would be a closing down of factories and consequent scarcity of labor for the wageearning community. We respectfully ask that you give the matter your earnest consideration and your vote against the passage of the measure. Very truly, yours, THE COLONIAL ELECTRIC COMPANY. [Camden Pottery Company, Incorporated.] CAMDEN, N. J., March, 9, 1908. Hon. JOHN J. GARDNER, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: As president of the Camden Pottery Company and in its interest, I beg to request that you do nothing to further the passing of the eight-hour bill, now in the hands of the subcommittee. Trusting you will comply with my request, I am, very truly,!yours, MURRELL DOBBINS. [Colonial Laundry Company.] ST. LOUIS, March 2, 1908. Hon. JOHN J. GARDNER, Chairman House Labor Committee, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: We understand that you have presented a bill known as the Gardner bill (H. R. 15651) for an eight-hour day. We beg to offer our protest against such a bill as applied to our business. The passing of a bill of this kind would not alone work a hardship upon those of us who find ourselves in this class of business, but likewise would create a hardship and an inconvenience upon the general public. Our business, on account of the necessary collections and deliveries, is of such a nature, and probably so different from most classes of business, that even now it becomes absolutely necessary at times to work longer than we ourselves would wish. We are compelled on account of these conditions to satisfy our patrons, the public, and we hope that for the interest of all concerned that you will not inflict a hardship upon us all. We offer this protest in the most kindly spirit of what we believe is right between employer and employee, and with the best interests of all concerned at heart. Very truly, yours, COLONIAL LAUNDRY COMPANY, [Frank B. Cook, telephone accessories.] CHICAGO, February 20, 1908. Mr. JOHN J. GARDNER, Chairman House Committee on Labor, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: I desire to enter my protest against House bill 15651, the Gardner eighthour bill, becoming law. Should such a measure be passed it would work a serious hardship, not only upon myself, but upon many others; therefore, as stated before, I earnestly protest against such action. Yours, very truly, FRANK B. Cook. [The Cleveland Store Fixture Company.] CLEVELAND, OHIO, February 22, 1908. Hon. JOHN J. GARDNER, Chairman, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: We notice that you have before you for consideration a bill (H. R. 15651) in reference to eight-hour labor ruling. We consider the same very detri mental to all commercial interests and beg of you to vote against the same. Hoping that the same will not pass, we remain, Yours, truly, THE CLEVELAND STORE FIXTURE Co. Hon. JOHN J. GARDNER, [Cooper Underwear Company.] KENOSHA, WIs., February 21, 1908. Chairman House Labor Committee, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: We are informed that the bill known as the Gardner bill (H. R. 15651) has been introduced and referred to committee providing for the universal eight-hour day of labor. While we believe no manufacturer objects to an eight-hour day, providing that all of his competitors work the same number of hours, still we do believe and know that no manufacturer can successfully carry on his business of manufacturing when compelled to confine his work to eight hours in any one day or even forty-eight hours in any one week, there being seasons in every year when a manufacturer is slack and can not run full time except at extra expense to his business. There are also seasons when it is necessary to run extra time, at least in some departments, in order to make profit at all. It goes without saying that if a manufacturer can not make a profit he will not manufacture. If hampered by any fixed number of hours for labor, either eight or ten or more, he can not do business profitably and must necessarily be compelled, if he manufactures at all, to recoup in one of two ways, either to charge advance prices to consumers or by cutting down the price he pays for his labor. No good manufacturer wishes to cut down the pay of his employees. An advance in price to consumers is simply another way of getting the money from laboring men. We believe every reasonable mind will appreciate the fact that a manufacturer must necessarily be left the privilege to run overtime at certain seasons of the year as his business demands, and also that no manufacturer will work more hours than is necessitated by the conditions and requirements of his business. We wish to very emphatically protest against the passage of such an enactment and to ask your cooperation in the most effective way you can to see that manufacturers, who are the chief supporters of the country and of yourselves, be not handicapped in so vital a condition of their business. We trust to hear from you with your assurance that you can help to defeat so unjust and undesirable a measure. Thanking you in advance, we remain, COOPER UNDERWEAR CO., President and Treasurer. [The Commonwealth Shoe and Leather Company.] BOSTON, MASS., February 20, 1908. Hon. JOHN J. GARDNER, Chairman Labor Committee, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: We have seen a copy of House bill 15651 and sincerely hope this will not receive favorable consideration by your committee. It seems to us entirely unreasonable that any further burden should be placed on the manufacturing community with business conditions as they are now, and we trust your committee will recognize the injury this would do to the business interests and see that an adverse report is made. Truly, yours, THE COMMONWEALTH SHOE AND LEATHER CO., CHAS. H. JONES, President. Hon. JOHN J. GARDNER, [A. S. Cameron Steam Pump Works.] NEW YORK CITY, February 21, 1908. Chairman House Labor Committee, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: We might readily assume that at this time you are deluged with letters referring to the eight-hour bill (H. R. 15651), which you have introduced to Congress, and that nothing new can be added to the arguments presented to you; yet we do not suppose the infliction of one more letter will add much to your annoyance, so we therefore take the liberty of writing you. While we do not question for a moment the purity of your motive and the honesty of your purpose in desiring to ameliorate the condition of labor generally, yet, in our opinion, the enforced adoption of an eight-hour day in most industries at this time would work to the serious disadvantage and the pecuniary loss of manufacturing interests generally. We do not believe that at the present high rate of labor manufacturing can be carried on at a profit if any further increase in the rate per hour which would invariably follow the reduction of the number of hours per day-is inaugurated. We know that in our own industry it would so increase the cost of manufacture as to leave little or no profit for carrying on the business, and it is only a few years since the time was reduced from ten hours to nine hours. While we gave that reduced time without reducing the rate per day-although increasing the rate per hour-without protest and ungrudgingly to our employees, yet we have never been able to recoup the loss, and we can not escape the conviction that if a further reduction in time, with a corresponding further increase in the cost of labor is to be incurred, it will not only very greatly reduce, if not wholly sweep away, what profit there is now, but in the end it will work very great hardship on the employee, in that there will be no employment for him. Therefore, in our opinion, it would be wiser to defer the introduction of such a radical measure until some later period when it could be considered with less apprehension, and we respectfully offer this as an expression of our views, with the hope that you will excuse our intrusion. In the meantime, we remain, Very truly, yours, A. S. CAMERON STEAM PUMP WORKS, [Commercial Envelope and Box Company.] BINGHAMTON, N. Y., February 18, 1908. Hon. JOHN J. GARDNER, Chairman House Labor Committee, Washington, D. C. HONORED SIR: My attention has just been called to a bill recently introduced by you-an eight-hour labor bill (H. R. 15651). It would seem at the present time that the manufacturers and business interests of this country have had sufficient trouble to get through their financial strain. There is no question but what money has been scared out of its natural position in business.. It has not found its way back into mercantile business, although it may have reached the banks. The manufacturers' troubles are yet to come. To add to the financial trouble of the country to-day is the eight-hour labor law, which would take the earning capacity away from the article as far as the stockholder is concerned, and it would be the worst deathblow that the manufacturer could have struck at him at this critical moment. I wish my protest put in the strongest manner possible against such a measure. It seems to me that it is a very opportune time to do absolutely nothing--we have too much law now, and it would be a splendid time to test what we have. I hope you will not only see your way clear to put this measure on the table, but under the table, which would be a better place for it in our present business crisis. When you take the earning capacity away from the manufacturer you have taken his heart's blood away, and it is the most fatal blow that could be struck. Certainly the business interests of this nation should be consulted before such a drastic measure is passed. Awaiting your further pleasure, I am, BENJ. B. MCFADDEN, President. [The Calvert Lithographing Company.] DETROIT, MICH., February 18, 1908. Hon. EDWIN DENBY, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. DENBY: We understand that the Hon. John J. Gardner is attempting to report his eight-hour bill. In the interests alike of employers and employees this bill should be killed and killed effectually. The manufacturers of the country are making a great effort to revive industry and set their men at work. It is particularly so in the district you represent, and I know it is going on elsewhere, but nothing so tends to discourage them as legislation of this character, backed by a few labor agitators whose living depends on "doing something with Congress." Last Saturday night the writer had the pleasure of listening to the Hon. Mr. Humphrey in his masterly presentation of his ship-subsidy measure-the most convincing argument. it has ever been my good fortune to hear on that important subject. If the Gardner bill becomes a law, we may say good-bye to the coast shipbuilding industry of the United States, since all those yards do more or less Government work or are affected by those who do it. If Congress wants a return of prosperity it should stop these measures which tend to demoralize manufacturing interests and are simply the entering wedges of socialism. To show how far-reaching such a measure is, even in Detroit all the lithograph houses do some Government work; as their mechanical departments are run fiftythree hours a week, if the Gardner bill became a law none of them could bid on such contracts. I merely mention this as a sample of how it would affect even the industry in which we are interested, and, as you know, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of plants whose product is wholly or partly for the Government. The Gardner bill would drive most of such concerns out of the field of Government bidding, and to that extent interfere with the legitimate business of the country. It is class legislation pure and simple. Very truly, yours, CALVERT LITHOGRAPHING Co., By C. H. CANDLER, President. [Chicago Gas and Electric Fixture Manufacturing Company.] Hon. JNO. J. GARDNER, Washington, D. C. CHICAGO, ILL., February 20, 1908. DEAR SIR: We beg to say, as one of the many manufacturers supplying material for the Government's use, that the passage of House bill No. 15651 would prohibit our bidding on work, causing a hardship not only to us but to our workmen, both union and nonunion, who are satisfied with a nine-hour day and pay. We pray due consideration of the many interested, and beg to remain, Very respectfully, yours, CHICAGO GAS & ELECTRIC FIXTURE MFG. Co., [The Cumberland Glass Manufacturing Company.] Hon. JOHN J. GARDNER, Washington, D. C. BRIDGETON, N. J., February 20, 1908. MY DEAR MR. GARDNER: It is with great regret that we learn that you have introduced into the House of Representatives bill No. 15651 on the subject of eight-hour labor, which is practically identical with the McComas and Hitt eight-hour bills of the Fifty-seventh and Fifty-eighth Congresses. We sincerely hope this bill will not pass the House and Senate. It is detrimental to the manufacturing interests of our country, and we do not believe will be of any advantage whatever to the labor men. It will increase our cost without giving adequate compensation; and when it comes to exporting our goods the cost will be so greatly enhanced it will be impossible for us to compete with foreign competition. Trusting you may give the matter your sincere consideration, we are, Very truly, yours, THE CUMBERLAND GLASS MFG. CO., [The Chaplin-Fulton Manufacturing Company, Engineers.] Chairman JOHN J. GARDNER, Washington, D. C. PITTSBURG, PA., February 19, 1908. DEAR SIR: We earnestly protest against the passage of bill H. R. 15651, now in the hands of House Committee on Labor, and respectfully request your efforts in preventing the same from becoming a law. Yours, very truly, THE CHAPLIN-FULTON MFG. CO., Hon. JOHN J. GARDNER, [Carondelet Foundry Company.] ST. LOUIS, MO., February 28, 1908. Chairman House Labor Committee, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: We desire to express our unqualified opposition to the passage of House bill No. 15651, entitled "A bill limiting the hours of daily service of laborers and mechanics, etc.," and now in the hands of the Labor Committee, for the following reasons, among others which might be stated: (1) It is obviously an attempt on the part of its promoters to accomplish, by indirect means, a purpose which under the Constitution the Federal Government has no power to effect directly, namely, to regulate the hours of labor in manufacturing establishments throughout the country. For this reason (even if, as is likely, it should later be declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States) its passage would be discreditable to the Congress. (2) In the case of its enactment into law the provisions of this bill would involve much vexatious espionage on the part of the inspectors charged with its enforcement. In undertakings of any considerable magnitude the number of subcontractors is usually large, and an attempt to trace all material used to its ultimate source would open the way to endless discussion and explanation, greatly multiplying the difficulties of carrying out in a satisfactory manner any work undertaken for the Government. The opportunity for and temptation toward corruption in these more remote investigations should not be lost sight of in this connection. (3) The natural result of the enactment of the proposed law would be to largely increase the cost to the National Government of all work done for it by outside parties. Under existing conditions the restrictions surrounding the purchase of goods by the United States have a distinct tendency to make manufacturers of the best class unwilling to bid for their supply.. If a change in their regular hours of labor were involved in the acceptance of such contracts, it is obvious that many concerns would find it still more undesirable to tender for their execution, and this, by narrowing the market, would inevitably largely increase the prices which the Government would be required to pay. (4) There is an unfair discrimination in the provision that the manufacture of such materials "as may usually be bought in open market" shall be exempt from the operation of this act. Why should the interests of the "laborers or mechanics" making these materials be less tenderly cared for by the General Government than those of the men specified in the first section of this bill? And further, why should the beneficent provisions of this bill be limited to mechanics and laborers? What of the other employees of the contractors and subcontractors affected? Are they not also men (and women sometimes) and brethren? For these and other reasons which might be alleged, we do respectfully but most earnestly request that your influence and vote be thrown on the side of squelching this most iniquitous and preposterous bill. Yours, truly, Hon. JOHN J. GARDNER, CARONDELET FOUNDRY COMPANY, By GEO. Q. THORNTON President. [Century Laundry Company.] Member of Congress from New Jersey. St. Louis, Mo., February 28, 1908. DEAR SIR: As an employer, a voter, and a citizen of the great State of Missouri, I most emphatically protest against your eight-hour bill, H. R. 15651. When labor unions run this country and dictate to us that no man shall work without a union card, then free America has surrendered to a howling mob of anarchists, Socialists, and ignoramuses. I fought for the freedom of our country and our flag from 1861 to 1865, and must we now surrender our freedom to this class of men who always want to rule and ruin? I say no, never. I remain, yours, most respectfully, J. M. FULKERSON. [The Carriage and Wagon Manufacturers' Association.] Mr. JOHN J. GARDNER, CHICAGO, ILL., February 21, 1908. Chairman House Committee on Labor, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: In behalf of the members of the Carriage and Wagon Manufacturers' Association, I beg to herewith make protest against the passage of the Gardner eighthour bill, as it is not adaptable to our line of business. |