any further.

Mr. DAVENPORT. I wanted to direct attention to the fact that it makes a very material difference as to the scope of this bill, if a man contracts and gives a bond to permit a person to work more than eight hours a day, and it is not limited in its scope to the work that he is doing upon that particular contract. It makes some difference.

Mr. GOEBEL. But how could he give the bond? A bond has reference to the contract.

Mr. DAVENPORT. Yes; and the attempt, as we understand it, on the part of the proponents of this legislation, is to force every employer of labor who does work for the Government within the provisions of the bill, to prevent him, I might say, from having his men work more than eight hours a day for him. Mr. PAYSON. Upon any other work than this.

Mr. DAVENPORT. Now, I would ask Mr. Gompers if there is any objection on his part to the insertion of the words upon such work?"

66

Mr. GOMPERS. I do not know that the question is really material information to the gentleman who has asked it. He is not going to change his attitude toward this bill one iota, and I do not see any necessity for my answering his question at all. Of course if a member of the committee should ask that question, that is a different thing.

Mr. DAVENPORT. I would ask him if these words inserted in the bill No. 4064, "nothing in this act shall apply to contracts for the purchase of supplies by the Government, whether manufactured to conform to particular specifications or not," would meet with his approval-whether there is any objection to the insertion of those words?

Mr. GOMPERS. I advocate the bill as it is.

The CHAIRMAN. The following phrase is new

Mr. DAVENPORT (reading). "Materials or articles?"

Mr. GOEBEL. Is it not in substance the same?

Mr. DAVENPORT. NO. Senator McComas said that in his opinion it would limit its operation to only 5 per cent of the work that was done for the Government. Now, that insertion was made after prolonged discussion before the Senate Committee on Education and Labor and before this committee. The difference between the two bills in that respect

Mr. STANLEY. What are the lines?

Mr. DAVENPORT. Line 21 is the old Gardner bill:

"Nothing in this act shall apply to contracts for transportation by land or water, nor shall the provisions and stipulations in this act provided for affect so much of any contract as is to be performed by way of transportation or for such materials as may usually be bought in open market, whether made to conform to particular specifications or not."

Mr. STANLEY. That is in this bill?

Mr. DAVENPORT. Yes, sir. The way it read in bill No. 4064 was:

"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."

Now, what I want to ask Mr. Gompers is whether he objects to the insertion of that clause "and for the purchase of supplies by the Government, whether manufactured to conform to particular specifications or not?"

Mr. GOMPERS. I do not think it is possible in this fashion to say whether I should be in favor of or opposed to any particular proposition to be inserted or to be omitted in the bill; but I say in a general way, and as strongly as I can say it, that we want the Gardner bill. I imagine that there will be no objection to the insertion of the words for the transmission of intelligence," if that is essential; but if my conception of the bill is right, I think that is covered in the very terms of the Gardner bill. That is, the language is unnecessary. We exempt the railroads and transportation companies, the common carriers, from the operations of the bill. You know that the representatives of the railroad workmen of the United States are asking Congress for a law limiting their hours of daily labor.

Mr. PAYSON. To how much?

Mr. GOMPERS. I think to eight.

Mr. PAYSON. To sixteen hours. Sixteen hours, as was stated by Mr. Fuller in a discussion which I had with him day before yesterday before the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.

Mr. GOMPERS. And I take it that you are opposed to that?

Mr. PAYSON. Yes; but not on that ground.

Mr. GOMPERS. Undoubtedly you are opposed to it.

Mr. PAYSON. Let us be frank about it.

Mr. GOMPERS. Yes; of course you are opposed to anything of that sort. Mr. Davenport called attention to the statement made by former Senator McComas that the provisions of his bill would cover about 5 per cent of the Government's work, and yet Mr. Davenport did not cease his antagonism to it. It does not make a particle of difference what proposition labor may make, what suggestion it may make to secure some Government relief, it will meet with the same opposition. A few weeks ago we saw the news flashed across the continent that a railroad telegraph operator had fallen asleep at his post and two trains smashed into each other, killing the human freight. It was not stated, though, that this man had been constantly at the keyboard for more than two days. Mr. PAYSON. Are you referring to the Colorado disaster?

Mr. GOMPERS. It was just about two months ago; less than two months ago. Mr. PAYSON. Yes,

Mr. GOMPERS. The operator did not know what had occurred. He was aroused and told that this calamity had occurred, and he said, "Yes; I was asleep."

Mr. STANLEY. Do you not attribute the failure of this Government to exercise any sort of control over the hours of employment to that very condition? Do you not believe that there can be attributed the great mortality among both passengers and employees on the railroads of the United States over that on other railroads of the world giving similar service to that?

Mr. GOMPERS. I have not the slightest doubt.

Mr. STANLEY. I believe that there are about 500 per cent more deaths on railroads in the United States than in almost any other country, or about as many as in all the rest of the world put together.

Mr. GOMPERS. Yes; and I say in spite of the fact that in recent years there has been a little conformity of the railroad companies to the uniform coupler law, which law was opposed. I do not know that Mr. Davenport opposed it or that Judge Payson opposed it.

Mr. PAYSON. In a way I did.

Mr. GOMPERS. He opposed it, of course, or if he did not oppose it his prototypes would oppose it.

Mr. MORRISON. The same interests.

Mr. GOMPERS. The same interests. The human slaughter would go on.
Mr. PAYSON. No; that does not follow at all.

Mr. GOMPERS. No; of course it does not follow from your viewpoint. Gentlemen, there are new conditions of industry in our time, and the working people, so far as they can, in their organizations undertake to improve or to protect their economic condition. There are certain things over which they can exercise no power of enforcement other than through the state-the state, as represented by the Congress and the President, in their enacting power. We can not change the conditions of industry. They must have the fullest opportunity of growth and development. There is no disposition on the part of the working people of our country to interfere with that, but rather their disposition is to encourage the fullest industrial development. In the matters which can be only determined, in which relief can be only obtained through legislation, we come to the Congress of the United States.

Mr. RAINEY. I understand that upon many of these questions several labor organizations are divided. Upon this question of eight hours for labor, is there any division among labor organizations in this country?

Mr. GOMPERS. Not any.

Mr. RAINEY. Do you know what the attitude of European governments has been to this question of eight hours for labor?

Mr. GOMPERS. Yes, sir. In England, in France, in Germany, in Russia the tendency is in that direction. And no matter what form of government obtains in any country, the demand of the workers of modern times is universal for the eight-hour workday. There is not any difference of opinion among any of the working people the world over upon that subject. The idea of men saying that the workmen want their right of working longer, that they do not want that right taken away from them, is preposterous.

Mr. HASKINS. Do you mean to include in that statement unorganized labor as well?

Mr. GOMPERS. Yes; unorganized labor. You may perhaps have noticed that in any statement I have made I have tried to express myself as voicing the sentiment of labor among the working people. It is true that some men have said and may say again that there are only 3,000,000 organized workmen in the United States. There are some who erroneously, then, make this comparison and say there are 80,000,000 people in the United States, and by inference we represent a number which is as three is to eighty; but they fail to have any conception of the fact that these 3,000,000 have wives and children also; and, as the old, trite saying is, "Where God gives children he also gives bread," but as a rule those who have the most bread have the least children, and those who have the least bread have the most children.

Mr. PAYSON. The men having the children would not trade them off for bread. Mr. GOMPERS. No, sir; we are not engaged in that traffic. That may be a better policy to pursue for those who care less for human life than they do for money.

Mr. PAYSON. I only made that remark facetiously. I know that you have children yourself

Mr. GOMPERS. Yes; I have five grandchildren-bless their hearts.

Mr. PAYSON. I would be glad to trade some bread for children myself.

Mr. HASKINS. Does this apply to the laborers upon farms, those who are employed in that class of work? Is that the general sentiment of the laborers on farms, that they demand an eight-hour day?

Mr. GOMPERS. I only say this, that wherever they have had an opportunity of expressing themselves that has been the desire, and, secondly, there is this fact, that under the modern conditions of agriculture they do not work so many hours as they formerly did.

Mr. HASKINS. That is so. I used to work on a farm myself ten to fifteen hours a day.

Mr. STANLEY. You are making no fight here to have any legislation looking to the regulation of the number of hours that farm laborers should work? The conditions are different among the manufacturing interests from what they are among farm laborers. I represent an agricultural district, and there are times when a farmer is bound to work more than eight hours, and then there are rainy days when he can not work at all.

Mr. GOMPERS. This bill has no application at all to farm hands.

Mr. HASKINS. You are speaking of the general sentiment of the wage-earners as applied to all classes?

Mr. GOMPERS. Yes.

Mr. HASKINS. That is why I made the inquiry.

Mr. GOMPERS. No one expects that conditions are going to remain as they are and that the workingmen are simply going to submit to the tender consideration of the employers, of the great companies and corporations and trusts, which control industry to such an enormous extent. What are we going to do? We organize, and they tell us, "Well, organize; but if you manifest any desire to protect yourselves in the ordinary ways that other men protect themselves in, then we will deal with you;" and we are dealt with exceptionally as a class, not under the regular, ordinary judicial proceedings as laid down in the laws of our land and our States. We come to Congress, and every effort made is opposed. I suppose that there will not be very much opposition to a child-labor bill for the District of Columbia. It is so easy, you know, to enact legislation for the protection of the children of some other land. It is so easy to adopt a proposition that will affect some one else.

I have made the statement before this committee several times and before other committees of Congress and of our State legislatures-and it is more justified to-day than ever at any time when it was uttered-that it does not make a particle of difference whatever labor may do on any field of action for the purpose of protecting its interests, it is going to meet with the bitter antagonism, not only of the greedy and the greediest of the employers, but by their retained attorneys they will antagonize it, the latter of whom are very much more zealous in their opposition than are the men who retain them. It has been my duty to appear before the committees of Congress for thirty years, and before committees of the legislatures of the various States, of a number of States, and I never yet have seen a bill introduced that sought and had for its purpose the slightest relief for the working people-men, women, or children-but what it met the bitter, unrelenting opposition of the employers' counsel. This was true of the child-labor legislation of New England, of the Middle States, of the West, of the South, and is still true of several States in the South, and it is true in trying to secure some amendments or changes that time has shown to be essential in order to protect the children from the modern conditions of industry.

Mr. GOEBEL. It is hoped now, Mr. Gompers, that when Congress passes the bill that the committee recommended for an investigation that it might throw some light on the legislation, so that relief might be had there.

Mr. GOMPERS. I believe that these investigations ought to be undertaken. Mr. GOEBEL. We think so.

Mr. GOMPERS. Yes; and I am in entire accord with the thought and with the project. But it is not the first investigation undertaken by Congress without any tangible result at the hands of Congress. Remember, for instance, the investigation undertaken by the committee of Congress headed by the Hon. Abram S. Hewitt, of New York. Remember the investigation undertaken by the Senate Committee on Education and Labor. You will remember, also, the Industrial Commission; and a bill which the Industrial Commission proposed for the elimination of the evils resulting from convict labor has been shelved ever since. Not one bill has passed Congress as the result of either of these investigations, and yet I say I am in favor of them. These investigations furnish the facts upon which legislation can be based.

Mr. HUNT. This committee has favorably reported a bill such as was advised by the Industrial Commission. The committee here within the last month has reported the identical bill which passed the House at the same time that your present eight-hour bill passed in the Fifty-sixth Congress.