tician, and we might add cheap attorney who is forever looking out for such "fool laws" as these, to create controversy and thereby mulct fees. We can not find words adequate to condemn this bill. In short, we think it simply monstrous. Yours, truly, BONNET-NANCE STOVE Co., [Buhl Malleable Company.] DETROIT, MICH., February 21, 1908. Hon. JOHN J. GARDNER, Chairman House Committee on Labor, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR SIR: The writer is informed that you are chairman of the House Committee on Labor, under which a bill for eight hours per day will, in the near future, come up before you for discussion. As one of the managers of a large manufacturing plant of this city, I most strenuously desire to protest against this unfair bill, doing so for our own protection as well as for the good of the workingman. For thirty-one years the writer has been fortunate, or unfortunate, as the case may be, in handling men, and of later years iron molders and people connected in that line of work. We have tried always to be just and fair with our men, in considering them-if they wanted money and could work hard, they should be well paid. We have given the matter our very careful consideration, and we know that an eight-hour bill will work to the detriment of the men. The best men that we have, the most reliable men, those who take the best care of their families and save their money, are the men who would desire to see the ten-hour bill, instead of the eight-hour bill. If they are on piecework, as most of the work in this country now is, they can earn more and produce more, are fewer hours in the saloons and other places which are not to their credit. The writer has talked personally with a large majority of our best workmen and this is their sentiment. This is not being written by an employer who desires to get all he can out of his men, making the hours burdensome and heavy, to reap the benefit himself, but, in his estimation, is considering the employee as well as the employer. My experience as executive officer of different associations of manufacturers and prominent business men has led me each year to be more convinced of the fairness of the employers, at the present time, to their men. We absolutely know and are told by our men that in their unions and in their conventions they are controlled by the rabid and bad element, although these men are very much in the minority. Their ability to talk and lead the meetings is the cause of most of the trouble between the employer and employee. We believe that if the reliable and best workmen could come before your committee, and not the walking delegates and trouble makers, a different sentiment would be expressed than you will hear from these committees. Yours, respectfully, CHARLES A. RATHBONE, Treasurer and General Manager. Hon. JOHN J. GARDNER, [The E. C. Brown Company, pumps. ] ROCHESTER, N. Y., U. S. A., February 18, 1908. Chairman House Labor Committee, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: Through the National Association of Manufacturers we are notified of a limited hearing to be given the Gardner bill before a subcommittee of the House Committee on Labor, and we, as manufacturers who are marketing our goods in open competition with others, claim the same right in the employment of our labor. We have given much consideration to labor questions, and we believe that no eight-hour law is required or advisable, and believe that the cause of labor would be injured rather than benefited by such regulation. Very truly, yours, THE E. C. BROWN COMPANY, E. C. BROWN, President and Treasurer. [Birdsey Somers Company, corset manufacturers.] Hon. JOHN J. GARDNER, Washington, D. C. BRIDGEPORT, CONN., February 18, 1908. DEAR SIR: We note with regret the bill which you have recently introduced in the House concerning the eight-hour measure, and should this be passed it would be disastrous for a great many private concerns whose running time can not be lessened without a considerable loss. We have never had any dissatisfaction among our help, as they are paid well, and they prefer the ten hours, but if eight hours were to be forced upon them it would, of course, mean less wages to them to begin with, as our work is entirely piecework; yet at the same time our loss would come in in the reducing of our production. Our goods are sold very close and we can only run with a profit where we get the full ten hours' work, and therefore in behalf of ourselves and others we would ask you to have this measure withdrawn. Hoping you will look upon this in the manner in which we have written you, and thanking you in advance for any consideration shown same, we remain, Yours, very truly, BIRDSEY SOMERS CO., [Boston Belting Company.] BOSTON, MASS., February 18, 1908. Hon. JOHN J. GARDNER, Chairman House Labor Committee, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: Having been advised that you have recently introduced an eighthour bill (H. R. 15651) which is practically identical with similar measures introduced in the Fifty-seventh and Fifty-eighth Congresses, we wish to formally enter our protest against favorable consideration of this measure. The right of an American citizen to sell his labor to the best advantage is a fundamental principle of our form of government which should not be taken away by legislation. It is certainly the privilege and the right of an individual to sell as much or as little of his labor as he may think best. There are many objections to the enactment of an eight-hour measure which have been presented in the two previous Congresses and which will be placed before you, no doubt, in connection with the consideration of the present measure. We urge your careful consideration of these arguments and trust that the passage of the measure referred to will be defeated. In our opinion, this bill is the entering wedge to a general eight-hour day in private employment, and we do not think such a condition of industrial affairs is broadly desirable or in every way for the best interests of this country. Yours, respectfully, BOSTON BELTING COMPANY, [S. Barker & Sons, printers, stationers.] CLEVELAND, Febuary 25, 1908. Hon. JOHN J. GARDNER, Chairman House Committee on Labor, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: We earnestly desire your support in the defeat of House bill 15651, "A bill limiting the hours of daily service of laborers and mechanics on Government work." We believe this would be seriously detrimental to the interests of all private business enterprises undertaking work for the Government. Yours, truly, S. BARKER & SONS. Hon. J. J. GARDNER, [Berkowitz Envelope Company.] KANSAS CITY, Mo., February 24, 1908. Chairman House Labor Committee, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: I have read with much interest copy of the bill which you introduced and which was referred to the Committee on Labor (H. R. 15651). I can not urge upon you too strongly my hope that this bill will not be favorably reported by your committee, and I trust that you will be able to advise me that my hopes in this instance are fulfilled. Very truly, yours, Hon. JOHN J. GARDNER, [Geo. A. Bayle, food products.] W. J. BERKOWITZ. ST. LOUIS, February 29, 1908. Chairman House Labor Committee, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: Our attention has been called to a bill called the eight-hour bill. We beg as manufacturers to protest against this for the reason that a matter of this kind had better be left to the labor organizations, who are hard enough on the manufacturers in this regard, without it getting into a political question from Washington. We do not see where it would be good policy for the National Congress to take up a matter of this character. We believe if you will think it over from all standpoints that this should be left to the States and to the labor organizations, who look after propositions of this character, without it going into national legislation. Yours, very truly, GEO. A. BAYLE. [The Baldwin Chain and Manufacturing Company (Incorporated).] Hon. JOHN J. GARDNER, WORCESTER, MASS., February 28, 1908. Committee on Labor, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: We write to express the company's opposition to the eight-hour labor law now before the committee. We do a little subcontract work with the Government and we can see where this would be very far-reaching and annoying, without any profit to anyone. Very truly, yours, BALDWIN CHAIN AND MANUFACTURING CO. [Binney & Smith Company, manufacturers, exporters, and importers.] Hon. JOHN J. GARDNER, NEW YORK, February 28, 1908. Chairman House Labor Committee, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: We respectfully beg to enter a protest against the passage of the Gardner eight-hour bill, H. R. 15651, as we consider the same a dangerous measure and unconstitutional. Yours, very truly, BINNEY & SMITH COMPANY. [The Bonsack Lumber Company, hard woods.] Hon. JOHN J. GARDNER, ST. LOUIS, Mo., February 27, 1908. Chairman House Labor Committee, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: The House Labor Committee, as I am informed, are now considering the "Gardner bill, H. R. 15651." This bill in itself may not appeal to you as of much moment, but my humble opinion is that it will "pave the way "for other bills respecting the hours of labor that would be detrimental to the country and particularly labor. In view of the present unsettled and therefore unsatisfactory conditions of business of all descriptions (particularly those connected with the building industry, which in a large degree affects all lines of business, and at present this branch is particularly depressed), bills of the character referred to would only increase the depression. I therefore believe that on mature consideration from all standpoints-the employer, employee, and the country-you will find that you will be justified in protesting against the passage of this or any like bill. A letter of this character up to a few years ago would be considered a waste of time on account of the influence and supposed weight of the labor element, but within the past two years it has been demonstrated that the laborer, by his vote at the polls, particularly in the case of Littlefield, of Maine; Smith and Cannon, of Illinois, and Jenkins, of Wisconsin, has views entirely foreign to those of the so-called leaders of labor on many questions. Again asking your careful consideration of the above, I remain, Yours, very truly, W. A. BONSACK. i [C. C. Bradley & Son, Incorporated, hardware specialties.] SYRACUSE, N. Y., February 27, 1908. Hon. JOHN J. GARDNER, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: Our attention has been called to your proposed eight-hour bill (H. R. 15651). We wish to most earnestly protest against the passage of this bill. Evidently this bill is urged by the American Federation of Labor, who hope by its passage to force a large number of manufacturers into adopting the eight-hour day. We maintain that it is the private right of employers and employees alike to run their factories or to work as many or as few hours as they see fit, or as may be mutually agreed upon without any interference whatever from the Government or the American Federation of Labor. This is a right that no fair-minded man can dispute. Take our own case, for instance. We have run our plant ten hours per day six days per week ever since 1832. This has been agreeable to us and to our men. If this proposed bill becomes a law, we will be compelled to run our plant but eight hours per day if we do any work for the Government. This might be arranged, as far as we are personally concerned, but how about the concerns from whom we buy certain material which goes into the work we produce for the Government? Would we have to buy raw materials only from such concerns as ran their plants eight hours per day? How could we tell whether or not the steel mills and steel and iron foundries only worked eight hours per day on the material we bought of them? Would we be liable to fine and imprisonment if the materials we bought had been worked on more than eight hours per day from the mines to us, even though we were innocent parties to the transaction? Now, suppose we got an order from the Government, assuming this bill becomes a law, must we get an absolute guaranty on all the materials we buy that none of them have been produced with more than eight hours' labor per day? How are we to know whether our coal, oil, steel, and iron, etc., have been produced with more than eight hours' labor per day? We make power hammers and heating forges. Suppose this bill becomes a law and we get an order from the Government for some of our goods. We may have the goods in stock and can make immediate shipment, but these goods were produced by ten hours' labor per day. What are we to do; refuse the order or make the part or parts with eight hours' labor per day and see to it that all the materials entering into these parts were produced from the mines to us by but eight hours' labor per day? Perhaps we could fill the order under the law, but we would refuse to fill it under such conditions. Think of the delay it would cause the Government; months, at least; perhaps years. Think of the increased cost to us and to the Government. Now, we get orders for repair parts from the Government for hammers now in use at arsenals, navy-yards, etc. Perhaps the hammers are out of use for want of these parts and the Government wants these parts rushed to them, so as not to delay the Government work. We couldn't fill these orders from stock the same day they were received, because our stock has been worked 32796-08-49 on ten hours per day. What would we do? We would refuse to fill the orders, and as a result the Government would lose the use of our hammers and would have to abandon them for want of repairs. The Government has in use thousands of dollars' worth of our hammers. Would you want the Government to throw all these hammers into the scrap heap, at thousands of dollars' loss to them, simply because you passed a bill that specifies that work for the Government must not be worked on more than eight hours per day? It does not seem possible that you realize the importance and possibilities of this bill. We can not see who can want it passed except the American Federation of Labor. Their object is as plain as A B C. They want to force the eight-hour day upon the manufacturers of this country through the medium of the Government. What do they care how much they may embarrass the Government? The American Federation of Labor is trying in every way to get in a position where they can tell a manufacturer how he can run his business. Will the manufacturers stand for this dictation? Some of the jellyspined manufacturers may but the rank and file will stand their ground and either run their own mills or close them up and retire. Don't be misled by the American Federation of Labor or any other class. Protect the Government, let the manufacturers and great employers of labor alone, stand out for the square deal" for everyone. Remember that the prosperity of this great country depends not a little upon the employers of labor. Don't put a millstone about the neck of the manufacturer or throw any boomerangs. Figure out all the possibilities of this bill from every point of view. The manufacturers will refuse to fill Government orders before they will make themselves liable to fines or imprisonment under the proposed H. R. bill 15651. All of which is most respectfully submitted. 66 C. C. BRADLEY & SON, Inc.. [The C. O. Bartlett & Snow Co., manufacturers of mill and labor-saving machinery.] CLEVELAND, OHIO, February 29, 1908. Hon. JOHN J. GARDNER, Chairman House Labor Committee, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: We take the liberty of writing you regarding the Gardner eighthour bill now before the subcommittee of the House Labor Committee. It would seem to the writer as though this is no time to further antagonize the manufacturing concerns of the United States. I fully believe that one-fourth of the manufacturing companies of the United States are on the verge of an assignment, and to further antagonize them is a very serious matter indeed. I do not think it is possible for us to have a progressive and successful Government without manufacturers. We are well located for it, and our trade with South America is increasing some, with a fair chance of increasing more, but if we have further complications and labor troubles we might just as well give up the whole thing. It is almost impossible for us to compete now with England, Germany, and France. I most sincerely trust that these so-called eight-hour bills, whether they are Government bills or not, can rest, and if they could be laid to rest forever it would be very much better for everyone concerned. There are in this city hundreds of people begging for work, good honest men, but it is utterly impossible for the manufacturers to keep them going, much as they would like to do so. DEAR SIR: I wish to add my protest against the passage of your eighthour bill, as this bill will raise havoc with the manufacturers of America, |